| Literature DB >> 24618989 |
Axel Mie1, Kristian Holst Laursen, K Magnus Åberg, Jenny Forshed, Anna Lindahl, Kristian Thorup-Kristensen, Marie Olsson, Pia Knuthsen, Erik Huusfeldt Larsen, Søren Husted.
Abstract
The influence of organic and conventional farming practices on the content of single nutrients in plants is disputed in the scientific literature. Here, large-scale untargeted LC-MS-based metabolomics was used to compare the composition of white cabbage from organic and conventional agriculture, measuring 1,600 compounds. Cabbage was sampled in 2 years from one conventional and two organic farming systems in a rigidly controlled long-term field trial in Denmark. Using Orthogonal Projection to Latent Structures-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA), we found that the production system leaves a significant (p = 0.013) imprint in the white cabbage metabolome that is retained between production years. We externally validated this finding by predicting the production system of samples from one year using a classification model built on samples from the other year, with a correct classification in 83 % of cases. Thus, it was concluded that the investigated conventional and organic management practices have a systematic impact on the metabolome of white cabbage. This emphasizes the potential of untargeted metabolomics for authenticity testing of organic plant products.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24618989 PMCID: PMC3984666 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-014-7704-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem ISSN: 1618-2642 Impact factor: 4.142
Harvest yield, unit weight, percentage of dry matter, and plant nutrient concentrations presented as average ± standard deviation (n = 3 plots per system and year). p(system) and p(year) are p values of the two-way ANOVA with system (C, O1, O2) and year (2007 and 2008) as factors (n = 6 per system or n = 9 per year). Where p(system) <0.05, systems not sharing a common superscript row-wise are significantly different (Student’s t test, n = 3 per system) for that year
| Year | System |
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | O1 | O2 | ||||
| Yield (1,000 kg FW/ha) | 2007 | 87.2 ± 7.6a | 67.6 ± 8.3b | 72.5 ± 9.3ab | 0.0023 | 1.3 × 10−5 |
| 2008 | 105.3 ± 1.2a | 92.0 ± 2.5b | 93.5 ± 9.7ab | |||
| Unit weight (g FW) | 2007 | 3213 ± 325a | 2755 ± 147b | 2783 ± 225b | 0.00077 | 5.2 × 10−7 |
| 2008 | 3969 ± 104a | 3614 ± 28b | 3409 ± 152b | |||
| DM (%) | 2007 | 9.61 ± 0.38 | 9.42 ± 0.26 | 9.79 ± 0.14 | NS | NS |
| 2008 | 9.56 ± 0.17 | 9.76 ± 0.39 | 9.73 ± 0.24 | |||
| N (%) | 2007 | 1.97 ± 0.06 | 1.97 ± 0.03 | 2.04 ± 0.07 | NS | 3.8 × 10−7 |
| 2008 | 1.76 ± 0.06 | 1.65 ± 0.11 | 1.62 ± 0.01 | |||
| P (%) | 2007 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | NS | 0.0031 |
| 2008 | 0.27 ± 0.01 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.25 ± 0.03 | |||
| K (%) | 2007 | 2.60 ± 0.12 | 2.49 ± 0.19 | 2.62 ± 0.17 | NS | 0.0072 |
| 2008 | 2.35 ± 0.08 | 2.26 ± 0.11 | 2.05 ± 0.49 | |||
| S (%) | 2007 | 0.63 ± 0.02 | 0.63 ± 0.03 | 0.60 ± 0.03 | NS | NS |
| 2008 | 0.62 ± 0.03 | 0.60 ± 0.03 | 0.56 ± 0.04 | |||
| Mg (%) | 2007 | 0.12 ± 0.00 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | NS | 0.00014 |
| 2008 | 0.11 ± 0.00 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.10 ± 0.00 | |||
Nutrient concentrations are presented as weight−% (g/100 g DM). Some of these data have partially been presented earlier: Yield data have been published in the supporting material of [21] as averaged over two instead of three field plots and in [18] as averages over 3 years. DM (%), N (%), and S (%) have been presented in [18] as averages over 3 years
NS not significant, FW fresh weight, DM dry matter
