4.7 Article

The putative role of endogenous nitric oxide in brassinosteroid-induced antioxidant defence system in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) plants under water stress

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 143, 期 -, 页码 119-128

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.08.024

关键词

Brassinosteroids; Nitric oxide; Pepper; Water stress; Chlorophyll fluorescence; Antioxidants

资金

  1. Harran University
  2. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University [RG-1438-039]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brassinosteroids (BRs) have been rarely tested for their effective roles in mitigation of deleterious effects of water stress (WS) on plants. In addition, the contribution of nitric oxide (NO) in BR-improved plant tolerance to water stress needs to be elucidated. So, a trial was carried out to uncover the contribution of NO in BR-induced tolerance of pepper plants to WS. For well-watered and water-stressed plants, soil water availability was sustained at 80% and 40% of the full water storage capacity, respectively. BR (24-epibrassinolide, EB; 1.0 mu M) was sprayed to the leaves of both well-watered and water stressed-pepper plants every two days for 10 days prior to the initiation of stress treatment. After starting WS treatment, cPTIO was sprayed to plant leaves twice a week for four weeks. Water stress caused a reduced plant growth and oxidative stress, but the application of EB increased plant growth and reversed the oxidative stress. The EB treatment increased endogenous NO and reinforced antioxidant defence systems, but the cPTIO application reversed the NO levels, downregulated the antioxidant defence systems, and aggravated oxidative damages caused by WS. These results show that EB-induced NO generation and NO-mediated antioxidant defence systems might be crucial mechanisms for EB-improved tolerance of pepper plants to WS. So, both EB and NO jointly are responsible for achieving improved tolerance of pepper plants to water stress.

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