Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods
Identifieur interne : 000A78 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000A77; suivant : 000A79Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods
Auteurs : Ilse Kranner ; Dieter GrillSource :
- Phytochemical Analysis [ 0958-0344 ] ; 1996-01.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
The determination of glutathione (GSH) and glutathione disulphide (GSSG) is subject to substantial problems when analysing plants containing high amounts of phenolic compounds, since the phenolics may react with the GSH present during the extraction. Three frequently used methods for the analysis of GSH and GSSG in the lichen Pseudevernia furfuracea have been compared. Glutathione seemed to be underestimated by the enzymatic recycling assay. Determination by high‐performance liquid chromatography after derivatization of glutathione with 2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (DNFB) or labelling with monobromobimane (mBBr), respectively, gave similar results. Derivatization with DNFB gave the lowest values for GSSG expressed as a percentage of total glutathione. Cyst(e)ine and γ‐glutamyl‐cyst(e)ine were only detected with the mBBr assay.
Url:
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1565(199601)7:1<24::AID-PCA277>3.0.CO;2-2
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53BLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods</title><author><name sortKey="Kranner, Ilse" sort="Kranner, Ilse" uniqKey="Kranner I" first="Ilse" last="Kranner">Ilse Kranner</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Grill, Dieter" sort="Grill, Dieter" uniqKey="Grill D" first="Dieter" last="Grill">Dieter Grill</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B</idno><date when="1996" year="1996">1996</date><idno type="doi">10.1002/(SICI)1099-1565(199601)7:1<24::AID-PCA277>3.0.CO;2-2</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000A78</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods</title><author><name sortKey="Kranner, Ilse" sort="Kranner, Ilse" uniqKey="Kranner I" first="Ilse" last="Kranner">Ilse Kranner</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Grill, Dieter" sort="Grill, Dieter" uniqKey="Grill D" first="Dieter" last="Grill">Dieter Grill</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Phytochemical Analysis</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Phytochem. Anal.</title><idno type="ISSN">0958-0344</idno><idno type="eISSN">1099-1565</idno><imprint><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-01">1996-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="24">24</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="28">28</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0958-0344</idno></series><idno type="istex">E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/(SICI)1099-1565(199601)7:1<24::AID-PCA277>3.0.CO;2-2</idno><idno type="ArticleID">PCA277</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0958-0344</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (Sanger's reagent); glutathione</term><term>2‐vinylpyridine</term><term>glutathione disulphide</term><term>lichens</term><term>monobromobimane</term><term>phenolics</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">The determination of glutathione (GSH) and glutathione disulphide (GSSG) is subject to substantial problems when analysing plants containing high amounts of phenolic compounds, since the phenolics may react with the GSH present during the extraction. Three frequently used methods for the analysis of GSH and GSSG in the lichen Pseudevernia furfuracea have been compared. Glutathione seemed to be underestimated by the enzymatic recycling assay. Determination by high‐performance liquid chromatography after derivatization of glutathione with 2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (DNFB) or labelling with monobromobimane (mBBr), respectively, gave similar results. Derivatization with DNFB gave the lowest values for GSSG expressed as a percentage of total glutathione. Cyst(e)ine and γ‐glutamyl‐cyst(e)ine were only detected with the mBBr assay.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Ilse Kranner</name><affiliations><json:string>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Dieter Grill</name><affiliations><json:string>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (Sanger's reagent); glutathione</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>glutathione disulphide</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>lichens</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>monobromobimane</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>phenolics</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>2‐vinylpyridine</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>PCA277</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><qualityIndicators><score>5.055</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>594 x 828 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>6</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>837</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>3723</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>23746</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>5</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>111</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>7</volume><publisherId><json:string>PCA</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>5</total><last>28</last><first>24</first></pages><issn><json:string>0958-0344</json:string></issn><issue>1</issue><subject><json:item><value>Original Paper</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1099-1565</json:string></eissn><title>Phytochemical Analysis</title><doi><json:string>10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1565</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>1996</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1996</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1002/(SICI)1099-1565(199601)7:1>24::AID-PCA277>3.0.CO;2-2</json:string></doi><id>E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B</id><score>0.26859185</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>Copyright © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p></availability><date>1996</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note>Fonds zur Forderungder Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Vienna, Austria - No. P08552‐Bio;</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Ilse</forename><surname>Kranner</surname></persName><note type="correspondence"><p>Correspondence: Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</p></note><affiliation>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Dieter</forename><surname>Grill</surname></persName><affiliation>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Phytochemical Analysis</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Phytochem. Anal.