Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,154

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Simultaneous analysis of metabolites in potato tuber by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Open access
Roessner, Ute, Wagner, Cornelia, Kopka, Joachim, Trethewey, Richard N., Willmitzer, Lothar·2000·The Plant Journal

Abstract

Summary: A new method is presented in which gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC–MS) allows the quantitative and qualitative detection of more than 150 compounds within a potato tuber, in a highly sensitive and specific manner. In contrast to other methods developed for metabolite analysis in plant systems, this method represents an unbiased and open approach that allows the detection of unexpected changes in metabolite levels. Although the method represents a compromise for a wide range of metabolites in terms of extraction, chemical modification and GC–MS analysis, for 25 metabolites analysed in detail the recoveries were found to be within the generally accepted range of 70–140%. Further, the reproducibility of the method was high: the error occurring in the analysis procedures was found to be less than 6% for 30 out of 33 compounds tested. Biological variability exceeded the systematic error of the analysis by a factor of up to 10. The method is also suited for upscaling, potentially allowing the simultaneous analysis of a large number of samples. As a first example this method has been applied to soil‐ and in vitro‐grown tubers. Due to the simultaneous analysis of a wide range of metabolites it was immediately apparent that these systems differ significantly in their metabolism. Furthermore, the parallel insight into many pathways allows some conclusions to be drawn about the underlying physiological differences between both tuber systems. As a second example, transgenic lines modified in sucrose catabolism or starch synthesis were analysed. This example illustrates the power of an unbiased approach to detecting unexpected changes in transgenic lines.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00774.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,154

Metadata

Authors
Roessner, U., Wagner, C., Kopka, J., Trethewey, R. N., & Willmitzer, L.
Venue
The Plant Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-07
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
131-142
ISSN
  • 0960-7412 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-313X
OpenAlex
W1978781045
Cited by
1,154
References
1
FWCI
8.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Simultaneous analysis of metabolites in potato tuber by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00774.x
The paper
Roessner, U., Wagner, C., Kopka, J., Trethewey, R. N., & Willmitzer, L. (2000). Simultaneous analysis of metabolites in potato tuber by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. The Plant Journal. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00774.x

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.