Osmotic Relations and Cell Wall Acidification as the Prerequisites of the Start of Elongation in the Seed Axial Organs

  • O. V. Antipova
Part of the Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture book series (PSBA, volume 30)

Abstract

In Vicia faba minor seeds, early germination occurs by cell elongation until the axis is 1 cm in length. It is a good model to study some processes which prepare the axial organs for elongation. These processes develop in the water content range from 60% (fr wt), at which physical water absorption is complete, to 72–73%, at which the radicles protrude. The first process is the additional accumulation of osmotically active solutes. This accumulation follows from (1) measurements of osmotic potential in cell sap from axial organs and hypocotyls, (2) estimation of main osmotic components, mostly sugars and K+, and (3) examination of vacuole: cytoplasm area ratio. Accumulation of osmotic solutes provides further water inflow into the vacuole necessary for the cell elongation. The second process is acidification of cell wall resulting from H+-extrusion due to H+-ATPase activation. This follows from: (1) axes begin to acidify the ambient solution 2 h prior to radicle emergence; (2) acidification is inhibited by diethylstylbestrol and stimulated by fusicoccin; (3) fusicoccin stimulates radicle emergence, water uptake and cell elongation as the acid buffer did while vanadate and diethylstylbestrol inhibited radicle emergence. Thus, acidification of cell walls providing wall loosening and acid growth, in combination with active water flow into the cells, allows them to start the elongation.

Keywords

Osmotic Potential Cell Elongation Radicle Emergence Osmotic Solute Axial Organ 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balke, N.E. and Hodges, T.R. 1979. Plant Physiology 63: 48–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fry, S.C. 1989. Physiologia Plantarum 75: 532–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hohl, M., Hung, Y.N. and Schopfer, P. 1991. Plant Physiology 95: 1012–1018.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jacobs, M. and Taiz, L. 1980. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA 77: 7242–7246.Google Scholar
  5. Keller, C.P. and Taylor, J.E.P. 1989. Canadian Journal of Botany 67: 2944–2952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kutschera, U. 1994. New Phytologist 126: 549–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Marre, E. 1979. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 30: 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McQueen-Mason, C.J. and Cosgrove, T.J. 1995. Plant Physiology 107: 87–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Obroucheva, N.Y. 1992. In: Root Ecology and Its Practical Application. Proceedings of the Third Symposium of International Society of Root Research, pp. 13–16 (eds. L. Kutschera, M. Sobotik and E. Hubl). Klagenfurt: Verein zur Wurzelforschung.Google Scholar
  10. Obroucheva, N.V. and Antipova, O.V. 1985. Soviet Plant Physiology 32: 932–941.Google Scholar
  11. Obroucheva, N.V. and Antipova, O.V. 1994. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology 41: 391–395.Google Scholar
  12. Obroucheva, N.V., Antipova, O.V. and Ivanova, I.M. 1993. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology 40: 641–646.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. V. Antipova
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Plant PhysiologyRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations