Electrospinning is a production technique for obtaining polymer nanofibers relatively low-cost and straightforward to produce fine fibers. Chitosan (CTS) is a well-known biopolymer widely used for drug delivery, hydrogels, tissue engineering, wound healing, and mats. This work aims to study different chitosan-organic acid solutions' conductivity using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and equivalent circuit fitting to understand this parameter's influence in the electrospinning process for fiber formation in different organic acids as solvents. The conductivity of dilute chitosan solutions decreases until reaching a minimum value as chitosan concentration increases; conductivity increases linearly as concentration increases. We measured solution resistance, polarization resistance, and relaxation time of chitosan solutions in acetic, formic, lactic, and citric acids using electrical impedance spectroscopy with equivalent circuit modeling. There is no direct correlation between the electrospinnability of the different organic acids solutions with their solution conductivity. We obtained chitosan nanofibers and particles when electrospun a chitosan concentrated solution (4 wt%) in concentrated acetic acid (90 vol%) and obtained submicron particles with a more diluted solution (1 wt%) in concentrated acetic acid (90 vol%). We also obtained chitosan particles from formic acid solutions and completely different ordered and elongated particles with citric acid solutions. Getting insight into the organic acid-chitosan interactions will help improve the electrospinning process to obtain fibers, particles, or both in a controlled fashion and may help design tailored materials.
Citation: Sergio A. Salazar-Brann, Rosalba Patiño-Herrera, Jaime Navarrete-Damián, José F. Louvier-Hernández. Electrospinning of chitosan from different acid solutions[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2021, 8(1): 112-129. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2021011
[1] | Liwei Chen, Jaslyn Lee, Wei Ning Chen . The use of metabolic engineering to produce fatty acid-derived biofuel and chemicals in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a review. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(4): 468-492. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.4.468 |
[2] | Edwige Arnold, Iness Hammami, Jingkui Chen, Sachin Gupte, Yves Durocher, Mario Jolicoeur . Overexpression of G6PDH does not affect the behavior of HEK-293 clones stably expressing interferon-α2b. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(3): 319-336. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.3.319 |
[3] | George H McArthur IV, Pooja P Nanjannavar, Emily H Miller, Stephen S Fong . Integrative metabolic engineering. AIMS Bioengineering, 2015, 2(3): 93-103. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2015.3.93 |
[4] | Tutuka Dlume, Nonso E. Nnolim, Uchechukwu U. Nwodo . Exiguobacterium acetylicum transformed poultry feathers into amino acids through an extracellular secretion of keratinolytic enzymes. AIMS Bioengineering, 2024, 11(4): 489-505. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2024022 |
[5] | Adam B Fisher, Stephen S Fong . Lignin biodegradation and industrial implications. AIMS Bioengineering, 2014, 1(2): 92-112. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2014.2.92 |
[6] | Bashir Sajo Mienda, Mohd Shahir Shamsir . Model-driven in Silico glpC Gene Knockout Predicts Increased Succinate Production from Glycerol in Escherichia Coli. AIMS Bioengineering, 2015, 2(2): 40-48. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2015.2.40 |
[7] | Firoz Ahmed . Deciphering the gene regulatory network associated with anti-apoptosis in the pancreatic islets of type 2 diabetes mice using computational approaches. AIMS Bioengineering, 2023, 10(2): 111-140. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2023009 |
[8] | Mingyong Xiong, Ping Yu, Jingyu Wang, Kechun Zhang . Improving Engineered Escherichia coli strains for High-level Biosynthesis of Isobutyrate. AIMS Bioengineering, 2015, 2(2): 60-74. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2015.2.60 |
[9] | Murtaza Shabbir Hussain, Gabriel M Rodriguez, Difeng Gao, Michael Spagnuolo, Lauren Gambill, Mark Blenner . Recent advances in bioengineering of the oleaginous yeast Yarrowia lipolytica. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(4): 493-514. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.4.493 |
[10] | Sayuri Yoshikawa, Kurumi Taniguchi, Haruka Sawamura, Yuka Ikeda, Ai Tsuji, Satoru Matsuda . Promising probiotics for the treatment of nephrotoxicity induced during immune-checkpoint therapy against cancers. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(3): 283-292. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022019 |
Electrospinning is a production technique for obtaining polymer nanofibers relatively low-cost and straightforward to produce fine fibers. Chitosan (CTS) is a well-known biopolymer widely used for drug delivery, hydrogels, tissue engineering, wound healing, and mats. This work aims to study different chitosan-organic acid solutions' conductivity using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and equivalent circuit fitting to understand this parameter's influence in the electrospinning process for fiber formation in different organic acids as solvents. The conductivity of dilute chitosan solutions decreases until reaching a minimum value as chitosan concentration increases; conductivity increases linearly as concentration increases. We measured solution resistance, polarization resistance, and relaxation time of chitosan solutions in acetic, formic, lactic, and citric acids using electrical impedance spectroscopy with equivalent circuit modeling. There is no direct correlation between the electrospinnability of the different organic acids solutions with their solution conductivity. We obtained chitosan nanofibers and particles when electrospun a chitosan concentrated solution (4 wt%) in concentrated acetic acid (90 vol%) and obtained submicron particles with a more diluted solution (1 wt%) in concentrated acetic acid (90 vol%). We also obtained chitosan particles from formic acid solutions and completely different ordered and elongated particles with citric acid solutions. Getting insight into the organic acid-chitosan interactions will help improve the electrospinning process to obtain fibers, particles, or both in a controlled fashion and may help design tailored materials.
Abbreviations
AAA = aromatic amino acids; VOCs = volatile organic compounds;
DAHPS = 3-deoxy-D-arabino-heptulosonate7-phosphate synthase;
CM = chorismate mutase; PDT = prephenatedehydratase; FDR = false discovery rate.
Tomato fruits are an important source of vitamins, dietary fibers, minerals, and antioxidants in the human diet [1]. During the ripening stage, tomatoes produce a large number of specialized metabolites, including volatile organic compounds [2,3], which serve as key components of the tomato fruit flavor [4,5]. These compounds are utilized to attract seed dispersers [6], as part of the plant defense mechanisms against herbivores [7] and in plant-plant communication. They are derived from a diverse set of precursors including amino acids, fatty acids and carotenoids [4]. The taste of a tomato is a result of the interactions of sugars, acids and a set of 20-30 volatile compounds. Among the several hundred volatile compounds accumulating in ripe tomato fruits, almost all of those related to flavor are derived from the essential amino acids phenylalanine (Phe), leucine (Leu) or isoleucine (Ile) [8]. It has also been proposed that volatile compounds produced in the ripe tomato fruits act as sensory cues for nutritional and health values [4,6].
One of the major biosynthetic pathways in plants is the shikimate pathway which leads to the synthesis of three aromatic amino acids (AAA) Phe, tyrosine (Tyr) and tryptophan (Trp) [9]. The shikimate pathway is a metabolic bridge between central carbon metabolism and specialized metabolism with regard to the regulation of AAA biosynthesis (Figure 1; [10,11]). In the last decade, many researches focused on exploring the enzymatic steps of the shikimate pathway, as well as the regulation of shikimate pathway enzymes. However, the carbon allocation towards the complex network of specialized metabolites that are derived from the AAA is not well understood [12,13]. One of the major regulatory mechanisms of flux through metabolic pathways is enzyme feedback inhibition loops, in which the end product metabolite of a given metabolic pathway feedback inhibits the activity of one of the enzymes of this pathway. Such enzyme feedback inhibition loops are common in metabolic pathways of amino acids [14], and are used to balance the metabolic homeostasis of the cell, to reduce toxicity and to promote plant development [15,16,17]. Plants containing modified, feedback-insensitive enzymes have been used to study the operation of metabolic pathways under uncontrolled conditions, and to produce plants tolerant to toxic combinations of amino acids or amino acid analogues, such as glyphosate (commercially known as Roundup; [18]). This also led to the identification of mutations in specific enzymes rendering them insensitive to feedback inhibition [14,17].
