Skip to main content
. 2001 Oct;127(2):685–700. doi: 10.1104/pp.010280

Table II.

Subcellular distribution of metabolites in potato tubers

Metabolite % of Total Tissue Content
Amyloplast Cytosol Vacuole
Cluster A 3.8 ± 1.9 1.3 ± 0.6 95.0 ± 2.5
Cluster B 16.5 ± 6.1 8.3 ± 3.7 75.3 ± 7.7
Cluster C 58.8 ± 9.3 39.3 ± 7.8 2.0 ± 1.7
Cluster D 46.0 ± 9.0 32.3 ± 11.7 21.7 ± 7.3
Suc 5.0 ± 3.3 17.7 ± 3.1 77.3 ± 0.7
Glc 8.7 ± 3.7 14.3 ± 5.9 77.0 ± 5.7
Fru 15.7 ± 6.7 n.d. 84.3 ± 6.7
Pro 11.3 ± 6.9 39.3 ± 6.2 49.3 ± 6.7
Leu 12.0 ± 5.7 35.7 ± 3.4 52.3 ± 3.0
Iso-Leu 12.7 ± 5.4 20.3 ± 8.6 67.0 ± 7.6
Met 12.3 ± 2.8 3.3 ± 2.7 84.3 ± 2.3
Tyr 18.3 ± 2.6 1.3 ± 1.1 80.3 ± 1.8
Asn 34.7 ± 6.0 1.7 ± 1.0 63.7 ± 5.5
Gln 19.5 ± 11.3 32.0 ± 18.5 48.5 ± 7.2
Homo-Ser 26.7 ± 8.0 5.3 ± 4.4 68.0 ± 3.7
Trp 37.0 ± 16.8 n.d. 63.0 ± 16.8

Developing tuber samples were taken from 10-week-old plants grown in 2-L pots in the greenhouse. The tissue was fractionated using a nonaqueous procedure. Metabolites in each fraction were measured in methanol extracts using GC-MS. Cluster analysis was performed on the percentage distribution in the fractions of the gradient. Cluster A, Quinate, Lys, isocitrate, fumarate, malate, Man, and citrate. Cluster B, Ala, Gly, Ser, Thr, Tyr, Phe, Val, 5-oxo-Pro, Orn, mannitol, inositol, shikimate, and succinate. Cluster C, Fru-6-P and Glu-6-P. Cluster D, Asp and Glu. The subcellular distributions were calculated by comparing the metabolite and marker enzyme distributions using a three-compartment calculation program. The results represent the means ± se of measurements on three different fractionations with different tuber samples. n.d., Not detected.