JXB Advance Access originally published online on April 11, 2003
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 54, No. 387, pp. 1537-1544,
June 1, 2003
© 2003 Oxford University Press
Carbon dioxide action on ethylene biosynthesis of preclimacteric and climacteric pear fruit
Received 21 October 2002; Accepted 26 February 2003
Agrotechnological Research Institute (ATO), PO Box 17, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: +31 317 475347. E-mail: J.P.J.deWild{at}ato.wag-ur.nl
Abbreviations: 1-MCP, 1-methylcyclopropene, EBP, ethylene binding protein.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Ethylene production in pear fruit was studied at 2 °C. Several observations showed that the inhibiting effect of CO2 on ethylene production did not operate only via the binding site of the ethylene binding protein. Ethylene production of freshly harvested pears was stimulated by 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP), but unaffected or inhibited by CO2 which points to different action sites for both molecules. In climacteric pears, where ethylene production was strongly inhibited by 1-MCP, a range of applied CO2 partial pressures was able to inhibit ethylene production further, to an extent similar to untreated pears. In the case of pears that had been stored for a period of 25 weeks, CO2 only had a clear effect after 1-MCP pretreatment. Respiration measurements showed that the effect of CO2 on ethylene production did not operate via an effect on respiration. Ethylene production models based on measurements of whole pears were used to study CO2 effects. Kinetic parameters derived from the models point to the conversion from ACC to ethylene by ACC oxidase as a possible action site for CO2 inhibition.
Key words: Enzyme kinetics, feedback regulation, 1-MCP, model, oxygen consumption, Pyrus communis L., respiration.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The plant hormone ethylene regulates many physiological processes in plants. Carbon dioxide (CO2) can have various effects on ethylene biosynthesis, however, the exact mode of action is unknown (Mathooko, 1996a). Key enzymes in ethylene biosynthesis are 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) synthase and ACC oxidase, which catalyse the reaction from S-adenosylmethionine to ACC and from ACC to ethylene, respectively. CO2 is an essential cofactor for ACC oxidase (Dong et al., 1992) as demonstrated both for pear fruit in vitro (Vioque and Castellano, 1994) and for pear tissue discs in vivo (Vioque and Castellano, 1998). On the other hand, CO2 at 5 kPa and higher inhibited the autocatalytic production of ethylene in whole pear fruits (Kerbel et al., 1988; Chavez-Franco and Kader, 1993). It was suggested that inhibition by CO2 is due to competition with ethylene at the ethylene receptor site, the ethylene binding protein (EBP) (Burg and Burg, 1967; Gorny and Kader, 1996). However, several studies point to another site of inhibition by CO2. In preclimacteric tomato fruits, CO2 blocked not only the expression of ethylene-dependent but also ethylene-independent ripening-associated genes (Rothan et al., 1997). Inhibition of wound-induced ethylene by CO2 is presumably not via the EBP (Mathooko et al., 2001). In pear fruit where the EBPs had been blocked by 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP), CO2 still inhibited autocatalytic ethylene production (De Wild et al., 1999). It was concluded that the inhibiting effect of CO2 on ethylene production could not only operate via ethylene perception.
Although CO2 is an essential cofactor for ACC oxidase, it can not be excluded that this enzyme too plays a role in the inhibition of ethylene production by CO2. It has been shown that elevated CO2 inhibited ethylene production without affecting ACC content in intact fruit (Li et al., 1983; Cheverry et al., 1988; Rothan and Nicolas, 1994). In addition, after the incubation of excised apple and avocado tissue discs in medium with a saturating concentration of exogenous ACC, CO2 inhibited ethylene production (Cheverry et al., 1988). Rothan and Nicolas (1994) showed that CO2 could either stimulate or inhibit ethylene synthesis of kiwifruit tissue, depending on the internal ACC level. They concluded from Lineweaver–Burk plots that when the ACC concentration was high, CO2 stimulated ethylene synthesis, but when ACC concentration was low (at a level present in fruits), CO2 would inhibit ethylene synthesis. Therefore, it is likely that the inhibition of ethylene production by CO2 is operating (at least partially) at the level of ACC oxidase.
