4.4 Article

Physiological and molecular responses of different rose (Rosa hybrida L.) cultivars to elevated ozone levels

期刊

PLANT DIRECT
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/pld3.513

关键词

molecular response; ozone; physiological responses; rose; sensitivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on the response of four rose cultivars to ground-level O-3 pollution. Only the cultivar Schloss Mannheim showed significant effects, including foliar injury and reduced photosynthetic capacity. The upregulation of HSF, WRKY, and MYB transcription factors, along with genes related to ABA biosynthesis and signaling, suggests their importance in the plant response to O-3 stress, providing a potential strategy for cultivating O-3-tolerant rose varieties.
The increasing ground-level ozone (O-3) pollution resulting from rapid global urbanization and industrialization has negative effects on many plants. Nonetheless, many gaps remain in our knowledge of how ornamental plants respond to O-3. Rose (Rosa hybrida L.) is a commercially important ornamental plant worldwide. In this study, we exposed four rose cultivars (Schloss Mannheim, Iceberg, Luye, and Spectra) to either unfiltered ambient air (NF), unfiltered ambient air plus 40 ppb O-3 (NF40), or unfiltered ambient air plus 80 ppb O-3 (NF80). Only the cultivar Schloss Mannheim showed significant O-3-related effects, including foliar injury, reduced chlorophyll content, reduced net photosynthetic rate, reduced stomatal conductance, and reduced stomatal apertures. In Schloss Mannheim, several transcription factor genes-HSF, WRKY, and MYB genes-were upregulated by O-3 exposure, and their expression was correlated with that of NCED1, PP2Cs, PYR/PYL, and UGTs, which are related to ABA biosynthesis and signaling. These results suggest that HSF, WRKY, and MYB transcription factors and ABA are important components of the plant response to O-3 stress, suggesting a possible strategy for cultivating O-3-tolerant rose varieties.

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

4.4
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