4.7 Article

Galactose metabolism in cell walls of opening and senescing petunia petals

期刊

PLANTA
卷 229, 期 3, 页码 709-721

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-008-0862-6

关键词

Cell wall; Galactose; beta-Galactosidase; Petal; Petunia hybrida

资金

  1. New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Galactose was the major non-cellulosic neutral sugar present in the cell walls of 'Mitchell' petunia (Petunia axillaris x P. axillaris x P. hybrida) flower petals. Over the 24 h period associated with flower opening, there was a doubling of the galactose content of polymers strongly associated with cellulose and insoluble in strong alkali ('residual' fraction). By two days after flower opening, the galactose content of both the residual fraction and a Na(2)CO(3)-soluble pectin-rich cell wall fraction had sharply decreased, and continued to decline as flowers began to wilt. In contrast, amounts of other neutral sugars showed little change over this time, and depolymerisation of pectins and hemicelluloses was barely detectable throughout petal development. Size exclusion chromatography of Na(2)CO(3)-soluble pectins showed that there was a loss of neutral sugar relative to uronic acid content, consistent with a substantial loss of galactose from rhamnogalacturonan-I-type pectin. beta-Galactosidase activity (EC 3.2.1.23) increased at bud opening, and remained high through to petal senescence. Two cDNAs encoding beta-galactosidase were isolated from a mixed stage petal library. Both deduced proteins are beta-galactosidases of Glycosyl Hydrolase Family 35, possessing lectin-like sugar-binding domains at their carboxyl terminus. PhBGAL1 was expressed at relatively high levels only during flower opening, while PhBGAL2 mRNA accumulation occurred at lower levels in mature and senescent petals. The data suggest that metabolism of cell wall-associated polymeric galactose is the major feature of both the opening and senescence of 'Mitchell' petunia flower petals.

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