Table 3. GC-MS quantitative analysis of the hydrolyzable constituents in cutin samples purified using cholinium hexanoate (2 h reaction) from wild-type and cus1 and gpat6 mutant ‘Micro-Tom’ tomato plants

Results are given as % wt (n = 3). The identification yields (wt %) and the mass of the non-hydrolysable fraction (recalcitrance, %) are indicated below.

Compound NameCompound Abundances
wtcus1gpat6
wt %
Fatty acids0.50 ± 0.046.06 ± 0.815.60 ± 0.88
  Hexadecanoic acid0.27 ± 0.022.09 ± 0.261.59 ± 0.23
  9,12-octadecadienoic3.00 ± 0.592.22 ± 0.42
  9-octadecenoic acid0.24 ± 0.061.20 ± 0.16
  Octadecanoic acid0.96 ± 0.120.59 ± 0.11
Dicarboxylic acids4.68 ± 0.327.23 ± 0.557.92 ± 0.5
  Nonanedioic acida1.75 ± 0.370.88 ± 0.05
  Hexadecandioic acid0.60 ± 0.101.95 ± 0.23
  8/9-hydroxyhexadecanedioic acidb4.08 ± 0.235.48 ± 0.245.09 ± 0.25
ω-Hydroxy acids5.47 ± 0.301.19 ± 0.021.56 ± 0.08
  16-Hydroxyhexadecanoic acid3.97 ± 0.231.19 ± 0.021.12 ± 0.09
  16-Hydroxy-10-oxohexadecanoic acid0.71 ± 0.040.44 ± 0.02
  9, 10-Epoxy-18-hydroxyoctadecanoic acid0.25 ± 0.05
  9, 10-Epoxy-18-hydroxyoctadecenoic acid0.54 ± 0.02
Polyhydroxy acids89.35 ± 0.6385.33 ± 1.3284.86 ± 1.46
  Dihydroxyhexadecanoic acidc87.91 ± 0.4883.87 ± 1.5277.71 ± 2.50
  9,10,18-Trihydroxyoctadecanoic acid0.62 ± 0.060.91 ± 0.183.84 ± 0.76
  9,10,18-Trihydroxyoctadec-12-enoic acid0.82 ± 0.090.54 ± 0.043.31 ± 0.49
Sterolsd0.19 ± 0.04
  Identification yield (%)57.99 ± 1.2637.49 ± 0.7436.05 ± 1.75
  Recalcitrance (%)32.6 ± 3.6844.26 ± 2.9641.28 ± 0.97
  • a This compound was overestimated or overlapped with an unknown compound.

  • b This compound was associated with the possible presence of unspecific isomers.

  • c The major species of this compound was 10,16-diOH and minor species were 9,16- and 8,16-diOH.

  • d The identified sterol was stigmasterol.