Plant Physiol. Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Plant Physiology 72:817-820 (1983)
© 1983 American Society of Plant Biologists

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wu, M.-T.
Right arrow Articles by Wallner, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wu, M.-T.
Right arrow Articles by Wallner, S. J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Wu, M.-T.
Right arrow Articles by Wallner, S. J.
Articles

Heat Stress Responses in Cultured Plant Cells 1

Development and Comparison of Viability Tests

Min-Tze Wu and Stephen J. Wallner

Department of Horticulture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523

The response of suspension-cultured pear (Pyrus communis cv Bartlett) cells to heat stress was studied using three viability tests: regrowth (culture growth during 10 days after stress); triphenyltetrazolium chloride reduction; and electrolyte leakage. Critical (50% injury) temperatures for a 20-minute exposure were 42°, 52°, and 56°C, respectively, for these viability tests. Electrolyte leakage had the lowest temperature coefficient. Heat stress inhibition of triphenyltetrazolium chloride reducing capacity was much greater if the viability test was conducted 3 days, rather than immediately, after the stress treatment. Consistent with a major role for indirect metabolic strain in heat injury, treatment with 3.6 micromolar cycloheximide and heat stress (20 minutes at 43°C) affected culture regrowth similarly. We conclude that the measurements of direct response are not adequate substitutes for regrowth tests in assessing heat injury to cultured plant cells.

1 Supported in part by a grant from the Faculty Council Committee on Research, Colorado State University. Published with the approval of the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station as Scientific Series Paper No. 2858.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 jashsHome page
C.-H. Wang, D.-M. Yeh, and C.-S. Sheu
Heat Tolerance and Flowering-heat-delay Sensitivity in Relation to Cell Membrane Thermostability in Chrysanthemum
J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., November 1, 2008; 133(6): 754 - 759.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Exp BotHome page
C. Ortiz and L. Cardemil
Heat-shock responses in two leguminous plants: a comparative study
J. Exp. Bot., August 1, 2001; 52(361): 1711 - 1719.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Plant Physiol.Home page
J. J. Burke, P. J. O'Mahony, and M. J. Oliver
Isolation of Arabidopsis Mutants Lacking Components of Acquired Thermotolerance
Plant Physiology, June 1, 2000; 123(2): 575 - 588.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 1983 by the American Society of Plant Biologists