4.7 Article

Differential oxidative stress responses and tobacco-specific nitrosamine accumulation in two burley varieties

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 261, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.jplph.2021.153429

关键词

Oxidative stress; Nitrosamines; Tobacco; Glutathione; Paraquat

资金

  1. British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International
  2. Kentucky Tobacco Research and Development Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that different varieties of tobacco accumulate TSNAs at different levels during curing, with NCBH 129LC containing higher levels of TSNAs. Further experiments showed that NCBH 129LC had significantly higher hydrogen peroxide levels than KT 204LC, as well as more oxidatively damaged and glutathionylated proteins.
Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) are carcinogens that accumulate in tobacco leaves during curing, storage, and processing, and their amounts in processed tobacco vary dependent on several intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Here, we assessed the hypothesis that there is a link between reactive oxygen species levels in leaves and TSNA formation during curing. First, we show that burley varieties KT 204LC and NCBH 129LC accumulate TSNAs to different levels but not as a result of a variety-specific abundance of TSNA precursors. Next, we measured the levels of reactive oxygen species, and we show that the variety that accumulates more TSNAs, NCBH 129LC, had significantly higher levels of hydrogen peroxide than KT 204LC. The NCBH 129LC also has more oxidatively damaged and glutathionylated proteins. Finally, we analyzed the antioxidant levels in KT 204LC and NCBH 129LC and their tolerance to oxidative stress. NCBH 129LC contained more of the essential antioxidant glutathione and was more tolerant to the oxidative stress-generating compound paraquat. Collectively, our data suggest that there is indeed a link between foliar oxidative stress parameters and the extent to which TSNAs accumulate in cured tobacco leaves.

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