4.7 Article

Effects of altered citrate synthase and isocitrate dehydrogenase expression on internal citrate concentrations and citrate efflux from tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) roots

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 248, 期 1-2, 页码 137-144

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022352914101

关键词

aluminium; citrate; citrate synthase; efflux; isocitrate dehydrogenase; resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess the effectiveness of manipulating citrate metabolism with the aim of increasing citrate efflux from roots, we generated transgenic tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) lines that either overexpressed mitochondrial citrate synthase (EC 4.1.3.7) activity or had reduced activity of cytosolic isocitrate dehydrogenase (EC 1.1.1.42). Despite increases in citrate synthase activities in transgenic lines of up to 5-fold, neither internal citrate concentrations nor citrate efflux were increased compared to controls suggesting that, in tobacco, citrate synthase activity does not directly determine citrate accumulation and efflux. Consistent with a lack of effect on citrate efflux, the increase in citrate synthase activity did not enhance the aluminium resistance of the transgenic lines. Preliminary data collected on two transgenic lines with cytosolic isocitrate dehydrogenase activities reduced to one-tenth and one third of the control for shoot and root tissues respectively, showed that while these changes in activities were associated with a 1.5-fold increase in internal citrate concentrations of both types of tissue, citrate efflux from roots was not increased. Further work is needed to establish whether the increase in internal citrate concentration is associated with enhanced aluminium resistance of these lines. We conclude that in tobacco internal citrate concentrations and citrate efflux are largely insensitive to large changes in either mitochondrial citrate synthase or cytosolic isocitrate dehydrogenase activities and suggest that other factors, such as transport out of the roots, control citrate efflux.

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