4.3 Article

Aluminum tolerance associated with enhancement of plasma membrane H plus -ATPase in the root apex of soybean

期刊

SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION
卷 56, 期 1, 页码 140-149

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-0765.2009.00437.x

关键词

aluminum toxicity; plasma membrane H plus -ATPase; root apex; soybean; tolerant

资金

  1. Korea Science and Engineering Foundation through the Agricultural Plant Stress Research Center [R 11-2001-092-01004-0]
  2. Friendly Environment Bio-Energry Research Center [20070201036014]
  3. World Class University project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea [R31-2009-000-20025-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seventeen soybean cultivars were screened to discern differences in aluminum (Al) sensitivity. The Sowon (Al-tolerant) and Poongsan (Al-sensitive) cultivars were selected for further study by simple growth measurement. Aluminum-induced root growth inhibition was significantly higher in the Poongsan cultivar than in the Sowon cultivar, although the differences depended on the Al concentration (0, 25, 50, 75 or 100 mu mol L-1) and the amount of exposure (0, 3, 6, 12 or 24 h). Damage occurred preferentially in the root apex. High-sensitivity growth measurements using India ink implicated the central elongation zone located 2-3 mm from the root apex. The Al content was lower 0-5 mm from the root apices in the Sowon cultivar than in the apices of the Poongsan cultivar when exposed to 50 mu mol L-1 Al for 12 h. Furthermore, the citric acid exudation rate was more than twofold higher in the Sowon cultivar. Protein production of plasma membrane (PM) H+-ATPase from the root apices (0-5 mm) was upregulated in the presence of Al for 24 h in both cultivars. This activity, however, decreased in both cultivars treated with Al and the Poongsan cultivar was more severely affected. We propose that Al-induced growth inhibition is correlated with changes in PM H+-ATPase activity, which is linked to the exudation of citric acid in the root apex.

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

4.3
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