4.5 Article

Biological effects of three types of ionizing radiation on creeping bentgrass

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY
卷 95, 期 9, 页码 1295-1300

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1619953

关键词

gamma-rays; proton ions; carbon ions; DNA fragmentation; creeping bentgrass

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government (MSIP) [2017M2A2A6A05018543]
  2. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Korea
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017M2A2A6A05018543] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Gamma-rays and carbon ions are frequently used for mutation breeding in diverse plant species, whereas proton ions have been rarely used for this purpose. This study assessed the potential of proton ions for plant mutation breeding. Materials and methods: We compared the effects of radiation on creeping bentgrass seeds with gamma-rays, proton ions, and carbon ions on seed germination, plant growth parameters, and DNA fragmentation. Results and conclusions: The lethal dose 50 (LD50) doses based on seed germinability were 115.9 Gy (gamma-rays), 225.1 Gy (proton ions), and 57.7 Gy (carbon ions). Threshold doses for survival were 150 Gy (gamma-rays), 150 Gy (proton ions), and 25 Gy (carbon ions). Suppression of plant growth was displayed at 100 Gy (gamma-rays), 25 Gy (proton ions), and 25 Gy (carbon ions). Similar patterns of decreasing head DNA percentage were observed for gamma-rays and proton ions. Carbon ions induced the lowest frequency of DNA fragmentation. The biological effects of the ionizing radiation types on creeping bentgrass are summarizable as follows: germination, carbon ions (C)>gamma-rays (G)>proton ions (P); survival, C > P = G; growth, C >= P > G; DNA fragmentation, G >= P > C. These results indicate that proton ions are useful as a physical mutagen in plant mutation breeding.

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