To study ACC oxidase as a possible site of CO2 inhibition, whole fruit responses to CO2 were measured in the present research. There are several advantages of using whole fruit. First, the operation of the enzyme ACC oxidase in vivo is possibly not reflected by the operation in vitro (John, 1997). The plasma membrane may interact with the activity of ACC oxidase (Ramassamy et al., 1998). Second, the use of the whole product allows CO2 effects to be studied over an extensive period. Third, it excludes any interference of wound ethylene caused by cutting, as in excised tissue. On the other hand, using whole fruit excludes the possibility for direct enzyme studies. However, by using an ethylene production model that is based on enzyme kinetics, ACC oxidase activity can be studied indirectly. As ACC oxidase catalyses the final step in ethylene biosynthesis, its activity is directly related to ethylene production rate. The model describes the relationship between ethylene production and O2. The influence of CO2 on this relationship was studied in the present experiment at both preclimacteric and climacteric pears. A possible indirect effect on ACC oxidase is through the effect of CO2 on respiration (De Wild et al., 1999). Both ethylene production and respiration can be affected by CO2 and for both processes the effect of CO2 depends on CO2 level, duration of CO2 exposure and temperature (Mathooko, 1996a, b). Data on simultaneously measured responses of respiration and ethylene production to various CO2 partial pressures can improve the understanding of a possible relationship between these two processes. To study this relationship, in the present experiment, pears were exposed to a range of CO2 partial pressures. In a second experiment, ethylene production models for whole fruit were used to study CO2 effects. Pears were pretreated with 1-MCP to exclude the possibility of a CO2 effect on ethylene binding. An extra advantage of using 1-MCP is that the physiological phase of the pears can be indicated. The negative feedback loop in ethylene biosynthesis, which is present before the induction of autocatalytic ethylene production, can be uncoupled by 1-MCP (Anderson et al., 1997). In that case, 1-MCP treatment results in increased ethylene synthesis as observed in grapefruit (Mullins et al., 2000). During autocatalytic ethylene production, 1-MCP treatment results in decreased ethylene production (De Wild et al., 1999).
|
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Effect of CO2 on ethylene production and respiration (experiment 1)
Plant material: Pears (Pyrus communis L. cv. Conference) were harvested in September 1999 on the date that was optimal for commercial long-term storage (based on firmness, starch and soluble solids content of the fruits) and stored for 4 weeks in a cold room (–0.5 °C) (normal procedure, in practice, to reduce development of storage disorders) and subsequently under controlled gas conditions (–0.5 °C, 2.0 kPa O2 and <0.7 kPa CO2) until the start of the experiment. This experiment started in February 2000 after 20 weeks of storage. Pears were placed in a temperature controlled room at 2 °C. The fresh weight of the pears was measured. After warming up for 11 h, the pretreatment with 1-MCP started.
Pretreatment with 1-MCP: Pears were treated with a saturating concentration of 50 ppm 1-MCP for 24 h at 2 °C in 20 l desiccators. Control pears were left in normal air. To prevent the accumulation of CO2, KOH pellets were placed inside the desiccators. The active 1-MCP gas for each desiccator was produced in 100 ml flasks at 20 °C by adding 60 ml of water to 1.5 g of Ethylbloc (Biotechnologies for Horticulture, Inc., Walterboro, South Carolina). The headspace of the flasks was injected into the desiccators through a rubber septum. After 12 h, the desiccators were opened briefly to refresh the air and, on closing again, fresh 1-MCP was applied. Experiments were performed at 2 °C to ensure minimal physiological change of the pears during the experimental period. 1-MCP concentration was saturating as a lower concentration (25 ppm) and a shorter exposure time (16 h) had equal effects on ethylene production (data not shown).
Application of a range of CO2 partial pressures: Untreated pears and pears that had been treated with 50 ppm 1-MCP for 24 h were used. Application of a range of CO2 partial pressures (0, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 kPa, all in combination with 20 kPa O2) at 2 °C started 24 h after the end of the 1-MCP treatment. Pears were placed in 1.5–1.8 l cuvettes (two fruits per cuvette) which were connected to a flow-through system in which pure N2, O2 and CO2 were mixed at a total flow rate of 250 ml min–1 using mass flow controllers (Brooks 5850 TR series). Two replicates were used per treatment. The gas was directed through a water flask prior to entry into each cuvette, resulting in a relative humidity close to saturation (>97%). Ethylene production rate and O2 consumption rate were measured at days 1 (20 h after connection to the flow-through system), 2, 5, and 8.
