4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Metabolite fingerprinting and profiling in plants using NMR

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 56, 期 410, 页码 255-265

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eri010

关键词

H-1 NMR; mass spectrometry; metabolic phenotype; metabolite fingerprinting; metabolite profiling; metabolomics; nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy; plant metabolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although less sensitive than mass spectrometry (MS), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy provides a powerful complementary technique for the identification and quantitative analysis of plant metabolites either in vivo or in tissue extracts. In one approach, metabolite fingerprinting, multivariate analysis of unassigned H-1 NMR spectra is used to compare the overall metabolic composition of wild-type, mutant, and transgenic plant material, and to assess the impact of stress conditions on the plant metabolome. Metabolite fingerprinting by NMR is a fast, convenient, and effective tool for discriminating between groups of related samples and it identifies the most important regions of the spectrum for further analysis. In a second approach, metabolite profiling, the H-1 NMR spectra of tissue extracts are assigned, a process that typically identifies 20-40 metabolites in an unfractionated extract. These profiles may also be used to compare groups of samples, and significant differences in metabolite concentrations provide the basis for hypotheses on the underlying causes for the observed segregation of the groups. Both approaches generate a metabolic phenotype for a plant, based on a system-wide but incomplete analysis of the plant metabolome. However, a review of the literature suggests that the emphasis so far has been on the accumulation of analytical data and sample classification, and that the potential of H-1 NMR spectroscopy as a tool for probing the operation of metabolic networks, or as a functional genomics tool for identifying gene function, is largely untapped.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据