4.7 Article

Death of embryos from 2300-year-old quinoa seeds found in an archaeological site

期刊

PLANT SCIENCE
卷 253, 期 -, 页码 107-117

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.10.001

关键词

Archaeological seed; Chenopodium quinoa Willd.; Programmed cell death; Necrosis; Fatty acid oxidation; Protein glcation

资金

  1. Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBACYT) [20020100100232]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET) [810/13.P IP 0465]
  3. Fundacion Juan Bautista Sauberan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the 1970s, during excavations at Los Morrillos, San Juan, Argentina, quinoa seeds were found within ancient pumpkin crocks protected from the light and high temperatures, and preserved in the very dry conditions of the region. The radiocarbon dates confirmed the age of these seeds at around 2300 years. Sectioning of some of these seeds showed reddish-brown embryos, different from the white embryos of recently harvested quinoa seeds. The ancient seeds did not germinate. The structure of the embryo cells was examined using light and transmission electron microscopy; proteins were analyzed by electrophoresis followed by Coomassie blue and periodic acid Schiff staining and fatty acids by gas chromatography. The state of nuclear DNA was investigated by TUNEL assay, DAPI staining, ladder agarose electrophoresis and flow cytometry. Results suggest that, although the embryo tissues contained very low water content, death occurred by a cell death program in which heterochromatin density was dramatically reduced, total DNA was degraded into small fragments of less than 500 bp, and some proteins were modified by non-enzymatic glycation, generating Maillard products. Polyunsaturated fatty acids decreased and became fragmented, which could be attributable to the extensive oxidation of the most sensitive species (linolenic and linoleic acids) and associated with a collapse of lipid bodies. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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