Plant Physiol. Illumina
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Plant Physiology 78:442-446 (1985)
© 1985 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 Web of Science
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 CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (25)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by Huffaker, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miller, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by Huffaker, R. C.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Miller, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by Huffaker, R. C.
Articles

Differential Induction of Endoproteinases during Senescence of Attached and Detached Barley Leaves

Bruce L. Miller and Ray C. Huffaker

Plant Growth Laboratory and the Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis, California 95616

Endoproteinase activities and species were compared during dark-induced senescence of attached and detached primary barley leaves by isoelectric focusing and polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of cell-free extracts. Neither of the two major endoproteinases (EP1 and EP2) changed in amounts during senescence of attached leaves, nor did new endoproteinases appear. In contrast, during senescence of detached leaves, both EP1 and EP2 activities increased and four new species of endoproteinases appeared. Proteolytic activity was evenly distributed throughout attached leaves, but activity in the detached leaf increased sharply from the tip to the base with the four new higher molecular weight species of proteinases present only in the bottom half of the leaf nearest the cut end. Thus a wound response may be superimposed on the processes of senescence in detached leaves. Cycloheximide and kinetin both inhibited the increase of EP1, EP2, and the induction of the four new endoproteinases; chloramphenicol had no effect. Indications are that both the increases in activity and the induction of new species of proteinases were the result of activity of cytoplasmic ribosomes.

Hydrolysis of total protein and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase protein in vivo was somewhat faster in detached than attached leaves. The difference, however, was much less than would be expected from the great increase in proteolytic activity in detached leaves.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY® THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 1985 by the American Society of Plant Biologists