欢迎访问作物学报,今天是

作物学报 ›› 2008, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (02): 318-325.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2008.00318

• 耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇    下一篇

边缘细胞对大豆根尖铝毒害的缓解

李荣峰1,2;蔡妙珍1;刘鹏1,*;徐根娣1;梁和2;周主贵2   

  1. 1 浙江师范大学植物学重点实验室, 浙江金华321004; 2 广西大学农学院, 广西南宁530005

  • 收稿日期:2006-12-04 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2008-02-12 网络出版日期:2008-02-12
  • 通讯作者: 刘鹏

Border Cells Alleviating Aluminum Toxicity in Soybean Root Tips

LI Rong-Feng12,CAI Miao-Zhen1,LIU Peng1*,XU Gen-Di1,LIANG He2,ZHOU Zhu-Gui2   

  1. 1 Key Laboratory of Botany, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004, Zhejiang; 2 Agricultural College of Guangxi University, Nanning 530005, Guangxi, China

  • Received:2006-12-04 Revised:1900-01-01 Published:2008-02-12 Published online:2008-02-12
  • Contact: LIU Peng

摘要:

以大豆[Glycine max (L.) Merrill]浙春3号为试验材料, 采用静置培养(保持边缘细胞附于根尖)和振荡培养(移除根尖边缘细胞), 测定边缘细胞数目和活性、根相对伸长率和根内酶的活性, 研究了边缘细胞对大豆根尖铝毒害的缓解效应。结果显示, 大豆发育过程中存活的边缘细胞数与总数之比达60%~80%, 50~400 mmol L-1 Al3+胁迫12 h能诱导边缘细胞从根尖脱落, 200~400 μmol L-1 Al3+胁迫24 h对边缘细胞的发育有抑制作用。Al3+处理抑制根伸长, 移除边缘细胞的根相对伸长率低于保留边缘细胞的根。0~100 mmol L-1 Al3+胁迫12 h, 0和50 mmol L-1Al3+胁迫24 h, 具有边缘细胞的大豆根系的POD、SOD活性及蛋白质含量显著高于移除边缘细胞的根内酶活性和蛋白质含量, 但200和400 mmol L-1 Al3+处理12 h, 100~400 mmol L-1 Al3+处理24 h时, 根尖有无边缘细胞对根系的酶活性及蛋白质含量影响不显著。说明低浓度Al3+胁迫下, 大豆通过增加边缘细胞数目、提高根尖蛋白质含量, 维持较高水平的POD、CAT和SOD活性来对抗铝毒胁迫, 以缓解植物的铝毒害。

关键词: 边缘细胞, 大豆, 铝毒, 缓解效应

Abstract:

Root border cell (BC) is a group of cells from the apex of root, which has been considered to play a vital role in protecting root tip from extracellular biotic and abiotic stresses. It is known that the BC may secrete saccharide to chelate Al3+ and alleviate cell damage under aluminum stress. In this paper, we aimed to reveal the effects of root BC on alleviation of aluminum toxicity to root tips with soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] cultivar Zhechun 3 during the development of roots. The BC number, activities of peroxidase (POD), catalase (CAT), and superoxide dismutase (SOD) as well as protein content were measured under 0 (CK), 50, 100, 200, and 400 μmol L-1 Al3+ stress for 12 and 24 h respectively, with static culture (to maintain border cells adhered to root tips) and shaking culture (to remove border cells from root tips completely). The results showed that the viable border cells accounted for 60%–80% when root length was 5 mm. 50–400 mmol L-1 Al3+ treatment for 12 h increased the number of border cells, but inhibition of border cell development by Al3+ turned up after 200, 400 mmol L-1 Al3+ treatment for 24 h. When soybean roots were cultivated by shaking to remove border cells from root tips, root elongation was decreased with increasing Al3+ concentrations. However, this kind of inhibition of root growth was alleviated under static culture. At the same time, POD, CAT (under Al stress for 12 h), SOD activities and protein content were higher significantly than those under shaking culture withlower Al3+ concentration (0–100 mmol L-1 Al3+ treatment for 12 h and 0, 50 mmol L-1 Al3+ treatment for 24 h) stress. And no significant difference in POD, SOD activities and protein content was observed between static culture and shaking culture under higher Al3+ concentration (200, 400 mmol L-1 Al3+ treatment for 12 h and 100–400 mmol L-1 Al3+ treatment for 24 h) (P>0.05). The results suggested that border cells adhered to the root tips can significantly affect root relative elongation rate, POD, CAT, SOD activities and protein content of soybean root tip, and alleviate the toxicity Al3+ to plant root tips through increasing the number of border cells, enhancing the protein content of root tips and maintaining higher POD and SOD activities.

