| Literature DB >> 29415459 |
Zhan Cheng1, Menghua Li2, Philip J Marriott3, Xiaoxu Zhang4, Shiping Wang5, Jiangui Li6, Liyan Ma7,8,9.
Abstract
Ochratoxin A (OTA) contamination in grape production is an important problem worldwide. Microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs) have been demonstrated as useful tools to identify different toxigenic strains. In this study, Aspergillus carbonarius strains were classified into two groups, moderate toxigenic strains (MT) and high toxigenic strains (HT), according to OTA-forming ability. The MVOCs were analyzed by GC-MS and the data processing was based on untargeted profiling using XCMS Online software. Orthogonal projection to latent structures discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) was performed using extract ion chromatogram GC-MS datasets. For contrast, quantitative analysis was also performed. Results demonstrated that the performance of the OPLS-DA model of untargeted profiling was better than the quantitative method. Potential markers were successfully discovered by variable importance on projection (VIP) and t-test. (E)-2-octen-1-ol, octanal, 1-octen-3-one, styrene, limonene, methyl-2-phenylacetate and 3 unknown compounds were selected as potential markers for the MT group. Cuparene, (Z)-thujopsene, methyl octanoate and 1 unknown compound were identified as potential markers for the HT groups. Finally, the selected markers were used to construct a supported vector machine classification (SVM-C) model to check classification ability. The models showed good performance with the accuracy of cross-validation and test prediction of 87.93% and 92.00%, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus carbonarius; biosynthetic pathway; chemometrics; ochratoxin A; untargeted profiling
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29415459 PMCID: PMC5848172 DOI: 10.3390/toxins10020071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Figure 1OTA content of the strains incubated on CYA culture medium.
Figure 2The typical total ion chromatograms (TICs) of the two groups of strain.
Volatile metabolites of four strains extracted from the CYA culture medium.
| NO. | REF.RI 1 | RI | Name | Identification Methods 2 | Ion 3 | CYA Culture Medium |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 979 | 980 | 1-Octen-3-ol | Std, MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 2 | 1069 | 1067 | ( | Std, MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 3 | 1069 | 1070 | 1-Octanol | MS, RI | 56 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 4 | 1001 | 1001 | Octanal | MS, RI | 43 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 5 | 1057 | 1055 | ( | Std, MS, RI | 41 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 6 | 1102 | 1103 | Nonanal | MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 7 | 1115 | 1107 | ( | MS, RI | 81 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 8 | 1313 | 1314 | ( | MS, RI | 81 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 9 | 978 | 976 | 1-Octen-3-one | MS, RI | 55 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 10 | 984 | 985 | 3-Octanone | Std, MS, RI | 43 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 11 | 1290 | 1291 | 2-Undecanone | MS, RI | 43 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 12 | 1092 | 1093 | Methyl benzoate | MS, RI | 105 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 13 | 1120 | 1123 | Methyl octanoate | MS, RI | 74 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 14 | 1255 | 1254 | Methyl-2-phenylacetate | MS, RI | 104 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 15 | 1326 | 1322 | Methyl decanoate | MS, RI | 74 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 16 | 1723 | 1723 | Methyl tetradecanoate | MS, RI | 74 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 17 | 1823 | 1825 | Methyl pentadecanoate | MS, RI | 74 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 18 | 1927 | 1926 | Methyl hexadecanoate | Std, MS, RI | 74 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 19 | 2096 | 2095 | Methyl linoleate | Std, MS, RI | 67 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 20 | 2100 | 2102 | Methyl oleate | MS, RI | 55 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 21 | 1024 | 1024 | MS, RI | 119 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 | |
| 22 | 1028 | 1028 | Limonene | MS, RI | 68 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 23 | 1412 | 1411 | Longifolene | MS, RI | 161 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 24 | 1416 | 1417 | α-Cedrene | Std, MS, RI | 119 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 25 | 1428 | 1426 | β-Cedrene | MS, RI | 161 | AF |
| 26 | 1435 | 1436 | ( | MS, RI | 119 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 27 | 1435 | 1438 | α-Bergamotene | MS, RI | 93 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 28 | 1458 | 1457 | β-Farnesene | Std, MS, RI | 41 | AC44, AC46, SD27 |
