4.7 Article

Comparison of the protective effectiveness of NPQ in Arabidopsis plants deficient in PsbS protein and zeaxanthin

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 66, 期 5, 页码 1259-1270

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eru477

关键词

Arabidopsis; protective NPQ; photoinhibition; photosystem II; PsbS protein; zeaxanthin

资金

  1. Dr Juliet Coates' lab
  2. Queen Mary Principals research studentship
  3. Leverhulme Trust
  4. UK BBSRC
  5. BBSRC [BB/L019027/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L019027/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficiency of protective energy dissipation by non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) in photosystem II (PSII) has been recently quantified by a new non-invasive photochemical quenching parameter, qPd. PSII yield (Dcurrency signPSII) was expressed in terms of NPQ, and the extent of damage to the reaction centres (RCIIs) was calculated via qPd as: Dcurrency signPSII=qPdx(F (v)/F (m))/{1+[1-(F (v)/F (m))]xNPQ}. Here this approach was used to determine the amount of NPQ required to protect all PSII reaction centres (pNPQ) under a gradually increasing light intensity, in the zeaxanthin-deficient (npq1) Arabidopsis mutant, compared with PsbS protein-deficient (npq4) and wild-type plants. The relationship between maximum pNPQ and tolerated light intensity for all plant genotypes followed similar trends. These results suggest that under a gradually increasing light intensity, where pNPQ is allowed to develop, it is only the amplitude of pNPQ which is the determining factor for protection. However, the use of a sudden constant high light exposure routine revealed that the presence of PsbS, not zeaxanthin, offered better protection for PSII. This was attributed to a slower development of pNPQ in plants lacking PsbS in comparison with plants that lacked zeaxanthin. This research adds further support to the value of pNPQ and qPd as effective parameters for assessing NPQ effectiveness in different types of plants.

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