4.7 Article

Modulation of the antioxidant system in citrus under waterlogging and subsequent drainage

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 166, 期 13, 页码 1391-1404

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.02.012

关键词

Ascorbate-glutathione cycle; Catalase; Hydrogen peroxide; Malondialdehyde; Superoxide dismutase

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia
  2. Universitat Jaume l/Fundacio Bancaixa [AGL2007-65437-C04-03/AGR, P1IB2006-02]
  3. Generalitat Valenciana, Spain
  4. Universitat Jaume I

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil flooding induces an impairment of the photosynthetic system that often leads to an accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in plant tissues. Moreover, flooding release by drainage can cause a sudden oxygen burst that exacerbates oxidative damage. To examine the influence of different anoxic and post-anoxic periods on citrus physiology, citrumelo CPB4475, a moderate flood-tolerant genotype, was subjected to three different periods of soil flooding followed by drainage. Plant performance in terms of visible damage, photosynthetic activity, malondialdehyde (MDA) and hydrogen peroxide accumulation was examined together with the plant antioxidant response. The results indicated that coordinated antioxidant activity, involving increased activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) (EC 1.15.1.1) and catalase (CAT) (EC 1.11.1.6), together with a modulation of the ascorbate-glutathione cycle, allowed plants to cope with flooding-induced oxidative stress up to a certain point. Elevated ascorbate peroxidase (APX) (EC 1.11.1.11) activity or discrete increases in AsA or glutathione concentrations seemed inefficient in maintaining tow levels of oxidative damage. Waterlogging stress release by soil drainage did not improve plant performance but, on the contrary, enhanced oxidative stress and even accelerated plant injury. This appears to be the result of sudden oxygen burst soon after release of water. (C) 2009 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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