4.7 Article

Treatment with the herbicide TOPIK induces oxidative stress in cereal leaves

期刊

PESTICIDE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY
卷 105, 期 1, 页码 44-49

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2012.11.006

关键词

Triticum aestivum; Secale cereale; Zea mays; Xenobiotics; Herbicides; Aryloxyphenoxypropionate; Oxidative stress; Superoxide anion; Lipid peroxidation; Antioxidant enzymes

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation (the program Development of Scientific Potential of Higher School) [2.1.1/624]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leaf disks as well as intact 7-day-old plants of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L, cv. Mironovskaya 808), winter rye (Secale cereale L., cv. Estafeta Tatarstana), and maize (Zea mays L., cv. Kollektivnyi 172MV), were treated with the aryloxyphenoxypropionate class herbicide TOPIK, concentrate-emulsion (active ingredient is clodinafop-propargyl (CP), 8-800 mu g/L), and the effects of short-term action (up to 3 h) and long-term aftereffect (up to 3 days) on physiological and biochemical indices related to oxidative stress development were studied. The herbicide induced changes, predominantly increases in lipid peroxidation (LPO) intensity, superoxide anion O-2(center dot-) generation, total antioxidant activity (AOA), and catalase (CAT) and ascorbate peroxidase (APOX) activity, although the response by plants was nonlinear and depended on the herbicide concentration and duration of treatment. The highest level of generation of O-2(center dot-) was observed in the leaves of maize and winter wheat treated by 800 mu g/L CP, both in the short- and long-term. As TOPIK concentration increased, so too did LPO and AOA in leaves, confirming the presence of oxidative stress in the cells of all three cereals. Antioxidant enzymes were most active in winter rye and wheat, and least active in maize indicating a protective antioxidant mechanism in the first two cereals. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. 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