4.7 Review

A guideline for leaf senescence analyses: from quantification to physiological and molecular investigations

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 69, Issue 4, Pages 769-786

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erx246

Keywords

Arabidopsis thaliana; automated colourimetric assay; genetic regulation; ion leakage; leaf senescence; lipid peroxidation; photosynthetic capacities; redox regulation

Categories

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [FOR948 ZE 313/8-2, ZE 313/9-1, CRC1101]
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Leaf senescence is not a chaotic breakdown but a dynamic process following a precise timetable. It enables plants to economize with their resources and control their own viability and integrity. The onset as well as the progression of leaf senescence are co-ordinated by a complex genetic network that continuously integrates developmental and environmental signals such as biotic and abiotic stresses. Therefore, studying senescence requires an integrative and multi-scale analysis of the dynamic changes occurring in plant physiology and metabolism. In addition to providing an automated and standardized method to quantify leaf senescence at the macroscopic scale, we also propose an analytic framework to investigate senescence at physiological, biochemical, and molecular levels throughout the plant life cycle. We have developed protocols and suggested methods for studying different key processes involved in senescence, including photosynthetic capacities, membrane degradation, redox status, and genetic regulation. All methods presented in this review were conducted on Arabidopsis thaliana Columbia-0 and results are compared with senescence-related mutants. This guideline includes experimental design, protocols, recommendations, and the automated tools for leaf senescence analyses that could also be applied to other species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available