Overexpression of these feedback-insensitive genes allowed the plants to overcome the feedback inhibition of the native plant genes, “open” fluxes and change the carbon flow toward production of specialized metabolites. One such enzyme that was used encodes the first key enzyme of the shikimate pathway, namely, 3-Deoxy-D-Arabino-Heptulosonate 7-Phosphate Synthase (DAHPS; E. coli AroG) [19]. Another gene encodes a bi-functional Chorismate Mutase/Prephenate Dehydratase (CM/PDT; E. coli PheA), that converts chorismate via prephenate into phenylpyruvate (Figure 1, [20]). Previously, we overexpressed a bacterial gene encoding a mutant feedback-insensitive DHAPS (AroG209) in Arabidopsis thaliana plants as well as in tomato fruits. In general, overexpression of the bacterial feedback-insensitive AroG increased the synthesis of all AAA, causing considerable enhancements in the levels of multiple specialized metabolites in both Arabidopsis and tomato [19,21]. In Arabidopsis vegetative tissues, constitutive expression of the bacterial AroG209 caused massive metabolic changes and enhanced levels of phenylpropanoids, glucosinolates and phytohormones [19]. In tomato fruits, on the other hand, expression of AroG209 under a fruit specific E8 promoter led to enhanced levels of multiple volatile and nonvolatile compounds derived from phenylpropanoids, in addition to volatiles and carotenoids derived from terpenoids. These results demonstrate the complex network between those metabolic pathways [21]. Furthermore, expression of the bacterial feedback-insensitive AroG in Petunia × hybrida cv “Mitchell Diploid” as well as expression of the endogenous PhDAHP1, resulted in dramatically increased levels of Phe and fragrant benzenoid-phenylpropanoid volatiles [12,22].
Phe is synthesized predominantly via the arogenate pathway [23], but the participation of the phenylpyruvate route in Phe biosynthesis has been previously suggested in Arabidopsis [24] and petunia [25]. The PheA gene converts chorismate via prephentate into phenylpyruvate. Previously, expression of a gene encoding a mutated E. coli feedback-insensitive PheA in Arabidopsis plants was shown to impact the synthesis of AAA and the specialized metabolites derived from them [24]. The PheA-expression lines had increased levels of specialized metabolites derived from Phe and Tyr, but reduced levels of specialized metabolites derived from Trp. These results imply regulatory cross-interactions between the flux of AAA biosynthesis from chorismate and their metabolism into various Phe specialized metabolites [24]. However, the possibility of using feedback-insensitive PheA in fragrant rich tissues such as tomato fruits or petunia petals has yet to be investigated. The significant variation between the specialized metabolites accumulating in Arabidopsis suggested that both feedback-insensitive AroG and PheA can function as excellent metabolic engineering tools for the production of specialized metabolites.
We aimed to study the metabolic pathways involved in determining the tomato fruit flavor. The ultimate goal of our research was to identify genes that control the synthesis of the flavor volatiles and use this knowledge to produce a better-tasting tomato. We hypothesize that manipulating the DAHPS and CM/PDT key enzymes will have different effects on the carbon flux and will allow identification of metabolites that are usually below detection level. Our previous studies suggested that massive metabolic changes occur in the AroG209-9 transgenic tomatoes. Here we first tested the metabolic changes of tomato fruits expressing the PheA gene or both the AroG209-9 and PheA12 genes (PheA12//AroG209-9) crossed plants. We discovered that plants expressing both of the bacterial genes showed a unique metabolic profile that was predominantly impacted by expression of the AroG209-9 gene, while the PheA12 tomato line showed only minor metabolic differences. Our results suggest that this approach is suitable for altering tomato volatiles and aroma in a combinatorial manner. Furthermore, this method can be used for the discovery of new metabolic networks by increasing the abundance of compounds that are usually below detection levels in the wild type fruit.
Flowers of greenhouse-grown tomato plants were marked at anthesis, and ripe red fruits were harvested approximately 48 days post anthesis. Eachbiological repeat was a mixture of 3-5 individual fruits. After harvesting, the peel and flesh (without the gel and seeds) were manually dissected and frozen in liquid nitrogen [26]. Homozygous plants of AroG209-9 and PheA12 were crossed and self-pollinated to generate the double transgenic cross line PheA12//AroG209-9 (F1 generation).
Genomic DNA was isolated from Escherichia coli (K-12 strain) and two genes, the 3-Deoxy-D-arabino-Heptulosonate 7-Phosphate Synthase isoform G (DAHPS; AroG) and the Chorismate Mutase/Prephenate Dehydratase (CM/PDT; PheA) were amplified and cloned as previously described [19,21,24]. The AroG and PheA genes were each fused to the tomato fruit-specific promoter E8 [27], whose expression is spatially and temporally regulated in mature tomato fruit [28]. The genes were fused at the 5’-end to a plastid targeting signal peptide originated from RUBISCO small subunit [29]. Primers are listed in Supplementary Table S1. Each of the chimeric genes was introduced into Agrobacterium tumefacies strain EHA-105 and used for plant transformation. Wild type tomato plants (M82 cultivar) were inoculated by submersing cotyledons in the transformed A. tumefacies culture as previously described [30,31]. Tomato transformation and genotyping were performed by Hazera Ltd (www.hazera.co.il/).
Non-targeted metabolic analysis was performed using 500 mg of tomato peel and flesh, extracted in 80% methanol. Sample preparation and injection conditions were performed as previously described [32]. The analysis of the raw LC-MS (UPLC-qTOF-MS) data was performed using the XCMS software from the Bioconductor package (v. 2.1) for the R statistical language (v. 2.6.1) that performs chromatogram alignment, mass signal detection and peak integration [33]. XCMS was used with the following parameters: fwhm = 10.8, step = 0.05, steps = 4, mzdiff = 0.07, snthresh = 8, max = 1000. Injections of samples in the positive and negative ionization modes were performed in separate injection sets and pre-processing was done for each ionization mode independently. Differential mass ions were determined using a Student’s t-test (JMP software) and 17 differential metabolites were subsequently assigned. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot and ANOVA tests were performed by the T-MEV4 software [34,35]. A Student’s t-test analysis was performed on metabolites level using the JMP software (SAS).
GC-MS analysis of polar volatile compounds was carried out as previously described [21,36]. Briefly, a mix of 2-5 fruits (10 g) were harvested at the ripening stage (flesh and peel) and extracted with 30 ml MTBE:hexane (1:1) containing 2 mg isobutylbenzene as an internal standard. Following overnight incubation with shaking at 150 rpm, the extract was centrifuged at 10,500 g for 10 min and the supernatant was passed through a 0.2 μm filter. Samples were evaporated, using nitrogen, to a final volume of 200 μl before injection into a GC-MS instrument [19]. Identification of the compounds was based on a comparison of mass spectra and retention times with those of authentic standards (Sigma, Milwaukee, WI, USA) analyzed under similar conditions [21,37]. Statistical analysis was performed using the JMP software (SAS).
A panel of 10 trained flavor specialists evaluated the aroma of samples by smelling the fruits as previously described [21]. Preliminary tests were carried out to improve the ability of the assessors to recognize odor changes and consistently quantify sensory properties. The panelists had been trained in the quantitative description of tomato attributes according to selection trials based on French norms (ISO8586-1, AFNOR V09-003). For each fruit sample, cut sections containing all fruit tissues were used for aroma evaluation by the panel. Values of individual fruits were ranked from zero (none) to 5 (very strong). The professional attributes considered were the following: acidic, floral, fresh, green, metallic musty, ripe, spicy, sweet and overall aroma intensity.
Our aim was to direct the central carbon metabolism through the shikimate pathway into specialized metabolites derived from the AAA. Therefore, our focus was on the first enzyme of the shikimate pathway, DAHPS, and the first and the second enzymes of Phe biosynthesis, CM/PDT. However, these enzymes are post translationally feedback regulated by their AAA products (Figure 1). To overcome this regulation, we isolated, engineered and cloned two bacterial orthologues genes from Escherichia coli, and manipulated them to generate feedback insensitive isoforms of the genes. The E. coli, DAHPS gene, AroG, was point mutated in position 209. This mutation completely abolishes the Phe inhibition of the AroG allosteric site [38]. In the second enzyme, the E. coli bi-functional CM/PDT, PheA, the catalytic activities of the CM and PDT domains are located at amino acids 1-300 while the C-terminal domain is responsible for the allosteric feedback inhibition by Phe [39]. A truncated CM/PDT protein lacking the C terminus allosteric site retained the CM and PDT activities but did not exhibit feedback inhibition by Phe, and resulted in over accumulation of Phe [24,39]. A chimeric gene encoding the bacterial PheA under a tomato E8 fruit specific promoter was constructed and transformed into tomato plants. After selection of kanamycin resistant plants, the expression of the PheA gene in tomato fruit was verified by semi-quantitative RT-PCR (Figure S1). For each transgene, five independent transformation events were collected and subjected to LC-MS analysis, using both the negative and positive ion modes. This analysis revealed 5,723 and 7,125 mass signals, respectively. As shown in the PCA plots in Supplementary Figure S1, the most separated PheA transformation event was PheA12 in both the negative and positive ion modes (Figure S2A and S2B respectively). As shown in Table S2, Phe level was significantly induced by more than two fold in PheA6 and PheA12 while Tyr and Trp were not changed. In addition, we selected unknown mass signals that were significantly altered mainly in PheA6 and PheA12 lines. Based on these results, the PheA12 line was chosen for further work. As for the AroG gene, point mutation isoform 209, was fused to the E8 promoter and transformed in M82 tomato and transformation event number 9 was selected as previously characterized [21]. In order to detect the combined effect of the two shikimate pathway enzymes on tomato flavor, the AroG209-9 and PheA12 lines were crossed. AroG209-9, PheA12 and the cross PheA12//AroG209-9 line were analyzed and compared to the wild type (WT) M82 control.
Fleshy tomato fruits develop in several marked stages, each possessing a characteristic metabolic profile [40]. Dramatic metabolic alteration of central metabolites occurs during fruit maturation [21,41] followed by induction of fruit flavor [4]. Therefore, we focused our study on ripe red tomato, which has the highest level of flavor volatiles. Fruits were separated into two tissues: (i) peel, which is typically composed of multiple cell types, including epidermis, collenchyma, and some parenchyma, and (ii) flesh, which refers to the pericarp material from which the peel has been removed and therefore is predominantly composed of parenchyma and collenchyma [32]. The transgenic tomato plants did not exhibit any morphological differences, and their course of development, including color breaking and ripening time was similar to that of the control plants (data not shown). Ripe fruits were harvested from AroG209-9, PheA12, PheA12//AroG209-9 and WT plants and analyzed by an established high-resolution LC-MS-based metabolomics platform (negative ion-mode; [42]). To get a global view on the metabolic effects, the LC-MS mass signals dataset was analyzed using PCA plots. As shown in Figure 2, the samples clustered into four groups: (i) flesh samples of the AroG209-9 and PheA12//AroG209-9 lines; (ii) flesh samples of the PheA12 and WT lines; (iii) peel samples of the AroG209-9 and PheA12//AroG209-9 lines and, (iv) peel samples of the PheA12 and WT lines. The AroG209-9 and PheA12//AroG209-9 samples were closer to each other than to WT andPheA12 but still did not overlap. This suggested that the major metabolic effects in the transgenic fruits are due to the presence or absence of the AroG209 gene, while the PheA12 gene has a minor contribution to the overall metabolic profile.
To identify compounds whose levels differed between the transgenic lines, we compared the LC-MS mass signals to known chemical standards and libraries. As summarized in Table 1, 17 compounds were identified in the flesh and peel of the tomato fruits. In the flesh tissue (Table 1A), the levels of Phe and Tyr were increased in both AroG209-9 and PheA12//AroG209-9 compared to the WT fruits. Trp level was increased only in the AroG209-9 but not in the PheA12//AroG209-9 line. In addition, the level of isopropylmalic acid was increased in the flesh of both the AroG209-9 and PheA12//AroG209-9 lines. The levels of caffeic acid-hexose and dicaffeoylquinic acid were significantly decreased in the flesh of both AroG209-9 and PheA12//AroG209-9 transgene fruits.
A) | ES(-) m/z | Molecular Formula | Flesh-WT | Flesh-PheA | Flesh-AroG | Flesh- Cross, PheA12//AroG209-9 |
Name | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | ||
Phenylalanine (S) | 164.071 | C9H11NO2 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 1.16 ± 0.03 | 7.68 ± 0.35 | 5.39 ± 0.19 |
Tyrosine (S) | 180.067 | C9H11NO3 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 1.23 ± 0.09 | 23.26 ± 0.87 | 9.54 ± 0.93 |
Tryptophan (S) | 203.083 | C11H12N2O2 | 1.00 ± 0.07 | 1.16 ± 0.06 | 1.66 ± 0.18 | 1.38 ± 0.14 |
2-Isopropylmalic acid (S) | 175.061 | C7H12O5 | 1.00 ± 0.18 | 1.43 ± 0.14 | 3.80 ± 0.40 | 4.62 ± 1.39 |
3-Caffeoylquinic acid (S) | 353.087 | C16H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 1.01 ± 0.04 | 1.47 ± 0.15 | 1.93 ± 0.53 |
Acetoxyhydroxytomatine- FA | 1152.539 | (C52H85NO24)HCOOH | 1.00 ± 0.36 | 1.02 ± 0.27 | 0.67 ± 0.18 | 1.18 ± 0.32 |
Caffeic acid-hexose | 341.089 | C15H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.08 | 1.21 ± 0.11 | 0.51 ± 0.04 | 0.44 ± 0.06 |
Coumaric acid-hexose I | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 0.91 ± 0.18 | 0.85 ± 0.12 | 0.90 ± 0.11 |
Coumaric acid-hexose II | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.22 | 1.09 ± 0.19 | 1.03 ± 0.16 | 1.22 ± 0.22 |
Dicaffeoylquinic acid | 515.119 | C25H24O12 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.07 ± 0.05 | 0.61 ± 0.11 | 0.61 ± 0.13 |
Ferulic acid-hexose | 355.104 | C16H20O9 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 1.09 ± 0.18 | 0.39 ± 0.09 | 1.14 ± 0.60 |
Hydroxylated naringenin chalcone | 287.057 | C15H12O6 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 1.84 ± 0.63 | 0.89 ± 0.11 | 1.35 ± 0.28 |
Hydroxylated naringenin-hexose (Eriodictyol-hexose) | 449.108 | C21H22O11 | 1.00 ± 0.21 | 2.57 ± 1.14 | 1.39 ± 0.37 | 4.08 ± 1.12 |
Naringenin chalcone-hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 1.17 ± 0.33 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.43 ± 0.12 |
Naringenin hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.48 ± 0.63 | 2.45 ± 0.61 | 3.38 ± 0.94 |
Phloretin-di-C-hexose | 597.1825 | C27H34O15 | 1.00 ± 0.14 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 0.47 ± 0.06 | 0.69 ± 0.12 |
Tricaffeoylquinic acid | 677.152 | C34H30O15 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 1.02 ± 0.28 | 0.96 ± 0.08 | 1.54 ± 0.67 |
B) | ES(-) Found m/z | Molecular Formula | Peel-WT | Peel-PheA | Peel-AroG | Peel- Cross, PheA12//AroG209-9 |
Name | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | ||
Phenylalanine (S) | 164.071 | C9H11NO2 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.57 ± 0.11 | 15.94 ± 0.03 | 12.22 ± 0.85 |
Tyrosine (S) | 180.067 | C9H11NO3 | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.45 ± 0.31 | 51.52 ± 5.90 | 21.51 ± 3.81 |
Tryptophan (S) | 203.083 | C11H12N2O2 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 1.11 ± 0.08 | 2.37 ± 0.09 | 1.68 ± 0.10 |
2-Isopropylmalic acid (S) | 175.061 | C7H12O5 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 0.82 ± 0.12 | 3.50 ± 0.70 | 3.86 ± 0.73 |
3-Caffeoylquinic acid (S) | 353.087 | C16H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.14 | 0.81 ± 0.04 | 2.48 ± 0.06 | 1.71 ± 0.45 |
Acetoxyhydroxytomatine- FA | 1152.539 | (C52H85NO24)HCOOH | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 0.96 ± 0.07 | 0.46 ± 0.15 | 0.52 ± 0.26 |
Caffeic acid-hexose | 341.089 | C15H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 0.81 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.12 |
Coumaric acid-hexose I | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 0.85 ± 0.09 | 9.21 ± 1.79 | 5.61 ± 0.88 |
Coumaric acid-hexose II | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 0.84 ± 0.08 | 0.57 ± 0.04 |
Dicaffeoylquinic acid | 515.119 | C25H24O12 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.28 ± 0.09 | 1.41 ± 0.08 | 1.00 ± 0.07 |
Ferulic acid-hexose | 355.104 | C16H20O9 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 0.80 ± 0.07 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 0.21 ± 0.05 |
Hydroxylated naringenin chalcone | 287.057 | C15H12O6 | 1.00 ± 0.09 | 1.08 ± 0.09 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.03 |
Hydroxylated naringenin-hexose (Eriodictyol-hexose) | 449.108 | C21H22O11 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.42 ± 0.13 | 1.46 ± 0.37 | 3.10 ± 1.14 |
Naringenin chalcone-hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 1.02 ± 0.07 | 0.34 ± 0.04 | 0.56 ± 0.23 |
Naringenin hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.16 | 1.12 ± 0.19 | 3.80 ± 1.05 | 10.01 ± 4.73 |
Phloretin-di-C-hexose | 597.1825 | C27H34O15 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 0.92 ± 0.02 | 0.34 ± 0.06 | 0.50 ± 0.07 |
Tricaffeoylquinic acid | 677.152 | C34H30O15 | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.13 ± 0.10 | 3.23 ± 0.04 | 1.81 ± 0.10 |
The levels of naringenin chalcone-hexose and phloretin-di-C-hexose were significantly decreased in the AroG209-9 while the levels of hydroxylated naringenin-hexose and naringenin hexose were significantly increased in PheA12//AroG209-9 only. None of the identified compounds were significantly changed in the flesh of the PheA12 line relative to the WT.
