| Literature DB >> 25334064 |
Carolina Simó1, Clara Ibáñez2, Alberto Valdés3, Alejandro Cifuentes4, Virginia García-Cañas5.
Abstract
Metabolomic-based approaches are increasingly applied to analyse genetically modified organisms (GMOs) making it possible to obtain broader and deeper information on the composition of GMOs compared to that obtained from traditional analytical approaches. The combination in metabolomics of advanced analytical methods and bioinformatics tools provides wide chemical compositional data that contributes to corroborate (or not) the substantial equivalence and occurrence of unintended changes resulting from genetic transformation. This review provides insight into recent progress in metabolomics studies on transgenic crops focusing mainly in papers published in the last decade.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25334064 PMCID: PMC4227254 DOI: 10.3390/ijms151018941
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Metabolomic studies on GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
| GM Crop | Tissue | Donor Specie | Genetic Modification | Phenotype | Analytical Technique | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed | Insect resistance | FTIR MS, NMR | [ | |||
| Seed | Insect resistance | GC-FID, GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Leaf | Flavonoid production | LC-ESI-Q MS, LC-DAD | [ | |||
| Leaf, seed, root | Stress tolerance | CE-ESI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Antifungal activity | NIRS, GC-EI-Q MS, LC-DAD, ICP-AES | [ | |||
| Seed | Insect resistance | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Insect Resistance | LC-ESI-Q/TOF MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Nutritionally enhanced | LC-ESI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Nutritionally enhanced | LC-ESI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Nutritionally enhanced Herbicide tolerance | GC-EI-TOF MS | [ | |||
| Leaf, seed | Nutritionally enhanced | LC-FTIR MS, GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Grain | Insect resistance | NMR | [ | |||
| Grain | Seed development | NMR | [ | |||
| Grain | Insect resistance | NMR | [ | |||
| Grain | Insect resistance | CE-ESI-TOF MS | [ | |||
| Grain | Insect resistance | FT-ICR MS | [ | |||
| Grain | Insect resistance | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Grain | B. thuringiensis | Insect resistance | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | ||
| Grain | Insect resistance Herbicide tolerance | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Grain | Nutritionally enhanced | LC-DA, LC-ESI-APCI MS | [ | |||
| Grain | Herbicide tolerance Insect resistance | NMR, GC-EI-Q-MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Herbicide tolerance | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Herbicide tolerance | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Herbicide tolerance | CE-ESI-TOF MS | [ | |||
| Leaf, EC, seed | Nutritionally enhanced | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Herbicide tolerance | CE-ESI-TOF MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Herbicide tolerance | LC-ESI-Q MS, GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Herbicide tolerance | CE-ESI-TOF MS, GC-EI-TOF MS, LC-ESI-Q/TOF MS, ICP MS | [ | |||
| Stem, leaf | Nutritionally enhanced | LC-UV | [ | |||
| Leaf | Herbicide tolerance | NMR | [ | |||
| Leaf | Fungal resistance | LC-DAD, LC-ESI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Nutritionally enhanced | NMR | [ | |||
| Tuber | Starch biosynthesis, leaf morphology, ethylene production | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Tuber | Altered starch composition | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Tuber | Inulin synthesis | GC-EI-TOF MS, LC-ESI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Tuber | Virus resistance | CE-ESI-IT-MS/MS | [ | |||
| Tuber | Stress tolerance | GC-EI-TOF MS, LC-ESI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Tuber | Waxy phenotype | LC-UV, NMR | [ | |||
| Leaf | Drought resistance | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Fruit | Improved texture, mouthfeel, colour | NMR | [ | |||
| Leaf, fruit | Altered carbohydrate metabolism | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Fruit | Increased flavonol content | NMR | [ | |||
| Fruit | Increased carotenoid content | LC-DAD | [ | |||
