4.7 Article

Characterization of C3-C4 intermediate species in the genus Heliotropium L. (Boraginaceae): anatomy, ultrastructure and enzyme activity

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 34, 期 10, 页码 1723-1736

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02367.x

关键词

C-3-C-4 intermediate photosynthesis; C-4 evolution; C-4 photosynthesis; carbon-concentrating mechanism; Kranz anatomy; photorespiration

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Yarmouk University of Jordan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Photosynthetic pathway characteristics were studied in nine species of Heliotropium (sensu lato, including Euploca), using assessments of leaf anatomy and ultrastructure, activities of PEP carboxylase and C-4 acid decarboxylases, and immunolocalization of ribulose 1.5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) and the P-subunit of glycine decarboxylase (GDC). Heliotropium europaeum, Heliotropium calcicola and Heliotropium tenellum are C-3 plants, while Heliotropium texanum and Heliotropium polyphyllum are C-4 species. Heliotropium procumbens and Heliotropium karwinskyi are functionally C-3, but exhibit 'proto-Kranz' anatomy where bundle sheath (BS) cells are enlarged and mitochondria primarily occur along the centripetal (inner) wall of the BS cells; GDC is present throughout the leaf. Heliotropium convolvulaceum and Heliotropium greggii are C-3-C-4 intermediates, with Kranz-like enlargement of the BS cells, localization of mitochondria along the inner BS wall and a loss of GDC in the mesophyll (M) tissue. These C-3-C-4 species of Heliotropium probably shuttle photorespiratory glycine from the M to the BS tissue for decarboxylation. Heliotropium represents an important new model for studying C-4 evolution. Where existing models such as Flaveria emphasize diversification of C-3-C-4 intermediates, Heliotropium has numerous C-3 species expressing proto-Kranz traits that could represent a critical initial phase in the evolutionary origin of C-4 photosynthesis.

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