4.4 Article

Alternative methods for sampling and preservation of photosynthetic pigments and tocopherols in plant material from remote locations

期刊

PHOTOSYNTHESIS RESEARCH
卷 101, 期 1, 页码 77-88

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11120-009-9468-5

关键词

HPLC; Liquid nitrogen; Lyophilization; Silica gel; Xanthophylls

资金

  1. Basque Government [UPV/EHU-GVIT-299-07]
  2. University of Barcelona
  3. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [BFU 2007-62637, CGL 2005-03062/BOS, CGL2005-03998/BOS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current methods for the study of pigments involve freezing in liquid nitrogen and storage at -80A degrees C or lyophilization until HPLC analysis. These requirements greatly restrict ecophysiological research in remote areas where such resources are hardly available. We aimed to overcome such limitations by developing several techniques not requiring freezing or lyophilization. Two species with contrasting foliar characteristics (Olea europaea and Taraxacum officinale) were chosen. Seven preservation methods were designed, optimized and tested in a field trial. These protocols were compared with a control immediately frozen after collection. Pigments and tocopherols were analysed by HPLC. Main artefacts were chlorophyll epimerization or phaeophytinization, carotenoid isomerization, altered de-epoxidation index and tocopherol degradation. Among all methods, sample desiccation in silica gel provides robust samples (pigment composition was unaffected by storage time or temperature) and almost unaltered pigment profiles, except for a shift in epoxidation state. Although liquid nitrogen freezing and subsequent lyophilization or freezer storage were preferred, when these facilities are either not available or not suitable for long-distance transport, desiccation with silica gel, passive extraction in acetone and/or storage of fresh samples in water vapour saturated atmospheres enable a complete pigment characterization. Silica gel is advisable for long-term sample conservation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据