Key words:

Border cell, Soybean, Aluminum toxicity, Alleviating effect

[1] 金昱何, 王雪菲, 徐张一娃, 缪怡宁, 蒋云杰, 伊莹, 缪德麟, 朱静仪, 钟一帆, 陈铭亨, 方芳, 刘鹏. 外源激素对低温胁迫下大豆叶片叶绿素荧光参数及抗氧化酶系统的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1817-1829.
[2] 唐宽强, 李公允, 宋美毅, 赵雪, 常春玲. 大豆株高性状全基因组关联分析及预测模型构建[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1743-1756.
[3] 姚术, 郭凯悦, 翟慧慧, 姚佳慧, 邓文琪, 闫玲, 黄驰, 高阳, 俞嫣然, 赵振邦, 李英慧, 王晓波, 李佳佳. 大豆苗期耐低铁综合评价及优异种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1373-1387.
[4] 张晴, 杨昱, 郭茜, 岳霈尧, 殷丛丛, 牛景萍, 赵晋忠, 杜维俊, 岳爱琴. 大豆GmARA6a的克隆及响应盐胁迫的功能分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 480-493.
[5] 贺红利, 张雨涵, 杨静, 程云清, 赵杨, 李星诺, 司洪亮, 张兴政, 杨向东. 大豆e1-as基因突变体的创制及生理分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2228-2239.
[6] 王克晶, 李向华. 我国珍稀的大豆属多年生烟豆和短绒野大豆物种遗传资源濒危性评估分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2009-2019.
[7] 孟然, 李赵嘉, 冯薇, 陈悦, 刘路平, 杨春燕, 鲁雪林, 王秀萍. 大豆不同生育时期耐盐性综合评价及耐盐种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 1991-2008.
[8] 胡蒙, 沙丹, 张晟瑞, 谷勇哲, 张世碧, 李静, 孙君明, 邱丽娟, 李斌. 大豆分枝数QTL定位及候选基因筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1747-1756.
[9] 王琼, 邹丹霞, 陈兴运, 张威, 张红梅, 刘晓庆, 贾倩茹, 魏利斌, 崔晓艳, 陈新, 王学军, 陈华涛. 大豆开花时间和成熟期性状全基因组关联分析与候选基因预测[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1558-1568.
[10] 殷丛丛, 李睿琦, 岳霈尧, 李晨, 牛景萍, 赵晋忠, 杜维俊, 岳爱琴. 基于闭合哑铃介导等温扩增可视化检测大豆花叶病毒SC15方法的建立及应用[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(5): 1248-1260.
[11] 苏畅, 满福原, 王镜博, 冯晶, 姜思旭, 赵明辉. 铝胁迫下水稻osalr3突变体对外源有机酸和植物生长调节物质的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(3): 676-686.
[12] 许睿, 何妙华, 王昊, 李卫, 任杰, 夏志强. 基于空间转录组技术解析大豆种胚对X射线辐射的响应机制[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(12): 3121-3132.
[13] 林洋, 史晓蕾, 陈强, 刘兵强, 杨庆, 于慧娟, 闫龙, 武小霞, 杨春燕. 大豆蛋白质脂肪及脂肪酸组分相关QTL定位[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(11): 2899-2910.
[14] 王浩辰, 王克晶, 韩娟, 李向华. 东南沿海短绒野大豆两种代表性生境自然种群的空间遗传结构特征:种群内取样策略研究[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(11): 2875-2885.
[15] 李威, 朱玉鹏, 孙宾成, 温有祥, 吴宗声, 徐一帆, 宋雯雯, 徐彩龙, 吴存祥. 转基因大豆结合免耕平作实现东北地区大豆生产轻简化[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(10): 2738-2749.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!