Measurement of ethylene production and O2 consumption: The ethylene production rate of pears was measured by closing the cuvettes temporarily. Samples were taken using syringes and subsequently analysed by gas chromatography (Packard model 437A equipped with a packed alumina column and a FID detector, Varian-Chrompack, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands). The first sampling of ethylene was quickly followed by measurements of O2, N2 and CO2. These measurements were done as described by De Wild and Peppelenbos (2001) with the following exceptions: the time period between the first and second measurements was 5.5 h. The total pressure in each cuvette was measured between the first sampling of ethylene and the first sampling of headspace O2, CO2 and N2. This pressure reading was corrected for the pressure drop caused by the latter sampling. This corrected pressure was used to convert the measured initial and final gas mole fractions (%, ppb) to partial pressures. The pressure change due to gas exchange was assumed negligible as the absolute change of gas partial pressures was small (maximum change of 0.4 kPa O2) and the respiratory quotient was close to 1.
As a measure of respiration, the O2 consumption was taken (De Wild and Peppelenbos, 2001). The free volume of the cuvettes was calculated by subtracting the estimated pear volume (fresh weight divided by density) from, respectively, desiccator and cuvette volume. Density was calculated by measuring the weight and volume of pears that were not included in the experiment (Baumann and Henze, 1983).
Check for internal damage: Long-term exposure to high CO2 can lead to internal damage of pears (Veltman et al., 1999). To exclude any interference by damaged tissue to the production of ethylene, pears were checked for damage at the end of the experiments. Therefore, pears were cut into pieces and visually checked for necrotic tissue.
Statistical analysis: The effect of CO2 on O2 consumption rate was analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA). When significant differences between CO2 treatments were found, comparisons between pairs of data were made using the least significant differences between means (LSD). The significance level used was 95%. (ANOVA was not performed for ethylene production rates as residuals were not normally distributed).
Effect of 1-MCP and CO2 during preclimacteric and climacteric stage (experiment 2)
Plant material: Pears (Pyrus communis L. cv. Conference) were picked on five different days in August and September 2000 at intervals of one week. The third harvest took place on the date that was advised for commercial long-term storage (based on firmness, starch and soluble solids content of the fruits). After each harvest, pears were stored at 2 °C for measurements. Pears from the third harvest were also placed at –0.5 °C for 4 weeks under ambient air and subsequently under controlled gas conditions (–1 °C, 2.0 kPa O2 and <0.7 kPa CO2) until measurements in December 2000 (13 weeks storage) or March 2001 (25 weeks storage).
In total, seven identical experiments were performed. Experiments were performed shortly after harvest on pears from all five harvest days and after 13 and 25 weeks of storage on pears from the third harvest.
Pretreatment with 1-MCP: Some pears were treated with 1-MCP, other pears were left untreated. In total, 64 pears were divided into four desiccators for treatment with 1-MCP. Treatment with 1-MCP at 2 °C started 1 d after harvest or 1 d after the end of storage. Treatment was done in 20 l desiccators with 50 ppm 1-MCP for 16 h. Application of 1-MCP was carried out as described for experiment 1. The 1-MCP treatments were stopped by opening the desiccators (referred to as day 0). To prevent the accumulation of CO2, KOH pellets were placed inside the desiccators. The estimated decrease in O2 partial pressure did not exceed 0.5 kPa. This estimation was based on O2 uptake measurements of a number of pears (performed as described in De Wild and Peppelenbos, 2001). Such a decline is considered physiologically not important at the initial high O2 partial pressure.
