Back

Comparison of Extraction Methods for the Quantification of Phytohormones from Tomato Fruits and Leaves by LC-MS/MS

Juarez Guzman, C. A.; Yao, L.; Broeckling, C. D.; Argueso, C. T.

2026-04-08 plant biology
10.64898/2026.04.06.716604 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Accurate, simultaneous, and efficient quantification of chemically diverse phytohormone species is a critical task towards understanding the complex system of phytohormone signaling pathways. Quantification of phytohormones with the commonly used technique liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry is susceptible to the influence of non-phytohormone components present in the sample, a phenomenon referred to as matrix effect. To reduce matrix effect, some phytohormone quantification methods include additional steps of cleanup of crude extracts. However, to what extent additional purification steps provide increased accuracy compared to simpler, less laborious methods is seldomly evaluated. We evaluated three previously described phytohormone extraction methods, two of which include solid-phase extraction and one that does not, in their ability to minimize matrix effect and generate accurate estimates of phytohormone species spanning six classifications, from fruit and leaf tissue of Solanum lycopersicum cv. Micro-Tom (tomato). Our results show that, while the methods that included solid phase extraction occasionally outperformed each other regarding matrix effect and/or recovery efficiency for broad range of phytohormones, they rarely outperformed the simpler single-phase extraction method. Short AbstractAccurate, simultaneous quantification of chemically diverse phytohormones by LC-MS/MS is frequently confounded by matrix effects, leading to the incorporation of additional purification steps. We systematically compared three published extraction protocols with or without solid-phase extraction in tomato tissues across six hormone classes. Solid-phase methods occasionally improved matrix suppression or recovery, but did not consistently outperform the single-phase approach, questioning the added value of extra cleanup steps, particularly when high-throughput is desired, as in the case of systems biology interrogations.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
40.5%
2
Plant Direct
81 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.6%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.2%
6
Food Chemistry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
7
Metabolites
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
8
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
9
PROTEOMICS
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
10
Journal of Experimental Botany
195 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
Talanta
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
The Plant Journal
197 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
13
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
158 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
14
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
15
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
16
Molecular Omics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
17
The Plant Genome
53 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
18
Frontiers in Chemistry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
20
Algal Research
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
21
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
22
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
Planta
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
24
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
25
BMC Plant Biology
47 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%