4.5 Article

Comparative response of two wucai (Brassica campestris L.) genotypes to heat stress on antioxidative system and cell ultrastructure in root

期刊

ACTA PHYSIOLOGIAE PLANTARUM
卷 38, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11738-016-2246-z

关键词

Wucai; Heat stress; Root; Antioxidative system; Ultrastructure

资金

  1. Agriculture Science Technology Achievement Transformation Fund of China [2014GB2C300018]
  2. Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Anhui, China [1608085QC48]
  3. Anhui College Youth Fund Project [2015ZD18]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects on root growth, root antioxidant capacity, and cellular ultrastructure were investigated using two wucai genotypes (heat-tolerant WS-1 and heat-sensitive WS-6) under heat stress (40/30 degrees C) for 5 days. Heat stress caused decreases in root biomass, relative water content (RWC), root vigor, and root traits of two wucai genotypes. In addition, it resulted in reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation and increased hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) content, superoxide anion (O-2(-)) formation rate, and malondialdehyde (MDA) content, but the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), and catalase (CAT) were inhibited to different extents in two genotype wucai roots. However, these data indicated that the decline extent of WS-1 (heat tolerant) in root growth and antioxidant capacity was significantly lower than that of WS-6 (Heat sensitive). Microscopic analyses revealed that WS-1 (heat tolerant) showed a better cellular shape than WS-6 under heat stress and slightly oxidative damage; nuclear and mitochondria in WS-1 were of a better intact shape and clear bilayer membrane. Most importantly, the thicker root cell wall in heat-tolerant wucai genotype responding to heat stress was first reported. These results suggested that the ability of heat-tolerant wucai genotype to minimize the heat stress depended upon the higher self-regulation capacity and effectiveness of the antioxidant metabolism.

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