4.7 Article

Levels of active oxygen species are controlled by ascorbic acid and anthocyanin in Arabidopsis

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 51, 期 10, 页码 2992-2999

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf026179+

关键词

active oxygen species; ascorbic acid; anthocyanin; electron spin resonance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stabilization of the levels of active oxygen species (AOS) is important to the survival of organisms. To clarify the system controlling levels of AOS in plants, this study used an electron spin resonance (ESR) method to directly measure superoxide radical (O(2)(*-)) scavenging activities in the wild-type Arabidopsis thaliana (Col and Lerecotypes), two anthocyanin mutants (tt3 and ttg1), and an ascorbic acid mutant (00). Under ordinary growth conditions, Arabidopsis contained superoxide-scavenging activity (SOSA) of similar to300-500 SOD units/g of fresh weight. The ESR pattern indicated that most (40-50%) of this activity was due to ascorbic acid. For the analysis of SOSA under conditions of oxidative stress, synthesis of AOS was induced by gamma-irradiation. The radical scavenging activity in irradiated plants increased similar to10-fold following an associated increase in the accumulation of ascorbic acid and anthocyanin. The accumulation of ascorbic acid and anthocyanin was suppressed by treatment with an antioxidant before irradiation and was induced by treatment with a radical-generating reagent. The contributions of ascorbic acid and anthocyanin to the total superoxide radical scavenging activity differed among ecotypes. In the Ler ecotype, ascorbic acid accumulated at twice the level of that in the Col ecotype, and induction of anthocyanin was half that in Col. To confirm the activity of ascorbic acid and anthocyanin against AOS stress, the viability of the wild type and mutants (tt2, tt3, tt5, ttg1, and vtc1) was examined after gamma-irradiation. Only the plants in which ascorbic acid and anthocyanin were induced had the ability to grow and flower.

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