4.7 Article

Mid-infrared spectroscopy is a fast screening method for selecting Arabidopsis genotypes with altered leaf cuticular wax

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 662-674

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pce.13691

关键词

Arabidopsis thaliana; drought; eceriferum (cer) mutants; Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; leaf cuticle

资金

  1. Global Institute for Food Security (GIFS) through the Plant Phenotyping and Imaging Research Centre (P2IRC) program, at the University of Saskatchewan
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  4. National Research Council Canada (NRC)
  5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  6. Government of Saskatchewan
  7. University of Saskatchewan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arabidopsis eceriferum (cer) mutants with unique alterations in their rosette leaf cuticular wax accumulation and composition established by gas chromatography have been investigated using attenuated total reflection (ATR)-Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy in combination with univariate and multivariate analysis. Objectives of this study were to evaluate the utility of ATR-FTIR for detection of chemical diversity in leaf cuticles, obtain spectral profiles of cer mutants in comparison with the wild type, and identify changes in leaf cuticles caused by drought stress. FTIR spectra revealed both genotype- and treatment-dependent differences in the chemical make-up of Arabidopsis leaf cuticles. Drought stress caused specific changes in the integrated area of the CH3 peak, asymmetrical and symmetrical CH2 peaks, ester carbonyl peak and the peak area ratio of ester C(sic)O to CH2 asymmetrical vibration. CH3 peak positively correlated with the total wax accumulation. Thus, ATR-FTIR spectroscopy is a valuable tool that can advance our understanding of the role of cuticle chemistry in plant response to drought and allow selection of superior drought-tolerant varieties from large genetic resources.

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