Summary of two-way ANOVA with production system and year as factors based on 5,891 variables (molecular features). Presented is the number of significantly different variables using various criteria for statistical significance in various comparisons of systems
| C vs O1/O2 | C vs O1 | C vs O2 | O1 vs O2 | C vs O1 vs O2 | 2007 vs 2008 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6 + 12 | 6 + 6 | 6 + 6 | 6 + 6 | 6 + 6 + 6 | 9 + 9 |
| ANOVA | 74 | 3 | 27 | 1 | 21 | 778 |
| ANOVA | 1,223 | 470 | 1,380 | 240 | 820 | 2,438 |
| FDR <0.05 | 110 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,359 |
| FDR <0.10 | 605 | 0 | 1,173 | 0 | 0 | 3,070 |
| Estimated number of false null hypotheses (true differences) | 2,489 | 1,741 | 2,951 | 0 | 2,449 | 3,346 |
Fig. 1Scores plot of PCA of all 18 samples and 5,891 variables. Displayed are scores of PC1 and PC2. Production year, open symbols: 2007; filled symbols: 2008. Ellipse: Hotelling’s T2 (0.95)
Summary of OPLS-DA models for the distinction of samples from different classes
| Model number | Class 1 | Class 2 | Class 3 | Number of components |
| Q2(cum) |
| Correct classification rate in internal cross-validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models based on 5,891 variables (full dataset) | ||||||||
| 1 | C | O1 | – | 1 + 7 + 0 | 1 | 0.499 | 0.99 | 12/12 = 100 % |
| 2 | C | O2 | – | 1 + 1 + 0 | 0.887 | 0.500 | 0.24 | 10/12 = 83 % |
| 3 | O1 | O2 | – | 0 + 0 + 0 | – | – | – | – |
| 4 | C | O1/ O2 | – | 1 + 0 + 0 | 0.595 | 0.307 | 0.064 | 14/18 = 78 % |
| 5 | C/O1 | O2 | – | 1 + 0 + 0 | 0.528 | 0.0636 | 0.61 | 10/18 = 56 % |
| 6 | C/O2 | O1 | – | 0 + 0 + 0 | – | – | – | – |
| 7 | C | O1 | O2 | 1 + 1 + 0 | 0.306 | 0.140 | 0.34 | – |
| 8 | 2007 | 2008 | – | 1 + 1 + 0 | 0.960 | 0.856 | 2.2 × 10−5 | 18/18 = 100 % |
| Models based on 2,796 variables (refined dataset) | ||||||||
| 9 | C | O1 | – | 1 + 1 + 0 | 0.950 | 0.333 | 0.52 | 10/12 = 83 % |
| 10 | C | O2 | – | 1 + 0 + 0 | 0.781 | 0.589 | 0.018 | 11/12 = 92 % |
| 11 | O1 | O2 | – | 0 + 0 + 0 | – | – | – | – |
| 12 | C | O1/ O2 | – | 1 + 0 + 0 | 0.668 | 0.442 | 0.013 | 15/18 = 83 % |
| 13 | C/O1 | O2 | – | 1 + 0 + 0 | 0.565 | 0.207 | 0.18 | 13/18 = 72 % |
| 14 | C/O2 | O1 | – | 0 + 0 + 0 | – | – | – | – |
| 15 | C | O1 | O2 | 1 + 0 + 0 | 0.340 | 0.220 | 0.12 | – |
| 16 | 2007 | 2008 | – | 0 + 0 + 0 | – | – | – | – |
| External validation based on 2,796 variables (refined dataset) | ||||||||
| Validation samples | Correct classification rate in external validation | |||||||
| 17 | C (2007) | O1/O2 (2007) | 2008 | 1 + 0 + 0 | 0.724 | 0.293 | 7/9 = 78 % | |
| 18 | C (2008) | O1/O2 (2008) | 2007 | 1 + 5 + 0 | 1.00 | 0.825 | 8/9 = 89 % | |
| Mean of 17 and 18 | C | O1/O2 | – | – | – | – | 83 % | |
The slash “/” symbol indicates that samples from several classes that have been pooled; model performance: R 2 Y(cumulative) (perfect model: R 2 Y(cum) = 1) is a measure of the descriptive performance of the model; Q 2(cumulative) (perfect model: Q 2(cum) = 1), p(cross validation-ANOVA) (perfect model: p = 0), and the correct classification rate (perfect model: 100 %) are measures of the predictive performance of the model; p is the probability that the model may be the result of just chance based on internal cross-validation
Fig. 2Scores plot of OPLS of model 4, discriminating C and O1/O2 samples. n = 18; 5,891 variables. The first predictive component (t1) and the first orthogonal component (to1) are shown here. Production year, open symbols: 2007; filled symbols: 2008. Ellipse: Hotelling’s T2 (0.95). R 2 X 1 = 0.143, R 2 X Xside comp 1 = 0.231
Fig. 3Scores plot of PCA of refined dataset: 18 samples and 2,796 variables. Displayed are scores of PC1 and PC2. Production year, open symbols: 2007; filled symbols: 2008. Ellipse: Hotelling’s T2 (0.95)