4.5 Article

Leaf proteome analysis of eight Populus xeuramericana genotypes: Genetic variation in drought response and in water-use efficiency involves photosynthesis-related proteins

期刊

PROTEOMICS
卷 9, 期 17, 页码 4121-4142

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200900047

关键词

Carbon isotope discrimination; Chloroplast; Open field experiment; Plant proteomics; Poplar; Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase

资金

  1. Conseil Ritional, Rigion Centre, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic variation of leaf proteome in drought response was investigated among eight Populus xeuramericana genotypes contrasting for their leaf carbon isotope discrimination (A), an estimate of intrinsic water-use efficiency. Plants were grown in open field on two similar plots. Drought was induced by an 86-day irrigation cessation on one plot, whereas a second plot remained regularly irrigated. Using 2-DE, 863 reproducible spots were detected; about 60% presented at least one significant effect i.e. treatment, genotype and/or genotype by treatment interaction effect. A significant genotype by treatment interaction was detected for 62 reliably identified proteins among which, about 65% consisted in chloroplast-associated proteins either involved in the Calvin cycle or in the electron-transport chains. The other proteins were involved in oxidative stress, amino acid or protein metabolisms. Correlations between protein abundance and A variations were found for 45 reliably identified proteins. The abundance of ribtdose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase isoforms scaled negatively with Delta regardless of the treatment, suggesting that a large intrinsic water-use efficiency could be due to higher abundance of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase. Under control condition, abundance of enzymes involved in carbon fixation was also negatively correlated with Delta, whereas abundance of enzymes involved in photo-respiration or respiration was positively correlated with Delta.

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

4.5
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