Cargando…
Inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity
INTRODUCTION: Assessing intraspecific variation in plant volatile organic compounds (VOCs) involves pitfalls that may bias biological interpretation, particularly when several laboratories collaborate on joint projects. Comparative, inter-laboratory ring trials can inform on the reproducibility of s...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10289961/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37351733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11306-023-02026-6 |
_version_ | 1785062390780395520 |
---|---|
author | Eckert, Silvia Eilers, Elisabeth J. Jakobs, Ruth Anaia, Redouan Adam Aragam, Kruthika Sen Bloss, Tanja Popp, Moritz Sasidharan, Rohit Schnitzler, Jörg-Peter Stein, Florian Steppuhn, Anke Unsicker, Sybille B. van Dam, Nicole M. Yepes, Sol Ziaja, Dominik Müller, Caroline |
author_facet | Eckert, Silvia Eilers, Elisabeth J. Jakobs, Ruth Anaia, Redouan Adam Aragam, Kruthika Sen Bloss, Tanja Popp, Moritz Sasidharan, Rohit Schnitzler, Jörg-Peter Stein, Florian Steppuhn, Anke Unsicker, Sybille B. van Dam, Nicole M. Yepes, Sol Ziaja, Dominik Müller, Caroline |
author_sort | Eckert, Silvia |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Assessing intraspecific variation in plant volatile organic compounds (VOCs) involves pitfalls that may bias biological interpretation, particularly when several laboratories collaborate on joint projects. Comparative, inter-laboratory ring trials can inform on the reproducibility of such analyses. OBJECTIVES: In a ring trial involving five laboratories, we investigated the reproducibility of VOC collections with polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and analyses by thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (TD-GC-MS). As model plant we used Tanacetum vulgare, which shows a remarkable diversity in terpenoids, forming so-called chemotypes. We performed our ring-trial with two chemotypes to examine the sources of technical variation in plant VOC measurements during pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical steps. METHODS: Monoclonal root cuttings were generated in one laboratory and distributed to five laboratories, in which plants were grown under laboratory-specific conditions. VOCs were collected on PDMS tubes from all plants before and after a jasmonic acid (JA) treatment. Thereafter, each laboratory (donors) sent a subset of tubes to four of the other laboratories (recipients), which performed TD-GC-MS with their own established procedures. RESULTS: Chemotype-specific differences in VOC profiles were detected but with an overall high variation both across donor and recipient laboratories. JA-induced changes in VOC profiles were not reproducible. Laboratory-specific growth conditions led to phenotypic variation that affected the resulting VOC profiles. CONCLUSION: Our ring trial shows that despite large efforts to standardise each VOC measurement step, the outcomes differed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Our results reveal sources of variation in plant VOC research and may help to avoid systematic errors in similar experiments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11306-023-02026-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10289961 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102899612023-06-25 Inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity Eckert, Silvia Eilers, Elisabeth J. Jakobs, Ruth Anaia, Redouan Adam Aragam, Kruthika Sen Bloss, Tanja Popp, Moritz Sasidharan, Rohit Schnitzler, Jörg-Peter Stein, Florian Steppuhn, Anke Unsicker, Sybille B. van Dam, Nicole M. Yepes, Sol Ziaja, Dominik Müller, Caroline Metabolomics Original Article INTRODUCTION: Assessing intraspecific variation in plant volatile organic compounds (VOCs) involves pitfalls that may bias biological interpretation, particularly when several laboratories collaborate on joint projects. Comparative, inter-laboratory ring trials can inform on the reproducibility of such analyses. OBJECTIVES: In a ring trial involving five laboratories, we investigated the reproducibility of VOC collections with polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and analyses by thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (TD-GC-MS). As model plant we used Tanacetum vulgare, which shows a remarkable diversity in terpenoids, forming so-called chemotypes. We performed our ring-trial with two chemotypes to examine the sources of technical variation in plant VOC measurements during pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical steps. METHODS: Monoclonal root cuttings were generated in one laboratory and distributed to five laboratories, in which plants were grown under laboratory-specific conditions. VOCs were collected on PDMS tubes from all plants before and after a jasmonic acid (JA) treatment. Thereafter, each laboratory (donors) sent a subset of tubes to four of the other laboratories (recipients), which performed TD-GC-MS with their own established procedures. RESULTS: Chemotype-specific differences in VOC profiles were detected but with an overall high variation both across donor and recipient laboratories. JA-induced changes in VOC profiles were not reproducible. Laboratory-specific growth conditions led to phenotypic variation that affected the resulting VOC profiles. CONCLUSION: Our ring trial shows that despite large efforts to standardise each VOC measurement step, the outcomes differed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Our results reveal sources of variation in plant VOC research and may help to avoid systematic errors in similar experiments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11306-023-02026-6. Springer US 2023-06-23 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10289961/ /pubmed/37351733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11306-023-02026-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Eckert, Silvia Eilers, Elisabeth J. Jakobs, Ruth Anaia, Redouan Adam Aragam, Kruthika Sen Bloss, Tanja Popp, Moritz Sasidharan, Rohit Schnitzler, Jörg-Peter Stein, Florian Steppuhn, Anke Unsicker, Sybille B. van Dam, Nicole M. Yepes, Sol Ziaja, Dominik Müller, Caroline Inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity |
title | Inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity |
title_full | Inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity |
title_fullStr | Inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity |
title_full_unstemmed | Inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity |
title_short | Inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity |
title_sort | inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10289961/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37351733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11306-023-02026-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT eckertsilvia interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT eilerselisabethj interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT jakobsruth interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT anaiaredouanadam interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT aragamkruthikasen interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT blosstanja interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT poppmoritz interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT sasidharanrohit interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT schnitzlerjorgpeter interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT steinflorian interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT steppuhnanke interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT unsickersybilleb interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT vandamnicolem interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT yepessol interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT ziajadominik interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity AT mullercaroline interlaboratorycomparisonofplantvolatileanalysesinthelightofintraspecificchemodiversity |