4.7 Article

Carbohydrate availability affects growth and metabolism in peach fruit

期刊

PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM
卷 133, 期 2, 页码 229-241

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01068.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Along with sucrose, sorbitol represents the main photosynthetic product and form of translocated carbon in peach. This study aimed at determining whether peach fruit carbohydrate metabolism is affected by changes in source-sink balance, and specifically whether sorbitol or sucrose availability regulates fruit enzyme activities and growth. In various trials, different levels of assimilate availability to growing fruits were induced in vivo by varying crop load of entire trees, leaf : fruit ratio (L:F) of fruiting shoots, or by interrupting the phloem stream (girdling) to individual fruits. In vitro, fruit tissue was incubated in presence/absence of sorbitol and sucrose. Relative growth rate (RGR), enzyme activities and carbohydrates were measured at different fruit growth stages of various peach cultivars in different years. At stage III, high crop load induced higher acid invertase (AI, EC 3.2.1.26) activities and hexose : sucrose ratios. Both sorbitol and sucrose contents were proportional to L:F, while sorbitol dehydrogenase (SDH, EC 1.1.1.14) activity was the only enzyme activity directly related to L:F in both fruit growth stages. Girdling reduced fruit RGR and all major carbohydrates after 4 days and SDH activity already after 48 h, but it did not affect sucrose synthase (SS, EC 2.4.1.13), AI and neutral invertase (NI, EC 3.2.1.27). Fruit incubation in sorbitol for 24 h induced higher SDH activities than in buffer alone. In general, assimilate availability affected both sorbitol and sucrose metabolism in peach fruit, and sorbitol may function as a signal for modulating SDH activity. Under highly competitive conditions, AI activity may be enhanced by assimilate depletion, providing a mechanism to increase fruit sink strength by increasing hexose concentrations.

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