| Title |
Biochemical indicators of root damage in rice (Oryza sativa) genotypes under zinc deficiency stress
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Plant Research, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10265-017-0962-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jae-Sung Lee, Matthias Wissuwa, Oscar B. Zamora, Abdelbagi M. Ismail |
| Abstract |
Zn deficiency is one of the major soil constraints currently limiting rice production. Although recent studies demonstrated that higher antioxidant activity in leaf tissue effectively protects against Zn deficiency stress, little is known about whether similar tolerance mechanisms operate in root tissue. In this study we explored root-specific responses of different rice genotypes to Zn deficiency. Root solute leakage and biomass reduction, antioxidant activity, and metabolic changes were measured using plants grown in Zn-deficient soil and hydroponics. Solute leakage from roots was higher in sensitive genotypes and linked to membrane damage caused by Zn deficiency-induced oxidative stress. However, total root antioxidant activity was four-fold lower than in leaves and did not differ between sensitive and tolerant genotypes. Root metabolite analysis using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and high performance liquid chromatography indicated that Zn deficiency triggered the accumulation of glycerol-3-phosphate and acetate in sensitive genotypes, while less or no accumulation was seen in tolerant genotypes. We suggest that these metabolites may serve as biochemical indicators of root damage under Zn deficiency. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 36% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,558,284
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Plant Research
#667
of 834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,664
of 314,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Plant Research
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 834 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.