Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Plant-Wide Target Metabolomics Provides A Novel Interpretation of the Changes in Chemical Ingredients during Dendrobium officinale Traditional Processing

Altmetrics

Downloads

138

Views

40

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

supplementary.doc (11.49MB )

Submitted:

26 September 2023

Posted:

27 September 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The traditional processing of Dendrobium officinale (DO) is manufactured through five necessary processing steps: fresh strips, drying at 85 °C, curling, molding, and drying at 35 °C (Fengdou), and the antioxidant activity of DO were increased after processing into Fengdou. To comprehensively analyses the changing functional components, a plant-wide target metabolomics were employed. In total, 739 differential ingredients were identified in five processing treatments, mainly highlighting differences in variation with phenolic acids, flavonoids, lipids, and amino acids and their derivatives, and glycosylation of aglycone result in the up-regulation in flavonoid glycosides levels. Temperature is a key step in DO processing production. In addition, the main enrichment of specific differential ingredients was found in five different metabolic pathways, including glucosinolate biosynthesis, linoleic acid metabolism, flavonoid biosynthesis, phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, ubiquinone and other terpene quinone biosynthesis. Correlation analysis clarified that total phenols and flavonoids showed a significant positive correlation with antioxidant capacity. This study provides new insights into the influence of processing processes on DO quality, which may lead to guidance for the high-quality production of DO.
Keywords: 
Subject: Chemistry and Materials Science  -   Food Chemistry

1. Introduction

Dendrobium officinale (DO) Kimura & Migo is a perennial herb in the Dendrobium of the family Orchidaceae, which has been used historically for edible and medicinal purposes for over 2000 years [1]. The types of chemical components contained in the plant mainly include polysaccharides, phenols, alkaloids, and amino acids [2,3], and there is substantial in vitro or in vivo evidence showing that bioactive compounds present in DO have antioxidants properties [4], which attracted domestic and foreign scholars to conduct in-depth research on DO. Among them, polysaccharides have been reported to reduce insulin resistance and abnormal lipid metabolism in obese mice [5], and inhibit inflammatory factors from alleviating liver metabolic disorders in diabetic mice [6]. While some studies on the immunomodulatory effects of DO alkaloids [7] are also quite well-established. There is growing evidence that phenolic compounds in DO have antioxidant and cytoprotective properties, and bisbenzyl compounds have been widely used in the production of various skin care products and drugs [8].
The moisture content of fresh DO can be up to 80% [9], and though it appears shiny, breed bacteria are easily infected. Thus, it is necessary to control moisture during DO post-harvest storage, transportation, and processing without biological activity reduction. The common drying methods of DO are sun drying, hot air drying, infrared drying and freeze drying, etc. However, Fengdou has always been the popular processing product of DO due to its advantages of small space and good keeping qualities. Our previous studies found that the total flavonoid and total polyphenol content of DO was elevated after processing into Fengdou [10], whereas the exact mechanism remains unclear. Several studies have been conducted to compare the chemical components before and after DO processing, such as polysaccharides, total phenols, and total flavonoids [11], etc. However, Fengdou is made through various processes such as drying, hooping, and baking, and the mechanisms of compositional changes during this process are largely unknown. Hence, it is critical to systematically compare of the chemical profiles during fresh DO strips into Fengdou.
Plant-wide target metabolomics is a new field of metabolomics, which can be effective for high-dimensional complex data obtained from the analysis and help to observe the differences between samples. Significant variations in the metabolic profile of DO have been revealed by metabolomic approaches, which depend on a variety of factors such as species, growth conditions, and different parts [12]. There are also studies that reveal the material basis and mechanisms of disease prevention and treatment through metabolomics, such as the application of DO to gastric mucosal protection [13] and the study of metabolic mechanisms of preventive effects on diabetes [14]. Although the research provides lots of information about DO products under different conditions, the composition changes of DO during processing have not been clarified.
The main objective is to comprehensively study the dynamic changes of compounds during processing through metabolomics and to summarize the key processing steps. It will help to further investigate the accumulation and metabolic regulation mechanisms of active compounds in DO during processing and provide new insights for quality control during functional food of DO production.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. DO samples in different processing stages

In this study, 15 kg of fresh DO was collected on 10 November 2021 from the Longmu Dendrobium Department of Longshan County, Longshan town (Yunnan, China), and authenticated by Prof. Pengfei Tu following the features described in Chinese Pharmacopoeia (2020 edition), and processed according to DO local standards for food safety. Briefly, the 15 kg of fresh DO is removed from the debris (clean the residual surface leaves and other debris, excise irregular branches) washed with pure water, controlled the water and then randomly divided 1 kg as sample FA1. The others were placed under the oven at 85 °C for baking, rubbing while drying to facilitate curling, removing residual leaf sheaths and other debris as much as possible during the softening process, removing water until softened, and taking out 1 kg as sample FB2. The remaining part of the baked soft Dendrobium strips was twisted into a spiral shape, and 1 kg of the sample was left to name sample FC3. After shaping twice, the sample should be tightly curled, not spread out and have a beautiful, uniform shape, and 1 kg of sample is named sample FD4. Finally, it was placed in the oven at 35 °C, dried at low temperature, and named sample FE5, as shown in Figure 1A. The five samples were used for UPLC-ESI-MS/MS analysis, and three biological replicates were performed for each sample.

2.2. Sample preparation and extraction

The five type samples are powder that were freeze., which were then ground with a mixer mill (MM400, Retsch) and zirconia bead for 1.5 min at 30 Hz. Lyophilized powder (50 mg) was dissolved with 1.2 mL 70% methanol solution, vortexed every 30 min for 30 sec (6 times in total). The samples were then centrifuged for 10 min at 12000 rpm/min, and the supernatant was taken to detect the activity. Meanwhile, other supernatant filtrated prior to UPLC-ESI-MS/MS analysis. Quality control (QC) samples were then prepared by combining all of the sample extracts. The QC sample was performed every-six samples to assess the repeatability of the measurement process.

2.3. Antioxidant Activity

2.3.1. DPPH radical scavenging activity assay

The experiments were performed as modified on the protocol described by Zhang et al. [26]. Firstly, a proper amount of the extraction filtrate was obtained by the method in section 2.2 to prepare samples with different concentrations. The 2 mL of DO sample solutions with different concentrations were respectively added into 2 mL DPPH free radical stock solution (0.1 mg/mL) that shook well and left in the dark for 30 min. The anhydrous 95% methanol was used instead of the sample extract as the negative control, and Trolox was used as a positive control. Absorbance was measured at 515 nm. Each sample was measured three times. The percentage of inhibition was calculated as [Ac−As/Ac×100], where Ac is the absorbance of the negative control and as is the absorbance of the test samples.

2.3.2. ABTS radical scavenging activity assay

The antioxidant capacity was evaluated by the 2,2′-azino-bis (3- ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical method reported by Liu et al. [15]. The calculation method was the same as in Section 2.3.1.

2.4. Total Phenolics and total flavonoid Quantification

Total phenolic content (TPC) was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu method described by Castaldo [16], and the results were expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per or 100 g of dry matter (DO). In addition, total flavonoid content (TFC) was determined using the colorimetric method described by Luo et al [17], and the results were expressed as mg of rutin equivalent (CE) per or 100 g of DO.

2.5. UHPLC-MS conditions

The analytical conditions were as follows, UPLC: column, Agilent SB-C18 (1.8 µm, 2.1 mm×100 mm). The mobile phase consisted of solvent A, pure water with 0.1% formic acid, and solvent B, acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid. Sample measurements were performed with a gradient program that employed the starting conditions of 95% A, and 5% B. Within 9 min, a linear gradient to 5% A, 95% B was programmed, and a composition of 5% A, 95% B was kept for 1 min. Subsequently, a composition of 95% A, 5.0% B was adjusted within 1.1 min and kept for 2.9 min. The flow velocity was set as 0.35 mL per minute; The column oven was set as 40 °C; The injection volume was 4 μL. The effluent was alternatively connected to an ESI-triple quadrupole-linear ion trap (Q TRAP)-MS. AB4500 Q TRAP UPLC/MS/MS System, equipped with an ESI Turbo Ion-Spray interface, operating in positive and negative ion mode and controlled by Analyst 1.6.3 software (AB Sciex). The ESI source operation parameters were as follows: ion source, turbo spray; source temperature 550 °C; ion spray voltage (IS) 5500 V (positive ion mode)/-4500 V (negative ion mode); ion source gas I (GSI), gas II(GSII), curtain gas (CUR) was set at 50, 60, and 25 psi, respectively; the collision activated dissociation (CAD) was high.

2.6. Qualitative and statistical analysis of ingredients

Compounds were identified based on the MWDB (metwa database). Substance characterization is performed based on secondary spectral information, and the analysis removes isotopic signals, repeating signals containing K+, Na+, NH4+, and repeating signals of fragment ions that are themselves other larger molecular weight substances. The quantitative analysis was mainly based on their abundance in the UPLC-ESI-MS/MS analysis. The precursor ions are broken by collision chamber-induced ionization to form many fragment ions are formed after the fragment ions are filtered through the triple quadruple rod to select the desired characteristic fragment ion, eliminating the non-target ion interference and making the quantification more accurate and reproducible. To study the accumulation of differences in metabolite, a multivariate statistical analysis was conducted on the metabolic data of each sample. The PCA was used to display the variables, which was performed using GraphPad Prism v9.01 (GraphPad Software In, La Jolla, CA, USA). An OPLS-DA model was performed using the R software package MetaboAnalystR to compare the composition characteristics of different DO. The variable importance in the projection (VIP) ≥ 1 in the OPLS-DA model and the absolute FC (fold change) ≥ 2 or FC ≤ 0.5 was set for screening differential chemical ingredients. Venn diagrams were generated online and used to show the number of differential chemical ingredients. The KEGG compound database was used to annotate the different chemical ingredients, which were mapped to the KEGG pathway database. The pathways with ingredients that are significantly regulated are subjected to component pathway sets enrichment analysis. P-values from hypergeometric tests are used to assess their significance.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Effect of DO samples on antioxidant activity

To study the effect of processing on the antioxidant capacity of DO, we measured DPPH free radical scavenging activity and ABTS cation free radical scavenging activity (Figure 1B). Samples of FE5 showed the strongest antioxidant activity among all samples either in DPPH or in ABTS assay. The scavenging effect of DPPH radicals was significantly enhanced with the increase of DO extract concentration in the range of 3.125 mg/mL-25.000 mg/mL. At the same bolus, the DPPH radical scavenging effect also gradually increased during the processing of DO. Under the concentration of 3.125 mg/mL, the DPPH radical scavenging rate of sample FA1 and FE5 were 25.33% and 32.99%, respectively. Oxidation resistance of FE5 is better than that of FA1. The same results were also confirmed in the ABTS radical scavenging experiment (Figure 1C). The increase of antioxidant capacity in the making could be due to the formation of Maillard reaction products (MRPs) [18] under high temperature, and the promotion of intracellular secondary metabolite production under the external pressure accelerated.

3.2. Overview of the profile of ingredients

To explore the material basis of antioxidation, the figure showed that the TPC and TFC levels significantly increased after all of process phases, as evidenced in Figure 1D-E. The TPC and TFC observed in the FE5 were quantified at value of 4.25mg GAE/g and 0.44 mg CE/g, respectively. Considering the correlation between composition and activity, it is possible to observe that the polyphenol content affected antioxidation differently. Research shows that there is a strong correlation between polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity of blueberries, fragaria nubicola, apples, and other vegetables or fruits [19,20,21]. In order to further clarify the material basis of antioxidation, we carried out a widely non-targeted metabolite analysis for comprehensive metabolic profiling of FA1, FB2, FC3, FD4, and FE5 based on the UPLC–MS/MS system. The composition characteristics of each sample were screened and a total of 1182 chemical ingredients (Table S1) were determined, including alkaloids (8.12%), amino acids and derivatives (10.41%), flavonoids (16.50%), lignans and coumarins (3.81%), lipids (13.45%), nucleotides and derivatives (5.24%), organic acids (8.29%), phenolic acids (13.37%), quinones (3.47%), terpenoids (4.23%), and others (13.11%) (Figure 2A). Results showed that flavonoids, phenolic acids, lipids, amino acids and derivatives were the dominant chemical ingredients in DO.

3.3. Multivariate statistical analysis

Multivariate statistical analysis was performed on the five groups to show differences in their chemical ingredients. Principal component analysis was performed using unsupervised models to analyze the identified chemical ingredients and to assess the overall differences between samples (Figure 2B). In the principal component analysis score plot, it is tentatively suggested that the processing steps from FA1 to FB2 and FD4 to FE5 may be the key stages affecting the compositional changes. The OPLS-DA analysis model can effectively screen for differential chemical ingredients by removing effects that are not relevant to the study. In this experiment, the OPLS-DA score plots of each group (Figure S1) showed that the five samples of different processing processes were separated in pairs, indicating the variability of metabolic profiles among sample groups. Based on the results of the OPLS-DA model, 200 times permutation tests were performed to validate the OPLS-DA model in this experiment (Figure S2). As shown in Figure 2C, the correlation coefficients between the groups of samples with different processing procedures in the processing of DO are all greater than 0.7. It is indicated that baking at 85 °C has a greater effect on the chemical composition of FA1 and FB2. Analyzed in the same way, the effect of curling and sizing on the chemical composition of the samples was inappreciable. It can be seen that DO has significant variability in chemical composition between the raw material and the processed product Fengdou, with the highest contribution from baking at 85 °C, followed by drying at 35 °C, and the smaller effect from curling and shaping.

3.3. Identification of differential chemical ingredients

According to the results of the OPLS-DA model, a total of 739 differential chemical ingredients were screened between groups for variable importance (VIP) ≥ 1, FC ≥ 2 or FC ≤ 0.5 in the prediction. Differential chemical ingredients were mainly divided into amino acids and derivatives, phenolic acids, flavonoids, lipids and others, with a large proportion of lipids (17.19%), amino acids and derivatives (14.21%), phenolic acids (13.66%) and flavonoids (10.82%) in that order. As the volcano plots (Figure 3A-D), the smallest number of differential metabolites was found in the FC3 and FD4 group, with 67 (30 up and 37 down). Moreover, there were 481 significantly different chemical ingredients between FA1 and FB2 (271 up and 210 down), 195 ones between FB2 and FC3 (166 up and 29 down), and 362 ones between FD4 and FE5 (51 up and 311 down). From the Figure 3E, it is obviously to see that there are 80 unique differential chemical ingredients in the FA1 vs. FB2 group, which also confirms the previous conclusion that temperature is a key factor affecting the changes of chemical ingredients.

3.3.1. Changes in Phenolic acids Profile

Phenolic acids are one of the main components of DO, which are common in natural plants. As shown in the correlation heat map (Figure 4), there is a significant correlation between total polyphenols and antioxidant capacity. The 68 phenolic acid differentials chemical ingredients were screened in the DO FA1 vs. FE5 group (Figure S3A), with 31 up-regulated and 37 down-regulated. There were 21 unique differential ingredients in the FA1 vs. FB2 group during the processing of DO (Table 1). In the FA1 vs. FB2 group, 6 differential chemical ingredients such as 3,4,5-trimethoxybenzoic acid were down-regulated, 15 differential chemical ingredients such as 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde were up-regulated. Among them, vanillin (Figure S4A) and 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde were up-regulated after roasting processing at 85 °C, which results in the existence of aromas increasing, and its changes may be closely related to lignans. Some studies found that lignans are widely present in plants, which can be oxidized to form vanillin under high-temperature conditions [22]. In the correlation analysis, vanillin has strong antioxidant capacity that reacted with ABTS radicals via a self-dimerization mechanism [23]. In addition, the phenolic acid chemical ingredients such as syringaldehyde-4-O-glucosideand 2-O-galloyl-D-glucose which contain glycosides were also upregulated after baking at 85 °C. The fold changes (Log2FC) of some glycosides vary greatly, for example, the 2-O-galloyl-D-glucose and syringaldehyde-4-O-glucoside, in the order of 15.80 and 13.04, respectively (Figure S4B). Meanwhile, the content of syringaldehyde showed a downward trend from FA1 to FB2 processes. Yu et al. [24] found the presence of glycosylation modifying enzymes and pathways of phenolic acids in poplar, and accordingly the above phenolic glycosides may be formed from phenolic acids modified by glycosides. In the study of glycosides synthesis by Chen et al. [25], temperature was an important factor in enhancing the conversion rate of chemical ingredients. The specific differential metabolites in the FD4 vs. FE5 group included seven species of vanillic acid, methyl syringate (Figure S4D), and 4-hydroxybenzoic acid which showed a downward trend. Meanwhile, the relative content of syringic acid and p-coumaric acid were increased in FD4 compared with FE5 (Figure S4E). The 35°C of drying has a greater influence on the content of compounds containing carboxyl and ester bonds, which may be the reversible reaction catalyzed by esterase and the decrease of ester content due to high acidity [26]. Phenolic acid specific differential chemical ingredients were not generated in the curling and shaping processes. In addition, coniferyl alcohol was a persistent differential metabolite that was down-regulated in the curling process (Figure S4F). The fixation procedure in this experiment is equivalent to extrusion in usual food processing, and in this experiment, coniferyl alcohol was up-regulated after fixing, which was consist well with the results from extrusing black rice studied by Ti et al. [27].

3.3.2. Changes in flavonoids Profile

The biosynthetic pathway of flavonoids in plants is complex, andmost of them exist in the form of flavonoid-bound glycosides, while a few ones in free form. The 35 flavonoid differential ingredients were screened in the FA1 vs. FE5 group, leading to the fact that 31 compounds were up-regulated and 4 ones were down-regulated. Among them 17 flavonoids that include naringenin, quercetin-3,7-di-O-glucoside, naringenin-4'-O-glucoside, and phloretin-4'-O-glucoside (Figure S4G) were up-regulated as unique differential ingredients in the FA1 vs. FB2 group (Table 1).
Due to the loss of water during baking at 85°C, almost no glycoside hydrolysis reaction exists. It is widely known that enzyme and moisture are two key factors in glycoside hydrolysis, so that the first barking has the effect of killing enzymes and protecting glycosides [28]. The naringenin, quercetin-3,7-di-O-glucoside, naringenin-4'-O-glucoside, phloretin-4'-O-glucoside, and other flavonoid glycoside ingredients are positively correlated with the radical scavenging ability of ABTS in the process from FA1 to FB2. It is recorded that TFC prevented the accumulation of lipofuscin and protein carbonylation, and upregulated the gene expression levels of hsp-16.2, gst-4, etc. [29]. In this experiment, no flavonoid specific differential ingredients were found in the two processes of curling and shaping during the processing of DO. Then the 4'-O-glucosylvitexin, isosaponarin were common differential ingredients (Figure S4H-I), some were down-regulated in the process of curling and up-regulated in the shaping step. This phenomenon is consistent with the finding from twin-screw extrusion of Folium Artemisiae Argyi and puffed cereals [30,31].

3.3.3. Changes in amino acids and derivatives profile

In the current study, A total of 88 amino acids were identified in the FA1 vs.FE5 group (Figure S3C), with 69 metabolites down-regulated and only 19 ones up-regulated, showing an overall trend of down-regulation. Amino acids are divided into essential amino acids and non-essential amino acids., and eight of the essential amino acids, L-threonine, L-isoleucine, L-leucine, L-valine, L-phenylalanine, L-methionine, L-lysine,and L-tryptophan have been taking on down-regulation during the processing of DO, which was influenced by baking at 85 °C and drying at 35 °C. Furanosine is a product of the L-lysine melad reaction [32]. When the internal temperature of grilling and frying is lower than 90°C, lysine is mainly synthesized as furanosine [33]. The important condition for significant changes in 13 non-essential amino acids such as γ-glutamyl phenylalanine, L-aspartic acid and N-methylglycine during DO processing was 85 °C drying. Meanwhile, 16 non-essential amino acids were significantly down-regulated when drying at 35 °C. During heat processing, the sum of all free amino acids in the heated samples was significantly lower than in the raw sample, it is consistent with the amino acid changes after temperature treatment in this experiment [34].

3.3.4. Changes in Lipids Profile

Based on the dynamic changes of the lipid during the processing of DO, 118 lipid differential ingredients were screened from the FA1 vs. FE5 group. Among them, just half of which were up-regulated (Figure S3D). Lipids can be further divided into lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC), lysophosphatidylethanolamine (LPE), glycerol ester (GE), free fatty acids (FC), phosphatidylcholine (PC), and 3-Hydroxy-palmitic acid methyl ester. There are 15 FC such as hydroperoxylinoleic acid and 3-hydroxy-palmitic acid methyl ester, 4 LPE such as LPE 17:0 and LPE 16:0, and 11 LPC such as LPC 20:2 and LPC 12:0 in DO processing as the specific differential ingredients in the FA1 vs. FB2 group. In the FA1 vs. FB2 group, the FC were down-regulated, while LPC and LPE were up-regulated. In addition, there are 13 down-regulated FCs such as γ-linolenic acid and α-hydroxy linoleic acid, which were also present in the FD4 vs. FE5 group as specific differential ingredients. The decrease of FCs may be partly due to the inactivation of lipase (LA) and lipoxygenase (LOX) caused by high-temperature processing [35], which catalyzed the hydrolysis of triacylglycerols (TAGs) to release FC [36]. It is worth mentioning that the inactivation of LA and LOX is related to two key factors, namely temperature and time [37], which is consistent with DO 85 °C baking and 35 °C drying in this study. It indicates that heating is detrimental to the retention of FC. Although curling and setting did not occur specific differential ingredients, some GEs were affected by them and showed an upregulation trend. Yang et al. [38] suggested that the increasing trend of the bound lipid of noodles continued during the pressing process, and the comparison of the most important GE of pressed and leached oil tea seed oil, pressed GE exceeds leached GE by 30%. It indicates that extrusion facilitates lipid retention.

3.4. KEGG function annotation and enrichment analysis

The differential ingredients were analyzed by KEGG metabolic pathways separately. Firstly, the 88 amino acids and their derivatives were annotated into 55 metabolic pathways, of which the 6 essential amino acids were significantly enriched in glucosinolate biosynthesis (ko00966) (Figure 4A). Meanwhile, 118 differential lipids ingredients were annotated to 10 metabolic pathways (Figure 4B), with alpha-Linolenic acid metabolism (ko00592) and Linoleic acid metabolism (ko00591) being the two most significantly enriched pathways (Figure 4C), which were associated with the synthesis of oxylipins in fatty acid metabolism which can promote lipid metabolism. The phenolic acids and flavonoids as secondary ingredients, 68 differential phenolic acids were annotated to 13 metabolic pathways (Figure 4D), with three metabolic pathways more significantly enriched in phenylalanine metabolism (ko00360), phenylpropanoid biosynthesis (ko00940) and ubiquinone and other terpenoid quinone biosynthesis (ko00130).

3.5. Processing-induced chemical transformation mechanisms

Generally, the processing-induced compositional variations of DO are predominantly driven by temperature, water, and external force, which also uncover chemical transformation mechanisms by processing to some extent [39]. With regard to the shift of differential ingredients, many reactions may be involved, such as oxidation, hydrolyze, esterification of small-molecular compounds as well as condensation, glycosylation, etc. According to the metabolomics results, the differential ingredients of flavonoids were taken as an example to briefly describe the changes (Figure 5). First of all, the reaction for glycoside hydrolysis was disrupted by a sharp decrease in moisture content, and the hydrolase enzymes gradually lost their activity which contribute to retaining component. The contents of aglycones such as quercetin and phloretin showed a downward trend in FA1 vs. FB2 group. At the same time, glycosides (quercetin-3,7-di-O-glucoside and phloretin-4'-O-glucoside) were up-regulated in FA1 vs. FB2, suggesting that aglycones were converted into glycosides by polysaccharide or monosaccharide modification. It also indicates that the rate of glycosylation was greater than de-glycosylation when baking at 85 °C. It is suggests that a broad range of flavonoid substrates could be glycosylated at their 3- and/or 7-hydrogen sites by the recombinant enzyme, such as quercetin [40]. Besides, some phenolic hydroxyl, and ester, as well as glycosides containing glycosidic bonds, might involve oxidative decomposition, and esterification of alcoholic hydroxyl by processing. It may be the potential chemical mechanism that raw materials and processed DO represent different substances.

4. Conclusions

In this study, the antioxidant activity was the best from FE5 during the different procedures of DO traditional processing. Liquid mass spectrometry-based metabolomics techniques were used to identify changes in ingredients during the traditional processing of fresh strips to DO. The main factors leading to the change of composition during the processing were baking at 85 °C and drying at 35 °C, with less effect of curling and setting. Phenolic acids, flavonoids, lipids and amino acids and their derivatives changed most significantly during the baking at 85 °C and drying at 35 °C. Phenolic acids, flavonoids and lipids produced 28, 20 and 45 unique differential ingredients, respectively, and 8 essential amino acids, which were affected by the baking at 85 °C and drying at 35 °C, and the changes in their contents may affect the quality and activity of DO. P-coumaric acid, a unique differential metabolite and a natural antioxidant, connected glucosinolate biosynthesis, flavonoid biosynthesis, phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, ubiquinone and other terpenoid-quinone biosynthesis and other terpenoid-quinone metabolic pathways. By precisely regulating the key ingredients in the pathway, the material basis for the antioxidant capacity of DO was established. This study provides a reference for the quality control and enhancement of active ingredients during DO processing.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this paper posted on Preprints.org.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.T., L.L., J.S., F.W.; investigation and methodology, P.L.; data curation, P.L., J.L. and J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, P.L.; writing—review and editing, J.S.; Formal analysis, B.F., C.L., Y.M.; Supervision, L.T., J.S. and F.W.; Funding acquisition, B.F., J.S. and F.W.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [32101957], the National Key R and D Program of China [2022YFC2010104], and the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program of Institute of Food Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences [CAAS-ASTIP-G2022-IFST-04].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Nengbo Li of Longmu Dendrobium Department of Longshan County In terms of the material collection and processing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Li, X.; Ding, B.; Chu, Q.; Zhou, G.; Ding, G.; Sun, G. Genetic diversity analysis and conservation of the endangered Chinese endemic herb Dendrobium officinale Kimura et Migo (Orchidaceae) based on AFLP. Genetica. 2008, 133, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chu, C.; Li, T.; Pedersen, H. A.; Kongstad, K.T.; Yan, J.Z.; Staerk, D. Antidiabetic constituents of Dendrobium officinale as determined by high-resolution profiling of radical scavenging and α-glucosidase and α-amylase inhibition combined with HPLC-PDA-HRMS-SPE-NMR analysis. Phytochemi. Lett. 2019, 31, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Oyeniran, O.H.; Ademiluyi, A.O.; Oboh, G. African mistletoe (Tapinanthus bangwensis Lor.) infestation improves the phenolic constituents, antioxidative and antidiabetic effects of almond (Terminalia catappa Linn.) host leaf in sucrose-rich diet-induced diabetic-like phenotypes in fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster Meigen). Food Front. 2021, 2, 77–90. [Google Scholar]
  4. Luo, Z.; Liu, L.; Nie, Q.; Huang, M.; Luo, C.; Sun, Y.; Ma, Y.; Yu, J.; Du, F. HPLC-based metabolomics of Dendrobium officinale revealing its antioxidant ability. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Qu, C.; Wang, H.; Liu, S.; Wang, F.; Liu, C. Effects of microwave heating of wheat on its functional properties and accelerated storage. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 3699–3706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Yang, J.; Chen, H.; Nie, Q.; Huang, X.; Nie, S. Dendrobium officinale polysaccharide ameliorates the liver metabolism disorders of type II diabetic rats. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 164, 1939–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Lyu, P.; Chen, L.; Shen, C.; Sun, C. Comparative transcriptomic analysis reveal the regulation mechanism underlying MeJA-induced accumulation of alkaloids in Dendrobium officinale. J. Plant Res. 2019, 132, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hossain, M.M. Therapeutic orchids: Traditional uses and recent advances—An overview. Fitoterapia 2011, 82, 102–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yap, Y.M.; Loh, C.S.; Ong, B.L. Regulation of flower development in Dendrobium crumenatum by changes in carbohydrate contents, water status and cell wall metabolism. Scientia Horti-amsterdam. 2008, 119, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, P.F.; Fan, B.; Liu, X.D.; Yang, Y.; Lu, C.; Tong, L.T.; Sun, J.; Wang, F.Z. Comparison of different components of Dendrobium officinale Fengdou before and after processing. J. Nucl. Agric. Biol. 2022, 36, 2412–2418. [Google Scholar]
  11. Meng, Q.R.; Fan, H.R.; Li, Y.H.; Zhang, L.F. Effect of drying methods on physico-chemical properties and antioxidant activity of Dendrobium officinale. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2017, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhao, M.; Fan, J.; Liu, Q.; Luo, H.; Tang, Q.; Li, C.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, X. Phytochemical profiles of edible flowers of medicinal plants of Dendrobium officinale and Dendrobium devonianum. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 6575–6586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Tao, S.; Li, J.; Wang, H.; Ding, S.; Han, W.; He, R.; Ren, Z.; Wei, G. Anti-colon cancer effects of Dendrobium officinale Kimura & Migo revealed by network pharmacology integrated with molecular docking and metabolomics studies. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 879986–880008. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zheng, H.; Pan, L.; Xu, P.; Zhu, J.; Wang, R.; Zhu, W.; Hu, Y.; Gao, H. An NMR-based metabolomic approach to unravel the preventive effect of water-soluble extract from Dendrobium officinale Kimura & Migo on streptozotocin-induced diabetes in mice. Molecules 2017, 22, 1543–1557. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Liu, J. J.; Liu, Z. P.; Zhang, X. F.; Si, J. P. Effects of various processing methods on the metabolic profile and antioxidant activity of Dendrobium catenatum lindley leaves. Metabolites. 2021, 11, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Castaldo, L.; Izzo, L.; Lombardi, S.; Gaspari, A.; De Pascale, S.; Grosso, M.; Ritieni, A. Analysis of Polyphenolic compounds in Water-Based Extracts of Vicia faba L.: A Potential Innovative Source of Nutraceutical Ingredients. Antioxidants (Basel) 2022, 11, 2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Luo, Z.; Liu, L.; Nie, Q.; Huang, M.; Luo, C.; Sun, Y.; Ma, Y.; Yu, J.; Du, F. HPLC-based metabolomics of Dendrobium officinale revealing its antioxidant ability. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1060242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lin, Q.; Ni, H.; Wu, L.; Weng, S.Y.; Li, L.; Chen, F. Analysis of aroma-active volatiles in an SDE extract of white tea. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 605–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Seraglio, S.K.T.; Hernández-Velásquez, B.S.; Osses-Millar, M.E.; Malverde-Muñoz, B.Y.; Guerra-Valle, M.E.; Pavez-Guajardo, C.; Moreno, J. Processing of Enriched Pear Slices with Blueberry Juice: Phenolics, Antioxidant, and Color Characteristics. Antioxidants (Basel). 2023, 12, 1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bahukhandi, A.; Barola, A.; Sekar, K. C. Antioxidant Activity and Polyphenolics of Fragaria nubicola: A Wild Edible Fruit Species of Himalaya. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2020, 90, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wojdyło, A.; Oszmiański, J. Antioxidant Activity Modulated by Polyphenol Contents in Apple and Leaves during Fruit Development and Ripening. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020, 9, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Paramita, V.; Yulianto, M. Response surface analysis on the microwave integrated-rumen based extraction of natural vanillin from cured vanilla pods. JPCS. 2019, 1295, 012016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tai, A.; Sawano, T.; Yazama, F.; Ito, H. Evaluation of antioxidant activity of vanillin by using multiple antioxidant assays. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2011, 1810, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yu, H.M.; Zhang, H.L.; Zhang, B.; Wang, H.Y.; Hou, B.K. Cloning of poplar phenolic acid glycosyltransferase gene PtSGT1 and identification of its enzymatic activity. J. Plant Physiol. 2016, 52, 957–966. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chen, H.S.; Chen, L.M.; Xu, Z.S.; Chen, W.Q. Synthesis of ethyl vanillin-β-D-glucopyranoside. Flavors & Fragrances Cosmetics. 2018, 2018, 33–35. [Google Scholar]
  26. Xiao, D.G. Exploring the mechanism of ester formation in the brewing process of white wine. Brewing Sci. & Tech. 2022, 2022, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ti, H.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, M.; Wei, Z.; Chi, J.; Deng, Y.; Zhang, Y. Effect of extrusion on phytochemical profiles in milled fractions of black rice. Food Chem. 2015, 178, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, L.; Zhang, X.; Liang, Z. Post-Harvest Processing Methods Have Critical Roles in the Contents of Active Ingredients of Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi. Molecules 2022, 27, 8302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Gao, B.; Qian, Z.; Liu, J.; Wu, S.; Si, J. Identification and quantitative analysis of phenolic glycosides with antioxidant activity in methanolic extract of Dendrobium catenatum flowers and selection of quality control herb-markers. Food Res. Int. 2019, 123, 732–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hu, Q.; Liu, Z.; Guo, Y.; Lu, S.; Du, H.; Cao, Y. Antioxidant capacity of flavonoids from Folium Artemisiae Argyi and the molecular mechanism in Caenorhabditis elegans. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2021, 279, 114398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, X.W.; and Jiang, B.L. Study on the stability of flavonoids in twin-screw extruded puffed cereals. Food Sci. & Tech. 2006, 2006, 63–65. [Google Scholar]
  32. Roldan, M.; Loebner, J.; Degen, J.; Henle, T.; Antequera, T.; Ruiz-Carrascal, J. Advanced glycation end products, physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of cooked lamb loins affected by cooking method and addition of flavour precursors. Food Chem. 2015, 168, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Trevisan, A.J.; Almeida, L.D.; Sampaio, G.R.; Soares, R.A.; Markowicz, B.D. Influence of home cooking conditions on Maillard reaction products in beef. Food Chem. 2016, 196, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hilmes, C.; Fischer, A. Role of amino acids and glucose in development of burnt off-flavours in liver sausage during heat processing. Meat Sci. 1997, 47, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xu, B.; Wang, L.K.; Miao, W.J.; Wu, Q.F.; Liu, Y.X.; Sun, Y.; Gao, C. Thermal versus microwave inactivation kinetics of lipase and lipoxygenase from wheat germ. J. Food Process Eng. 2015, 39, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Doblado-Maldonado, A.F.; Pike, O.A.; Sweley, J.C.; Rose, D.J. Key issues and challenges in whole wheat flour milling and storage. J. Cereal Sci. 2012, 56, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Qu, C.; Wang, H.; Liu, S.; Wang, F.; Liu, C. Effects of microwave heating of wheat on its functional properties and accelerated storage. J. Food Sci. Tech. 2017, 54, 3699–3706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, Z.; Huang, Q.; Xing, J.J.; Guo, X.N.; Zhu, K.X. Changes of lipids in noodle dough and dried noodles during industrial processing. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 3517–3528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.J.; Wang, Z.X.; Cui, F.; Zhang, Q.N.; Song, P.P.; Li, B.; Tang, Z.S.; Hu, F.D.; Shi, X.F. Characterization of chemical composition variations in raw and processed Codonopsis Radix by integrating metabolomics and glycomics based on multiple chromatography-mass spectrometry technology. J. Sep. Sci. 2022, 45, 2375–2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, X.; Lin, C.; Ma, X.; Tan, Y.; Wang, J.; Zeng, M. Functional characterization of a flavonoid glycosyltransferase in sweet orange (Citrus sinensis). Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 86151 g001
Figure 1. Appearances of DO samples at the end of each processing step. The fresh strip (FA1), drying at 85°C (FB2), curling (FC3), molding (FD4), and drying at 35°C (FE5) (A); The DPPH scavenging capacity (B) and ABTS scavenging capacity (C) of DO samples in different processes; The contents of total phenols (D) and flavonoids (E) of DO samples in different processes.
Figure 1. Appearances of DO samples at the end of each processing step. The fresh strip (FA1), drying at 85°C (FB2), curling (FC3), molding (FD4), and drying at 35°C (FE5) (A); The DPPH scavenging capacity (B) and ABTS scavenging capacity (C) of DO samples in different processes; The contents of total phenols (D) and flavonoids (E) of DO samples in different processes.
Preprints 86151 g001
Preprints 86151 g002
Figure 2. Classification of the 1182 ingredients of DO samples (A); PCA score plot (B). The sampling groups were color-coded as follows: green, FA1; orange, FB2; purple, FC3; pink, FD4; blue FE5; red QC; Correlation diagram of ingredients of different processes of DO (C).
Figure 2. Classification of the 1182 ingredients of DO samples (A); PCA score plot (B). The sampling groups were color-coded as follows: green, FA1; orange, FB2; purple, FC3; pink, FD4; blue FE5; red QC; Correlation diagram of ingredients of different processes of DO (C).
Preprints 86151 g002
Preprints 86151 g003
Figure 3. Volcano plots of the differential ingredients expression levels between FA1 vs. FB2 groups (A), the FB2 vs. FC3 groups (B), the FC3 vs. FD4 group (C) and the FD4 vs. FE5 group (D); Venn diagram illustrating the overlapping and specific differential ingredients for four comparison groups (FA1 vs. FB2, FB2 vs. FC3, FC3 vs. FD4, FD4 vs. FE5) (E).
Figure 3. Volcano plots of the differential ingredients expression levels between FA1 vs. FB2 groups (A), the FB2 vs. FC3 groups (B), the FC3 vs. FD4 group (C) and the FD4 vs. FE5 group (D); Venn diagram illustrating the overlapping and specific differential ingredients for four comparison groups (FA1 vs. FB2, FB2 vs. FC3, FC3 vs. FD4, FD4 vs. FE5) (E).
Preprints 86151 g003
Preprints 86151 g004
Figure 4. Correlation heatmap of specific differential ingredients and antioxidant activity. TPC = total phenolic content; TFC = total flavonoid content; DPPH = DPPH· scavenging capacity; ABTS = ABTS·+ scavenging capacity.
Figure 4. Correlation heatmap of specific differential ingredients and antioxidant activity. TPC = total phenolic content; TFC = total flavonoid content; DPPH = DPPH· scavenging capacity; ABTS = ABTS·+ scavenging capacity.
Preprints 86151 g004
Preprints 86151 g005
Figure 5. KEGG pathway analysis of differential ingredients for four Class (phenolic acids, flavonoids, amino acids and their derivatives, lipids). KEGG pathway for amino acids and their derivatives (A), the lipids (B), the phenolic acids (C), the flavonoids (D). In the plot, each bubble (which represents a metabolic pathway) and abscissa indicate the size of the factors affecting the pathway (bigger bubbles represent bigger impacts). Bubble color indicates the p-value of the enrichment analysis. Lighter colors indicate lower enrichment.
Figure 5. KEGG pathway analysis of differential ingredients for four Class (phenolic acids, flavonoids, amino acids and their derivatives, lipids). KEGG pathway for amino acids and their derivatives (A), the lipids (B), the phenolic acids (C), the flavonoids (D). In the plot, each bubble (which represents a metabolic pathway) and abscissa indicate the size of the factors affecting the pathway (bigger bubbles represent bigger impacts). Bubble color indicates the p-value of the enrichment analysis. Lighter colors indicate lower enrichment.
Preprints 86151 g005
Preprints 86151 g006
Figure 6. The alteration of the flavonoid pathway (A) and relative amount (B) during the processing of DO.
Figure 6. The alteration of the flavonoid pathway (A) and relative amount (B) during the processing of DO.
Preprints 86151 g006
Table 1. Unique differential ingredients (VIP ≥ 1) responsible for the chemical ingredient variation caused by the traditional processing of DO.
Table 1. Unique differential ingredients (VIP ≥ 1) responsible for the chemical ingredient variation caused by the traditional processing of DO.
Number Compounds Formula m/z Factor Fold Change VIP P-value
Phenolic acids
1 1-O-Sinapoyl-β-D-glucose C17H22O10 386.3506 FA1 vs. FB2 2.89E+00↑ 1.173 7.30E-03
2 Dihydrocaffeoylglucose C15H20O9 344.3139 FA1 vs. FB2 9.27E+03↑ 1.185 2.41E-03
3 Syringaldehyde-4-O-glucosid C15H20O9 344.3139 FA1 vs. FB2 8.44E+03↑ 1.185 4.56E-03
4 Sinapinaldehyde C11H12O4 208.2106 FA1 vs. FB2 2.47E+00↑ 1.172 6.90E-05
5 Isovanillin C8H8O3 152.1473 FA1 vs. FB2 4.52E+00↑ 1.174 9.44E-03
6 1-O-Feruloyl-β-D-glucose C16H20O9 356.3246 FA1 vs. FB2 1.22E+01↑ 1.180 4.84E-05
7 2-(Formylamino)benzoic acid C8H7NO3 165.1461 FA1 vs. FB2 2.48E+00↑ 1.167 2.46E-04
8 Caffeic aldehyde C9H8O3 164.1580 FA1 vs. FB2 2.04E+00↑ 1.106 3.50E-03
9 Vanillin C8H8O3 152.1473 FA1 vs. FB2 4.52E+00↑ 1.181 2.61E-04
10 p-Coumaric acid C9H8O3 164.1580 FA1 vs. FB2 2.51E+00↑ 1.178 3.37E-03
11 4-Hydroxybenzaldehyde C7H6O2 122.1213 FA1 vs. FB2 2.14E+00↑ 1.156 2.85E-03
12 Methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate C8H8O3 152.1743 FA1 vs. FB2 4.82E+00↑ 1.181 6.34E-06
13 Gallacetophenone C8H8O4 168.1467 FA1 vs. FB2 1.23E+04↑ 1.185 1.43E-04
14 Cinnamic acid C9H8O2 148.1586 FA1 vs. FB2 6.44E+00↑ 1.168 1.99E-03
15 2-O-Galloyl-D-glucose C13H16O10 332.2601 FA1 vs. FB2 6.02E+04↑ 1.185 5.85E-05
16 1-O-(3,4-Dihydroxy-5-methoxy-benzoyl)-glucoside C14H18O10 346.2867 FA1 vs. FB2 2.65E-01↓ 1.151 3.58E-02
17 2-Acetyl-3-hydroxyphenyl-1-O-glucoside C15H20O7 312.3151 FA1 vs. FB2 3.48E-01↓ 1.166 1.34E-02
18 Vanillin acetate C10H10O4 194.1840 FA1 vs. FB2 3.26E-01↓ 1.135 5.10E-02
19 2,5-Dihydroxybenzaldehyde C7H6O3 138.1207 FD4 vs. FE5 7.29E-05↓ 1.193 6.80E-04
20 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid C7H6O3 138.1207 FD4 vs. FE5 4.79E-01↓ 1.211 7.53E-04
21 Ferulic acid methyl ester C11H12O4 208.2106 FD4 vs. FE5 2.45E-01↓ 1.199 1.77E-03
22 Methyl syringate C10H12O5 212.1993 FD4 vs. FE5 3.90E-01↓ 1.173 3.03E-02
23 Vanillic acid C8H8O4 168.1467 FD4 vs. FE5 4.46E-01↓ 1.215 4.53E-04
24 4-O-Methylgallic Acid C8H8O5 184.1461 FA1 vs. FB2 4.09E-01↓ 1.102 3.26E-03
25 Eudesmic acid C10H12O5 212.1993 FA1 vs. FB2 1.29E-01↓ 1.159 1.78E-03
26 3-(3-Hydroxyphenyl)-3-hydroxypropanoic acid C9H10O4 182.1733 FD4 vs. FE5 4.16E-01↓ 1.145 2.41E-02
27 4-Methylphenol C7H8O 108.1378 FA1 vs. FB2 4.55E-02↓ 1.178 9.79E-03
28 Methyl 3-(4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate C10H12O3 180.2005 FD4 vs. FE5 6.99E-04↓ 1.208 1.03E-01
Flavonoids
29 Isorhamnetin-3-O-sophoroside C28H32O17 640.5435 FA1 vs. FB2 3.29E+00↑ 1.148 4.77E-04
30 Butin C15H12O5 272.2528 FA1 vs. FB2 9.44E+00↑ 1.185 2.00E-04
31 7-Methoxy-3-[1-(3-pyridyl) methylidene]-4-chromanone C16H13NO3 267.2793 FA1 vs. FB2 2.41E+00↑ 1.142 4.64E-03
32 Isorhamnetin-3-O-rutinoside-4'-O-glucoside C34H42O21 786.6847 FA1 vs. FB2 2.50E+00↑ 1.147 5.82E-03
33 3,4'-Dihydroxyflavone C15H10O4 254.2375 FA1 vs. FB2 1.02E+03↑ 1.185 1.91E-03
34 6,7,8-Tetrahydroxy-5-methoxyflavone C16H12O6 300.2629 FA1 vs. FB2 2.07E+00↑ 1.133 1.95E-03
35 Tangeretin C20H20O7 372.3686 FD4 vs. FE5 3.43E+00↑ 1.215 2.67E-04
36 Naringenin C15H12O5 272.2528 FA1 vs. FB2 9.79E+00↑ 1.184 1.09E-03
37 3,5,7,3'4'-Pentamethoxyflavone C20H20O7 372.3686 FD4 vs. FE5 2.87E+00↑ 1.205 3.37E-04
38 Quercetin-3-O-(6''-O-p-coumaroyl) sophoroside-7-O-rhamnoside C42H46O23 918.8008 FA1 vs. FB2 3.72E+00↑ 1.175 1.37E-02
39 Apigenin-7,4'-dimethyl ether C17H14O5 298.2901 FD4 vs. FE5 3.11E+00↑ 1.189 3.72E-03
40 Quercetin-3-O-glucosyl (1→4) rhamnoside-7-O-rutinoside C39H50O25 918.7993 FA1 vs. FB2 3.12E+00↑ 1.165 1.53E-02
41 5,6,7,3',4',5'-hexanmethoxyflavone C21H22O8 402.3946 FA1 vs. FB2 5.91E+00↑ 1.181 1.73E-03
42 Eriodictyol-3'-O-glucoside C21H22O11 450.3928 FA1 vs. FB2 3.88E+00↑ 1.169 4.17E-03
43 1,8-dihydroxy-2,6-dimethylxanthen-9-one C15H12O4 256.2534 FA1 vs. FB2 1.34E+04↑ 1.185 1.12E-02
44 Pinocembrin C15H12O4 256.2534 FA1 vs. FB2 4.11E+00↑ 1.129 1.16E-02
45 Quercetin-3,7-di-O-glucoside C27H30O17 626.5169 FA1 vs. FB2 2.57E+03↑ 1.184 1.55E-02
46 Naringenin-4'-O-glucoside C21H22O10 434.3934 FA1 vs. FB2 2.02E+00↑ 1.163 1.46E-02
47 Trilobatin C21H24O10 436.4093 FA1 vs. FB2 2.43E+00↑ 1.039 6.96E-02
48 Isorhamnetin-3-O-sophoroside-7-O-rhamnoside C34H42O21 786.6847 FA1 vs. FB2 4.43E+00↑ 1.147 8.48E-03
↑: Fold Change ≥ 2; ↓: Fold Change ≤ 0.5.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated