4.5 Article

Effect of spikelet position on starch proportion, granule distribution and related enzymes activity in wheat grain

期刊

PLANT SOIL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 59, 期 12, 页码 568-574

出版社

CZECH ACADEMY AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.17221/586/2013-PSE

关键词

winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.); spatial position; starch characteristic; grain development; starch synthesis

类别

资金

  1. Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation [1408085QC65]
  2. Key Natural Science Project of the Education Department in Anhui Province [KJ2011A073]
  3. Open Project of the National Key Laboratory of Crop Biology [2011KF09]
  4. Provincial Outstanding Young Talent Foundation of Anhui Province [2012SQRL142]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The starch proportion, starch granule distribution, and activities of enzymes involved in starch synthesis in different spikelet positions were examined during grain development in two high-yielding winter wheat cultivars. The results showed that grain number and weight per spikelet in different spatial position showed a single-peak curve from the base to the top in a wheat spike. Upper spikelets had the highest starch and amylose proportion followed by basal spikelets, whereas middle spikelets had the lowest. Starch and amylose absolute content was in opposition to their proportion. The volume of B-and A-type granule in grain of middle spikelets was remarkably higher and lower than those of basal and upper spikelets, respectively. However, no significant difference occurred in the number of A-and B-type granule in grains among different spikelet position. Compared with the basal and upper spikelets, the middle spikelets showed higher sucrose and ATP content and activities of starch biosynthetic enzymes, and subsequently higher starch absolute content. The results suggested that superior sucrose providing and degradation capacity and the high activities of enzymes involved in starch synthesis resulted in development of B-type starch granule in grain of middle spikelets.

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

4.5
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