Protium, Burm.f.
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.phytochem.2019.01.014 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10519471 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/60174040-E16D-800D-FCAB-FA0507CBF617 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Protium |
| status |
|
2.4. Comparison of Protium View in CoL monoterpene ‘fingerprints’ between individuals
Of the 77 Protium individuals, we observed a consistency of Protium monoterpene ‘fingerprints’ that could be separated in two cases: a) similar monoterpene ‘fingerprints’ patterns between individuals of different species, b) similar monoterpene ‘fingerprints’ patterns between individuals of the same species. Graphical representations of example monoterpene ‘fingerprints’ showing consistency between individuals of different species ( Figs. S2–S View Fig 4 View Fig ) and the same species ( Figs. S5–S View Fig 6) is provided in the supporting information.
As an example of similar patterns between individuals from different species, the comparison of the monoterpene ‘fingerprint’ from P. calendulinum species (Tree 1408) and that of P. hebetatum var. 1 (Tree 277C) showed a strong consistency of monoterpene patterns ( Figs. S2a and S2d View Fig ). Both ‘fingerprints’ presented the same dominant monoterpene (α-pinene) and similar relative abundance for other monoterpenes, including camphene, β-pinene, and d -limonene (MTPs 8, 12 and 18, respectively).
In a second example, the monoterpene ‘fingerprint’ of a P. paniculatum var. paniculatum individual (Tree 1301) showed similarities with the ‘fingerprint’ of a second individual, from P. paniculatum var. paniculatum species (Tree 157), with α-phellandrene as the dominant monoterpene in both cases (compare Fig. S2b View Fig with S2e). There was also a good similarity between the relative abundances of the monoterpenes α-terpinene, β-phellandrene, γ-terpinene, α-terpinolene and isoterpinolene (MTPs 16, 19, 22, 24 and 25, respectively). Another interesting example showed that the ‘fingerprint’ of a P. apiculatum (Tree 464) had a good similarity with the ‘fingerprint’ of a P. nitidifolium (Tree 334D) individual, with d -limonene as the dominant monoterpene (compare Fig. S2c View Fig with S2f). More examples of monoterpene ‘fingerprints’ similarities for individuals from different species can be observed in Figs. S3 View Fig and S 4. View Fig
A comparison analysis of monoterpene ‘fingerprints’ with similar patterns between individuals from the same species was also conducted. Monoterpene ‘fingerprints’ from two individuals of P. hebetatum var. 2 (Trees 661 and 724) showed a consistency of monoterpene patterns (compare Fig. S5a View Fig with S5d), with α-pinene as the dominant monoterpene. Furthermore, for both ‘fingerprints’, the monoterpenes β-pinene, α-phellandrene and α-terpinene were detected. For another two monoterpene ‘fingerprints’ (Trees 261 and 931B), also from P. hebetatum var. 2 species and with α-pinene as the dominant monoterpene, we can observe a consistency of monoterpenes occurrence and monoterpenes relative abundance (compare Fig. S5b View Fig with S5e). Other examples of similarities for ‘fingerprints’ from the same species are highlighted in Fig. S6 (a-f). In this figure, it is interesting to observe that four individuals from P. paniculatum var. modestum species presented strong similarities in their monoterpene ‘fingerprints’. For example, both Trees 1289 and 1295 (Figs. S6a and S6b) presented the occurrence of monoterpenes 3-carene, α-terpinene, β-phellandrene, cis-β-ocimene and γ-terpinene, with strong relative abundance similarities of these monoterpenes. For these four ‘fingerprints’ from the same species, the same dominant monoterpene (α-phellandrene) was observed, as well.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.