4.1 Article

Reactive oxygen species are required for spore-wall formation in Physcomitrella patens

期刊

BOTANY
卷 98, 期 10, 页码 575-587

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjb-2020-0012

关键词

augmented osmolysis; exine; perine; intine; oxidative cross-linking; sporopollenin polymerization; microscopy

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN-2018-04286]
  2. National Science Foundation [NSF 1758497]
  3. National Institutes of Health [NIH 107760]
  4. University of Regina Graduate Scholarships
  5. Saskatchewan Innovation Opportunity Graduate Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A robust spore wall was a key requirement for terrestrialization by early plants. Sporopollenin in spore and pollen grain walls is thought to be polymerized and cross-linked to other macromolecular components, partly through oxidative processes involving H2O2. Therefore, we investigated effects of scavengers of reactive oxygen species (ROS) on the formation of spore walls in the moss Physcomitrella patens (Hedw.) Bruch. Schimp & W. Gumbel. Exposure of sporophytes, containing spores in the process of forming walls, to ascorbate, dimethylthiourea, or 4-hydroxy-TEMPO prevented normal wall development in a dose, chemical, and stage-dependent manner. Mature spores, exposed while developing to a ROS scavenger, burst when mounted in water on a flat slide under a coverslip (a phenomenon we named augmented osmolysis because they did not burst in phosphate-buffered saline or in water on a depression slide). Additionally, the walls of exposed spores were more susceptible to alkaline hydrolysis than those of the control spores, and some were characterized by discontinuities in the exine, anomalies in perine spine structure, abnormal intine and aperture, and occasionally, wall shedding. Our data support the involvement of oxidative cross-linking in spore-wall development, including sporopollenin polymerization or deposition, as well as a role for ROS in intine/aperture development.

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

4.1
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