4.7 Article

Organic acids metabolism in roots of grapevine rootstocks under severe iron deficiency

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 394, 期 1-2, 页码 165-175

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-015-2530-5

关键词

Iron chlorosis; Phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase; Organic acids; Enzyme activity; Grapevine genotypes

资金

  1. Comision Nacional de Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica (CONICYT) of Chile
  2. Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation Window for Chile-European Union Community [Lot 17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In many important viticultural areas of the Mediterranean basin, plants often face prolonged periods of scarce iron (Fe) availability in the soil. The objective of the present work was to perform a comparative analysis of physiological and biochemical responses of Vitis genotypes to severe Fe deficiency. Three grapevine rootstocks differing in susceptibility to Fe chlorosis were grown with and without Fe in the nutrient solution. Rootstock 101-14, susceptible to Fe chlorosis, responded to severe Fe deficiency by reducing the root activity of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC) and malate dehydrogenase (MDH), however, it accumulated high levels of citric acid. By contrast, rootstock 110 Richter, tolerant to Fe chlorosis, maintained an active metabolism of organic acids, but citric acid accumulation was lower than in 101-14. Similarly to 101-14, rootstock SO4 showed a strong decrease in PEPC and MDH activities. Nevertheless it maintained moderate citric acid levels in the roots, mimicking the response by 110 Richter. Root PEPC and MDH activities can be used as tools for screening Fe chlorosis tolerance. Conversely, organic acids accumulation in roots may not be a reliable indicator of Fe chlorosis tolerance, particularly under conditions of severe Fe deficiency, because of their probable exudation by roots. Our results show that drawing sound conclusions from screening programs involving Fe deficiency tolerance requires short as well as long-term assessment of responses to Fe deprivation.

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