| Literature DB >> 29567248 |
Dong Kyu Lim1, Changyeun Mo2, Jeong Hee Lee1, Nguyen Phuoc Long1, Ziyuan Dong1, Jing Li1, Jongguk Lim2, Sung Won Kwon1,3.
Abstract
For the authentication of white rice from different geographical origins, the selection of outstanding discrimination markers is essential. In this study, 80 commercial white rice samples were collected from local markets of Korea and China and discriminated by mass spectrometry-based untargeted metabolomics approaches. Additionally, the potential markers that belong to sugars & sugar alcohols, fatty acids, and phospholipids were examined using several multivariate analyses to measure their discrimination efficiencies. Unsupervised analyses, including principal component analysis and k-means clustering demonstrated the potential of the geographical classification of white rice between Korea and China by fatty acids and phospholipids. In addition, the accuracy, goodness-of-fit (R2), goodness-of-prediction (Q2), and permutation test p-value derived from phospholipid-based partial least squares-discriminant analysis were 1.000, 0.902, 0.870, and 0.001, respectively. Random Forests further consolidated the discrimination ability of phospholipids. Furthermore, an independent validation set containing 20 white rice samples also confirmed that phospholipids were the excellent discrimination markers for white rice between two countries. In conclusion, the proposed approach successfully highlighted phospholipids as the better discrimination markers than sugars & sugar alcohols and fatty acids in differentiating white rice between Korea and China.Entities:
Keywords: Discrimination marker; Metabolomics; Multivariate analysis; Phospholipid; White rice (Oryza sativa L.)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29567248 PMCID: PMC9322228 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2017.09.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Food Drug Anal Impact factor: 6.157
The characteristics of GC–MS-based discrimination markers.
| Identification | Retention time | Chemical formula | NIST | VIP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Match | Score | FDR | ||||
| Propionic acid | 7.81 | C3H6O2 | 973 | 0.807 | 5.647E-5 | <0.001 |
| Oxalic acid | 9.63 | C3H2O4 | 917 | 0.934 | 7.051E-9 | <0.001 |
| Arabitol | 21.92 | C5H12O5 | 937 | 1.519 | 6.939E-4 | 0.002 |
| 24.52 | C6H12O6 | 976 | 1.624 | 8.595E-6 | <0.001 | |
| 24.84 | C6H12O6 | 941 | 0.914 | 2.238E-5 | <0.001 | |
| 24.90 | C6H12O6 | 939 | 1.151 | 3.923E-2 | 0.048 | |
| Sorbitol | 25.50 | C6H12O6 | 936 | 1.116 | 3.134E-2 | 0.007 |
| Palmitic acid | 27.55 | C16H32O2 | 938 | 1.468 | 8.731E-8 | <0.001 |
| Linoleic acid | 30.06 | C18H32O2 | 936 | 1.723 | 1.101E-9 | <0.001 |
| Oleic acid | 30.16 | C18H34O2 | 932 | 1.802 | 4.153E-9 | <0.001 |
| Stearic acid | 30.54 | C18H36O2 | 920 | 1.219 | 1.030E-2 | 0.018 |
The characteristics of LC–MS-based discrimination markers.
| Identification | Retention time | Mass per charge ratio ( | Chemical formula | VIP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Measured | Exact | Adduct ion | Score | FDR | ||||
| LysoPE(18:3) | 12.86 | 474.261 | 474.262 | [M−H]− | C23H41NO7P | 1.777 | 8.607E-9 | <0.001 |
| LysoPE(18:2) | 13.56 | 476.277 | 476.278 | [M−H]− | C23H43NO7P | 1.435 | 1.801E-3 | 0.006 |
| LysoPE(16:0) | 14.29 | 452.279 | 452.278 | [M−H]− | C21H43NO7P | 0.927 | 1.879E-2 | 0.031 |
| LysoPE(18:1) | 14.58 | 478.294 | 478.293 | [M−H]− | C23H45NO7P | 1.478 | 1.292E-3 | 0.004 |
| LysoPC(14:0) | 12.85 | 512.300 | 512.299 | [M−H + HCOOH]− | C23H47NO9P | 3.454 | 2.762E-13 | <0.001 |
| LysoPC(16:1) | 13.11 | 538.314 | 538.315 | [M−H + HCOOH]− | C25H49NO9P | 1.416 | 1.501E-7 | <0.001 |
| LysoPC(18:2) | 13.70 | 564.332 | 564.330 | [M−H + HCOOH]− | C27H51NO9P | 1.411 | 7.177E-3 | 0.018 |
| LysoPC(16:0) | 14.34 | 540.330 | 540.330 | [M−H + HCOOH]− | C25H51NO9P | 1.167 | 4.086E-4 | 0.002 |
| LysoPG(16:0) | 16.22 | 483.271 | 483.272 | [M−H]− | C22H44O9P | 2.464 | 3.823E-4 | 0.001 |
These compounds were identified by authentic standards.
Fig. 1Untargeted GC–MS-based and untargeted LC–MS-based PLS-DA models reveal good potential for discriminating white rice samples between Korea and China. (a) The accuracy, goodness-of-fit, and goodness-of-prediction of untargeted GC–MS-based PLS-DA were 0.931, 0.750, and 0.692 respectively. (b) The accuracy, goodness-of-fit, and goodness-of-prediction of untargeted LC–MS-based PLS-DA were 0.987, 0.972, and 0.889 respectively.
Fig. 2The box plots that show the differential concentrations among selected discrimination markers. (a) The relative concentrations of sugars & sugar alcohols and fatty acids. (b) The relative concentrations of phospholipids.
Fig. 3The PCA score plots and heatmap of sugars & sugar alcohols, fatty acids, and phospholipids. (a) The PCA score plot of sugars & sugar alcohols, (b) The PCA score plot of fatty acids, (c) The PCA score plot of phospholipids, (d) The heatmap visualization of selected discrimination markers.
Fig. 4PLS-DA with cross validation and permutation test results of sugars & sugar alcohols, fatty acids, and phospholipids.