4.7 Article

Bcl-2Δ21 and Ac-DEVD-CHO Inhibit Death of Wheat Microspores

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01931

关键词

cell death; microspore; Bcl-2 Delta 21; hydroxyl radicals; embryogenesis; caspase-3

资金

  1. Western Grains Research Foundation
  2. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [LO1204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microspore cell death and low green plant production efficiency are an integral obstacle in the development of doubled haploid production in wheat. The aim of the current study was to determine the effect of anti-apoptotic recombinant human B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2 Delta 21) and caspase-3-inhibitor (Ac-DEVD-CHO) in microspore cell death in bread wheat cultivars AC Fielder and AC Andrew. Induction medium containing Bcl-2 Delta 21 and Ac-DEVD-CHO yielded a significantly higher number of viable microspores, embryo-like structures and total green plants in wheat cultivars AC Fielder and AC Andrew. Total peroxidase activity was lower in Bcl-2 Delta 21 treated microspore cultures at 96 h of treatment compared to control and Ac-DEVD-CHO. Electron paramagnetic resonance study of total microspore protein showed a different scavenging activity for Bcl-2 Delta 21 and Ac-DEVD-CHO. Bcl-2 Delta 21 scavenged approximately 50% hydroxyl radical (HO center dot) formed, whereas Ac-DEVD-CHO scavenged approximately 20% of HO center dot. Conversely, reduced caspase-3-like activities were detected in the presence of Bc-2 Delta 21 and Ac-DEVD-CHO, supporting the involvement of Bcl-2 Delta 21 and Ac-DEVD-CHO in increasing microspore viability by reducing oxidative stress and caspase-3-like activity. Our results indicate that Bcl-2 Delta 21 and Ac-DEVD-CHO protects cells from cell death following different pathways. Bcl-2 Delta 21 prevents cell damage by detoxifying HO center dot and suppressing caspase-3-like activity, while Ac-DEVD-CHO inhibits the cell death pathways by modulating caspase-like activity.

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