| Literature DB >> 23112634 |
Wenwen Kong1, Yun Zhao, Fei Liu, Yong He, Tian Tian, Weijun Zhou.
Abstract
Visible and near infrared (Vis/NIR) spectroscopy was investigated for the fast analysis of superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) leaves. Seven different spectra preprocessing methods were compared. Four regression methods were used for comparison of prediction performance, including partial least squares (PLS), multiple linear regression (MLR), least squares-support vector machine (LS-SVM) and Gaussian process regress (GPR). Successive projections algorithm (SPA) and regression coefficients (RC) were applied to select effective wavelengths (EWs) to develop more parsimonious models. The results indicated that Savitzky-Golay smoothing (SG) and multiplicative scatter correction (MSC) should be selected as the optimum preprocessing methods. The best prediction performance was achieved by the LV-LS-SVM model on SG spectra, and the correlation coefficients (r) and root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) were 0.9064 and 0.5336, respectively. The conclusion was that Vis/NIR spectroscopy combined with multivariate analysis could be successfully applied for the fast estimation of SOD activity in barley leaves.Entities:
Keywords: Gaussian process regression; barley; least squares-support vector machine; superoxide dismutase; variable selection; visible and near infrared spectroscopy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23112634 PMCID: PMC3472862 DOI: 10.3390/s120810871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.(a) Original spectra of Barley Leaves; preprocessed spectra by (b) Savitzky-Golay Smoothing (SG); (c) Multiplicative Scatter Correction (MSC).
Statistical values of activity of SOD in Barley Leaves (U/mg pro).
| 50 | 1.52–6.43 | 4.13 | 1.342 | |
| 25 | 1.56–6.21 | 4.08 | 1.273 |
The prediction results of activity of SOD by PLS models with full-spectrum.
| 4 | 0.7742 | 0.8028 | 0.0816 | 0.6729 | 1.4151 | |
| 4 | 0.8301 | 0.7060 | 0.0784 | 0.7481 | 1.1052 | |
| 3 | 0.8156 | 0.7258 | −0.0421 | 0.7038 | 1.1654 | |
| 5 | 0.8233 | 0.7179 | −0.0384 | 0.7508 | 0.9775 | |
| 13 | 0.7943 | 0.7718 | −0.1123 | 0.6886 | 1.1573 | |
| 3 | 0.5939 | 1.0417 | −0.2265 | 0.4290 | 2.1013 | |
| 5 | 0.7629 | 0.8524 | 0.0178 | 0.7497 | 1.0383 |
Selected EWs by SPA and RC.
| SPA | Raw | 18 | 453, 480, 970, 954, 408, 447, 469, 400, 1,000, 559, 497, 992, 406, 982, 404, 462, 434, 409 |
| SG | 7 | 846, 997, 992, 560, 988, 409, 668 | |
| MSC | 10 | 869, 913, 984, 864, 749, 951, 854, 888, 918, 908 | |
| RC | Raw | 10 | 404, 419, 420, 442, 957, 975, 986, 999, 1,000, 962 |
| SG | 9 | 403, 419, 420, 443, 462, 957, 975, 986, 997 | |
| MSC | 15 | 400, 412, 434, 442, 681, 716, 723, 731, 864, 912, 947, 954, 965, 981, 1,000 |
Figure 2.Selected EWs by SPA according to SG spectra.
Figure 3.The regression coefficients of PLS.
The prediction results by different models with optimal pretreatment.
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPA-PLS | Raw | 12/18/- | 0.6165 | 1.1324 |
| SG | 7/7/- | 0.7539 | 0.8627 | |
| RC-PLS | Raw | 2/10/- | 0.7035 | 0.8905 |
| MSC | 4/15/- | 0.6927 | 0.9416 | |
| SPA-MLR | Raw | -/18/- | 0.6489 | 1.1280 |
| SG | -/7/- | 0.7539 | 0.8627 | |
| LV-LS-SVM | Raw | 6/-/(97.98,326.27) | 0.8988 | 0.5521 |
| SG | 6/-/(10.21,55.56) | 0.9064 | 0.5336 | |
| SPA-LS-SVM | Raw | -/18/(2.10 × 103,562.91) | 0.7203 | 0.9293 |
| SG | -/7/(361.12,129.21) | 0.8267 | 0.7330 | |
| RC-LS-SVM | Raw | -/10/(3.14,29.90) | 0.7798 | 0.7838 |
| SG | -/9/(8.61,78.30) | 0.7798 | 0.7838 | |
| SPA-GPR | Raw | -/18/- | 0.4771 | 1.1380 |
| SG | -/7/- | 0.8200 | 0.7377 | |
| RC-GPR | Raw | -/10/- | 0.7840 | 0.7776 |
| SG | -/9/- | 0.7440 | 0.8326 | |
Figure 4.Predicted vs. reference activity of SOD by LV-LS-SVM (SG) in prediction set.
Figure 5.Predicted vs. reference activity of SOD by SPA-LS-SVM (SG) in prediction set.