Glucosinolate Content in Brassica Genetic Resources and Their Distribution Pattern within and between Inner, Middle, and Outer Leaves

Abstract

Glucosinolates (GSLs) are sulfur-containing secondary metabolites naturally occurring in Brassica species. The purpose of this study was to identify the GSLs, determine their content, and study their accumulation patterns within and between leaves of kimchi cabbage (Brassica rapa L.) cultivars. GSLs were analyzed using UPLC-MS/MS in negative electron-spray ionization (ESI-) and multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. The total GSL content determined in this study ranged from 621.15 to 42434.21 μmolkg-1 DW. Aliphatic GSLs predominated, representing from 4.44% to 96.20% of the total GSL content among the entire samples. Glucobrassicanapin (GBN) contributed the greatest proportion while other GSLs such as glucoerucin (ERU) and glucotropaeolin (TRO) were found in relatively low concentrations. Principal component analysis (PCA) yielded three principal components (PCs) with eigenvalues ≥ 1, altogether representing 74.83% of the total variation across the entire dataset. Three kimchi cabbage (S/No. 20, 4, and 2), one leaf mustard (S/No. 26), and one turnip (S/No. 8) genetic resources were well distinguished from other samples. The GSL content varied significantly among the different positions (outer, middle, and inner) of the leaves and sections (top, middle, bottom, green/red, and white) within the leaves. In most of the samples, higher GSL content was observed in the proximal half and white sections and the middle layers of the leaves. GSLs are regarded as allelochemicals; hence, the data related to the patterns of GSLs within the leaf and between leaves at a different position could be useful to understand the defense mechanism of Brassica plants. The observed variability could be useful for breeders to develop Brassica cultivars with high GSL content or specific profiles of GSLs.

A new source of bacterial myrosinase isolated from endophytic Bacillus sp. NGB-B10, and its relevance in biological control activity

“…NGB-B10 had diverse antagonistic effects against several phytopathogenic fungi. These various antifungal activities may be related to the presence of different GLs contents in cruciferous plants (Bhandari et al 2015 ; Rhee et al 2020 ), which leads to the release of diverse hydrolytic bioactive compounds (Plaszkó et al 2021 ). The high activities observed in the case of white and red radish root extracts against P .…”

Quantification and Diversity Analyses of Major Glucosinolates in Conserved Chinese Cabbage (Brassica rapa L. ssp. pekinensis) Germplasms

“…The limit of detection (LOD) as well as the limit of quantification (LOQ) values were determined, respectively, as three and ten times the standard error of the intercept of the regression equation of the linear calibration curve divided by the slope. Fresh test solutions were always prepared before sample analysis [ 17 ] ( Table 1 ).…”

Effects of Plant Hormones, Metal Ions, Salinity, Sugar, and Chemicals Pollution on Glucosinolate Biosynthesis in Cruciferous Plant

“…Various researchers have carried out a large number of studies on the regulation mechanism of GSL synthesis. These studies have shown that there are many factors affecting the GSL biosynthesis and component content, including genotype, development stage, organs, and environmental conditions ( Rhee et al, 2020 ; Chowdhury et al, 2021 ). Plant hormones, plant growth regulators, mineral elements, heavy metal, antibiotics, and other chemicals can also affect GSL biosynthesis ( Figure 1 ) ( Yuan et al, 2010 ; Kim et al, 2013 ; Zhou and Johan, 2017 ; Jocsak et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Studies have shown that the main factor affecting the content and composition of GSL is genotype, and the content and composition of GSL were different among different species and varieties ( SzydłOwska-Czerniak et al, 2011 ; Wiesner et al, 2013b ; Rhee et al, 2020 ; Jeon et al, 2022 ). Temperature, light quality, mechanical injury, and insect feeding can affect GSL biosynthesis and component content ( Pedreno et al, 2017 ; Kim D. et al, 2018 ; Lin et al, 2022 ).…”