title: Differential activity of plasma and vacuolar membrane transporters contributes to genotypic differences in salinity tolerance in a Halophyte Species, Chenopodium quinoa.
abstract: Halophytes species can be used as a highly convenient model system to reveal key ionic and molecular mechanisms that confer salinity tolerance in plants. Earlier, we reported that quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), a facultative C3 halophyte species, can efficiently control the activity of slow (SV) and fast (FV) tonoplast channels to match specific growth conditions by ensuring that most of accumulated Na+ is safely locked in the vacuole (Bonales-Alatorre et al. (2013) Plant Physiology). This work extends these finding by comparing the properties of tonoplast FV and SV channels in two quinoa genotypes contrasting in their salinity tolerance. The work is complemented by studies of the kinetics of net ion fluxes across the plasma membrane of quinoa leaf mesophyll tissue. Our results suggest that multiple mechanisms contribute towards genotypic differences in salinity tolerance in quinoa. These include: (i) a higher rate of Na+ exclusion from leaf mesophyll; (ii) maintenance of low cytosolic Na+ levels; (iii) better K+ retention in the leaf mesophyll; (iv) a high rate of H+ pumping, which increases the ability of mesophyll cells to restore their membrane potential; and (v) the ability to reduce the activity of SV and FV channels under saline conditions. These mechanisms appear to be highly orchestrated, thus enabling the remarkable overall salinity tolerance of quinoa species.
authors: School of Agricultural Science and Tasmanian Institute for Agriculture, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 54, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia. Sergey.Shabala@utas.edu.au.
authors: Edgar
authors: E
authors: Bonales-Alatorre
authors: Igor
authors: I
authors: Pottosin
authors: Lana
authors: L
authors: Shabala
authors: Zhong-Hua
authors: ZH
authors: Chen
authors: Fanrong
authors: F
authors: Zeng
authors: Sven-Erik
authors: SE
authors: Jacobsen
authors: Sergey
authors: S
authors: Shabala
mesh_terms: D002462:Cell Membrane / Q000187:drug effects / Q000378:metabolism*; D027465:Chenopodium quinoa / Q000187:drug effects / Q000235:genetics* / Q000378:metabolism*; D005838:Genotype; D007425:Intracellular Membranes / Q000187:drug effects / Q000378:metabolism; D015640:Ion Channel Gating / Q000187:drug effects; D007477:Ions; D007700:Kinetics; D026901:Membrane Transport Proteins / Q000378:metabolism*; D058503:Mesophyll Cells / Q000187:drug effects / Q000378:metabolism; D010940:Plant Proteins / Q000378:metabolism; D054712:Salinity; D055049:Salt Tolerance / Q000187:drug effects; D055051:Salt-Tolerant Plants / Q000187:drug effects / Q000378:metabolism*; D012964:Sodium / Q000378:metabolism; D012965:Sodium Chloride / Q000494:pharmacology; D013312:Stress, Physiological / Q000187:drug effects; D014617:Vacuoles / Q000187:drug effects / Q000378:metabolism*
chemical_list: D007477:Ions; D026901:Membrane Transport Proteins; D010940:Plant Proteins; D012965:Sodium Chloride; D012964:Sodium
references: Physiol Plant. 2008 Aug;133(4):651-69
references: 18724408
references: Funct Plant Biol. 2008 Sep;35(7):640-650
references: 32688819
references: J Exp Bot. 2009;60(3):709-12
references: 19269993
references: Ann Bot. 2007 Sep;100(3):555-63
references: 17684026
references: J Membr Biol. 2001 May 1;181(1):55-65
references: 11331938
references: Plant Physiol. 2013 Jun;162(2):940-52
references: 23624857
references: Plant Physiol. 1988 Jan;86(1):231-6
references: 16665872
references: Plant Physiol. 1995 Oct;109(2):549-556
references: 12228611
references: J Exp Bot. 2006;57(5):1059-78
references: 16513812
references: J Exp Bot. 2005 May;56(415):1369-78
references: 15809285
references: J Plant Physiol. 2011 Jul 1;168(10):1045-51
references: 21256620
references: J Exp Bot. 2009;60(3):939-54
references: 19213813
references: Plant Cell Environ. 2011 Jun;34(6):947-961
references: 21342209
references: J Cell Sci. 2010 May 1;123(Pt 9):1468-79
references: 20375061
references: J Plant Physiol. 2013 Jul 1;170(10):906-14
references: 23485259
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 6;97(12):6896-901
references: 10823923
references: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2006 May;30(3):472-86
references: 16594966
references: Plant Physiol. 1989 Jan;89(1):180-3
references: 16666512
references: Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000 May 1;1465(1-2):140-51
references: 10748251
references: Annu Rev Biophys. 2011;40:243-66
references: 21351879
references: New Phytol. 2008;179(4):945-963
references: 18565144
references: Plant Physiol. 1979 Jan;63(1):156-62
references: 16660671
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jul 13;107(28):12564-9
references: 20538976
references: FEBS J. 2011 Nov;278(22):4293-303
references: 21955642
references: Plant Cell Environ. 2002 Feb;25(2):239-250
references: 11841667
references: Genome. 2009 Jul;52(7):647-57
references: 19767895
references: Plant J. 2011 Nov;68(3):468-79
references: 21749504
references: New Phytol. 2008;179(4):964-974
references: 18482227
references: Funct Plant Biol. 2007 Mar;34(2):150-162
references: 32689341
references: J Exp Bot. 2004 Feb;55(396):307-19
references: 14718494
references: Plant Physiol Biochem. 2011 Nov;49(11):1333-41
references: 22000057
references: J Exp Bot. 2011 Jan;62(1):185-93
references: 20732880
references: Nat Biotechnol. 2012 Mar 11;30(4):360-4
references: 22407351
references: Funct Plant Biol. 2010 Jan;36(12):1110-1119
references: 32688722
references: Biophys J. 2003 Feb;84(2 Pt 1):977-86
references: 12547779
references: Trends Plant Sci. 2002 Apr;7(4):168-75
references: 11950613
references: Plant Physiol. 2006 Aug;141(4):1653-65
references: 16798942
references: Plant J. 2002 Jun;30(5):529-39
references: 12047628
references: Planta. 2010 Jun;232(1):187-95
references: 20390294
references: Plant J. 2010 Mar;61(5):839-53
references: 20015063
references: J Exp Bot. 2008;59(14):3845-55
references: 18832189