化学
气相色谱-质谱法
代谢组学
气相色谱法
主成分分析
质谱法
食品科学
科瓦茨保留指数
色谱法
数学
统计
作者
Stephan van Vliet,Frederick D. Provenza,James Bain,DEMITRIUS A. HILL,Michael J. Muehlbauer,Carl Pieper,Kim Huffman,Scott L. Kronberg,Stephan Baumann,Tarun Anumol
出处
期刊:Lc Gc North America
日期:2022-12-01
卷期号:: 573-578
标识
DOI:10.56530/lcgc.na.qf2278a1
摘要
As the consumer interest and market for plant-based meat alternatives grows, understanding the nutritional differences between alternative and traditional meats is essential. This article describes an untargeted gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS)-based metabolomics approach that compares the chemical profiles of a popular plant-based meat alternative and grass-fed ground beef using a GC system coupled to a GC–MS device. The samples were derivatized to simplify the chromatographic process and render the polar metabolites more volatile for GC–MS analysis. Statistical and multivariate analysis of the acquired and processed GC–MS data revealed that 90% of the annotated compounds differed between the plant-based alternative meat and the grass-fed ground beef samples. The ground beef and plant-based products each contained several compounds that were found in much smaller quantities, or not at all, in the other product. These results indicate differences in organic composition even though the nutritional labels on the back of the products were nearly identical. Heat maps, principal component analysis (PCA) score plots, variable importance plots (VIPs), and the clustering of compounds into metabolite classes provided further insights into the differences between the two types of meat products. The biological significance of the comparative data was studied using online databases and pathway analysis tools.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI