4.7 Article

Comparative study of O2, CO2 and temperature effect on respiration between 'Conference' pear cell protoplasts in suspension and intact pears

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 52, 期 362, 页码 1769-1777

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jexbot/52.362.1769

关键词

Pyrus communis L.; protoplast isolation; respiration; metabolism; modelling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influence of the O-2 and CO2 concentration and the temperature on the O-2 uptake rate of cool-stored intact pears and pear cell protoplasts in suspension was compared. Protocols to isolate pear cell protoplasts from pear tissue and two methods to measure protoplast respiration have been developed. Modified Michaelis-Menten kinetics were applied to describe the effect of the O-2 and the CO2 concentration on the O-2 uptake rate and temperature dependence was analysed with an Arrhenius equation. Both systems were described with a non-competitive type Of CO2 inhibition. Due to the inclusion of gas diffusion properties, the Michaelis-Menten constant for intact pears (2.5 mM) was significantly larger than the one for protoplasts in suspension (3 muM), which was in turn larger than the Michaelis-Menten constant obtained in mitochondrial respiration measurements described in the literature. It was calculated that only 3.6% of the total diffusion effect absorbed in the Michaelis-Menten constant for intact pears, could be attributed to intracellular gas diffusion. The number of cells per volume of tissue was counted microscopically to establish a relationship between the pear cell protoplast and intact pear O-2 uptake rate. A remarkable similarity was observed: values of 61.8 nmol kg(-1) s(-1) for protoplasts and 87.1 nmol kg(-1) s(-1) for intact pears were obtained. Also, the inhibitory effect Of CO2 on the respiration rate was almost identical for protoplasts and intact pears, suggesting that protoplast suspensions are useful for the study of other aspects of the respiration metabolism.

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