4.6 Article

Ca2+ and CaM are Involved in NO- and H2O2-Induced Adventitious Root Development in Marigold

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATION
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 253-264

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00344-011-9235-7

关键词

Calcium (Ca2+); Calmodulin (CaM); Nitric oxide (NO); Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2); Adventitious root development; Marigold (Tagetes erecta L. 'Marvel')

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31160398]
  2. Post Doctoral Foundation of China [20100470887]
  3. Chinese Ministry of Education [211182]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province, China [1010RJZA211]
  5. Gansu Key Laboratory of Aridland Crop Science, Gansu Agricultural University, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our previous results have demonstrated that both nitric oxide (NO) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) are involved in the promotion of adventitious root development in marigold (Tagetes erecta L.). However, not much is known about the intricate molecular network of adventitious root development triggered by NO and H2O2. In this study, the involvement of calcium (Ca2+) and calmodulin (CaM) in NO- and H2O2-induced adventitious rooting in marigold was investigated. Exogenous Ca2+ was capable of promoting adventitious rooting, with a maximal biological response at 50 mu M CaCl2. Ca2+ chelators and CaM antagonists prevented NO- and H2O2-induced adventitious rooting, indicating that both endogenous Ca2+ and CaM may play crucial roles in the adventitious rooting induced by NO and H2O2. NO and H2O2 treatments increased the endogenous content of Ca2+ and CaM, suggesting that NO and H2O2 enhanced adventitious rooting by stimulating the endogenous Ca2+ and CaM levels. Moreover, treatment with Ca2+ enhanced the endogenous levels of NO and H2O2. Additionally, Ca2+ might be involved as an upstream signaling molecule for CaM during NO- and H2O2-induced rooting. Altogether, the results suggest that both Ca2+ and CaM are two downstream signaling molecules in adventitious rooting induced by NO and H2O2.

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

4.6
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