4.8 Article

Differential capacity for high-affinity manganese uptake contributes to differences between barley genotypes in tolerance to low manganese availability

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 139, 期 3, 页码 1411-1420

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.105.067561

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is considerable variability amongbarley ( Hordeum vulgare) genotypes in their ability to grow in soils containing a low level of plant available manganese (Mn). The physiological basis for the tolerance to low Mn availability is unknown. In this work, Mn 21 influx and compartmentation in roots of the Mn-efficient genotype Vanessa and the Mn-inefficient genotype Antonia were investigated. Two separate Mn transport systems, mediating high-affinity Mn2+ influx at concentrations up to 130 nM and low-affinity Mn2+ influx at higher concentrations, were identified in both genotypes. The two genotypes differed only in high-affinity kinetics with the Mn-efficient genotype Vanessa having almost 4 times higher V-max than the inefficient Antonia, but similar K-m values. Online inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry measurements verified that the observed differences in high-affinity influx resulted in a higher Mn net uptake of Vanessa compared to Antonia. Further evidence for the importance of the differences in high-affinity uptake kinetics for Mn acquisition was obtained in a hydroponic system with mixed cultivation of the two genotypes at a continuously low Mn concentration ( 10-50 nM) similar to that occurring in soil solution. Under these conditions, Vanessa had a competitive advantage and contained 55% to 75% more Mn in the shoots than did Antonia. Subcellular compartmentation analysis of roots based on Mn-54(2+) efflux established that up to 93% and 83% of all Mn was present in the vacuole in Vanessa and Antonia, respectively. It is concluded that differential capacity for high-affinity Mn influx contributes to differences between barley genotypes in Mn efficiency.

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

4.8
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