Advertisement

Regulation of Carbohydrate Partitioning in Wheat Leaves

  • S. J. Trevanion
Chapter

Abstract

Extensive work over the past 15 years has examined the importance of fructose 2,6-bisphosphate (Fru-2,6-P2), an inhibitor of cytosolic FBPase, in regulating the partitioning of fixed carbon between sucrose and starch. This work has mainly been done in spinach leaves. In this plant, changes in the amounts of Fru-2,6-P2 regulate the activity of cytosolic FBPase, and under certain conditions this can regulate partitioning of fixed carbon between sucrose and starch [1]. Although this model almost certainly applies to many species other than spinach, its general applicability should not be taken for granted. In this poster I examine the significance of starch and sucrose as intermediary carbon stores in mature wheat leaves, and correlate this with measurements of Fru-2,6-P2. I have addressed this using two experimental systems. 1) What are the changes in the amounts of sucrose, starch and Fru-2,6-P2 during the normal day/night growth period. 2) How do the amounts of Fru-2,6-P2 and the fluxes into sucrose and starch vary in plants photosynthesising under different light intensities. The results suggest that although changes in Fru-2,6-P2 may regulate carbohydrate partitioning between the night and the day, the metabolite is not important in regulating partitioning when photosynthesis rates are varied by changing the light intensity. Further experiments using a wider range of experimental conditions and/or transgenic plants are required to examine in much greater detail the role of this metabolite in wheat leaves.

Key words

fructose 2,6-bisphosphate metabolic processes sucrose sugar starch 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Stift, M. (1990) Annu.Rev. Plant Physiol. Mol. Biol. 41, 153–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coombs, J., hind, G., Leegood, R.C., Tieszen, L.L. and Vonshak (1985) In Techniques in Bioproductivity and Photosynthesis 2’d edition (Coombs, J., Hall, D.O., Long, S.P. and Scurlock, J.M.O., eds.) pp. 219–228, Pergamon Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stitt, M. (1990) in Methods in Plant Biochemistry (Dey, P.M. and Harbourne, J.B., eds.) pp. 87–92, Academic Press Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Porra, R.J., Thompson, W.A. and Kriedemann, P.E. (1989) Biochem. Biophys. Acta 975, 384–394Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stitt, M., Gerhardt, R., Kürzel, B. and Heldt, H.W. (1983) Plant Physiol. 72, 1139–1141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neuhaus, H.E. and Stitt, M. (1989) Planta 179, 51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sicher, R.C. and Bunce, J.A. (1985) Plant Physiol. Biochem. 25, 525–530Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stitt, M. and Grosse, H. (1988) J. Plant Physiol. 133: 392–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galtier, N., Foyer, C.H., Murchie, E., Alred, R., Quick, P., Voelker, T.A., Thépenier, C., Lascève, G. & Betsche, T. (1995) J. Exp. Bot. 46: 1335–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. J. Trevanion
    • 1
  1. 1.IACR-RothamstedHarpenden. Herts.UK

Personalised recommendations