4.6 Review

Sugar compartmentation as an environmental stress adaptation strategy in plants

期刊

SEMINARS IN CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 106-114

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.12.015

关键词

Sugar transporter; Plant; Biotic stress; Abiotic stress

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [16K18656]
  2. JST PRESTO
  3. Mitsubishi foundation
  4. Programon Open Innovation Platform with Enterprises, Research Institute and Academia
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K18656] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sessile nature of plants has driven their evolution to cope flexibly with ever-changing surrounding environments. The development of stress tolerance traits is complex, and a broad range of cellular processes are involved. Recent studies have revealed that sugar transporters contribute to environmental stress tolerance in plants, suggesting that sugar flow is dynamically fluctuated towards optimization of cellular conditions in adverse environments. Here, we highlight sugar compartmentation mediated by sugar transporters as an adaptation strategy against biotic and abiotic stresses. Competition for sugars between host plants and pathogens shapes their evolutionary arms race. Pathogens, which rely on host-derived carbon, manipulate plant sugar transporters to access sugars easily, while plants sequester sugars from pathogens by enhancing sugar uptake activity. Furthermore, we discuss pathogen tactics to circumvent sugar competition with host plants. Sugar transporters also play a role in abiotic stress tolerance. Exposure to abiotic stresses such as cold or drought stress induces sugar accumulation in various plants. We also discuss how plants allocate sugars under such conditions. Collectively, these findings are relevant to basic plant biology as well as potential applications in agriculture, and provide opportunities to improve crop yield for a growing population. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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