4.7 Article

Effect of fluoride on the biosynthesis of catechins in tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] leaves

期刊

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 78-84

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2014.12.031

关键词

Camellia sinensis; Fluoride; Catechins; Biosynthesis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31170646]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tea plant, Camellia sinensis, can accumulate high levels of fluoride (F); however, it is unclear how F influences secondary metabolism in tea plants. In this study, two tea cultivars seedlings, Fuyunliuhao (FY) and Wuniuzao (WNZ), were cultivated in nutrient solutions containing different concentrations of F for 4 weeks to investigate the effects of F on the content of catechins, the activity of related biosynthetic enzymes in the leaves. The content of tea polyphenols reached to the top at 2 mg L-1 (FY) or 4 mg L-1 (WNZ) and then decreased dose-dependently with the F concentration increasing; the content of catechins increased between 2 and 8 mg L-1 and decreased at 16 mg L-1 significantly comparing with the control; the activity of PAL, C4H, CHI and DFRm in WNZ, DFRm and DFRq in FY increased significantly at 4 mg L-1 F concentration comparing to the control and the activity of ANR in WNZ, C4H in FY decreased dose-dependently with the increasing F concentration, while the activity of PAL, CHI in FY changed little with the F concentration between 0 and 16 mg L-1. These results suggested that F concentrations lower than 4 mg L-1 promote the biosynthesis of catechins in tea plants by up-regulating the activity of related biosynthetic enzymes, whereas F concentrations more than 8 mg L-1 restrain tea plant growth and the synthesis of catechins. The pathways of catechins biosynthesis are tremendously complicated, and further research is required to determine whether F regulates the metabolism of tea catechins by altering other pathways and enzymes in addition to those analyzed in this study. (C) 2014 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