2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.12.21.423768
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Live monitoring of ROS-induced cytosolic redox changes with roGFP2-based sensors in plants

Abstract: Plant cells produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) as by-products of oxygen metabolism and for signal transduction. Depending on their concentration and their site of production, ROS can cause oxidative damage within the cell, and must be effectively scavenged. Detoxification of the most stable ROS, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), via the glutathione-ascorbate pathway may transiently alter the glutathione redox potential (EGSH). Changes in EGSH can thus be considered as a proxy of the oxidative load in the cell. Gene… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

2
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Using this approach, we determined that the in vivo dynamic range of cytosolic Grx1-roGFP is c. 1.3 -1.5 in leaves and c. 2.3 -2.7 in roots. The previously reported in vitro dynamic range of roGFP2 was c. 8.2 -9.2 (405/488 nm) (Schwarzländer et al 2008;Aller et al 2013) while in vivo samples often displayed decreased dynamic ranges of c. 5 in confocal microscopy or c. 3 in plate reader-based sensor read-out (Ugalde et al 2021(Ugalde et al , 2022. This difference in dynamic range between in vitro and in vivo sensor read-out can be explained by interference of plant compounds that overlay the changes in sensor absorption in the UV range (below the isosbestic point at c. 425 nm).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Using this approach, we determined that the in vivo dynamic range of cytosolic Grx1-roGFP is c. 1.3 -1.5 in leaves and c. 2.3 -2.7 in roots. The previously reported in vitro dynamic range of roGFP2 was c. 8.2 -9.2 (405/488 nm) (Schwarzländer et al 2008;Aller et al 2013) while in vivo samples often displayed decreased dynamic ranges of c. 5 in confocal microscopy or c. 3 in plate reader-based sensor read-out (Ugalde et al 2021(Ugalde et al , 2022. This difference in dynamic range between in vitro and in vivo sensor read-out can be explained by interference of plant compounds that overlay the changes in sensor absorption in the UV range (below the isosbestic point at c. 425 nm).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…For sequential perfusion of different treatments, 4–5-day old seedlings were mounted in a RC-22 perfusion chamber mounted on a P1 platform using a steel anchor harp with a 1.5 mm grid mesh (Warner Instruments, Hamden CT). Imaging buffer, and the indicated solutions of DTT and H 2 O 2 , were loaded into 50 mL syringes connected to a VC-8M valve controller (Warner Instruments) with 1.5 mm polyethylene tubes (Ugalde et al, 2020).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%