4.6 Review

Emerging trade-offs - impact of photoprotectants (PsbS, xanthophylls, and vitamin E) on oxylipins as regulators of development and defense

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 197, 期 3, 页码 720-729

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.12100

关键词

defense; jasmonic acid (JA); lutein; oxylipin; PsbS; vitamin E; xanthophyll; zeaxanthin

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IBN-0235351, IOS-0841546, DEB-1022236]
  2. University of Colorado at Boulder, CO, USA
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [1022236] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review summarizes evidence for a mechanistic link between plant photoprotection and the synthesis of oxylipin hormones as regulators of development and defense. Knockout mutants of Arabidopsis, deficient in various key components of the chloroplast photoprotection system, consistently produced greater concentrations of the hormone jasmonic acid or its precursor 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid (OPDA), both members of the oxylipin messenger family. Characterized plants include several mutants deficient in PsbS (an intrinsic chlorophyll-binding protein of photosystem II) or pigments (zeaxanthin and/or lutein) required for photoprotective thermal dissipation of excess excitation energy in the chloroplast and a mutant deficient in reactive oxygen detoxification via the antioxidant vitamin E (tocopherol). Evidence is also presented that certain plant defenses against herbivores or pathogens are elevated for these mutants. This evidence furthermore indicates that wild-type Arabidopsis plants possess less than maximal defenses against herbivores or pathogens, and suggest that plant lines with superior defenses against abiotic stress may have lower biotic defenses. The implications of this apparent trade-off between abiotic and biotic plant defenses for plant ecology as well as for plant breeding/engineering are explored, and the need for research further addressing this important issue is highlighted.

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