Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Metabolite Profiling of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Using 1H NMR Spectroscopy as a Tool To Detect Potential Unintended Effects Following a Genetic Modification

Le Gall, Gwénaëlle, Colquhoun, Ian J., Davis, Adrienne L., Collins, Geoff J., Verhoeyen, Martine E.·2003·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Abstract

The maize transcription factors LC and C1 were simultaneously overexpressed in tomato with the aim of producing lines with increased amounts of flavonols. The metabolite composition of these genetically modified tomatoes has been compared with that of azygous (nonmodified) controls grown side-by-side under the same conditions. It has been possible to observe metabolic changes in both types at different stages of maturity. (1)H NMR spectra showed that the levels of glutamic acid, fructose, and some nucleosides and nucleotides gradually increase from the immature to the ripe stage, whereas some amino acids such as valine and gamma-aminobutyric acid were present in higher amounts in unripe tomatoes. Apart from the significantly increased content of six main flavonoid glycosides (mainly kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside, with additional increases in kaempferol-3,7-di-O-glucoside (1), kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside-7-O-glucoside (2), kaempferol-3-O-glucoside, a dihydrokaempferol-O-hexoside (3), and naringenin-7-O-glucoside), the levels of at least 15 other metabolites were found to be different between the two types of red tomato. Among them were citric acid, sucrose, phenylalanine, and trigonelline. However, although statistically significant, these changes in mean values were relatively minor (less than 3-fold) and within the natural variation that would be observed in a field-grown crop. Nevertheless, this study clearly showed that NMR combined with chemometrics and univariate statistics can successfully trace even small differences in metabolite levels between plants and therefore represents a powerful tool to detect potential unintended effects in genetically modified crops.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jf0259967

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 262

Metadata

Authors
Le Gall, G., Colquhoun, I. J., Davis, A. L., Collins, G. J., & Verhoeyen, M. E.
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Published
2003-04-01
Volume
51
Issue
9
Pages
2447-2456
ISSN
  • 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5118
OpenAlex
W1992504350
Cited by
262
References
0
FWCI
12.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Metabolite Profiling of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Using 1H NMR Spectroscopy as a Tool To Detect Potential Unintended Effects Following a Genetic Modification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jf0259967
The paper
Le Gall, G., Colquhoun, I. J., Davis, A. L., Collins, G. J., & Verhoeyen, M. E. (2003). Metabolite Profiling of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Using 1H NMR Spectroscopy as a Tool To Detect Potential Unintended Effects Following a Genetic Modification. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0259967

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.