4.7 Article

Carotenoid content, leaf gas-exchange, and non-photochemical quenching in transgenic tomato overexpressing the β-carotene hydroxylase 2 gene (CrtR-b2)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 1-8

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2011.08.009

关键词

Tomato; beta-Carotene hydroxylase; Carotenoids; Xanthophyll cycle; Chlorophyll a fluorescence; Non-photochemical quenching

资金

  1. CNR-I.S.A.FO.M.
  2. Metapontum Agrobios
  3. Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universita e della Ricerca of Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) of chlorophyll a fluorescence and leaf gas-exchange were investigated in relation to the chlorophyll and carotenoid content, and the xanthophyll cycles in wild type tomato (Solanum lycopersicum, L cv Red Setter (RS)) and in two transgenic lines (UO and UU) over-expressing beta-carotene hydroxylase. Potted plants were grown in a glasshouse under low light (LL, 100 mu mol m(-2) s(-1)) or high light (HL, 300 mu mol m(-2) s(-1)). The maximum quantum efficiency of photosystems II (PSII) photochemistry in dark-adapted leaves (F-v/F-m) was higher than 0.82 in all treatments while photosynthetic CO2 assimilation (A) was higher than 14 mu mol m(-2) s(-1), and stomata! conductance (g,) higher than 0.4 mol m(-2) s(-1) in HL plants, indicating no effects induced by the genetic modification. Chlorophyll content and composition changed little, whereas transgenic plants had up to 47% higher total carotenoid content than wild type plants. Violaxanthin was the most abundant carotenoid in transgenic plants, with more than 2-fold higher content than the average 0.586 mg g(-1) found in RS plants. Transgenic plants had similar light-induced steady-state NPQ compared to wild type plants, but had slower dark relaxation because of the decreased de-epoxydation state index due to the higher violaxanthin accumulation, despite the higher zeaxanthin content. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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