In the peel tissue (Table 1B), the levels of all AAA, but most noticeably Phe and Tyr were increased in both the AroG209-9 and the PheA12//AroG209-9 lines, as well as isopropylmalic acid, coumaric acid-hexose-I, and tricaffeoylquininc acid. The levels of caffeic acid-hexose, ferulic acid hexose and phloretin-di hexose were significantly decreased in both AroG209-9 and PheA12//AroG209-9 lines. The levels of 3-caffeoylquinic acid, dicaffeoylquinic acid and naringenin chalcone-hexose were altered in the AroG209-9 only. The level ofnaringenin hexosehighly increased while coumaric acid hexose II deceased in PheA12//AroG209-9 only. Similarly to the flesh tissues (Table A1), none of the identified compounds were significantly changed in PheA12 line. Interestingly, the induction of AAA in both flesh and peel was higher in the AroG209-9 line compared to the PheA12//AroG209-9 line. In contrast, naringenin hexose levels were higher in the PheA12//AroG209-9 than in the AroG209-9 line. These findings suggest that although no major changes were found in the level of the identified compounds in the PheA12 line, its combined expression with AroG209-9 in the PheA12//AroG209-9 line does affect the metabolic flux.
Our aim was to detect the changes in the level of volatile compounds in ripe red fruits expressing the AroG209-9, the PheA12 gene or both genes. To that end, volatile metabolites accumulating in the tissue were extracted and analyzed by GC-MS as presented in Figure 3. The volatile compounds benzaldehyde, phenylacetaldehyde and phenylacetic acid were significantly increased in the AroG209-9and PheA12//AroG209-9 lines, compared to PheA12 and WT. However, the level of phenylacetaldehyde was higher in the PheA12//AroG209-9 line than in the AroG209-9 line. The levels of five other volatiles, eugenol (derived from p-coumaric acid; Figure 1), geranylacetone, β-ionone and limonene (derived from terpenoid) as well as benzaldehyde-4-methyl were reduced in theAroG209-9 line, compared to the PheA12 line and the WT. The PheA12//AroG209-9 line showed similar reduction of eugenol, geranylacetone, benzaldehyde-4-methyl and limonene, (derived from terpenoid) but no significant reduction in β-ionone and limonene compared to WT. Except for a slight increase in the eugenol and limonene levels, the PheA12 tomato line showed no differences in the identified volatile compounds relative to the WT tomato fruits.
Tomato aroma was also evaluated by a sensory panel. This test provides human insight into the flavor experience, where sensory attributes, preferences, and decisions can be statistically related to the chemical components in foods [43]. The organoleptic test was performed by a group of professionals trained in the quantitative description of tomatoes. Whole red fruits from each line were cut in half and evaluated by the various panel members by sniffing the samples (Figure 4). As shown in Figure 4, the panel suggested that the “acidic” aroma attribute was increased in the PheA12//AroG209-9 tomato fruits. The floral aroma attribute was increased only in the AroG209-9tomato as previously described [21], but not in the PheA12 or PheA12//AroG209-9 fruits. In addition, it was suggested that the global aroma intensity of both PheA12 and PheA12//AroG209-9 tomato fruits was decreased as compared to the AroG209-9 tomato but not in comparison to the WT fruits. The other attributes were similar between the lines.
The results presented in this study suggest that overexpression of feedback insensitive mutants of AroG209-9//PheA12 genes generated new tomato aroma composition (Figure 4). Previous research used ectopic expression of the petunia MYB transcription factor ODORANT1 to alter the expression of a set of genes related to Phe metabolism in tomato fruits including DAHPS, CM and Arogenate/Prephenate Dehydratase [44]. This increased metabolic activity, was coupled to a considerably enhanced flux through part of the phenylpropanoid pathway, but did not result in induction of Phe-derived flavor volatiles, suggesting that factors beyond substrate availability limit their synthesis such as post-transcriptional regulation [44]. We chose a different approach using bacterial feedback-insensitive variants of biosynthetic enzymes in order to bypass enzyme feedback inhibition loops of the shikimate and AAA biosynthesis pathways (Figure 1). In general, the expression of these genes resulted in alteration in the production of several volatile as well as non-volatile compounds and in changes in fruit aroma. This emphasizes the importance of using ectopic expression of feedback-insensitive enzymes for metabolic engineering.
PheA12, which is a feedback-insensitive isoform of the first and second enzymatic steps of the Phe biosynthesis, caused only minor metabolic changes in tomato (Figure 2-4 and Table 1). Although PCA analysis showed separation between PheA12 and WT samples in either flesh or peel tissue (Figure 2), none of the identified compounds were differentially changed in this line (Table 1). This may be due to the small subset of metabolites that we were able to identify (17 non volatiles and 9 volatiles, see Table 1 and Figure 3, respectively). Volatile analysis suggested slight induction of eugenol and limonene compared to control plants, although the induction was not significant (Figure 4). Taken together, these results suggest that feedback-insensitive PheA does not play a major role in AAA metabolism and specialized metabolite derived from it in tomato fruits.
On the other hand, AroG209-9, which is a feedback-insensitive form of the first enzymatic step of the shikimate pathway, caused massive metabolic changes in tomato (Figure2-4 and Table 1). Similar results were previously shown in Arabidopsis vegetative tissues and petuniapetals [12,21]. In order to enhance the carbon flux of AAA biosynthesis and direct it toward Phe derived volatiles, we crossed PheA12 and AroG209 tomato plants. The PCA plot separation showed close clustering of AroG209-9 with the PheA12//AroG209-9 samples of peel and flesh tissue however, the PCA samples did not overlap in either tissue (Figure2). Interestingly, several compounds had different levels in the AroG209-9 fruits compared to the crossed tomato line (Figure 3 and Table 1). This implies that tomato fruits expressing both the PheA12 and AroG209-9 genes have a metabolic profile that is predominantly, but not solely, impacted by the expression of the AroG209-9 gene.
Because volatiles are derived from a diverse set of precursors, including amino acids, fatty acids and carotenoids, changes in the level of these different precursors can impact tomato aroma. Phe and Tyr were significantly increased in the flesh of both the AroG209-9 and PheA12//AroG209-9 lines, however the increase in their levels was higher in the AroG209-9 line than in the cross line: Phe 7.68 and 5.39 and Tyr 23.2 and 9.34, fold changes respectively (Table 1A). This effect was also seen in the levels of AAA in the peel (Phe 15.94 and 12.22, Tyr 51.52 and 21.51 and Trp 2.37 and 1.68, fold changes respectively (Table 1B). The overall changes in Phe and Tyr are much more pronounced than in Trp in the peel and flesh of both the AroG209-9 and the PheA12//AroG209-9 lines. As the levels of Phe and Tyr were higher in the AroG209-9 line (Table 1), the effect on the aroma profile of the fruit might be different in these two lines, mainly due to Phe-derived volatiles (Figure 3-4). A Phe derived volatile compound, phenylacetaldehyde, was higher in the cross line than in the AroG209-9 line (Figure 3). This may indicate additional regulatory metabolic steps of the Phe derived metabolites. In petunia, it’s been demonstrated that phenylacetaldehyde is synthesized via Phe and phenylpyruvate [45]. Therefore, we suggest that in tomatoes the high induction of phenylacetaldehyde levels in the PheA12//AroG209-9 line might be due PheA contribution that drives Phe synthesis via phenylpyruvate (Figure 1). Carotenoids-derived precursor’s β-ionone and geranylacetone [4] were reduced in both AroG209-9 and PheA12//AroG209-9 lines (Figure 3) supporting cross-talk between phenylpropanoid and carotenoid (terpenoid) derived volatiles [46].
