Loading…

Intercompartmental differences between cytosol and mitochondria in their respective antioxidative responses and lipid peroxidation levels in acid rain stress

Relatively little is known about the direct influence of acid rain (AR) on pro- and antioxidative changes in plant cells. Intercompartmental differences between cytosol and mitochondria have not been studied before. Aboveground parts of plants were treated with different pH variants of AR and oxidat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta physiologiae plantarum 2014-04, Vol.36 (4), p.837-848
Main Authors: Wyrwicka, Anna, Skłodowska, Maria
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Relatively little is known about the direct influence of acid rain (AR) on pro- and antioxidative changes in plant cells. Intercompartmental differences between cytosol and mitochondria have not been studied before. Aboveground parts of plants were treated with different pH variants of AR and oxidative damages (lipid peroxidation) as well as antioxidative enzyme activities (superoxide dismutase, SOD; ascorbate peroxidase, APx; glutathione peroxidase, GSH-Px) in the cytosolic and mitochondrial fractions were examined. The character of changes in antioxidative enzyme activities and of oxidative damages was closely connected with the cell compartment as well as with pH and time after treatment. The activity of both APx and GSH-Px increased more intensively in cytosol. Contrastingly, strong induction of lipid peroxide formation was observed in the mitochondrial fraction. In both cell compartments SOD activity did not change significantly. The results suggest that cucumber mitochondria are more susceptible to oxidative damage caused by AR than cytosol. Antioxidative defence of cytosol appeared to provide sufficient protection against the oxidative stress imposed by AR.
ISSN:0137-5881
1861-1664
DOI:10.1007/s11738-013-1462-z