4.5 Review

Plant polyamines in abiotic stress responses

期刊

ACTA PHYSIOLOGIAE PLANTARUM
卷 35, 期 7, 页码 2015-2036

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11738-013-1239-4

关键词

Abscisic acid; Abiotic stress; Antioxidants; Plant tolerance; Polyamine metabolism; Signaling

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology (Government of India)
  2. DST-SERB project from the Department of Science and Technology (Government of India)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Significance of naturally occurring intracellular polyamines (PAs), such as spermine, spermidine, and putrescine, in relation to the mechanism and adaptation to combat abiotic stress has been well established in plants. Because of their polycationic nature at physiological pH, PAs bind strongly to negative charges in cellular components such as nucleic acids, proteins, and phospholipids. Accumulation of the three main PAs occurs under many types of abiotic stress, and modulation of their biosynthetic pathway confers tolerance to drought or salt stress. Maintaining crop yield under adverse environmental conditions is probably the major challenge faced by modern agriculture, where PAs can play important role. Over the last two decades, genetic, transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolomic, and phenomic approaches have unraveled many significant functions of different PAs in the regulation of plant abiotic stress tolerance. In recent years, much attention has also been devoted to the involvement of PAs in ameliorating different environmental stresses such as osmotic stress, drought, heat, chilling, high light intensity, heavy metals, mineral nutrient deficiency, pH variation, and UV irradiation. The present review discusses the various reports on the role of PAs in the abiotic stress of plants with a note on current research tendencies and future perspectives. Co-relating all these data into a signal network model will be an uphill task, and solving this will give a clearer picture of the intricate abiotic stress signalling network in the plant kingdom.

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