4.8 Article

Bundle sheath diffusive resistance to CO2 and effectiveness of C4 photosynthesis and refixation of photorespired CO2 in a C4 cycle mutant and wild-type Amaranthus edulis

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 130, 期 2, 页码 964-976

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.008201

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A mutant of the NAD-malic enzyme-type C(4) plant, Amaranthus edulis, which lacks phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC) in the mesophyll cells was studied. Analysis of CO(2) response curves of photosynthesis of the mutant, which has normal Kranz anatomy but lacks a functional C(4) cycle, provided a direct means of determining the liquid phase-diffusive resistance of atmospheric CO(2) to sites of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylation inside bundle sheath (BS) chloroplasts (r(bs)) within intact plants. Comparisons were made with excised shoots of wild-type plants fed 3,3-dichloro-2-(dihydroxyphosphinoylmethyl)-propenoate, an inhibitor of PEPC. Values of r(bs) in A. edulis were 70 to 180 m(2) s(-1) mol(-1), increasing as the leaf matured. This is about 70-fold higher than the liquid phase resistance for diffusion of CO(2) to Rubisco in mesophyll cells of C(3) plants. The values of r(bs) in A. edulis are sufficient for C(4) photosynthesis to elevate CO(2) in BS cells and to minimize photorespiration. The calculated CO(2) concentration in BS cells, which is dependent on input of r(bs), was about 2,000,bar under maximum rates of CO(2) fixation, which is about six times the ambient level of CO(2). High re-assimilation of photorespired CO(2) was demonstrated in both mutant and wild-type plants at limiting CO(2) concentrations, which can be explained by high r(bs). Increasing O(2) from near zero up to ambient levels under low CO(2), resulted in an increase in the gross rate of O(2) evolution measured by chlorophyll fluorescence analysis in the PEPC mutant; this increase was simulated from a Rubisco kinetic model, which indicates effective refixation of photorespired CO(2) in BS cells.

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