CO2 effect and determination of kinetic parameters: To study kinetic parameters, pears were subjected to various gas conditions shortly after the end of the 1-MCP treatment. Therefore, pears were placed in 1.8 l cuvettes (two fruits per cuvette). Cuvettes were connected to a flow-through system in which pure N2, O2 and CO2 were mixed at a total flow rate of 250 ml min–1 using mass flow controllers. A range of O2 partial pressures was applied (0.5, 1, 2.5, 6, and 20 kPa) in combination with 0 and 5 kPa CO2. Two replicates were used per treatment. The gas was directed through a water flask prior to entry into each cuvette, resulting in a relative humidity close to saturation (97–99%). Ethylene production rate was measured on days 3 and 4. Ethylene production values of these days were averaged for each cuvette as there were no significant differences between the two days.
Ethylene measurements: The ethylene production rate of pears in the cuvettes was measured as described for experiment 1. Two samples were taken over a time span of 4–5 h. The volume of each pear was measured separately. The free volume of the cuvettes was calculated by subtracting the pear volume from the cuvette volume.
Ethylene production models: Ethylene production in response to O2 was described by an ethylene production model. The ethylene production model, as described by De Wild et al. (1999), was extended with a term ‘h’. This improves the description of the ethylene production response of whole products (MG Sanders and HPJ De Wild, unpublished data). The use of this term was based on enzyme kinetics (Copeland, 1996).
where 
is the ethylene production rate (pmol kg–1 s–1), 
is the maximum ethylene production rate (pmol kg–1 s–1), peO2 is the external oxygen partial pressure (kPa), h is the Hill coefficient, and 
is the oxygen partial pressure for half maximum ethylene production (kPa).
When optimization of the three parameters could not be performed satisfactorily, then the model was used with h=1.
The ethylene production at 0 kPa O2 was not measured, but was assumed to be 0 as has been found in previous experiments (De Wild et al., 1999).
Statistical analysis: The measured data were compared with the model using the facilities for non-linear regression in the statistical package Genstat (release 4.2).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Effect of CO2 on ethylene production and respiration (experiment 1)
Pears stored for 20 weeks did not develop visual damage during the experiments so interference from damaged tissue with ethylene production is not to be expected.
Compared with untreated pears, pretreatment with 1-MCP reduced ethylene production (Fig. 1A, B, respectively). Although 1-MCP had reduced ethylene production, very similar effects of CO2 were found. In both cases, a 1 d exposure of pears to 1–20 kPa CO2 resulted in an ethylene production that was higher than at 0 kPa CO2. Later, in the case of 2.5–20 kPa CO2, there was a reduction of ethylene production (days 5 and 8). The strongest decline occurred at the highest CO2 partial pressures.
|
The effect of CO2 on O2 consumption rate depended on 1-MCP pretreatment, while the period of CO2 exposure did not have a statistically significant effect (Fig. 2). Application of CO2 inhibited O2 consumption rate of the pears without 1-MCP pretreatment, but no statistical significant differences were observed between the various CO2 partial pressures (Fig. 2A; O2 consumption data are means over days). For 1-MCP-treated pears none of the applied CO2 partial pressures significantly inhibited O2 consumption rate compared to 0 kPa CO2 (Fig. 2B).
|
Effect of 1-MCP and CO2 during preclimacteric and climacteric stage (experiment 2)
The ethylene production rate of pears (harvest date 6 September) at 20 kPa O2 had greatly increased from 0.23 pmol kg–1 s–1 shortly after harvest to more than 30 pmol kg–1 s–1 after 13 and 25 weeks of storage. The large differences in ethylene production rate between control pears directly after harvest and after storage were confirmed by the differences in Vm values as calculated by the model (Tables B1, B2).
|
|
For the relationship between ethylene production and O2 partial pressures of pears after harvest, equation 1 with h=1 was used (Table 1). After 13 and 25 weeks of storage, h was estimated (Table 2; Fig. 3).
|
Treatment with 1-MCP stimulated ethylene production of freshly harvested pears at 20 kPa O2 while it strongly inhibited ethylene production of pears after 13 weeks of storage. Inhibition was less strong after 25 weeks. This was again reflected in calculated
values (Tables 1, 2).
Some remarkable effects of CO2 on kinetic parameters as calculated by the model were found. Regarding measurements directly after harvest, CO2 did not affect 
values of pears from harvest dates 23 August and 30 August, but inhibited 
values of pears from later harvest dates (Table 1). However, after 1-MCP treatment, CO2 also inhibited 
values on the first two harvest dates. Also, a strikingly different effect of CO2 was found between the two storage periods. Although the 
values of untreated fruits were similar between these periods, additional CO2 strongly inhibited 
values after 13 weeks storage, but had no effect after 25 weeks storage. Remarkably, after 1-MCP treatment, CO2 had an inhibiting effect in both cases.
