4.7 Article

Arabidopsis plants grown in the field and climate chambers significantly differ in leaf morphology and photosystem components

期刊

BMC PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-12-6

关键词

Arabidopsis thaliana; Carotenoids; Chlorophyll fluorescence; Early light inducible proteins (ELIPs); Field Plants; Indoor Plants; Light harvesting proteins (LHCs)

资金

  1. Kempe foundation
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Plants exhibit phenotypic plasticity and respond to differences in environmental conditions by acclimation. We have systematically compared leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana plants grown in the field and under controlled low, normal and high light conditions in the laboratory to determine their most prominent phenotypic differences. Results: Compared to plants grown under field conditions, the indoor plants had larger leaves, modified leaf shapes and longer petioles. Their pigment composition also significantly differed; indoor plants had reduced levels of xanthophyll pigments. In addition, Lhcb1 and Lhcb2 levels were up to three times higher in the indoor plants, but differences in the PSI antenna were much smaller, with only the low-abundance Lhca5 protein showing altered levels. Both isoforms of early-light-induced protein (ELIP) were absent in the indoor plants, and they had less non-photochemical quenching (NPQ). The field-grown plants had a high capacity to perform state transitions. Plants lacking ELIPs did not have reduced growth or seed set rates, but their mortality rates were sometimes higher. NPQ levels between natural accessions grown under different conditions were not correlated. Conclusion: Our results indicate that comparative analysis of field-grown plants with those grown under artificial conditions is important for a full understanding of plant plasticity and adaptation.

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