4.7 Article

Differential Activity of Plasma and Vacuolar Membrane Transporters Contributes to Genotypic Differences in Salinity Tolerance in a Halophyte Species, Chenopodium quinoa

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 9267-9285

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms14059267

关键词

sodium exclusion; vacuolar sequestration; potassium retention; mesophyll; cytosol; H+-ATPase; SOS1 exchanger

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP1094663, LP100200456]
  2. Linkage
  3. Australian Research Council [DP1094663, LP100200456] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Halophytes species can be used as a highly convenient model system to reveal key ionic and molecular mechanisms that confer salinity tolerance in plants. Earlier, we reported that quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), a facultative C3 halophyte species, can efficiently control the activity of slow (SV) and fast (FV) tonoplast channels to match specific growth conditions by ensuring that most of accumulated Na+ is safely locked in the vacuole (Bonales-Alatorre et al. (2013) Plant Physiology). This work extends these finding by comparing the properties of tonoplast FV and SV channels in two quinoa genotypes contrasting in their salinity tolerance. The work is complemented by studies of the kinetics of net ion fluxes across the plasma membrane of quinoa leaf mesophyll tissue. Our results suggest that multiple mechanisms contribute towards genotypic differences in salinity tolerance in quinoa. These include: (i) a higher rate of Na+ exclusion from leaf mesophyll; (ii) maintenance of low cytosolic Na+ levels; (iii) better K+ retention in the leafmesophyll; (iv) a high rate of H+ pumping, which increases the ability of mesophyll cells to restore their membrane potential; and (v) the ability to reduce the activity of SV and FV channels under saline conditions. These mechanisms appear to be highly orchestrated, thus enabling the remarkable overall salinity tolerance of quinoa species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据