不同干燥方法对芦苇不同组织GC/MS代谢组学分析的影响
|
摘要
基于气相色谱-质谱联用(GC/MS)技术,以超低温冷藏为对照,分析了真空冷冻干燥、45℃烘干和硅胶干燥处理对芦苇Phragmites australis叶、茎和根组织样品代谢组学分析结果的影响。共检测出51个色谱峰,鉴定出25种代谢物。主成分分析(PCA)和多响应置换过程分析(MRPP)表明,45℃烘干和硅胶干燥对芦苇不同组织样品代谢物组成影响均较大,而真空冷冻干燥只对叶样品代谢物组成具有显著影响。利用方差分析对鉴定出代谢物含量进行分析,结果真空冷冻干燥会导致叶样品中甘油、果糖、葡萄糖含量显著升高,蔗糖含量显著下降,但不会对根茎样品中代谢物含量产生显著影响。45℃烘干和硅胶干燥则能导致不同组织样品中氨基丁酸、甘油酸、苏糖酸、奎宁酸、葡糖酸、果糖、葡萄糖、半乳糖、麦芽糖和肌醇含量升高,而蔗糖和肌醇半乳糖苷含量下降。不同干燥方法对酶活抑制效率差异可能是导致上述结果的重要原因。因此,在进行芦苇代谢组学研究时,必须考虑不同干燥方法对不同组织代谢组学分析结果的影响。
Based on gas chromatography mass spectrometry(GC/MS) approach,the effects of freeze drying,oven drying at 45 ℃ and silicone drying on the metabolomic analysis results of leaf,stem and root samples of Phragmites australis were explored with ultra-low temperature preservation as a contrast method.A total of 51 peaks were detected and 25 metabolites were identified.The results of principle component analysis(PCA) and multi-response permutation procedures(MRPP) revealed that oven drying at 45 ℃ and silicone drying had significant effects on the metabolite composition of different tissue samples of Phragmites australis.However,freeze drying only significantly affected the metabolite composition of leaf samples.According to the results of analysis of variance(ANOVA),freeze drying caused a significant increase in glycerol,fructose and glucose content,respectively,while a significant decrease in sucrose content in leaf samples.However,freeze drying had no significant effects on the content of metabolites in other tissue samples.In contrast,in all tissue samples,oven drying at 45℃and silicone drying caused the increase in content of aminobutanoic acid,glyceric acid,threonic acid,quininic acid,fructose,glucose,galactose and maltose,and the decrease in content of sucrose andgalactinol.The differentiation of different drying methods in inhibiting enzyme activity should be an important explanation for these results.Therefore,in Phragmites australis metabolomic study,it's necessary to consider the effects of different drying methods on analysis results of different tissues.
Based on gas chromatography mass spectrometry(GC/MS) approach,the effects of freeze drying,oven drying at 45 ℃ and silicone drying on the metabolomic analysis results of leaf,stem and root samples of Phragmites australis were explored with ultra-low temperature preservation as a contrast method.A total of 51 peaks were detected and 25 metabolites were identified.The results of principle component analysis(PCA) and multi-response permutation procedures(MRPP) revealed that oven drying at 45 ℃ and silicone drying had significant effects on the metabolite composition of different tissue samples of Phragmites australis.However,freeze drying only significantly affected the metabolite composition of leaf samples.According to the results of analysis of variance(ANOVA),freeze drying caused a significant increase in glycerol,fructose and glucose content,respectively,while a significant decrease in sucrose content in leaf samples.However,freeze drying had no significant effects on the content of metabolites in other tissue samples.In contrast,in all tissue samples,oven drying at 45℃and silicone drying caused the increase in content of aminobutanoic acid,glyceric acid,threonic acid,quininic acid,fructose,glucose,galactose and maltose,and the decrease in content of sucrose andgalactinol.The differentiation of different drying methods in inhibiting enzyme activity should be an important explanation for these results.Therefore,in Phragmites australis metabolomic study,it's necessary to consider the effects of different drying methods on analysis results of different tissues.
引文
[1]Zhang F X,Wang G D.Chin J Agric Sci Tech,2013,15(2):28张凤霞,王国栋.中国农业科技导报,2013,15(2):28
[2]Wei Q,Liu J.Chin J Anal Lab,2016,35(6):676卫强,刘洁.分析试验室,2016,35(6):676
[3]Kim HK,Verpoorte R.Phytochem Anal,2010,21(1):4
[4]He T M,Chen X S,Wu Y.J Shihezi Univ:Nat Sci Ed,2004,22(4):316何天明,陈学森,吴燕.石河子大学学报:自然科学版,2004,22(4):316
[5]Oikawa A,Otsuka T,Jikumaru Y,et al.J Sep Sci,2011,34(24):3561
[6]Abdul-Hamid NA,Abas F,Ismail I S,et al.J Food Sci,2015,80(11):2603
[7]Wu Z L.Biotech World,2012,(12):58武忠亮.生物技术世界,2012,(12):58
[8]Wang G Q,Shen Z S,Ai L Z,et al.Acta Agric Jiangxi,2015,27(7):111王光强,沈哲胜,艾连中,等.江西农业学报,2015,27(7):111
[9]Zhang Y M,Liu X T,Zhang C Z.J Jilin Agric Univ,2003,25(2):161张友民,刘兴土,孙长占,等.吉林农业大学学报,2003,25(2):161
[2]Wei Q,Liu J.Chin J Anal Lab,2016,35(6):676卫强,刘洁.分析试验室,2016,35(6):676
[3]Kim HK,Verpoorte R.Phytochem Anal,2010,21(1):4
[4]He T M,Chen X S,Wu Y.J Shihezi Univ:Nat Sci Ed,2004,22(4):316何天明,陈学森,吴燕.石河子大学学报:自然科学版,2004,22(4):316
[5]Oikawa A,Otsuka T,Jikumaru Y,et al.J Sep Sci,2011,34(24):3561
[6]Abdul-Hamid NA,Abas F,Ismail I S,et al.J Food Sci,2015,80(11):2603
[7]Wu Z L.Biotech World,2012,(12):58武忠亮.生物技术世界,2012,(12):58
[8]Wang G Q,Shen Z S,Ai L Z,et al.Acta Agric Jiangxi,2015,27(7):111王光强,沈哲胜,艾连中,等.江西农业学报,2015,27(7):111
[9]Zhang Y M,Liu X T,Zhang C Z.J Jilin Agric Univ,2003,25(2):161张友民,刘兴土,孙长占,等.吉林农业大学学报,2003,25(2):161