While several hundred volatiles have been identified in tomato, only a set of 20-30 volatile compounds actively contribute to tomato flavor; they are present in sufficient quantities to noticeably stimulate the olfactory system [4]. This threshold is determined by both the concentration of the substance and the organism’s ability to detect it [47]. Flavor thresholds vary markedly between individuals and can be greatly influenced by the way in which the volatile is presented. The differences in volatile compounds between the lines (Figure 3) can give a varied tomato flavor (Figure4).
This work demonstrates the potential for using feedback-insensitive enzymes to modify fruit flavor. Expression of feedback-insensitive enzymes in a combinatorial manner generates new aroma and affect flavor attributes. This approach is suitable for the enhancement of tomato volatiles and aromas as well as for the discovery of new metabolites and their biosynthesis and can be used in other plant species.
We would like to thank Meirav Gordon and Dr. Naomi Ben Dom from Hazera Ltd for tomato transformation and growth, and NatalieDror from Frutarom Industries, Ltd. who organized the sensory panel and flavor evaluation of tomato samples. We thank Dr. Hadas Zehavi, Dr. Moran Oliva and Monica Franciscus for careful and critical reading of this manuscript. The research in Prof. Galili’s lab was supported by grants from the Magnet Program of the Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor and the Israeli Bio-TOV Consortium including Hazera Ltd., Evogene Ltd., Frutarom Ltd., Rahan Meristem (1998) Ltd. and Zeraim Gedera Ltd; The Bi-national Agriculture Research and Development (BARD) foundation; and AERI, the “Alternative Sustainable Energy Research Initiative” of the Weizmann Institute of Science. The research in Prof. Aharoni’s laboratory was also supported by research grants from the European Research Council (ERC) project SAMIT (FP7 program), Sir Harry Djanogly, CBE, Mrs. Louise Gartner, Dallas, TX the Tom and Sondra Rykoff Family Foundation and Mr. and Mrs. Mordechai Segal, Israel. G.G. is an incumbent of the Bronfman Chair in Plant Sciences. A.A. is an incumbent of the Peter J. Cohn Professorial Chair.
All authors disclose to have no conflict of interests.
Gene name | Origin | Description | Purpose | Restriction site | Oligonucleotides |
PheA | FW | PheA (from start codon) | Cloning | HinD III , SphI | GCCAAGCTTATGGGCATGCCATCGGAAAACCCGTTACTGGC |
PheA | RV | PheA (no stop codon) | Cloning | EcoRI | CCCCGGAATTCCAACGTCGTTTTCGCCGGAACCTG |
E8 tomato promoter | FW | E8 promoter | Cloning | KpnI | GGGGTACCTAGAAGGAATTTCACGAAA |
E8 tomato promoter | RV | E8 promoter | Cloning | SalI | ACGCGTCGACCTTCTTTTGCACTGTGAA |
PheA | FW | 375bp product size | RT-PCR | - | CATGCCACTTGTCCAATTGTTG |
PheA | RV | 375bp product size | RT-PCR | - | GCCAGTAACGGGTTTTCCGATG |
AroG | FW | 700bp product size | RT-PCR | - | CATGCCACTTGTCCAATTGTTG |
AroG | RV | 700bp product size | RT-PCR | - | TCGTCGTTCTGATAATTCATCA |
![]() |
[1] |
Ghorbani-Choghamarani A, Taherinia Z, Heidarnezhad Z, et al. Application of nanofibers based on natural materials as catalyst in organic reactions (2020) . doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2020.10.028
![]() |
[2] |
Phan DN, Khan MQ, Nguyen NT, et al. (2021) A review on the fabrication of several carbohydrate polymers into nanofibrous structures using electrospinning for removal of metal ions and dyes. Carbohyd Polym 252: 117175. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117175
![]() |
[3] |
Liu M, Deng N, Ju J, et al. (2019) A review: electrospun nanofiber materials for lithium-sulfur batteries. Adv Funct Mater 29: 1905467. doi: 10.1002/adfm.201905467
![]() |
[4] |
Wang H, Niu H, Wang H, et al. (2021) Micro-meso porous structured carbon nanofibers with ultra-high surface area and large supercapacitor electrode capacitance. J Power Sources 482: 228986. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228986
![]() |
[5] |
Zhang L, Tang Y, Tong L (2020) Micro-/nanofiber optics: Merging photonics and material science on nanoscale for advanced sensing technology. Iscience 23: 100810. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2019.100810
![]() |
[6] |
Aytac Z, Huang R, Vaze N, et al. (2020) Development of biodegradable and antimicrobial electrospun zein fibers for food packaging. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 8: 15354-15365. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c05917
![]() |
[7] |
Feng X, Li J, Zhang X, et al. (2019) Electrospun polymer micro/nanofibers as pharmaceutical repositories for healthcare. J Control Release 302: 19-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2019.03.020
![]() |
[8] |
Ngadiman NHA, Yusof NM, Idris A, et al. (2017) Development of highly porous biodegradable γ-Fe2O3/polyvinyl alcohol nanofiber mats using electrospinning process for biomedical application. Mater Sci Eng C 70: 520-534. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.09.002
![]() |
[9] |
Horne J, McLoughlin L, Bridgers B, et al. (2020) Recent developments in nanofiber-based sensors for disease detection, immunosensing, and monitoring. Sensor Actuat Rep 2: 100005. doi: 10.1016/j.snr.2020.100005
![]() |
[10] |
Haghdoost F, Bahrami SH, Barzin J, et al. (2021) Preparation and characterization of electrospun polyethersulfone/polyvinylpyrrolidone-zeolite core–shell composite nanofibers for creatinine adsorption. Sep Purif Technol 257: 117881. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2020.117881
![]() |
[11] |
Zhao Y, Qiu Y, Wang H, et al. Preparation of nanofibers with renewable polymers and their application in wound dressing (2016) . doi: 10.1155/2016/4672839
![]() |
[12] |
Parham S, Kharazi AZ, Bakhsheshi-Rad HR, et al. (2020) Electrospun nano-fibers for biomedical and tissue engineering applications: A comprehensive review. Materials 13: 2153. doi: 10.3390/ma13092153
![]() |
[13] |
Haider A, Haider S, Kang IK (2018) A comprehensive review summarizing the effect of electrospinning parameters and potential applications of nanofibers in biomedical and biotechnology. Arab J Chem 11: 1165-1188. doi: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2015.11.015
![]() |
[14] |
Rezaei Soulegani S, Sherafat Z, Rasouli M (2021) Morphology, physical, and mechanical properties of potentially applicable coelectrospun polysulfone/chitosan-polyvinyl alcohol fibrous membranes in water purification. J Appl Polym Sci 138: 49933. doi: 10.1002/app.49933
![]() |
[15] |
Sarode S, Upadhyay P, Khosa MA, et al. (2019) Overview of wastewater treatment methods with special focus on biopolymer chitin-chitosan. Int J Biol Macromol 121: 1086-1100. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.089
![]() |
[16] |
Lee M, Chen BY, Den W (2015) Chitosan as a natural polymer for heterogeneous catalysts support: a short review on its applications. Appl Sci 5: 1272-1283. doi: 10.3390/app5041272
![]() |
[17] |
Ma J, Sahai Y (2013) Chitosan biopolymer for fuel cell applications. Carbohyd Polym 92: 955-975. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.10.015
![]() |
[18] |
Nasr A, Gawad SA, Fekry AM (2020) A sensor for monitoring the corrosion behavior of orthopedic drug calcium hydrogen phosphate on a surgical 316L stainless steel alloy as implant. J Bio/Tribo-Corros 6: 36. doi: 10.1007/s40735-020-0334-5
![]() |
[19] |
Dizaji BF, Azerbaijan MH, Sheisi N, et al. (2020) Synthesis of PLGA/chitosan/zeolites and PLGA/chitosan/metal organic frameworks nanofibers for targeted delivery of Paclitaxel toward prostate cancer cells death. Int J Biol Macromol 164: 1461-1474. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.228
![]() |
[20] |
Nitta S, Kaketani S, Iwamoto H (2015) Development of chitosan-nanofiber-based hydrogels exhibiting high mechanical strength and pH-responsive controlled release. Eur Polym J 67: 50-56. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2015.03.053
![]() |
[21] |
Mombini S, Mohammadnejad J, Bakhshandeh B, et al. (2019) Chitosan-PVA-CNT nanofibers as electrically conductive scaffolds for cardiovascular tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol 140: 278-287. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.046
![]() |
[22] |
Bayat S, Amiri N, Pishavar E, et al. (2019) Bromelain-loaded chitosan nanofibers prepared by electrospinning method for burn wound healing in animal models. Life Sci 229: 57-66. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.05.028
![]() |
[23] |
Qiu H, Zhu S, Pang L, et al. (2020) ICG-loaded photodynamic chitosan/polyvinyl alcohol composite nanofibers: Anti-resistant bacterial effect and improved healing of infected wounds. Int J Pharmaceut 588: 119797. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119797
![]() |
[24] |
Kalantari K, Afifi AM, Jahangirian H, et al. (2019) Biomedical applications of chitosan electrospun nanofibers as a green polymer–Review. Carbohyd Polym 207: 588-600. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.12.011
![]() |
[25] |
Kurita K (2006) Chitin and chitosan: functional biopolymers from marine crustaceans. Mar Biotechnol 8: 203-226. doi: 10.1007/s10126-005-0097-5
![]() |
[26] |
Kaya M, Akyuz B, Bulut E, et al. (2016) Chitosan nanofiber production from Drosophila by electrospinning. Int J Biol Macromol 92: 49-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.07.021
![]() |
[27] |
Wang W, Meng Q, Li Q, et al. (2020) Chitosan derivatives and their application in biomedicine. Int J Mol Sci 21: 487. doi: 10.3390/ijms21020487
![]() |
[28] |
Rinaudo M (2006) Chitin and chitosan: Properties and applications. Prog Polym Sci 31: 603-632. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2006.06.001
![]() |
[29] |
Liu Y, Park M, Shin HK, et al. (2014) Facile preparation and characterization of poly (vinyl alcohol)/chitosan/graphene oxide biocomposite nanofibers. J Ind Eng Chem 20: 4415-4420. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.009
![]() |
[30] |
Xu J, Zhang J, Gao W, et al. (2009) Preparation of chitosan/PLA blend micro/nanofibers by electrospinning. Mater Lett 63: 658-660. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2008.12.014
![]() |
[31] |
Zhang H, Wu C, Zhang Y, et al. (2010) Elaboration, characterization and study of a novel affinity membrane made from electrospun hybrid chitosan/nylon-6 nanofibers for papain purification. J Mater Sci 45: 2296-2304. doi: 10.1007/s10853-009-4191-3
![]() |
[32] |
Spasova M, Manolova N, Paneva D, et al. (2004) Preparation of chitosan-containing nanofibres by electrospinning of chitosan/poly (ethylene oxide) blend solutions. E-Polymers 4: 056. doi: 10.1515/epoly.2004.4.1.624
![]() |
[33] |
Desai K, Kit K, Li J, et al. (2008) Morphological and surface properties of electrospun chitosan nanofibers. Biomacromolecules 9: 1000-1006. doi: 10.1021/bm701017z
![]() |
[34] |
Mengistu Lemma S, Bossard F, Rinaudo M (2016) Preparation of pure and stable chitosan nanofibers by electrospinning in the presence of poly (ethylene oxide). Int J Mol Sci 17: 1790. doi: 10.3390/ijms17111790
![]() |
[35] |
Ohkawa K, Cha D, Kim H, et al. (2004) Electrospinning of chitosan. Macromol Rapid Comm 25: 1600-1605. doi: 10.1002/marc.200400253
![]() |
[36] |
Ohkawa K, Minato KI, Kumagai G, et al. (2006) Chitosan nanofiber. Biomacromolecules 7: 3291-3294. doi: 10.1021/bm0604395
![]() |
[37] |
Nirmala R, Il BW, Navamathavan R, et al. (2011) Preparation and characterizations of anisotropic chitosan nanofibers via electrospinning. Macromol Res 19: 345. doi: 10.1007/s13233-011-0402-2
![]() |
[38] |
Nirmala R, Navamathavan R, El-Newehy MH, et al. (2011) Preparation and electrical characterization of polyamide-6/chitosan composite nanofibers via electrospinning. Mater Lett 65: 493-496. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2010.10.066
![]() |
[39] |
Geng X, Kwon OH, Jang J (2005) Electrospinning of chitosan dissolved in concentrated acetic acid solution. Biomaterials 26: 5427-5432. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.066
![]() |
[40] |
Homayoni H, Ravandi SAH, Valizadeh M (2009) Electrospinning of chitosan nanofibers: Processing optimization. Carbohyd Polym 77: 656-661. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.02.008
![]() |
[41] |
Ibrahim HM, Klingner A (2020) A review on electrospun polymeric nanofibers: Production parameters and potential applications. Polym Test 90: 106647. doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106647
![]() |
[42] |
Rinaudo M, Milas M, Le Dung P (1993) Characterization of chitosan. Influence of ionic strength and degree of acetylation on chain expansion. Int J Biol Macromol 15: 281-285. doi: 10.1016/0141-8130(93)90027-J
![]() |
[43] |
Tan SC, Khor E, Tan T K, et al. (1998) The degree of deacetylation of chitosan: advocating the first derivative UV-spectrophotometry method of determination. Talanta 45: 713-719. doi: 10.1016/S0039-9140(97)00288-9
![]() |
[44] | ASTM D1125-14 Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2014) . |
[45] |
Viera DF, Avellaneda CO, Pawlicka A (2008) AC impedance, X-ray diffraction and DSC investigation on gelatin based-electrolyte with LiClO4. Mol Cryst Liq Cryst 485: 843-852. doi: 10.1080/15421400801922304
![]() |
[46] |
Shukur MF, Majid NA, Ithnin R, et al. (2013) Effect of plasticization on the conductivity and dielectric properties of starch–chitosan blend biopolymer electrolytes infused with NH4Br. Phys Scr 2013: 014051. doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/2013/T157/014051
![]() |
[47] |
Bossard F, Rinaudo M (2019) Biomaterials from chitosan processed by electrospinning. Nanoworld J 5: 32-35. doi: 10.17756/nwj.2019-069
![]() |
[48] |
Li Q, Song B, Yang Z, et al. (2006) Electrolytic conductivity behaviors and solution conformations of chitosan in different acid solutions. Carbohyd Polym 63: 272-282. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2005.09.024
![]() |
[49] |
Andrady AL (2008) Science and Technology of Polymer Nanofibers New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1002/9780470229842
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1. | Delphine M. Pott, Sonia Osorio, José G. Vallarino, From Central to Specialized Metabolism: An Overview of Some Secondary Compounds Derived From the Primary Metabolism for Their Role in Conferring Nutritional and Organoleptic Characteristics to Fruit, 2019, 10, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2019.00835 | |
2. | Archana Bhardwaj, Yogeshwar Vikram Dhar, Mehar Hasan Asif, Sumit K Bag, In Silico identification of SNP diversity in cultivated and wild tomato species: insight from molecular simulations, 2016, 6, 2045-2322, 10.1038/srep38715 | |
3. | Ru Wang, Sangram Keshari Lenka, Varun Kumar, Kelem Gashu, Noga Sikron-Persi, Irena Dynkin, David Weiss, Avichai Perl, Aaron Fait, Michal Oren-Shamir, Metabolic Engineering Strategy Enables a Hundred-Fold Increase in Viniferin Levels in Vitis vinifera cv. Gamay Red Cell Culture, 2021, 69, 0021-8561, 3124, 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c08086 | |
