4.7 Article

Liquid chromatography-diode array detection to study the metabolism of glufosinate in Triticum aestivum T-590 and influence of the genetic modification on its resistance

期刊

PHYTOCHEMISTRY
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 117-122

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2013.10.008

关键词

Triticum aestivum; GMO crops; Glufosinate; Resistance; Metabolism; Degradation; LC-DAD; LC-TOF/MS

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN)
  2. FEDER program [AGL-2010 16774, CTM2009-07430, CTQ2012-37428]
  3. MICINN [RYC-2009-03921]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The resistance to glufosinate of two lines-genetically modified (GM) and unmodified (T-590 and T-549, respectively)-of Triticum aestivum has been studied. In the GM line, the bar gene was introduced to increase the resistance to glufosinate. Experiments in a controlled growth chamber showed that line T-590 presented a high resistance to glufosinate with an ED50 value of 478.59 g active ingredient per hectare (g ai ha(-1)) versus 32.65 g ai ha(-1) for line T-549. The activity of glutamine synthetase (GS) in leaf extracts from both lines was investigated. The I-50 for line T-590 was 694.10 mu M glufosinate versus 55.46 mu M for line T-549, with a resistance factor of 12.51. Metabolism studies showed a higher and faster penetration of glufosinate in line T-549 than in line T-590. LC-TOF/MS analysis of glufosinate metabolism at 48 h after herbicide treatment (300 g ai ha(-1)) revealed an 83.4% conversion of the herbicide (66.5% in N-acetyl-glufosinate metabolite), while in line T-549 conversion of the herbicide was about 40% (0% to Nacetyl-glufosinate). These results suggest that metabolism of glufosinate by the bar gene is a key mechanism of resistance in line T-590 that explains such high levels of herbicide tolerated by the plant, together with other mechanisms due to unmodified pathway, absorption and loss of glufosinate affinity for its target site. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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