4.7 Article

Photosystem I shows a higher tolerance to sorbitol-induced osmotic stress than photosystem II in the intertidal macro-algae Ulva prolifera (Chlorophyta)

Journal

PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM
Volume 152, Issue 2, Pages 380-388

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ppl.12188

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. [2012BAC07B03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The photosynthetic performance of the desiccation-tolerant, intertidal macro-algae Ulva prolifera was significantly affected by sorbitol-induced osmotic stress. Our results showed that photosynthetic activity decreased significantly with increases in sorbitol concentration. Although the partial activity of both photosystem I (PS I) and photosystem II (PS II) was able to recover after 30min of rehydration, the activity of PS II decreased more rapidly than PS I. At 4M sorbitol concentration, the activity of PS II was almost 0 while that of PS I was still at about one third of normal levels. Following prolonged treatment with 1 and 2M sorbitol, the activity of PS I and PS II decreased slowly, suggesting that the effects of moderate concentrations of sorbitol on PS I and PS II were gradual. Interestingly, an increase in non-photochemical quenching occurred under these conditions in response to moderate osmotic stress, whereas it declined significantly under severe osmotic stress. These results suggest that photoprotection in U. prolifera could also be induced by moderate osmotic stress. In addition, the oxidation of PS I was significantly affected by osmotic stress. P700(+) in the thalli treated with high concentrations of sorbitol could still be reduced, as PS II was inhibited by 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (DCMU), but it could not be fully oxidized. This observation may be caused by the higher quantum yield of non-photochemical energy dissipation in PS I due to acceptor-side limitation (Y(NA)) during rehydration in seawater containing DCMU.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available