MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6961892375 · doi:10.15454/attenn

Untargeted metabolomic analyses on seeds of six Camelina sativa genotypes cultivated for five consecutive years

2020· dataset· en· W6961892375 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueRecherche Data Gouv France · 2020
Typedataset
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCamelinaCamelina sativaRandomized block designCultivarFalling NumberGerminationHybridBolting

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Samples collection: Six different genotypes of camelina were grown at the experimental farm of Bologna University (Italy) located in Cadriano (Bologna, Italy, 44°30′N, 11°23′E, 32 m a.s.l.) during five consecutive years (2015 - 2019). The six tested genotypes were: MIDAS (AAFC, Saskatoon, Canada), OMEGA (University of Poznan, Poland), WUR (Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands), and 787-08, 789-02 and 887 cultivars (Smart Earth Camelina, Saskatoon, Canada). Camelina was sown each year in late winter/early spring accordingly to the specific meteorological conditions. The same agronomic management for all the trials was adopted consisting in typical tillage system (ploughing + harrowing), a seeding rate of 500 seeds m-2, no irrigation, a top-dressing fertilization with N (50 kg N ha-1, as urea at bolting stage), with no pest, disease nor weed chemical control. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with 3 or 4 replicates depending on the year. Representative seed samples from individual plots were cleaned and used for omic analyses. Extraction: Metabolites were extracted from 60 mg of camelina dry mature seeds. Briefly, 1 mL of MeOH: Methyl-tert-butyl: H2O (1:3:1), conserved at 4°C, and 200 ng of Apigenin (used as internal standard) were added to each sample, which were then homogenized in 2ml tubes using a FastPrep instrument (1 min, 14,000 rpm). The mixtures were then shaken for 30 min at 4ºC using a ThermoMixer™ C (Eppendorf), placed in an ice cooled ultrasonication bath for 15 min and centrifuged for 1 min at the maximum speed to remove debris. The extracted samples were then transferred in new tubes containing 650 mL of MeOH: water (1:3), previously placed at -20ºC. The mixtures were centrifuged for 1 min at 14,000 rpm. The addition of MeOH: water (1:3) and the centrifugation led to a led to a phase separation, providing the upper organic phase, containing the lipids, a lower aqueous phase, containing the polar and semi- polar metabolites, and a pellet of starch and proteins. The phase containing the polar and semi-polar metabolites was dried down in a SpeedVac vacuum concentrator (o/n) and resuspended in 200 μL of ULC/MS grade water (Biosolve). Chromatography: A Nucleoshell RP 18 plus reversed-phase column (2 x 100 mm, 2.7 μm; Macherey-Nagel) was used for chromatographic separation. The mobile phases used for the chromatographic separation were (A) 0.1% formic acid in H2O and (B) 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile. The flow rate was of 400 μL/min and the following gradient was used: 95% of A for 1-min, followed by a linear gradient from 95% A to 80% A from 1 to 3-min, then a linear gradient from 80% A to 75% A from 3 to 8-min, a linear gradient from 75% A to 40% A from 8 to 20-min. 0% of A was hold until 24-min, followed by a linear gradient from 0% A to 95% A from 24 to 27-min. Finally, the column was washed by 30% A at for 3.5min then re-equilibrated for 3.5-min (35-min total run time). Mass spectrometry: Data-dependent acquisition (DDA) methods were used for mass spectrometer data in positive and negative ESI modes using the following parameters: capillary voltage, 4.5kV; nebuliser gas flow, 2.1 bar; dry gas flow, 6 L/min; drying gas in the heated electrospray source temperature, 140ºC. Samples were analysed at 8Hz with a mass range of 100 to 1500 m/z. Stepping acquisition parameters were created to improve the fragmentation profile with a collision RF from 200 to 700 Vpp, a transfer time from 20 to 70 µs and collision energy from 20 to 40 eV. Each cycle included a MS fullscan and 5 MS/MS CID on the 5 main ions of the previous MS spectrum. Data transformation: The .d data files (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) were converted to .mzXML format using the MSConvert software (ProteoWizard package 3.0). mzXML data processing, mass detection, chromatogram building, deconvolution, samples alignment, and data export, were performed using MZmine 2.52 software (http://mzmine.github.io/) for both positive and negative data files. The ADAP chromatogram builder method was used with a minimum group size of scan 3, a group intensity threshold of 1000, a minimum highest intensity of 1500 and m/z tolerance of 10 ppm. Deconvolution was performed with the ADAP wavelets algorithm using the following setting: S/N threshold 8, peak duration range = 0.01-1 min RT wavelet range 0.02-0.2 min, MS2 scan were paired using a m/z tolerance range of 0.01 Da and RT tolerance of 0.4 min. Then, isotopic peak grouper algorithm was used with a m/z tolerance of 10 ppm and RT tolerance of 0.4. All the peaks were filtered using feature list row filter keeping only peaks with MS2 scan. The alignment of samples was performed using the join aligner with an m/z tolerance of 10 ppm, a weight for m/z and RT at 1, a retention time tolerance of 0.3 min. Metabolites identification: Metabolites annotation was performed in four consecutive steps. First, the obtained RT and m/z data of each feature were compared with our home-made library containing more than 150 standards or experimental common features (RT, m/z). Second, the ESI- and ESI+ metabolomic data used for molecular network analyses were searched against the available MS2 spectral libraries (Massbank NA, GNPS Public Spectral Library, NIST14 Tandem, NIH Natural Product and MS-Dial), with absolute m/z tolerance of 0.02, 4 minimum matched peaks and minimal cosine score of 0.8. Third, not-annotated metabolites that belong to molecular network clusters containing annotated metabolites from step 1 and 2 were assigned to the same chemical family. Finally, for metabolites that had no or unclear annotation, Sirius software (https://bio.informatik.uni-jena.de/software/sirius/) was used. Sirius is based on machine learning techniques that used available chemical structures and MS/MS data from chemical databanks to propose structures of unknown compounds.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Jeu de données · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,343
Tête enseignante GPT0,453
Écart entre enseignants0,110 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreJeu de données

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRecherche Data Gouv FranceTravaux en français237 207