Paper · 2015 · Photosynthetica

Photosynthetic activities, C3 and C4 indicative enzymes and the role of photoperiod in dormancy induction in 'Chunjie' peach

H. S. Zhang; D. M. Li; Q. P. Tan; et al.

9
claims
21
verbatim quotes
4
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Our study examined the relationship between photosynthetic performance and activities of key photosynthetic enzymes to understand the photosynthetic variation and reasons for the variation during dormancy induction under different photoperiods in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie). Furthermore, the study explained the changes in the key enzymes from the viewpoint of differential proteomics. The results showed that the leaf net photosynthetic rate (P N) and stomatal conductance tended to decrease, while the intercellular CO2 concentration rose, which indicated that the reduced P N resulted from nonstomatal limitation. During the dormancy induction period, the activities of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) and phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC) declined, which was the main reason for the reduced P N. Two-dimensional electrophoresis maps and differential protein identification demonstrated that the decrease in activity of the photosynthetic enzymes was mainly due to enzymatic degradation. The enzyme degradation by a long-day treatment occurred later and to a lesser degree than that of the short-day treatment. In the long-day treatment, the carboxylation activity of Rubisco was higher than that of the control treatment, and the PEPC activity and the ratio of the PEPC/Rubisco activity were lower than the corresponding activities during the control treatment. These differences under long-day conditions were significant but did not occur in the short-day treatment, suggesting that the C4 pathway might be more active under short-day conditions.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf net photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance decreased during dormancy induction in peach.

Material
Chunjiee0
Outcome
leaf net photosynthetic rate (P N) and stomatal conductancee1
Direction
decreasee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–284 · show in text ↑
e1

“the leaf net photosynthetic rate (P N) and stomatal conductance tended to decrease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 421–503 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercellular CO2 concentration rose during dormancy induction in peach.

Material
Chunjiee0
Outcome
intercellular CO2 concentratione2
Direction
rosee2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–284 · show in text ↑
e2

“while the intercellular CO2 concentration rose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 505–551 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The reduced photosynthetic rate in peach resulted from nonstomatal limitation.

Material
Chunjiee0
Outcome
the reduced P Ne3
Qualifier
nonstomatal limitatione3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–284 · show in text ↑
e3

“which indicated that the reduced P N resulted from nonstomatal limitation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 553–626 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Activities of Rubisco and PEPC declined during the dormancy induction period in peach.

Material
Chunjiee0
Outcome
the activities of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) and phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC)e4
Direction
declinede4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–284 · show in text ↑
e4

“the activities of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) and phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC) declined”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 666–793 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The decline in photosynthetic enzyme activity in peach was mainly due to enzymatic degradation.

Material
Chunjiee0
Outcome
the decrease in activity of the photosynthetic enzymese5
Qualifier
enzymatic degradatione5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–284 · show in text ↑
e5

“the decrease in activity of the photosynthetic enzymes was mainly due to enzymatic degradation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 937–1031 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Enzyme degradation under long-day treatment occurred later and to a lesser degree than under short-day treatment in peach.

Material
Chunjiee0
Treatment
long-day treatmente6
Outcome
enzyme degradatione6
Direction
lesser degreee6
Qualifier
occurred latere6
Comparator
short-day treatmente6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–284 · show in text ↑
e6

“The enzyme degradation by a long-day treatment occurred later and to a lesser degree than that of the short-day treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1033–1154 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Under long-day treatment, Rubisco carboxylation activity was higher than under control treatment in peach.

Material
Chunjiee0
Treatment
long-day treatmente7
Outcome
carboxylation activity of Rubiscoe7
Direction
highere7
Comparator
control treatmente7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–284 · show in text ↑
e7

“In the long-day treatment, the carboxylation activity of Rubisco was higher than that of the control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1156–1266 · show in text ↑
e1

“These differences under long-day conditions were significant but did not occur in the short-day treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1408–1513 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Under long-day treatment, PEPC activity and the PEPC/Rubisco activity ratio were lower than under control treatment in peach.

Material
Chunjiee0
Treatment
long-day treatmente7
Outcome
the PEPC activity and the ratio of the PEPC/Rubisco activitye6
Direction
lowere6
Comparator
control treatmente6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–284 · show in text ↑
e6

“the PEPC activity and the ratio of the PEPC/Rubisco activity were lower than the corresponding activities during the control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1272–1406 · show in text ↑
e1

“These differences under long-day conditions were significant but did not occur in the short-day treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1408–1513 · show in text ↑
e7

“In the long-day treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1156–1181 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The C4 pathway might be more active under short-day conditions in peach.

Material
Chunjiee0
Treatment
short-day conditionse6
Outcome
the C4 pathwaye6
Qualifier
might be more activee6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in peach (Prunus persica L. cv. Chunjie)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–284 · show in text ↑
e6

“suggesting that the C4 pathway might be more active under short-day conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1515–1593 · show in text ↑

light · physiology: photosynthesis · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 5 positive, 4 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.