The estimated 
values had, in general, high standard errors (Tables 1, 2). In pears without 1-MCP pretreatment, CO2 only had a clear effect on 
values at harvest day 6 September. After 1-MCP pretreatment, CO2 clearly affected 
values of pears from the first three harvest days.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The observed stimulation of ethylene production by 1-MCP shortly after harvest reflects the phase of auto-inhibition of ethylene production by ethylene (preclimacteric stage), while the observed inhibition by 1-MCP after prolonged storage showed that pears were in the phase with autocatalytic ethylene production (climacteric stage). This change to the climacteric stage was also indicated by the increase in absolute level of ethylene production. The basal low rate of ethylene production in the first stage is often referred to as system 1 ethylene, while system 2 is the high rate of ethylene production, during ripening (McMurchie et al., 1972). In system 1, negative feedback regulated genes are involved leading to auto-inhibitory ethylene production while in system 2 positive feedback regulated genes are involved leading to auto-stimulatory ethylene production (Nakatsuka et al., 1998; Barry et al., 2000). The rise in ethylene production of untreated pears between the five subsequent harvest dates indicated the start of system 2 (Table 1).
The inhibitory effect of 1-MCP on autocatalytic ethylene production was less strong after 25 weeks compared tot 13 weeks storage (experiment 2). This may be due to changes in ACC synthase and/or ACC oxidase gene expression. Both ACC synthase and ACC oxidase are encoded by multigene families and ACC synthase and ACC oxidase gene family members are differentially expressed in different stages of development (Fluhr and Mattoo, 1996; Nakatsuka et al., 1998; Barry et al., 2000). 1-MCP is known to affect the expression of the members of the gene families for ACC synthase and ACC oxidase differently (Nakatsuka et al., 1998). Nakatsuka et al. (1998) also demonstrated the existence of certain genes that were expressed in tomato fruit throughout development and ripening, irrespective of treatment with 1-MCP or propylene (a substitute for ethylene), thus irrespective of the mode of feedback regulation. The presence of such genes can explain why ethylene production of stored pears in the present research could not be totally reduced by 1-MCP. The smaller effect of 1-MCP on ethylene production after 25 weeks storage compared to 13 weeks storage indicated a gene expression that was less sensitive to 1-MCP.
There are various clues that the effect of CO2 did not operate via the EBP binding site. In experiment 1, pears were used at which the maximum reduction of ethylene production by 1-MCP had been reached. Elevated CO2 was able to inhibit ethylene production of the 1-MCP pretreated pears to an extent very similar to untreated pears. It can be concluded that CO2 is still able to inhibit ethylene production when 1-MCP had already reached its maximal effect. The fact that CO2 is still able to inhibit ethylene production of 1-MCP treated pears confirmed observations by De Wild et al. (1999). As 1-MCP blocks the EBP binding sites (Sisler and Serek, 1997) it is unlikely that CO2 was able to inhibit ethylene production through an effect on ethylene perception. Another indication that the effect of CO2 was not via the EBP binding site was observed in experiment 2. As in experiment 1, CO2 still had a large effect after 1-MCP treatment of stored pears (13 and 25 weeks storage). Additionally, in the case of 25 weeks storage, CO2 only had an effect after 1-MCP treatment. Another indication is given by the fact that ethylene production directly after harvest was stimulated by 1-MCP, but unaffected or inhibited by CO2 which points to different action sites for both molecules. This is consistent with experiments by AB Bleecker (personal communication), who found that there was no effect of CO2 on 14C2H4 binding on the ETR1 receptor expressed in yeast. Also experiments with tulip bulbs (De Wild et al., 2002) showed that competition between ethylene and CO2 at the receptor binding-site was unlikely.
Effects of CO2 on various intermediates and enzymes, and on gene expression involved in ethylene biosynthesis have been found (Mathooko, 1996a; Rothan et al., 1997). However, it must be taken into account that an initial effect by CO2 on one certain point in the ethylene biosynthetic route can result in effects elsewhere through feedback regulation by ethylene. Thus, the primary action site of CO2 remained unclear. By using 1-MCP in the current experiments, this feedback is prevented.
As ATP is involved in the conversion of ACC to ethylene (Apelbaum et al., 1981; Gorny and Kader, 1996), the CO2 effect on ethylene production may operate via the inhibition of respiration. The inverse relationship has also been suggested. Kubo et al. (1990) stated that respiratory responses to high CO2 might be mediated by the effect of CO2 on ethylene biosynthesis and/or action. In the present research, the inhibition of ethylene production by CO2 was not always accompanied by a reduction of O2 consumption (respiration). Differences in ethylene production in response to various CO2 partial pressures were not reflected in differences in respiration. It can be concluded that there was no clear relationship between the inhibition of ethylene production and the inhibition of respiration.
The effect of CO2 on ethylene production depended on the applied CO2 partial pressure and on the duration of exposure. Elevated CO2 initially stimulated ethylene production (experiment 1, day 1), which may reflect a fast direct effect of CO2 on ACC oxidase. Later (days 5 and 8) CO2 inhibited ethylene production with the exception of 1 kPa CO2. This points to a relatively slow indirect effect of CO2 regarding inhibiting properties, for instance, an effect on gene regulation. It is unlikely that this relatively slow effect of CO2 could have been due to delayed diffusion of CO2 into the cell sap considering that the effect of CO2 on O2 consumption was already in steady-state at day 1. An initial stimulation of ethylene production followed by inhibition by CO2 has been shown before for pear (De Wild et al., 1999). Also stimulation by 1 kPa CO2, but inhibition by higher CO2 partial pressures confirmed earlier observations on pear (Chavez-Franco and Kader, 1993).
The effect of CO2 also depended on ripening stage and 1-MCP pretreatment. There was no inhibition in the earlier stages (first two harvests). During the autocatalytic stage, CO2 clearly inhibited after 13 weeks, but had only a small effect after 25 weeks of storage. After 25 weeks of storage CO2 clearly inhibited ethylene production after 1-MCP pretreatment.
A possible explanation for these observations is that CO2 may affect expression of members of the ACC synthase and/or ACC oxidase gene family differently. The expression of the different members depends on ripening stage and on 1-MCP pretreatment (Fluhr and Mattoo, 1996; Nakatsuka et al., 1998; Barry et al., 2000). An indication that CO2 can affect gene expression, but not via affecting ethylene binding, was shown in preclimacteric tomato fruits, where CO2 blocked the expression of both ethylene-dependent and also of ethylene-independent ripening-associated genes (Rothan et al., 1997). In peach, the abundance of ACC synthase member PP-ACS1 after wounding was blocked by CO2, but stimulated by 1-MCP (Mathooko et al., 2001).
The ethylene production rate in relation to external O2 partial pressures describes the real (not the maximum) activity of ACC oxidase in response to O2 as substrate. Thus, the parameter values of the ethylene production model give information about ACC oxidase. A change in the parameter values (e.g. by CO2) may, besides a direct effect on the ACC oxidase enzyme, also reflect a change in ACC oxidase content or in substrates other than O2. A higher KmO2 value means a lower affinity of ACC oxidase for O2. This affinity can be influenced by other substrates. Yip et al. (1988) showed in in vivo experiments that the KmO2 value increased as the ACC concentration decreased. If the affinity of ACC oxidase for O2 depends only on ACC concentration, the model parameters of the current experiments give the following indications about the inhibition site of CO2. (1) In several cases CO2 inhibited ethylene production. With some exceptions directly after harvest (6 September without 1-MCP pretreatment and 23 August, 30 August and 6 September with 1-MCP pretreatment) treatment with CO2 never clearly affected KmO2 or h values. This would mean that CO2 did not affect the level of ACC or other substrates. This confirms earlier observations that elevated CO2 inhibited ethylene production without affecting ACC content in intact fruit (Li et al., 1983; Cheverry et al., 1988; Rothan and Nicolas, 1994). Observations point to the formation of ACC and to ACC oxidase as the inhibition site for CO2. (2) In some cases CO2 did have a clear effect on KmO2 values. This was the case both for untreated and for 1-MCP treated fruits. However, the fact that the KmO2 value decreased due to CO2 suggests an increase in ACC. This points to ACC oxidase as the inhibition site for CO2.
ACC oxidase as the inhibition site for CO2 could be explained by a diminishing effect of CO2 on ACC oxidase content. A direct inhibiting effect of CO2 on ACC oxidase is unlikely as CO2 is a cofactor for ACC oxidase (Dong et al., 1992). Also the response of ethylene production to CO2 was relatively slow compared to respiration (experiment 1). However, it can not be excluded that under certain circumstances CO2 can directly inhibit the enzyme activity, depending on substrate levels. Rothan and Nicolas (1994) found that CO2 could inhibit ethylene production only at low ACC concentration. In experiment 2 it is likely that the ACC content increased during storage under low O2 as has been shown for apples (Li et al., 1983), resulting in a smaller effect of CO2. Also 1-MCP is likely to change substrate levels, which may subsequently cause an altered effect of CO2.
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The effect of CO2 on ethylene production of pear depended on exposure time, CO2 level, ripening stage, and 1-MCP pretreatment. The inhibiting effect of CO2 on ethylene production did not operate via the EBP binding site. Respiration was not involved in the inhibitory effect of CO2. Kinetic parameters derived from ethylene production models based on measurements in vivo point to the conversion from ACC to ethylene by ACC oxidase as a possible site for CO2 inhibition.
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
The authors would like to thank CLJ Roelofsen and MG Staal for technical assistance, LACJ Voesenek for critically reading the manuscript, and MG Sanders for the stimulating discussions. The research presented has been funded in part by The Ministry of LNV, The Netherlands.
|
|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Anderson JD, Cardinale FC, Jennings JC, Norman HA, Avni A, Hanania U, Bailey BA. 1997. Involvement of ethylene in protein elicitor-induced plant responses. In: Kanellis AK, Chang C, Kende H, Grierson D, eds. Biology and biotechnology of the plant hormone ethylene. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 267–274.
Apelbaum A, Wang SY, Burgoon AC, Baker JE, Lieberman M. 1981. Inhibition of the conversion of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid to ethylene by structural analogs, inhibitors of electron transfer, uncouplers of oxidative phosphorylation, and free radical scavengers. Plant Physiology 67, 74–79.
Barry CS, Llop-Tous MI, Grierson D. 2000. The regulation of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid synthase gene expression during the transition from system-1 to system-2 ethylene synthesis in tomato. Plant Physiology 123, 979–986.
Baumann H, Henze J. 1983. Intercellular space volume of fruit. Acta Horticulturae 138, 107–111.
Burg SP, Burg EA. 1967. Molecular requirements for the biological activity of ethylene. Plant Physiology 42, 144–152.
Chavez-Franco SH, Kader AA. 1993. Effects of CO2 on ethylene biosynthesis in ‘Bartlett’ pears. Postharvest Biology and Technology 3, 183–190.
Cheverry JL, Sy MO, Pouliqueen J, Marcellin P. 1988. Regulation by CO2 of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid conversion to ethylene in climacteric fruits. Physiologia Plantarum 72, 535–540.
Copeland RA. 1996. Enzymes. A practical introduction to structure, mechanism, and data analysis. New York: VCH Publishers.
De Wild HPJ, Gude H, Peppelenbos HW. 2002. Carbon dioxide and ethylene interactions in tulip bulbs. Physiologia Plantarum 114, 320–326.[CrossRef][Medline]
De Wild HPJ, Peppelenbos HW. 2001. Improving the measurement of gas exchange in closed systems. Postharvest Biology and Technology 22, 111–119.[CrossRef]
De Wild HPJ, Woltering EJ, Peppelenbos HW. 1999. Carbon dioxide and 1-MCP inhibit ethylene production and respiration of pear fruit by different mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Botany 50, 837–844.
Dong JG, Fernández-Maculet JC, Yang SF. 1992. Purification and characterization of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate oxidase from apple fruit. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 89, 9789–9793.
