| Literature DB >> 28529536 |
Chu Zhang1, Xuping Feng1, Jian Wang2, Fei Liu1, Yong He1, Weijun Zhou2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Detection of plant diseases in a fast and simple way is crucial for timely disease control. Conventionally, plant diseases are accurately identified by DNA, RNA or serology based methods which are time consuming, complex and expensive. Mid-infrared spectroscopy is a promising technique that simplifies the detection procedure for the disease. Mid-infrared spectroscopy was used to identify the spectral differences between healthy and infected oilseed rape leaves. Two different sample sets from two experiments were used to explore and validate the feasibility of using mid-infrared spectroscopy in detecting Sclerotinia stem rot (SSR) on oilseed rape leaves.Entities:
Keywords: Mid-infrared spectroscopy; Oilseed rape; Sample set validation; Sclerotinia stem rot; Second derivative spectra
Year: 2017 PMID: 28529536 PMCID: PMC5436460 DOI: 10.1186/s13007-017-0190-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Methods ISSN: 1746-4811 Impact factor: 4.993
Fig. 1Raw and WT preprocessed spectra of sample set 1 and 2: raw spectra of sample set 1 (a), WT preprocessed spectra of sample set 1 (c), raw spectra of sample set 2 (b), WT preprocessed spectra of sample set 2 (d). The differences of raw and preprocessed spectra could be observed
Fig. 2Average spectra of healthy and infected leaves of sample set 1 (a), and average spectra of healthy and infected leaves of sample set 2 (b). The differences of healthy and infected leaves of two sample sets could be observed
Fig. 3Scores scatter plot of PC1 versus PC2 (a), PC1 versus PC3 (c) and PC2 versus PC3 (e) of sample set 1, and scores scatter plot of PC1 versus PC2 (b), PC1 versus PC3 (d) and PC2 versus PC3 (f) of sample set 2. The plots were used to explore the separability between healthy and infected samples qualitatively
Results of discriminant models using full mid-infrared transmittance spectra of sample sets 1 and 2
| Models | Sample set 1 | Sample set 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Para | Calb (%) | Prec (%) | Par | Cal (%) | Pre (%) | |
| PLS-DA | 4 | 100 | 85 | 10 | 100 | 100 |
| SVM | (1.7411, 0.0118) | 100 | 80 | (84.4485, 0.0039) | 100 | 92.5 |
| ELM | 22 | 100 | 92.5 | 60 | 92.5 | 90 |
aPar means the parameters of the models, the number of LVs for PLS-DA, (C, g) for SVM and number of neurons for ELM
bCal means the calibration set
cPre means the prediction set
Fig. 4Optimal wavenumbers selected by 2nd spectra of sample set 1 (a), and optimal wavenumbers selected by 2nd spectra of sample set 2 (b). The marked peaks were corresponded to peaks with greater differences, which could be selected and used to discriminant
Optimal wavenumbers selected by the 2nd spectra of sample sets 1 and 2
| Number | Wavenumber (cm−1) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sample set 1 | 28 | 906.3795, 916.0218, 935.3065, 946.8773, 973.8758, 1018.2305, 1070.2992, 1083.7985, 1133.9386, 1159.0087, 1180.2218, 240.0043, 1317.1429, 1409.7094, 1479.1342, 1517.7035, 1716.3356, 2341.1589, 2350.8013, 2389.3706, 3546.4507, 3639.0171, 3650.5879, 3662.1587, 3671.801, 3700.728, 3747.0112, 3762.439 |
| Sample set 2 | 31 | 906.3795, 916.0218, 937.2349, 948.8057, 1008.5882, 1049.0861, 1070.2992, 1085.7269,1105.0116, 1132.0101, 1180.2218, 240.0043, 1317.1429, 1409.7094, 1440.5648, 1481.0626, 1517.7035, 1533.1312, 1685.4801, 1716.3356, 745.2626, 1764.5472, 2362.3721, 2834.8464, 2852.2026, 2875.3442, 3629.3748, 3639.0171, 3652.5164, 3662.1587, 3721.9412 |
The results of the discriminant models using optimal wavenumbers from sample sets 1 and 2
| Models | Sample set 1 | Sample set 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Par | Cal (%) | Pre (%) | Par | Cal (%) | Pre (%) | |
| PLS-DA | 6 | 100 | 82.5 | 9 | 100 | 100 |
| SVM | (5.2780, 1) | 100 | 82.5 | (48.5029, 0.0359) | 95 | 95 |
| ELM | 62 | 100 | 95 | 76 | 100 | 95 |