4.7 Article

A comparative analysis of transcriptomic, biochemical, and physiological responses to elevated ozone identifies species-specific mechanisms of resilience in legume crops

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 66, 期 22, 页码 7101-7112

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erv404

关键词

Ascorbate-glutathione cycle; air pollution; Glycine max; Phaseolus vulgaris; photosynthesis; Pisum sativum; RNA-Seq

资金

  1. National Soybean Research Laboratory's Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center
  2. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current concentrations of tropospheric ozone ([O-3]) pollution negatively impact plant metabolism, which can result in decreased crop yields. Interspecific variation in the physiological response of plants to elevated [O-3] exists; however, the underlying cellular responses explaining species-specific differences are largely unknown. Here, a physiological screen has been performed on multiple varieties of legume species. Three varieties of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) were resilient to elevated [O-3]. Garden pea showed no change in photosynthetic capacity or leaf longevity when exposed to elevated [O-3], in contrast to varieties of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Global transcriptomic and targeted biochemical analyses were then done to examine the mechanistic differences in legume responses to elevated [O-3]. In all three species, there was an O-3-mediated reduction in specific leaf weight and total non-structural carbohydrate content, as well as increased abundance of respiration-related transcripts. Differences specific to garden pea included a pronounced increase in the abundance of GLUTATHIONE REDUCTASE transcript, as well as greater contents of foliar glutathione, apoplastic ascorbate, and sucrose in elevated [O-3]. These results suggest that garden pea may have had greater capacity for detoxification, which prevented net losses in CO2 fixation in an elevated [O-3] environment.

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