| 29 | 1481 | 1481 | β-Chamigrene | Std, MS, RI | 189 | AF |
| 30 | 1505 | 1505 | β-Himachalene | MS, RI | 119 | AF |
| 31 | 1509 | 1510 | Cuparene | Std, MS, RI | 132 | AF |
| 32 | 1563 | 1563 | ( | Std, MS, RI | 41 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 33 | 893 | 889 | Styrene | Std, MS, RI | 104 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 34 | 1100 | 1100 | Undecane | Std, MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 35 | 1200 | 1199 | Dodecane | Std, MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 36 | 1300 | 1299 | Tridecane | Std, MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 37 | 1318 | 1326 | Decane, 2,3,5,8-tetramethyl- | MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 38 | 1400 | 1400 | Tetradecane | Std, MS, RI | 57 | Internal standard |
| 39 | 1460 | 1462 | Tetradecane, 4-methyl- | MS, RI | 43 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 40 | 1500 | 1499 | Pentadecane | Std, MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 41 | 1564 | 1562 | Pentadecane, 2-methyl- | MS, RI | 43 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 42 | 1570 | 1569 | Pentadecane, 3-methyl- | MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 43 | 1600 | 1600 | Hexadecane | Std, MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 44 | 1649 | 1648 | Pentadecane, 2,6,10-trimethyl- | MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 45 | 1666 | 1663 | Hexadecane, 2-methyl- | MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 46 | 1700 | 1700 | Heptadecane | Std, MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 47 | 1703 | 1706 | Pristan | MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 48 | 1765 | 1763 | Heptadecane, 2-methyl- | MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 49 | 1770 | 1771 | Heptadecane, 3-methyl- | MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 50 | 1800 | 1800 | Octadecane | Std, MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 51 | 1806 | 1810 | Phytane | MS, RI | 57 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| Others | ||||||
| 52 | 1181 | 1182 | Naphthalene | MS, RI | 128 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
| 53 | - | 1484 | 3-Furanacetic acid, 4-hexyl-2,5-dihydro-2,5-dioxo- | MS | 126 | AC44, AC46, AF, SD27 |
1 REF.RI = literature retention index, obtained from the NIST11 database. The column type selected in NIST11 database for RI values is a DB-5 column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm). If not available, the RI values of HP-5 column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm) was chosen. 2 Identification Methods = Std (authentic standard retention time); MS (Mass spectrum) with minimum match of 70%; RI (Retention Index). 3 Ion = quantification ion response.
Figure 3PCA score plot for the metabolic profile of four strains.
Figure 4OPLS-DA score plots of two models, (a) untargeted profiling; (b) quantitative analysis.
Figure 5Variable importance on projection (VIP) plot scores for two models, (a) untargeted profiling; (b) quantitative analysis.
Potential markers selected by VIP values and t-test.
| NO. | Potential Markers | Retention Time/Min | Ion Information | Relative Content 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MT | HT | ||||
| 1 | Styrene | 8.001–8.004 | 103, 78, 77, 104, 51, 105 | 0.08–13.21 | |
| 2 | 1-Octen-3-one | 10.627–10.672 | 97, 70, 111, 98, 83, 55 | 4.00–86.63 | |
| 3 | Octanal | 11.378 | 55 | 0.04–1.43 | |
| 4 | Limonene | 12.232 | 91 | 0.04–0.63 | |
| 5 | 2-Octen-1-ol | 13.408–13.466 | 68, 95, 58, 81, 54, 110, 82, 41, 39, 57, 55, 69, 67, 56 | 2.00–57.36 | |
| 6 | Methyl octanoate | 15.091 | 74 | 0.03–0.14 | |
| 7 | Unknown | 15.438–15.446 | 69, 84, 55 | 0.02–0.44 | |
| 8 | Unknown | 20.402 | 91 | 0–0.25 | |
| 9 | Unknown | 21.057 | 91 | 0–0.07 | |
| 10 | Thujopsene | 23.718–23.756 | 204, 121, 105 | 0–0.67 | |
| 11 | Unknown | 24.599 | 165 | 0.02–0.23 | |
| 12 | Cuparene | 25.542 | 132 | 0–0.01 | |
1 = Relative content (equivalent of tetradecane %) of all samples in each group. * Potential markers for each group strains are marked in bold type letter. This is according to criteria: significant value (p < 0.05) in statistical analysis (t-test) and variable important on projection (VIP) beyond 1.50.
Figure 6The pathways of MVOCs involved in the production of different secondary metabolites.
Figure 7Grid search for optimizing parameters (C, γ). (a) Coarse search and (b) finder search. The optimal parameters selected by grid search are marked as “×”.
Performance of SVM-C model.
| Variable Selection | Optimized Parameters | No. Variables | Data Sets | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full variables | C = 4.64 × 102 | 829 | Cross-Validation | 77.59 |
| γ = 1.67 × 10−4 | Test | 84.00 | ||
| VIP method | C = 1.29 × 103 | 39 | Cross-Validation | 87.93 |
| γ = 1.29 × 10−4 | Test | 92.00 |