4.7 Article

Relationship between changes in endogenous polyamines and seed quality during development of sh2 sweet corn (Zea mays L.) seed

期刊

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
卷 123, 期 3, 页码 301-307

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2009.10.006

关键词

Sweet corn; Polyamines; Seed development; Physiological change; Seed quality

资金

  1. Major Science and Technology Special Project (priority subject) of Zhejiang Province [2008C12005-1]
  2. Major Special Project of Ministry of Agriculture [2008ZX08005-005]
  3. Yunnan Province Tobacco Company [07A02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyamines putatively affect tolerance to abiotic stresses and are believed to be important in organogenesis. Present experiments investigate the relationship between polyamines (PAs) and seed quality. Therefore, during seed development, the changes in free putrescine (Put), spermidine (Spd) and spermine (Spm) and physiological and biochemical parameters in F-1 seeds of sh(2) sweet corn were compared. Concentrations of Put, Spd and Spm increased from 14 to 30 days after pollination (DAP). After 30 DAP Put concentration declined with an opposite trend to that of Spd and Spm. The regression analysis between PAs and seed quality described by physiological and biochemical parameters including germination percentage, germination energy, germination index, seed size, seed fresh and dry weight, total soluble sugar, total soluble protein, Maiondialdehyde (MDA) concentration, electrolyte leakage, peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT) activity were conducted. Spd was observed to have a closer relation with the comprehensive physiological changes of seeds during their development than that of Put and Spm. Moreover, the Spm concentration might be more suitable to forecast seed germinability during seed maturation period than Spd and Put. It indicated that endogenous Spd and Spm in dissociated form had more effect than Put during seed development progress of sweet corn. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. 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