Fluhr R, Mattoo K. 1996. Ethylene—biosynthesis and perception. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 15, 479–523.[Web of Science]
Gorny JR, Kader AA. 1996. Controlled-atmosphere suppression of ACC synthase and ACC oxidase in ‘Golden Delicious’ apples during long-term cold storage. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Sciences 121, 751–755.
John P. 1997. Ethylene biosynthesis: the role of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) oxidase, and its possible evolutionary origin. Physiologia Plantarum 100, 583–592.[CrossRef]
Kerbel EL, Kader AA, Romani RJ. 1988. Effects of elevated CO2 concentrations on glycolysis in intact ‘Bartlett’ pear fruit. Plant Physiology 86, 1205–1209.
Kubo Y, Inaba A, Nakamura R. 1990. Respiration and C2H4 production in various harvested crops held in CO2-enriched atmospheres. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 115, 975–978.
Li Z, Liu Y, Dong J, Xu R, Zhu M. 1983. Effect of low oxygen and high carbon dioxide on the levels of ethylene and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid in ripening apple fruits. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 2, 81–87.
Mathooko FM. 1996a. Regulation of ethylene biosynthesis in higher plants by carbon dioxide. Postharvest Biology and Technology 7, 1–26.
Mathooko FM. 1996b. Regulation of respiratory metabolism in fruits and vegetables by carbon dioxide. Postharvest Biology and Technology 9, 247–264.[CrossRef]
Mathooko FM, Tsunashima Y, Owino WZO, Kubo Y, Inaba A. 2001. Regulation of genes encoding ethylene biosynthetic enzymes in peach (Prunus persica L.) fruit by carbon dioxide and 1-methylcyclopropene. Postharvest Biology and Technology 21, 265–281.[CrossRef]
McMurchie EJ, McGlasson WB, Eaks IL. 1972. Treatment of fruit with propylene gives information about the biogenesis of ethylene. Nature 237, 235–236.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mullins ED, McCollum TG, McDonald RE. 2000. Consequences on ethylene metabolism of inactivating the ethylene receptor sites in diseased non-climacteric fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology 19, 155–164.[CrossRef]
Nakatsuka A, Murachi S, Okunishi H, Shiomo S, Nakano R, Kubo Y, Inaba A. 1998. Differential expression and internal feedback regulation of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate synthase, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate oxidase, and ethylene receptor genes in tomato fruit during development and ripening. Plant Physiology 118, 1295–1305.
Ramassamy S, Olmos E, Bouzayen M, Pech JC, Latché A. 1998. 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate oxidase of apple fruit is periplasmic. Journal of Experimental Botany 49, 1909–1915.
Rothan C, Duret S, Chevalier C, Raymond P. 1997. Suppression of ripening-associated gene expression in tomato fruits subjected to a high CO2 concentration. Plant Physiology 114, 255–263.[Abstract]
Rothan C, Nicolas J. 1994. High CO2 levels reduce ethylene production in kiwifruit. Physiologia Plantarum 92, 1–8.[CrossRef]
Sisler EC, Serek M. 1997. Inhibitors of ethylene responses in plants at the receptor level: recent developments. Physiologia Plantarum 100, 577–582.[CrossRef]
Veltman RH, Sanders MG, Persijn ST, Peppelenbos HW, Oosterhaven J. 1999. Decreased ascorbic acid levels and brown core development in pears (Pyrus communis L. cv. Conference). Physiologia Plantarum 107, 39–45.[CrossRef]
Vioque B, Castellano JM. 1994. Extraction and biochemical characterization of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid oxidase from pear. Physiologia Plantarum 90, 334–338.[CrossRef]
Vioque B, Castellano JM. 1998. In vivo and in vitro 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid oxidase activity in pear fruit: role of ascorbate and inactivation during catalysis. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 46, 1706–1711.[CrossRef]
Yip WK, Jiao XZ, Yang SF. 1988. Dependence of in vivo ethylene production rate on 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid content and oxygen concentrations. Plant Physiology 88, 553–558.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Zacarias and F. Alferez Regulation by Carbon Dioxide of Wound-induced Ethylene Biosynthesis in the Peel of Citrus Fruit Food Science and Technology International, December 1, 2007; 13(6): 497 - 504. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||