| Literature DB >> 32429895 |
Prabhjot Kaur1, R C Gupta2, Abhijit Dey3, Tabarak Malik4, Devendra Kumar Pandey5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) was used to construct the predicted models of linear, quadratic and interactive effects of two independent variables viz. salicylic acid (SA) and chitosan (CS) for the production of amarogentin (I), swertiamarin (II) and mangiferin (III) from shoot cultures of Swertia paniculata Wall. These compounds are the major therapeutic metabolites in the Swertia plant, which have significant role and demand in the pharmaceutical industries.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial neural network; Elicitors; Mangiferin; Response surface methodology; Secoiridoids; Swertia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32429895 PMCID: PMC7238632 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-020-02410-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Average length of shoot with different concentrations of shoot inducing medium (SIM)
| Types of media | Plant growth regulators (μM) | Mean shoot length (cm) | Mean shoot length (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ½ MS | Control | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| BAP + KN | |||
| (2.22 + 2.22) | 1.2 ± 0.1a | 1.4 ± 0.2a | |
| (4.44 + 4.44) | 0.6 ± 0.2a | 0.7 ± 0.1a | |
| BAP + KN + NAA | |||
| (2.22 + 2.22 + 2.60) | 3.2 ± 0.2a | ||
| (4.44 + 4.44 + 5.20) | 1.6 ± 0.1a | 2.7 ± 0.2a | |
| MS | Control | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| BAP + KN | |||
| (2.22 + 2.22) | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| (4.44 + 4.44) | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| BAP + KN + NAA | |||
| (2.22 + 2.22 + 2.60) | 0.00 | 1.3 ± 0.1a | |
| (4.44 + 4.44 + 5.20) | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
All the values are represented in means± standard deviation (where n = 3)
Experimental and predicted values for secoiridoid and xanthone glycoside yield (%) optimized with central composite design (CCD)
| Run order | Treatment | Secoiridoid Yield (%) | Xanthone Yield (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA (mM) | CS (mg L− 1) | Amarogentin (I) | Swertiamarin (II) | Mangiferin (III) | |||||||
| Experimental | Predicted | Experimental | Predicted | Experimental | Predicted | ||||||
| RSM | ANN | RSM | ANN | RSM | ANN | ||||||
| 1 | 3.000 | 4.000 | 0.170 | 0.173 | 0.170 | 1.020 | 1.064 | 1.020 | 2.610 | 2.640 | 2.610 |
| 2 | 15.000 | 4.000 | 0.247 | 0.249 | 0.250 | 2.860 | 2.905 | 2.860 | 2.910 | 2.951 | 2.910 |
| 3 | 3.000 | 20.000 | 0.225 | 0.230 | 0.225 | 2.235 | 2.241 | 2.235 | 3.550 | 3.533 | 3.550 |
| 4 | 15.000 | 20.000 | 0.350 | 0.354 | 0.350 | 4.450 | 4.457 | 4.450 | 4.110 | 4.104 | 4.110 |
| 5 | 0.514 | 12.000 | 0.172 | 0.167 | 0.171 | 1.320 | 1.294 | 1.320 | 3.080 | 3.075 | 3.080 |
| 6 | 17.485 | 12.000 | 0.312 | 0.308 | 0.311 | 4.190 | 4.163 | 4.193 | 3.720 | 3.699 | 3.720 |
| 7 | 9.000 | 0.686 | 0.210 | 0.208 | 0.210 | 1.695 | 1.641 | 1.695 | 2.550 | 2.504 | 2.550 |
| 8 | 9.000 | 23.313 | 0.330 | 0.323 | 0.330 | 3.570 | 3.570 | 3.572 | 3.930 | 3.950 | 3.932 |
| 9 | 9.000 | 12.000 | 0.430 | 0.428 | 0.427 | 4.860 | 4.870 | 4.830 | 4.254 | 4.288 | 4.253 |
| 10 | 9.000 | 12.000 | 0.435 | 0.428 | 0.427 | 4.830 | 4.870 | 4.830 | 4.237 | 4.288 | 4.253 |
| 11 | 9.000 | 12.000 | 0.425 | 0.428 | 0.427 | 4.875 | 4.870 | 4.867 | 4.320 | 4.288 | 4.283 |
| 12 | 9.000 | 12.000 | 0.430 | 0.428 | 0.427 | 4.987 | 4.870 | 4.970 | 4.357 | 4.288 | 4.329 |
| 13 | 9.000 | 12.000 | 0.420 | 0.428 | 0.427 | 4.800 | 4.870 | 4.867 | 4.275 | 4.288 | 4.253 |
Fig. 1Contour plot for amarogentin (%) at different concentrations of salicylic acid and chitosan elicitors
Fig. 2Contour plot for swertiamarin (%) at different concentrations of salicylic acid and chitosan elicitors
Fig. 3Contour plot for mangiferin (%) at different concentrations of salicylic acid and chitosan elicitors
Fig. 4Comparative contour plot for amarogentin, swertiamarin and mangiferin (%) at different concentrations of salicylic acid and chitosan elicitors
Fig. 5Performance data obtained (ANN) over entire training data and gradient loss for amarogentin (a, b); swertiamarin (c, d); mangiferin (e, f)
Comparison of response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) models
| Parameters | Amarogentin (I) | Swertiamarin (II) | Mangiferin (III) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSM | ANN | RSM | ANN | RSM | ANN | |
| Root mean square error (RMSE) | 0.004624 | 0.003351 | 0.046971 | 0.02104 | 0.03464 | 0.014931 |
| Absolute average deviation (AAD) | 0.089432 | 0.089124 | 1.296331 | 1.300059 | 0.572083 | 0.568817 |
| Regression coefficient (r2) | 99.8% | 99.9% | 99.9% | 100% | 99.7% | 100% |
Fig. 6a. HPTLC fingerprints of secoiridoid glycosides (a): where 1–10 tracks represent tissue cultured plant samples (1 and 2 control plants; 3–6 salicylic acid treated cultured plant samples; 7–10 chitosan treated cultured plant samples) matched with standard compounds of swertiamarin (ii) and amarogentin (i) whereas (b) and (c) represent overlay spectra of plant samples with standard compounds- amarogentin (b) and swertiamarin (c). b. HPTLC fingerprints of xanthone glycoside (a): where 1–10 tracks represent tissue cultured plant samples (1 and 2 control plants; 3–6 salicylic acid treated cultured plant samples; 7–10 chitosan treated cultured plant samples) matched with standard compound of mangiferin (Std.) whereas (b) represents overlay spectra of plant samples with standard compound mangiferin (b)
Fig. 7ANN Architecture