3.9 Article

A comparative analysis of the distribution and composition of lipidic constituents and associated enzymes in pollen and stigma of sunflower

期刊

SEXUAL PLANT REPRODUCTION
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 163-172

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00497-009-0125-0

关键词

Esterases; Fatty acids; Helianthus annuus; Lipase; Neutral lipids; Pollen; Stigma

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
  2. University Grants Commission (UGC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spatial distribution and compositional analyses of the lipidic constituents in pollen and stigma of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L. cv. Morden) were conducted using ultrastructural, histochemical, and biochemical analysis. Detection of secretions at the base of stigmatic papillae and neutral lipid accumulations on the surface of stigmatic papillae and between adjacent pseudopapillae demonstrates the semidry nature of stigma surface in sunflower. Pollen coat is richer in lipids (8%) than stigma (2.2%) on fresh weight basis. Nile Red-fluorescing neutral lipids are preferentially localized in the pollen coat. Neutral esters and triacylglycerols (TAGs) are the major lipidic constituents in pollen grains and stigma, respectively. Lignoceric acid (24:0) and cis-11-eicosenoic acid (20:1) are specifically expressed only in the pollen coat. Similar long-chain fatty acids have earlier been demonstrated to play a significant role during the initial signaling mechanism leading to hydration of pollen grains on the stigma surface. Lipase (EC 3.1.1.3) activity is expressed both in pollen grains and stigma. Stigma exhibits a better expression of acyl-ester hydrolase (EC 3.1.1.1) activity than that of observed in both the pollen fractions. Expression of two acyl-ester hydrolases (41 and 38 kDa) has been found to be specific to pollen coat. Specific expression of lignoceric acid (24:0) in pollen coat and localization of lipase in pollen and stigma have been discussed to assign possible roles that they might play during pollen-stigma interaction.

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

3.9
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