Inter-laboratory comparison of plant volatile analyses in the light of intra-specific chemodiversity.
Plant metabolites
Proficiency test
Quality assurance
Quality control
Reproducibility
Standardisation
Static headspace collection
Tansy
Thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
Journal
Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society
ISSN: 1573-3890
Titre abrégé: Metabolomics
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101274889
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jun 2023
23 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
22
02
2023
accepted:
09
06
2023
medline:
26
6
2023
pubmed:
23
6
2023
entrez:
23
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37351733
doi: 10.1007/s11306-023-02026-6
pii: 10.1007/s11306-023-02026-6
pmc: PMC10289961
doi:
Substances chimiques
Volatile Organic Compounds
0
Terpenes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
62Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : MU1829/29-1
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Plant J. 2021 Apr;106(2):314-325
pubmed: 33506558
New Phytol. 2004 Mar;161(3):801-810
pubmed: 33873723
Ecol Lett. 2010 May;13(5):643-56
pubmed: 20337694
J Appl Stat. 2019 Jun 15;47(13-15):2312-2327
pubmed: 35707424
Mass Spectrom Rev. 2007 Jan-Feb;26(1):51-78
pubmed: 16921475
Plant Cell Environ. 2014 Aug;37(8):1905-8
pubmed: 24811745
J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2007 Sep;42(11):1521-41
pubmed: 17849294
J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Mar 24;52(6):1742-8
pubmed: 15030239
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Jun 30;7:770
pubmed: 27446093
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Sep 19;10:1144
pubmed: 31608090
Ecol Evol. 2021 May 02;11(12):7439-7447
pubmed: 34188825
Oecologia. 2011 May;166(1):175-86
pubmed: 21053017
Plant Mol Biol. 2007 Jun;64(3):251-63
pubmed: 17440821
Trends Plant Sci. 2010 Mar;15(3):154-66
pubmed: 20133178
Planta Med. 1987 Jun;53(3):284-7
pubmed: 17269022
PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124
pubmed: 16060722
New Phytol. 2018 Nov;220(3):692-702
pubmed: 27604856
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Phytochemistry. 2019 Mar;159:1-10
pubmed: 30530039
J Chromatogr. 1963 Aug;11:463-71
pubmed: 14062605
Metabolomics. 2015;11(4):807-821
pubmed: 26109925
Metabolites. 2019 Oct 31;9(11):
pubmed: 31683650
Metabolites. 2020 Sep 22;10(9):
pubmed: 32972026
Analyst. 2006 Oct;131(10):1075-8
pubmed: 17003852
J Chromatogr A. 2000 Jul 14;885(1-2):129-51
pubmed: 10941671
Nat Rev Genet. 2022 Jan;23(1):55-68
pubmed: 34526697
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 2;10(1):10918
pubmed: 32616798
BMC Bioinformatics. 2021 Sep 7;22(1):423
pubmed: 34493210
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Jan 20;11:611877
pubmed: 33552105
Metabolomics. 2009 Dec;5(4):479-496
pubmed: 20376177
New Phytol. 2018 Nov;220(3):760-772
pubmed: 28418581
Plant J. 2006 Feb;45(4):540-60
pubmed: 16441348
New Phytol. 2014 Feb;201(3):733-750
pubmed: 24117919
Plant Physiol. 2004 Aug;135(4):1893-902
pubmed: 15326281
Appl Plant Sci. 2015 Dec 15;3(12):
pubmed: 26697273
New Phytol. 2019 Jan;221(1):503-514
pubmed: 30040116
Crit Rev Anal Chem. 2021;51(2):150-173
pubmed: 31820658
Plant Physiol. 2002 Jul;129(3):1296-307
pubmed: 12114583
Plant J. 2014 Jun;78(6):1060-72
pubmed: 24684685
J Exp Bot. 2019 Feb 20;70(4):1095-1108
pubmed: 30624688
Metabolomics. 2020 Jul 31;16(8):85
pubmed: 32737683
Trends Plant Sci. 2010 Mar;15(3):167-75
pubmed: 20047849
Nat Protoc. 2006;1(1):387-96
pubmed: 17406261
Plant Cell Environ. 2014 Aug;37(8):1845-53
pubmed: 24689452
Ecol Lett. 2020 Jan;23(1):16-32
pubmed: 31724320
Plant Signal Behav. 2008 Feb;3(2):91-8
pubmed: 19516980
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2011 Aug;14(4):422-8
pubmed: 21684190
BMC Plant Biol. 2020 Dec 9;20(1):551
pubmed: 33297957
J Chem Ecol. 2014 Apr;40(4):315-6
pubmed: 24715374
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Feb 22;12(3):
pubmed: 35328113
Pest Manag Sci. 2010 May;66(5):549-54
pubmed: 20127756
Trends Plant Sci. 2012 May;17(5):303-10
pubmed: 22503606
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2006 Jan;8(1):1-10
pubmed: 16435264
J Chem Ecol. 2010 Sep;36(9):1006-16
pubmed: 20737198
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2002 Aug;5(4):351-4
pubmed: 12179970
Anal Chim Acta. 2021 Feb 22;1147:240-258
pubmed: 33485582
Bio Protoc. 2015 Feb 5;5(3):
pubmed: 29085860