干旱胁迫与ABA的信号转导

植物经历干旱胁迫时,ABA被普遍认为是一种干旱信号而传递干旱信息.在干旱信号ABA的转导过程中,从ABA的被感知到保卫细胞发生变化引起气孔关闭以及ABA诱导的基因表达都经历了复杂的变化.本文对ABA的信号转导过程进行了综述.     

干旱胁迫与ABA 的信号转导

植物经历干旱胁迫时,ABA被普遍认为是一种干旱信号而传递干旱信息。在干旱信号ABA的转导过程中,从ABA的被感知到保卫细胞发生变化引起气孔关闭以及ABA诱导的基因表达都经历了复杂的变化。本文对ABA的信号转导过程进行了综述。     

干旱条件下植物ABA积累对脯氨酸水平的影响

目前公认,植物遭受水分胁迫后,体内发生适应性变化,最显著的是脱落酸(ABA)和脯氨酸的积累。ABA,能引起气孔关闭,调节植物体内水分平衡,保护质膜结构和功能,提高植物抗旱能力。脯氨酸作为渗透调     

脱落酸调节植物抵御水分胁迫的机制研究

干旱、盐渍、低温等均可导致植物可利用水分的亏缺,表现为水分胁迫。植物感受到水分胁迫,诱导脱落酸（abscisic acid,ABA）生物合成。ABA可通过促使气孔关闭或抑制气孔开放,使作物尽可能地降低蒸腾失水,以抵御水分胁迫。该文就植物激素ABA及其下游信号过氧化氢（hydrogenperoxide,H2O2）、一氧化氮（nitric oxide,NO）以及Ca2＋等在植物气孔运动调节方面的研究进展进行概述,以构建水分胁迫下ABA调节植物气孔运动的可能模式。     

液压信号与植物水分胁迫信号传递研究（综述）

植物根部受到干旱胁迫时,由茎部产生的液压信号使茎部作出反应.液压传递根到茎之间的水分胁迫信号.土壤干旱引起茎中场所产生液压反应,然后产生ABA信号,引起气孔关闭.在不同植物中,减弱液压反应,阻止干旱信号的长距离传导,气孔不能关闭.     

一氧化氮是脱落酸诱导杨树叶片气孔关闭的信号分子

研究了外源NO和ABA对杨树气孔运动调节作用．结果表明,外源NO和ABA都能诱导杨树离体叶片气孔关闭,且具有剂量效应,NO可加强ABA诱导气孔关闭的作用．NO清除剂(c—PTIO)可大大减弱NO和ABA对气孔关闭的诱导作用．证实了NO参与ABA调控气孔开闭运动过程,不同浓度NO供体SNP和ABA处理杨树离体叶片,SOD活性变化不明显,POD活性受到显著抑制．杨树叶片粗酶液的体外实验表明,不同浓度SNP对POD活性的抑制呈明显的浓度及时间效应;而ABA对POD活性则几乎没有影响．本研究证明,NO调节ABA诱导的树木气孔关闭作用,是ABA诱导树木气孔关闭的一种重要信号分子．     

植物激素ABA在水分胁迫下的功能及信号途径

植物根系感知外界水分胁迫刺激,诱导ABA生物合成。ABA既可诱导气孔关闭或抑制气孔开放,以降低植物的蒸腾失水,又可影响植物根系发育,以抵御水分胁迫。本文就植物激素ABA及其下游信号H2O2、NO以及Ca2＋等在植物生长调节方面的研究进展进行概述,以构建水分胁迫下植物生长自我调控的可能模式。     

外源NO、H2O2和ABA对鸡蛋花花冠裂片上气孔关闭的影响

以鸡蛋花花冠裂片下表皮为材料,研究不同浓度及不同处理时间的外源NO、H2O2和ABA对鸡蛋花花冠裂片下表皮上气孔关闭的影响,以及NO、H2O2和ABA在调节花冠上气孔关闭中的相互作用。结果表明：单独施用NO、H2O2和ABA明显诱导气孔关闭,并有浓度效应和时间效应;NO、H2O2和ABA两两混合或三者混合施用所诱导气孔关闭的效应大于其单独施用的。说明在诱导气孔关闭时,NO、H2O2和ABA之间可能有协同效应。     

ABA与植物胁迫抗性

ABA是一种重要的植物激素,受到生物胁迫和非生物胁迫的调控,在植物对胁迫耐受性和抗性中发挥着重要作用。本文着重阐述了植物胁迫对ABA的生物合成和代谢的调控、ABA在调控气孔关闭和调控基因表达从而调控植物耐逆性方面的作用,以及植物胁迫信号转导途径间的联系和交叉。     

ABA 与植物胁迫抗性

ABA是一种重要的植物激素, 受到生物胁迫和非生物胁迫的调控, 在植物对胁迫耐受性和抗性中发挥着重要作用。本文着重阐述了植物胁迫对ABA的生物合成和代谢的调控、ABA在调控气孔关闭和调控基因表达从而调控植物耐逆性方面的作用, 以及植物胁迫信号转导途径间的联系和交叉。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor