| Title |
HPLC–ESI–MSn Analysis, Fed-Batch Cultivation Enhances Bioactive Compound Biosynthesis and Immune-Regulative Effect of Adventitious Roots in Pseudostellaria heterophylla
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12010-015-1728-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juan Wang, Jing Li, Hongfa Li, Xiaolei Wu, Wenyuan Gao |
| Abstract |
A electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (ESI-MS(n)) analysis was performed in order to identify the active composition in Pseudostellaria heterophylla adventitious roots. Pseudostellarin A, C, D, and G were identified from P. heterophylla adventitious roots on the basis of LC-MS(n) analysis. The culture conditions of adventitious roots were optimized, and datasets were subjected to a partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), in which the growth ratio and some compounds showed a positive correlation with an aeration volume of 0.3 vvm and inoculum density of 0.15 %. Fed-batch cultivation enhanced the contents of total saponin, polysaccharides, and specific oxygen uptaker rate (SOUR). The maximum dry root weight (4.728 g l(-1)) was achieved in the 3/4 Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium group. PLS-DA showed that polysaccharides contributed significantly to the clustering of different groups and showed a positive correlation in the MS medium group. The delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) reaction on the mice induced by 2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene (DNFB) was applied to compare the immunocompetence effects of adventitious roots (AR) with field native roots (NR) of P. heterophylla. As a result, AR possessed a similar immunoregulation function as NR. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Researcher | 1 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 44% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,330,976
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
#2,039
of 2,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,303
of 262,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
#35
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.