</title><idno type="pISSN">0958-0344</idno><idno type="eISSN">1099-1565</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1565</idno><imprint><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="24">24</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="28">28</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/(SICI)1099-1565(199601)7:1<24::AID-PCA277>3.0.CO;2-2</idno><idno type="ArticleID">PCA277</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1996</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>The determination of glutathione (GSH) and glutathione disulphide (GSSG) is subject to substantial problems when analysing plants containing high amounts of phenolic compounds, since the phenolics may react with the GSH present during the extraction. Three frequently used methods for the analysis of GSH and GSSG in the lichen Pseudevernia furfuracea have been compared. Glutathione seemed to be underestimated by the enzymatic recycling assay. Determination by high‐performance liquid chromatography after derivatization of glutathione with 2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (DNFB) or labelling with monobromobimane (mBBr), respectively, gave similar results. Derivatization with DNFB gave the lowest values for GSSG expressed as a percentage of total glutathione. Cyst(e)ine and γ‐glutamyl‐cyst(e)ine were only detected with the mBBr assay.</p></abstract><abstract><p>In order to improve the yield of GSH, polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVP), which should serve to bind phenolics, was added during the extraction. The use of PVP improved the yield of glutathione dramatically in lichens harvested in June but not in October. However, addition of PVP led to oxidation of a portion of the GSH. This was demonstrated for each method and seemed to be independent of the thiol blocking agents used for the determination of GSSG, namely 2‐vinylpyridine, iodoacetic acid or N‐ethylmaleimide. For extensive studies on glutathione metabolism in Pseudevernia furfuracea we recommend that the use of PVP be avoided, by investigating thalli collected in autumn, that probably contain less phenolics than those harvested in summer.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (Sanger's reagent); glutathione</term></item><item><term>glutathione disulphide</term></item><item><term>lichens</term></item><item><term>monobromobimane</term></item><item><term>phenolics</term></item><item><term>2‐vinylpyridine</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>article-category</head><item><term>Original Paper</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1995-10-24">Received</change><change when="1995-05-04">Registration</change><change when="1996-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisherName><publisherLoc>Chichester, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi registered="yes">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1565</doi><issn type="print">0958-0344</issn><issn type="electronic">1099-1565</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="PCA"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en" sort="PHYTOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS">Phytochemical Analysis</title><title type="short">Phytochem. Anal.</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="10"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/(SICI)1099-1565(199601)7:1<>1.0.CO;2-C</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="7">7</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1996-01">January 1996</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="5" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/(SICI)1099-1565(199601)7:1<24::AID-PCA277>3.0.CO;2-2</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="PCA277"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="5"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="articleCategory">Original Paper</title><title type="tocHeading1">Original Papers</title></titleGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="manuscriptAccepted" date="1995-05-04"></event><event type="manuscriptReceived" date="1995-10-24"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="1998-12-04"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="1998-12-04"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:JWSART34_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-04"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-06"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-03"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">24</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">28</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:PCA.PCA277.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="3"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="28"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en">Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods</title><title type="short" xml:lang="en">DETERMINATION OF GLUTATHIONE AND GLUTATHIONE DISULPHIDE</title></titleGroup><creators><creator xml:id="au1" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Ilse</givenNames><familyName>Kranner</familyName></personName></creator><creator xml:id="au2" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af1"><personName><givenNames>Dieter</givenNames><familyName>Grill</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="af1" countryCode="AT" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en" type="author"><keyword xml:id="kwd1">2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (Sanger's reagent); glutathione</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd2">glutathione disulphide</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd3">lichens</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd4">monobromobimane</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd5">phenolics</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd6">2‐vinylpyridine</keyword></keywordGroup><fundingInfo><fundingAgency>Fonds zur Forderungder Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Vienna, Austria</fundingAgency><fundingNumber>P08552‐Bio</fundingNumber></fundingInfo><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>The determination of glutathione (GSH) and glutathione disulphide (GSSG) is subject to substantial problems when analysing plants containing high amounts of phenolic compounds, since the phenolics may react with the GSH present during the extraction. Three frequently used methods for the analysis of GSH and GSSG in the lichen <b><i>Pseudevernia furfuracea</i></b> have been compared. Glutathione seemed to be underestimated by the enzymatic recycling assay. Determination by high‐performance liquid chromatography after derivatization of glutathione with 2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (DNFB) or labelling with monobromobimane (mBBr), respectively, gave similar results. Derivatization with DNFB gave the lowest values for GSSG expressed as a percentage of total glutathione. Cyst(e)ine and γ<b>‐glutamyl‐cyst(e)ine were only detected with the mBBr assay.</b></p><p>In order to improve the yield of GSH, polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVP), which should serve to bind phenolics, was added during the extraction. The use of PVP improved the yield of glutathione dramatically in lichens harvested in June but not in October. However, addition of PVP led to oxidation of a portion of the GSH. This was demonstrated for each method and seemed to be independent of the thiol blocking agents used for the determination of GSSG, namely 2‐vinylpyridine, iodoacetic acid or <b><i>N</i></b>‐ethylmaleimide. For extensive studies on glutathione metabolism in <b><i>Pseudevernia furfuracea</i></b> we recommend that the use of PVP be avoided, by investigating thalli collected in autumn, that probably contain less phenolics than those harvested in summer.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>DETERMINATION OF GLUTATHIONE AND GLUTATHIONE DISULPHIDE</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ilse</namePart><namePart type="family">Kranner</namePart><affiliation>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</affiliation><description>Correspondence: Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Dieter</namePart><namePart type="family">Grill</namePart><affiliation>Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie, Universität Graz, Schubertstraße 51, A‐8010 Graz, Austria</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Chichester, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1996-01</dateIssued><dateCaptured encoding="w3cdtf">1995-10-24</dateCaptured><dateValid encoding="w3cdtf">1995-05-04</dateValid><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1996</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="tables">3</extent><extent unit="references">28</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>The determination of glutathione (GSH) and glutathione disulphide (GSSG) is subject to substantial problems when analysing plants containing high amounts of phenolic compounds, since the phenolics may react with the GSH present during the extraction. Three frequently used methods for the analysis of GSH and GSSG in the lichen Pseudevernia furfuracea have been compared. Glutathione seemed to be underestimated by the enzymatic recycling assay. Determination by high‐performance liquid chromatography after derivatization of glutathione with 2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (DNFB) or labelling with monobromobimane (mBBr), respectively, gave similar results. Derivatization with DNFB gave the lowest values for GSSG expressed as a percentage of total glutathione. Cyst(e)ine and γ‐glutamyl‐cyst(e)ine were only detected with the mBBr assay.</abstract><abstract>In order to improve the yield of GSH, polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVP), which should serve to bind phenolics, was added during the extraction. The use of PVP improved the yield of glutathione dramatically in lichens harvested in June but not in October. However, addition of PVP led to oxidation of a portion of the GSH. This was demonstrated for each method and seemed to be independent of the thiol blocking agents used for the determination of GSSG, namely 2‐vinylpyridine, iodoacetic acid or N‐ethylmaleimide. For extensive studies on glutathione metabolism in Pseudevernia furfuracea we recommend that the use of PVP be avoided, by investigating thalli collected in autumn, that probably contain less phenolics than those harvested in summer.</abstract><note type="funding">Fonds zur Forderungder Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Vienna, Austria - No. P08552‐Bio; </note><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>2,4‐dinitro‐1‐fluorobenzene (Sanger's reagent); glutathione</topic><topic>glutathione disulphide</topic><topic>lichens</topic><topic>monobromobimane</topic><topic>phenolics</topic><topic>2‐vinylpyridine</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Phytochemical Analysis</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Phytochem. Anal.</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>Original Paper</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0958-0344</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1099-1565</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1565</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">PCA</identifier><part><date>1996</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>7</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>24</start><end>28</end><total>5</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(SICI)1099-1565(199601)7:1<24::AID-PCA277>3.0.CO;2-2</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">PCA277</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><enrichments><json:item><type>multicat</type><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B/enrichments/multicat</uri></json:item></enrichments><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Bois/explor/OrangerV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000A78 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000A78 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Bois
|area= OrangerV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:E809CEB486411297CA143E4B123A0637F0B1B53B
|texte= Determination of Glutathione and Glutathione Disulphide in Lichens: a Comparison of Frequently Used Methods
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.25. |  |