4.7 Article

Moderate Salinity Stress Affects Expression of Main Sugar Metabolism and Transport Genes and Soluble Carbohydrate Content in Ripe Fig Fruits (Ficus carica L. cv. Dottato)

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10091861

关键词

Ficus carica L.; salinity stress; carbohydrates metabolism; RT-qPCR; qNMR; H-1 NMR

资金

  1. University of Pisa, Italy
  2. European Union through a national MIUR (Italy) [FIGGEN/PRIMA19_00197]
  3. METROFOOD-CZ research infra-structure project (MEYS) [LM2018100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Under salt stress, the transcription levels of carbohydrate metabolism-related genes in ripe fig fruits generally increased, but there was no significant change in glucose and fructose content, while the increases in sucrose and D-sorbitol contents may be attributed to the up-regulation of gene transcription.
Fig trees (Ficus carica L.) are commonly grown in the Mediterranean area, where salinity is an increasing problem in coastal areas. Young, fruiting plants of cv. Dottato were subjected to moderate salt stress (100 mM NaCl added to irrigation water) for 48 days before fruit sampling. To clarify the effect of salinity stress, we investigated changes in the transcription of the main sugar metabolism-related genes involved in the synthesis, accumulation and transport of soluble carbohydrates in ripe fruits by quantitative real-time PCR as well as the content of soluble sugars by quantitative H-1 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. A general increase in the transcript levels of genes involved in the transport of soluble carbohydrates was observed. Alkaline-neutral and Acid Invertases transcripts, related to the synthesis of glucose and fructose, were up-regulated in ripe fruits of NaCl-stressed plants without a change in the content of D-glucose and D-fructose. The increases in sucrose and D-sorbitol contents were likely the result of the up-regulation of the transcription of Sucrose-Synthase- and Sorbitol-Dehydrogenase-encoding genes.

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