4. | Sagar S. Arya, Divyani D. Kumari, James E. Rookes, David M. Cahill, Sangram K. Lenka, Rice cell suspension culture as a model for producing high-value recombinant proteins and plant specialized metabolites, 2021, 0167-6857, 10.1007/s11240-021-02028-z | |
5. | Hadas Peled-Zehavi, Moran Oliva, Qingjun Xie, Vered Tzin, Michal Oren-Shamir, Asaph Aharoni, Gad Galili, Metabolic Engineering of the Phenylpropanoid and Its Primary, Precursor Pathway to Enhance the Flavor of Fruits and the Aroma of Flowers, 2015, 2, 2306-5354, 204, 10.3390/bioengineering2040204 | |
6. | Itay Maoz, Rachel Davidovich Rikanati, Daniel Schlesinger, Einat Bar, Itay Gonda, Elena Levin, Tatiana Kaplunov, Noa Sela, Amnon Lichter, Efraim Lewinsohn, Concealed ester formation and amino acid metabolism to volatile compounds in table grape (Vitis vinifera L.) berries, 2018, 274, 01689452, 223, 10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.05.020 | |
7. | Moran Oliva, Einat Bar, Rinat Ovadia, Avichai Perl, Gad Galili, Efraim Lewinsohn, Michal Oren-Shamir, Phenylpyruvate Contributes to the Synthesis of Fragrant Benzenoid–Phenylpropanoids in Petunia × hybrida Flowers, 2017, 8, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2017.00769 | |
8. | Dhriti Kapoor, Savita Bhardwaj, Neeta Raj Sharma, Fragrance Stimulation Mechanisms of Flowers and their Regulation Under Environmental Constraints, 2023, 42, 0721-7595, 60, 10.1007/s00344-021-10555-4 | |
9. | Oded Skaliter, Yarin Livneh, Shani Agron, Sharoni Shafir, Alexander Vainstein, A whiff of the future: functions of phenylalanine‐derived aroma compounds and advances in their industrial production, 2022, 20, 1467-7644, 1651, 10.1111/pbi.13863 | |
10. | Silvia Massa, Riccardo Pagliarello, Alessia Cemmi, Ilaria Di Sarcina, Aureliano Bombarely, Olivia Costantina Demurtas, Gianfranco Diretto, Francesca Paolini, H. Earl Petzold, Mattijs Bliek, Elisabetta Bennici, Antonella Del Fiore, Patrizia De Rossi, Cornelis Spelt, Ronald Koes, Francesca Quattrocchio, Eugenio Benvenuto, Modifying Anthocyanins Biosynthesis in Tomato Hairy Roots: A Test Bed for Plant Resistance to Ionizing Radiation and Antioxidant Properties in Space, 2022, 13, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2022.830931 | |
11. | Ru Wang, Sangram Keshari Lenka, Varun Kumar, Noga Sikron-Persi, Irena Dynkin, David Weiss, Avichai Perl, Aaron Fait, Michal Oren-Shamir, A Synchronized Increase of Stilbenes and Flavonoids in Metabolically Engineered Vitis vinifera cv. Gamay Red Cell Culture, 2021, 69, 0021-8561, 7922, 10.1021/acs.jafc.1c02119 | |
12. | Yogesh K. Ahlawat, Manjeet Singh, K. Manorama, Nita Lakra, Abbu Zaid, Faisal Zulfiqar, Plant phenolics: neglected secondary metabolites in plant stress tolerance, 2023, 1806-9959, 10.1007/s40415-023-00949-x | |
13. | Anita Kumari, Varun Kumar, Rinat Ovadia, Michal Oren-Shamir, Phenylalanine in motion: A tale of an essential molecule with many faces, 2023, 68, 07349750, 108246, 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108246 | |
14. | Kun Ma, Yuan Yuan, Caochuang Fang, Mainstreaming production and nutrient resilience of vegetable crops in megacities: pre-breeding for terrace cultivation, 2023, 14, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1237099 | |
15. | Himani Singh, Pradeep Lamichhane, Ravi Gupta, Neha Kaushik, Eun Ha Choi, Nagendra Kumar Kaushik, Enhancing crop health and sustainability: exploring the potential of secondary metabolites and non-thermal plasma treatment as alternatives to pesticides, 2023, 1863-5466, 10.1007/s11816-023-00883-0 |
A) | ES(-) m/z | Molecular Formula | Flesh-WT | Flesh-PheA | Flesh-AroG | Flesh- Cross, PheA12//AroG209-9 |
Name | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | ||
Phenylalanine (S) | 164.071 | C9H11NO2 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 1.16 ± 0.03 | 7.68 ± 0.35 | 5.39 ± 0.19 |
Tyrosine (S) | 180.067 | C9H11NO3 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 1.23 ± 0.09 | 23.26 ± 0.87 | 9.54 ± 0.93 |
Tryptophan (S) | 203.083 | C11H12N2O2 | 1.00 ± 0.07 | 1.16 ± 0.06 | 1.66 ± 0.18 | 1.38 ± 0.14 |
2-Isopropylmalic acid (S) | 175.061 | C7H12O5 | 1.00 ± 0.18 | 1.43 ± 0.14 | 3.80 ± 0.40 | 4.62 ± 1.39 |
3-Caffeoylquinic acid (S) | 353.087 | C16H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 1.01 ± 0.04 | 1.47 ± 0.15 | 1.93 ± 0.53 |
Acetoxyhydroxytomatine- FA | 1152.539 | (C52H85NO24)HCOOH | 1.00 ± 0.36 | 1.02 ± 0.27 | 0.67 ± 0.18 | 1.18 ± 0.32 |
Caffeic acid-hexose | 341.089 | C15H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.08 | 1.21 ± 0.11 | 0.51 ± 0.04 | 0.44 ± 0.06 |
Coumaric acid-hexose I | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 0.91 ± 0.18 | 0.85 ± 0.12 | 0.90 ± 0.11 |
Coumaric acid-hexose II | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.22 | 1.09 ± 0.19 | 1.03 ± 0.16 | 1.22 ± 0.22 |
Dicaffeoylquinic acid | 515.119 | C25H24O12 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.07 ± 0.05 | 0.61 ± 0.11 | 0.61 ± 0.13 |
Ferulic acid-hexose | 355.104 | C16H20O9 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 1.09 ± 0.18 | 0.39 ± 0.09 | 1.14 ± 0.60 |
Hydroxylated naringenin chalcone | 287.057 | C15H12O6 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 1.84 ± 0.63 | 0.89 ± 0.11 | 1.35 ± 0.28 |
Hydroxylated naringenin-hexose (Eriodictyol-hexose) | 449.108 | C21H22O11 | 1.00 ± 0.21 | 2.57 ± 1.14 | 1.39 ± 0.37 | 4.08 ± 1.12 |
Naringenin chalcone-hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 1.17 ± 0.33 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.43 ± 0.12 |
Naringenin hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.48 ± 0.63 | 2.45 ± 0.61 | 3.38 ± 0.94 |
Phloretin-di-C-hexose | 597.1825 | C27H34O15 | 1.00 ± 0.14 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 0.47 ± 0.06 | 0.69 ± 0.12 |
Tricaffeoylquinic acid | 677.152 | C34H30O15 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 1.02 ± 0.28 | 0.96 ± 0.08 | 1.54 ± 0.67 |
B) | ES(-) Found m/z | Molecular Formula | Peel-WT | Peel-PheA | Peel-AroG | Peel- Cross, PheA12//AroG209-9 |
Name | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | ||
Phenylalanine (S) | 164.071 | C9H11NO2 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.57 ± 0.11 | 15.94 ± 0.03 | 12.22 ± 0.85 |
Tyrosine (S) | 180.067 | C9H11NO3 | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.45 ± 0.31 | 51.52 ± 5.90 | 21.51 ± 3.81 |
Tryptophan (S) | 203.083 | C11H12N2O2 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 1.11 ± 0.08 | 2.37 ± 0.09 | 1.68 ± 0.10 |
2-Isopropylmalic acid (S) | 175.061 | C7H12O5 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 0.82 ± 0.12 | 3.50 ± 0.70 | 3.86 ± 0.73 |
3-Caffeoylquinic acid (S) | 353.087 | C16H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.14 | 0.81 ± 0.04 | 2.48 ± 0.06 | 1.71 ± 0.45 |
Acetoxyhydroxytomatine- FA | 1152.539 | (C52H85NO24)HCOOH | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 0.96 ± 0.07 | 0.46 ± 0.15 | 0.52 ± 0.26 |
Caffeic acid-hexose | 341.089 | C15H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 0.81 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.12 |
Coumaric acid-hexose I | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 0.85 ± 0.09 | 9.21 ± 1.79 | 5.61 ± 0.88 |
Coumaric acid-hexose II | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 0.84 ± 0.08 | 0.57 ± 0.04 |
Dicaffeoylquinic acid | 515.119 | C25H24O12 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.28 ± 0.09 | 1.41 ± 0.08 | 1.00 ± 0.07 |
