| Literature DB >> 32143282 |
Pascual García-Pérez1, Eva Lozano-Milo1, Mariana Landín2, Pedro Pablo Gallego1.
Abstract
We combined machine learning and plant in vitro culture methodologies as a novel approach for unraveling the phytochemical potential of unexploited medicinal plants. In order to induce phenolic compound biosynthesis, the in vitro culture of three different species of Bryophyllum under nutritional stress was established. To optimize phenolic extraction, four solvents with different MeOH proportions were used, and total phenolic content (TPC), flavonoid content (FC) and radical-scavenging activity (RSA) were determined. All results were subjected to data modeling with the application of artificial neural networks to provide insight into the significant factors that influence such multifactorial processes. Our findings suggest that aerial parts accumulate a higher proportion of phenolic compounds and flavonoids in comparison to roots. TPC was increased under ammonium concentrations below 15 mM, and their extraction was maximum when using solvents with intermediate methanol proportions (55-85%). The same behavior was reported for RSA, and, conversely, FC was independent of culture media composition, and their extraction was enhanced using solvents with high methanol proportions (>85%). These findings confer a wide perspective about the relationship between abiotic stress and secondary metabolism and could serve as the starting point for the optimization of bioactive compound production at a biotechnological scale.Entities:
Keywords: Kalanchoe; antioxidants; artificial intelligence; biotechnology; fuzzy logic; phytochemistry; plant tissue culture; polyphenols; secondary metabolites
Year: 2020 PMID: 32143282 PMCID: PMC7139750 DOI: 10.3390/antiox9030210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Ion contents obtained by the decomposition of macronutrient salts used for culture media tested in this work.
| Ions | MS (mM) | 1/2 MS (mM) |
|---|---|---|
| NO3− | 39.4 | 19.7 |
| NH4+ | 20.6 | 10.3 |
| K+ | 20.0 | 10.0 |
| Cl− | 5.99 | 2.99 |
| Ca2+ | 2.99 | 1.50 |
| Mg2+ | 1.50 | 0.75 |
| HPO42− | 1.25 | 0.62 |
| SO42− | 1.76 | 1.01 |
Hence, a total of 11 factors were selected as inputs: genotype, organ, 8 ions (Table 1) and solvent used for phenolic extraction. On the other hand, three parameters were included as outputs: total phenolic content (TPC), flavonoid content (FC) and radical-scavenging activity (RSA; Table S2). MS stands for Murashige and Skoog medium.
Training parameters used by FormRules v4.03 for model construction.
| Minimization Parameters |
|---|
| Ridge regression factor: 1 × 10−6 |
| MODEL SELECTION CRITERIA |
| Structural risk minimization (SRM) |
| C1 ≥ 0.85 C2 = 4.8 |
| Number of set densities: 2 |
| Set densities: 2, 3 |
| Adapt nodes: TRUE |
| Max. inputs per submodel: 4 |
| Max. nodes per input: 15 |
Figure 1Results from different determinations of phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity. (A) TPC in aerial parts, (B) TPC in roots, (C) FC in aerial parts, (D) FC in roots, (E) RSA in aerial parts, and (F) RSA in roots. Values represent the mean of three independent extracts, and vertical bars represent standard deviation. Lower case letters (a–d) indicate significant differences between solvents and genotypes for the same culture medium (p < 0.05), and capital letters (A–D) indicate significant differences between culture media and genotypes for the same solvent (p < 0.05).
Critical factors for each output and quality parameters of neurofuzzy logic models.
| Outputs | Submodel | Train Set | df1, df2 | Significant Inputs | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC |
| 75.75 | 10.22 | 11, 47 | 2.00 |
|
| 2 | Solvent | |||||
| 3 | Genotype × Organ | |||||
| FC |
| 98.10 | 83.23 | 18, 47 | 1.83 |
|
| RSA | 1 | 72.33 | 14.94 | 7, 47 | 2.21 | Organ |
| 2 | NH4+ | |||||
|
|
| |||||
| 4 | Genotype |
Bold inputs correspond to the stronger effect for each output.
Rules selection obtained by neurofuzzy logic.
| Rules | Gen. | Org. 1 | Solv. 2 | NH4+ | TPC | FC | RSA | Membership | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | IF |
|
| THEN |
|
| ||||
| 2 | A | High | Low | 0.99 | ||||||
| 3 | R | Low | Low | 0.85 | ||||||
| 4 |
|
|
|
| ||||||
| 5 | Low | Low | 1.00 | |||||||
| 6 | Mid | High | 0.70 | |||||||
| 7 | High | Low | 0.83 | |||||||
| 8 | BH | A | High | 0.63 | ||||||
| 9 | BH | R | Low | 1.00 | ||||||
| 10 | BD | A | Low | 0.76 | ||||||
| 11 | BD | R | Low | 0.80 | ||||||
| 12 | BT | A | Low | 1.00 | ||||||
| 13 | BT | R | Low | 1.00 | ||||||
| 14 | IF | BH | A | Low | THEN | Low | 0.98 | |||
| 15 | BD | A | Low | Low | 0.88 | |||||
| 16 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| 17 | BH | R | Low | Low | 0.98 | |||||
| 18 | BD | R | Low | Low | 0.99 | |||||
| 19 | BT | R | Low | Low | 0.98 | |||||
| 20 | BH | A | Mid | Low | 0.84 | |||||
| 21 | BD | A | Mid | Low | 0.71 | |||||
| 22 | BT | A | Mid | Low | 0.80 | |||||
| 23 | BH | R | Mid | Low | 0.95 | |||||
| 24 | BD | R | Mid | Low | 0.92 | |||||
| 25 | BT | R | Mid | Low | 0.95 | |||||
| 26 | BH | A | High | High | 0.60 | |||||
| 27 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| 28 | BT | A | High | High | 0.60 | |||||
| 29 | BH | R | High | Low | 0.91 | |||||
| 30 | BD | R | High | Low | 0.85 | |||||
| 31 | BT | R | High | Low | 0.90 | |||||
| 32 | IF | A | THEN | Low | 0.97 | |||||
| 33 | R | High | 0.81 | |||||||
| 34 | Low | Low | 0.90 | |||||||
| 35 | High | High | 0.74 | |||||||
| 36 | Low | High | 0.61 | |||||||
| 37 |
|
|
| |||||||
| 38 |
|
|
| |||||||
| 39 | BH | Low | 0.79 | |||||||
| 40 | BD | Low | 0.94 | |||||||
| 41 | BT | High | 0.57 |
1 “A” refers to aerial parts, and “R” refers to roots. 2 Solvent was expressed as methanol proportion within the solvent. Bold letters indicate inputs with the strongest effect on each output, as indicated by the model. “Gen.” refers to genotype; “Org.” refers to organ; “Solv.” refers to solvent.
Figure 2Results for RSA of reference compounds: gallic acid for phenolic acids and quercetin for flavonols. Results are expressed as the mean of the inhibition percentage of DPPH from three independent replicates, and vertical bars indicate standard deviation.