4.7 Review

Hypothesis/review: Contribution of putrescine to 4-aminobutyrate (GABA) production in response to abiotic stress

Journal

PLANT SCIENCE
Volume 193, Issue -, Pages 130-135

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2012.06.001

Keywords

Abiotic stress; 4-Aminobutyrate; 4-Aminobutyraldehyde; Controlled atmosphere storage; Polyamines; Putrescine

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
  3. Agrofresh Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

4-Aminobutyrate (GABA) accumulates in various plant parts, including bulky fruits such as apples, in response to abiotic stress. It is generally believed that the GABA is derived from glutamate, although a contribution from polyamines is possible. Putrescine, but not spermidine and spermine, generally accumulates in response to the genetic manipulation of polyamine biosynthetic enzymes and abiotic stress. However, the GABA levels in stressed plants are influenced by processes other than putrescine availability. It is hypothesized that the catabolism of putrescine to GABA is regulated by a combination of gene-dependent and -independent processes. The expression of several putative diamine oxidase genes is weak, but highly stress-inducible in certain tissues of Arabidopsis. In contrast, candidate genes that encode 4-aminobutyraldehyde dehydrogenase are highly constitutive, but not stress inducible. Changes in O-2 availability and cellular redox balance due to stress may directly influence the activities of diamine oxidase and 4-aminobutyraldehyde dehydrogenase, thereby restricting GABA formation. Apple fruit is known to accumulate GABA under controlled atmosphere storage and therefore could serve as a model system for investigating the relative contribution of putrescine and glutamate to GABA production. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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