4.7 Article

Silicate Inhibits the Cytosolic Influx of Chloride in Protoplasts of Wheat and Affects the Chloride Transporters, TaCLC1 and TaNPF2.4/2.5

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants11091162

关键词

chloride; cytosolic uptake; silicate; TaCLC1; TaNPF 2.4/2.5; wheat

资金

  1. KSLA: Sweden [H142-0016]
  2. C. F Lundstrom's Stiftelse, Sweden [L15-0042-CFL]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research found that silicon treatment can reduce chloride accumulation in leaf mesophyll, thereby increasing salt tolerance. Silicon treatment can inhibit chloride influx to different extents in both salt-sensitive and salt-tolerant cultivars.
Chloride is an essential nutrient for plants, but high concentrations can be harmful. Silicon ameliorates both abiotic and biotic stresses in plants, but it is unknown if it can prevent cellular increase of chloride. Therefore, we investigated the influx of Cl- ions in two wheat cultivars different in salt sensitivity, by epifluorescence microscopy and a highly Cl--sensitive dye, MQAE, N-[ethoxycarbonylmethyl]-6-methoxy-quinolinium bromide, in absence and presence of potassium silicate, K2SiO3. The Cl--influx was higher in the salt-sensitive cv. Vinjett, than in the salt-tolerant cv. S-24, and silicate pre-treatment of protoplasts inhibited the Cl--influx in both cultivars, but more in the sensitive cv. Vinjett. To investigate if the Cl--transporters TaCLC1 and TaNPF2.4/2.5 are affected by silicate, expression analyses by RT-qPCR were undertaken of TaCLC1 and TaNPF 2.4/2.5 transcripts in the absence and presence of 100 mM NaCl, with and without the presence of K2SiO3. The results show that both transporter genes were expressed in roots and shoots of wheat seedlings, but their expressions were differently affected by silicate. The TaNPF2.4/2.5 expression in leaves was markedly depressed by silicate. These findings demonstrate that less chloride accumulates in the cytosol of leaf mesophyll by Si treatment and increases salt 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