4.5 Article

Molecular insights into the functional role of nitric oxide (NO) as a signal for plant responses in chickpea

期刊

FUNCTIONAL PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 45, 期 1-2, 页码 267-283

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/FP16324

关键词

abiotic stress; gel-free proteomics; mass spectroscopy; sodium nitroprusside

资金

  1. INSPIRE Faculty Award from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India [IFA12-LSPA-08]
  2. CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molecular mechanisms and targets of nitric oxide (NO) are not fully known in plants. Our study reports the first large-scale quantitative proteomic analysis of NO donor responsive proteins in chickpea. Dose response studies carried out using NO donors, sodium nitroprusside (SNP), diethylamine NONOate (DETA) and S-nitrosoglutathione (GSNO) in chickpea genotype ICCV1882, revealed a dose dependent positive impact on seed germination and seedling growth. SNP at 0.1mM concentration proved to be most appropriate following confirmation using four different chickpea genotypes. while SNP treatment enhanced the percentage of germination, chlorophyll and nitrogen contents in chickpea, addition of NO scavenger, cPTIO reverted its impact under abiotic stresses. Proteome profiling revealed 172 downregulated and 76 upregulated proteins, of which majority were involved in metabolic processes (118) by virtue of their catalytic (145) and binding (106) activity. A few crucial proteins such as S-adenosylmethionine synthase, dehydroascorbate reductase, pyruvate kinase fragment, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid oxidase, 1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase were less abundant whereas Bowman-Birk type protease inhibitor, non-specific lipid transfer protein, chalcone synthase, ribulose-1-5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase large subunit, PSII D2 protein were highly abundant in SNP treated samples. This study highlights the protein networks for a better understanding of possible NO induced regulatory mechanisms in plants.

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

4.5
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