| Fruit | Resveratrol synthesis | LC-ESI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Fruit | Miraculin | Sweet flavor | GC-EI-TOF MS, LC-ESI-Q/TOF MS, CE-ESI/TOF MS | [ | ||
| Leaf | Salicylic acid producing plants | NMR | [ | |||
| Leaf | Growth enhanced | NMR, GC-FID | [ | |||
| Fruit | Sweet flavor | GC-EI-TOF MS | [ | |||
| Fruit | Aroma, sweet flavor | GC-EI-Q/TOF MS | [ | |||
| Fruit | Virus resistance | GC-EI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Leaf | Abiotic stress | GC-EI-Q MS, LC-ESI-IT MS, LC-DAD | [ | |||
| Leaf | Essential oils content | GC-FID | [ | |||
| Leaf | Herbicide tolerance | LC-DAD, LC-ESI/Q MS | [ | |||
| Fruit | Virus resistance | LC-DAD, GC-FID | [ | |||
| Pulp, Leaf | Virus resistance | GC-EI-Q MS, LC-DAD, LC-ESI-Q MS | [ | |||
| Cambial region | Superoxide production | GC-EI-TOF MS, LC-ESI/TOF MS | [ | |||
| Seed | Antifungal activity | LC-ESI-IT MS | [ |
AES: Atomic Emission Spectroscopy; APCI: Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization; CE: Capillary Electrophoresis; DAD: Diode Array Detector; EC: Embryogenic culture; EI: Electron Impact; ESI: Electrospray Ionization; FID: Flame Ionization Detector; FTIC: Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy; GC: Gas Chromatography; ICP: Inductively Coupled Plasma; ICR: Ion Cyclotron Resonance; IT: Ion Trap; LC: Liquid Chromatography; Mod.: Modification; NIRS: Near Infrared Spectroscopy; Q: Quadrupole; RBDV: Raspberry bushy dwarf virus; TOF: Time Of Flight.
Figure 1Principal component analysis of GC-MS metabolite profiling data (triplicate analysis of combined fractions I–IV) of Bt maize (∆, ▲), Roundup Ready maize (◊, ♦), and the near-isogenic counterpart (○, ●) grown at the locations Lichtenburg (white symbols) and Petit (black symbols) in 2004 (A) and at Petit in 2004 (○, ∆, ◊), 2005 (gray circle, gray triangle, gray diamond) and 2006 (●, ▲, ♦) (B). For Petit 2005, three field replicates were analyzed in triplicate. Reprinted with permission from Frank et al. [44], copyright 2012 American Chemical Society.
Figure 2Metabolomic profiles and hierarchical clustering of 169 metabolites across the 49 soybean conventional lines and one GM line. The mean values for 8 biological replications per line were shown. Red and green indicate high and low levels, respectively, relative to the median value for all samples. The first (green label) and second (purple label) columns correspond to the isogenic and GM line, respectively. The columns numbered from 1 to 48 correspond to other conventional soybean cultivars. Reprinted with permission from Clarke et al. [50].
Figure 3Identification of discriminatory metabolites in GM potato lines, some of them expressing 1-SST and 1-FFT (SST/FFT), and others expressing 1-SST (SST), by LC-MS and GC-MS. (A) Overlaid single-ion chromatograms from LC-MS analysis of top-ranked predicted variables to represent ions derived from fructans, detected in SST/FFT potato tubers. Each color represents a single ion (m/z). Three degree of polymerization fructan is marked with a red asterisk; (B) GC-TOF extracted ion chromatogram m/z 217 for GM and non-GM potato tubers, enlarged for discriminatory disaccharide and trisaccharide regions. Separation of inulotriose 1 and inulotriose 2 from 1-kestose and raffinose is marked with a red asterisk. Metabolic signals from four conventional potato cultivars: Desiree 1 (green); Desiree 2 (yellow); Linda (red) and Solara (light blue), and two types of GM lines: SST34 (purple) and SST/FFT19 (dark blue) are represented in this figure. Reprinted with permission from Catchpole et al. [58].
Figure 4Differentially abundant metabolites in barley leaves. Overview of differentially abundant metabolites from the targeted profiling approach with leaf material from 4-month-old, field-grown barley plants representing the treatments (A) cultivar or (B) Amykor. The schematic metabolic diagrams in (A) and (B) represent a map of all analyzed metabolites. The heatmap strips next to the metabolite names were taken from the hierarchical cluster analysis, with red signals denoting an increased metabolite content relative to average and green signals indicating decreased metabolite contents relative to average. GP, Golden Promise; B, Baronesse; ChGP, Chitinase GP; GluB, Glucanase B; M, Amykor treatment. Reprinted with permission from Kogel et al. [83].