4.7 Article

Humic acids trigger the weak acids stress response in maize seedlings

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s40538-020-00193-5

关键词

Cell acidification; Humic substances; Phosphorylation; Signalling cascade

资金

  1. Fundacao Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) Cientista do Nosso Estado programm
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento de Pesquisa e Tecnologia (CNPq)
  3. FINEP-Pluricana Project
  4. FAPERJ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Plants primed by humic acids showed physiological and molecular response against different abiotic stresses without the presence of stressor agents (salinity, drought, heavy metal toxicity). It is plausible that humic acids themselves can act as chemical priming substances in plants. We hypothesized that humic acids can trigger the weak acids stress response in cell plants acidifying the cytosol and thus eliciting the transduction signalling response cascade. Methods: The dose-response curves of maize seedlings roots with different concentrations of humic, acetic and salicylic acids determined the most active and inhibitory concentration. These data were further used to evaluate changes on intracellular pH using BCECF-AM probe (2,7-bis(2-carboxyethyl)-5(and 6)-carboxyfluorescein, acetoxymethyl ester) and differential transcription level of genes related to weak stress response in plants by qPCR real time. Results: Humic acids like short chain organic acids decrease the intracellular pH showed by the increased fluorescence of BCECF probe. The drop in cytosolic pH promoted by humic acids was not transient. We observed a high level of protein kinases related to cell energy-sensing and transcription factors associated to transduction of stress signalling. Conclusion: The humic acids can be considered as a chemical priming agent, since in the appropriate concentration they can induce the typical plant abiotic stress response of weak acids inducing plant acclimation and enhancing the abiotic stress tolerance.

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