4.7 Article

Tracing trends in plant physiology and biochemistry: Need of databases from genetic to kingdom level

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 630-635

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.04.030

关键词

PCA; Physiological responses; Trends in datasets

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission, Pakistan [1-33/PM-OVER/France-IIB/2005/544]
  2. French Society for Export of Educative Resources (SFERE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the rapid advancement in technologies over recent decades, abundant data regarding plant physiological/biochemical responses to stress conditions are now available. Comparing plant stress responses using latest statistical software and analytical models can trace very interesting and useful trends in literature data, which can be of high use for future research and policy making. This model study uses principal component analysis (PCA) to compare physiological/biochemical responses of Vicia faba plant against Pb stress chelated by ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) or citric acid (CA). PCA confirmed the descriptive analysis and divided all the treatments into two main groups: toxic (Pb alone, Pb-CA-a and Pb-CA-b), and non-toxic (control, EDTA-b, CA-b, Pb-EDTA-a and Pb-EDTA-b) treatments. PCA analysis further revealed the effectiveness of different plant physiological/biochemical responses under Pb stress: glutathione reductase (GR) and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) are the main enzymes reacting against Pb toxicity in relation with Pb uptake by V. faba roots, while GR reacts alone in leaves. It is proposed, using latest statistical tests and software, that the comparison and correlation of physiological responses and analytical techniques can be applied at various levels and types of stresses and responses of living organisms to develop a larger dataset based on existing literature. The trends marked out can be correlated with biochemical and physiological processes/mechanisms taking place at genetic-cellular level.

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