Ferulic acid-hexose | 355.104 | C16H20O9 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 0.80 ± 0.07 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 0.21 ± 0.05 |
Hydroxylated naringenin chalcone | 287.057 | C15H12O6 | 1.00 ± 0.09 | 1.08 ± 0.09 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.03 |
Hydroxylated naringenin-hexose (Eriodictyol-hexose) | 449.108 | C21H22O11 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.42 ± 0.13 | 1.46 ± 0.37 | 3.10 ± 1.14 |
Naringenin chalcone-hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 1.02 ± 0.07 | 0.34 ± 0.04 | 0.56 ± 0.23 |
Naringenin hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.16 | 1.12 ± 0.19 | 3.80 ± 1.05 | 10.01 ± 4.73 |
Phloretin-di-C-hexose | 597.1825 | C27H34O15 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 0.92 ± 0.02 | 0.34 ± 0.06 | 0.50 ± 0.07 |
Tricaffeoylquinic acid | 677.152 | C34H30O15 | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.13 ± 0.10 | 3.23 ± 0.04 | 1.81 ± 0.10 |
Gene name | Origin | Description | Purpose | Restriction site | Oligonucleotides |
PheA | FW | PheA (from start codon) | Cloning | HinD III , SphI | GCCAAGCTTATGGGCATGCCATCGGAAAACCCGTTACTGGC |
PheA | RV | PheA (no stop codon) | Cloning | EcoRI | CCCCGGAATTCCAACGTCGTTTTCGCCGGAACCTG |
E8 tomato promoter | FW | E8 promoter | Cloning | KpnI | GGGGTACCTAGAAGGAATTTCACGAAA |
E8 tomato promoter | RV | E8 promoter | Cloning | SalI | ACGCGTCGACCTTCTTTTGCACTGTGAA |
PheA | FW | 375bp product size | RT-PCR | - | CATGCCACTTGTCCAATTGTTG |
PheA | RV | 375bp product size | RT-PCR | - | GCCAGTAACGGGTTTTCCGATG |
AroG | FW | 700bp product size | RT-PCR | - | CATGCCACTTGTCCAATTGTTG |
AroG | RV | 700bp product size | RT-PCR | - | TCGTCGTTCTGATAATTCATCA |
![]() |
A) | ES(-) m/z | Molecular Formula | Flesh-WT | Flesh-PheA | Flesh-AroG | Flesh- Cross, PheA12//AroG209-9 |
Name | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | ||
Phenylalanine (S) | 164.071 | C9H11NO2 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 1.16 ± 0.03 | 7.68 ± 0.35 | 5.39 ± 0.19 |
Tyrosine (S) | 180.067 | C9H11NO3 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 1.23 ± 0.09 | 23.26 ± 0.87 | 9.54 ± 0.93 |
Tryptophan (S) | 203.083 | C11H12N2O2 | 1.00 ± 0.07 | 1.16 ± 0.06 | 1.66 ± 0.18 | 1.38 ± 0.14 |
2-Isopropylmalic acid (S) | 175.061 | C7H12O5 | 1.00 ± 0.18 | 1.43 ± 0.14 | 3.80 ± 0.40 | 4.62 ± 1.39 |
3-Caffeoylquinic acid (S) | 353.087 | C16H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 1.01 ± 0.04 | 1.47 ± 0.15 | 1.93 ± 0.53 |
Acetoxyhydroxytomatine- FA | 1152.539 | (C52H85NO24)HCOOH | 1.00 ± 0.36 | 1.02 ± 0.27 | 0.67 ± 0.18 | 1.18 ± 0.32 |
Caffeic acid-hexose | 341.089 | C15H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.08 | 1.21 ± 0.11 | 0.51 ± 0.04 | 0.44 ± 0.06 |
Coumaric acid-hexose I | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 0.91 ± 0.18 | 0.85 ± 0.12 | 0.90 ± 0.11 |
Coumaric acid-hexose II | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.22 | 1.09 ± 0.19 | 1.03 ± 0.16 | 1.22 ± 0.22 |
Dicaffeoylquinic acid | 515.119 | C25H24O12 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.07 ± 0.05 | 0.61 ± 0.11 | 0.61 ± 0.13 |
Ferulic acid-hexose | 355.104 | C16H20O9 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 1.09 ± 0.18 | 0.39 ± 0.09 | 1.14 ± 0.60 |
Hydroxylated naringenin chalcone | 287.057 | C15H12O6 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 1.84 ± 0.63 | 0.89 ± 0.11 | 1.35 ± 0.28 |
Hydroxylated naringenin-hexose (Eriodictyol-hexose) | 449.108 | C21H22O11 | 1.00 ± 0.21 | 2.57 ± 1.14 | 1.39 ± 0.37 | 4.08 ± 1.12 |
Naringenin chalcone-hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 1.17 ± 0.33 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.43 ± 0.12 |
Naringenin hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.48 ± 0.63 | 2.45 ± 0.61 | 3.38 ± 0.94 |
Phloretin-di-C-hexose | 597.1825 | C27H34O15 | 1.00 ± 0.14 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 0.47 ± 0.06 | 0.69 ± 0.12 |
Tricaffeoylquinic acid | 677.152 | C34H30O15 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 1.02 ± 0.28 | 0.96 ± 0.08 | 1.54 ± 0.67 |
B) | ES(-) Found m/z | Molecular Formula | Peel-WT | Peel-PheA | Peel-AroG | Peel- Cross, PheA12//AroG209-9 |
Name | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | Mean ± sterr | ||
Phenylalanine (S) | 164.071 | C9H11NO2 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.57 ± 0.11 | 15.94 ± 0.03 | 12.22 ± 0.85 |
Tyrosine (S) | 180.067 | C9H11NO3 | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.45 ± 0.31 | 51.52 ± 5.90 | 21.51 ± 3.81 |
Tryptophan (S) | 203.083 | C11H12N2O2 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 1.11 ± 0.08 | 2.37 ± 0.09 | 1.68 ± 0.10 |
2-Isopropylmalic acid (S) | 175.061 | C7H12O5 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 0.82 ± 0.12 | 3.50 ± 0.70 | 3.86 ± 0.73 |
3-Caffeoylquinic acid (S) | 353.087 | C16H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.14 | 0.81 ± 0.04 | 2.48 ± 0.06 | 1.71 ± 0.45 |
Acetoxyhydroxytomatine- FA | 1152.539 | (C52H85NO24)HCOOH | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 0.96 ± 0.07 | 0.46 ± 0.15 | 0.52 ± 0.26 |
Caffeic acid-hexose | 341.089 | C15H18O9 | 1.00 ± 0.17 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 0.81 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.12 |
Coumaric acid-hexose I | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 0.85 ± 0.09 | 9.21 ± 1.79 | 5.61 ± 0.88 |
Coumaric acid-hexose II | 325.092 | C15H18O8 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 0.84 ± 0.08 | 0.57 ± 0.04 |
Dicaffeoylquinic acid | 515.119 | C25H24O12 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.28 ± 0.09 | 1.41 ± 0.08 | 1.00 ± 0.07 |
Ferulic acid-hexose | 355.104 | C16H20O9 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 0.80 ± 0.07 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 0.21 ± 0.05 |
Hydroxylated naringenin chalcone | 287.057 | C15H12O6 | 1.00 ± 0.09 | 1.08 ± 0.09 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.03 |
Hydroxylated naringenin-hexose (Eriodictyol-hexose) | 449.108 | C21H22O11 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 1.42 ± 0.13 | 1.46 ± 0.37 | 3.10 ± 1.14 |
Naringenin chalcone-hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.11 | 1.02 ± 0.07 | 0.34 ± 0.04 | 0.56 ± 0.23 |
Naringenin hexose | 433.113 | C21H22O10 | 1.00 ± 0.16 | 1.12 ± 0.19 | 3.80 ± 1.05 | 10.01 ± 4.73 |
Phloretin-di-C-hexose | 597.1825 | C27H34O15 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 0.92 ± 0.02 | 0.34 ± 0.06 | 0.50 ± 0.07 |
Tricaffeoylquinic acid | 677.152 | C34H30O15 | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.13 ± 0.10 | 3.23 ± 0.04 | 1.81 ± 0.10 |
Gene name | Origin | Description | Purpose | Restriction site | Oligonucleotides |
PheA | FW | PheA (from start codon) | Cloning | HinD III , SphI | GCCAAGCTTATGGGCATGCCATCGGAAAACCCGTTACTGGC |
PheA | RV | PheA (no stop codon) | Cloning | EcoRI | CCCCGGAATTCCAACGTCGTTTTCGCCGGAACCTG |
E8 tomato promoter | FW | E8 promoter | Cloning | KpnI | GGGGTACCTAGAAGGAATTTCACGAAA |
E8 tomato promoter | RV | E8 promoter | Cloning | SalI | ACGCGTCGACCTTCTTTTGCACTGTGAA |
PheA | FW | 375bp product size | RT-PCR | - | CATGCCACTTGTCCAATTGTTG |
PheA | RV | 375bp product size | RT-PCR | - | GCCAGTAACGGGTTTTCCGATG |
AroG | FW | 700bp product size | RT-PCR | - | CATGCCACTTGTCCAATTGTTG |
AroG | RV | 700bp product size | RT-PCR | - | TCGTCGTTCTGATAATTCATCA |
![]() |