4.4 Article

Reactive oxygen species formation and cell death in catalase-deficient tobacco leaf disks exposed to cadmium

期刊

PROTOPLASMA
卷 245, 期 1-4, 页码 15-27

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00709-009-0097-9

关键词

Cell death; Heavy metals; Hydrogen peroxide; Nicotiana tabacum; Reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. University of Buenos Aires [B017]
  2. CONICET

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The physiological responses of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) to oxidative stress induced by cadmium were examined with respect to reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, antioxidant enzymes activities, and cell death appearance in wild-type SR1 and catalase-deficient CAT1AS plants. Leaf disks treated with 100 or 500 A mu M CdCl2 increased Evans blue staining and leakage of electrolytes in SR1 or CAT1AS plants, more pronouncedly in the transgenic cultivar, but without evidence of lipid peroxidation in any of the cultivars compared to controls. Cadmium significantly reduced the NADPH oxidase-dependent O (2) (-) formation in a dose dependent manner in SR1 very strongly at 500 A mu M (to 5% of the activity in the nontreated SR1 leaf disks). In CAT1AS, the NADPH oxidase activity was constitutively reduced at 50% with respect to that of SR1, but the magnitude of the decay was less prominent in this cultivar, reaching an average of 64% of the C at 21 h, for both Cd concentrations. Hydrogen peroxide formation was only slightly increased in SR1 or CAT1AS leaf disks at 21 h of exposure compared to the respective controls. Cd increased superoxide dismutase activity more than six times at 21 h in CAT1AS, but not in SR1 and reduced catalase activity by 59% at 21 h of treatment only in SR1 plants. Despite that catalase expression was constitutively lower in CATAS1 compared to SR1 nontreated leaf disks, 500 A mu M CdCl2 almost doubled it only in CAT1AS at 21 h. The mechanisms underlying Cd-induced cell death were possibly not related exclusively to ROS formation or detoxification in tobacco SR1 or CAT1AS plants.

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

4.4
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