Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Nat Plants ; 8(5): 574-582, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35484201

ABSTRACT

Many plants accumulate transitory starch reserves in their leaves during the day to buffer their carbohydrate supply against fluctuating light conditions, and to provide carbon and energy for survival at night. It is universally accepted that transitory starch is synthesized from ADP-glucose (ADPG) in the chloroplasts. However, the consensus that ADPG is made in the chloroplasts by ADPG pyrophosphorylase has been challenged by a controversial proposal that ADPG is made primarily in the cytosol, probably by sucrose synthase (SUS), and then imported into the chloroplasts. To resolve this long-standing controversy, we critically re-examined the experimental evidence that appears to conflict with the consensus pathway. We show that when precautions are taken to avoid artefactual changes during leaf sampling, Arabidopsis thaliana mutants that lack SUS activity in mesophyll cells (quadruple sus1234) or have no SUS activity (sextuple sus123456) have wild-type levels of ADPG and starch, while ADPG is 20 times lower in the pgm and adg1 mutants that are blocked in the consensus chloroplastic pathway of starch synthesis. We conclude that the ADPG needed for starch synthesis in leaves is synthesized primarily by ADPG pyrophosphorylase in the chloroplasts.


Subject(s)
Arabidopsis Proteins , Arabidopsis , Adenosine Diphosphate Glucose/metabolism , Arabidopsis/genetics , Arabidopsis/metabolism , Arabidopsis Proteins/genetics , Arabidopsis Proteins/metabolism , Glucose-1-Phosphate Adenylyltransferase/metabolism , Glucosyltransferases , Plant Leaves/metabolism , Starch/metabolism , Sucrose/metabolism
2.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 10(11): e31750, 2021 Nov 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34813494

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Provenance supports the understanding of data genesis, and it is a key factor to ensure the trustworthiness of digital objects containing (sensitive) scientific data. Provenance information contributes to a better understanding of scientific results and fosters collaboration on existing data as well as data sharing. This encompasses defining comprehensive concepts and standards for transparency and traceability, reproducibility, validity, and quality assurance during clinical and scientific data workflows and research. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to investigate existing evidence regarding approaches and criteria for provenance tracking as well as disclosing current knowledge gaps in the biomedical domain. This review covers modeling aspects as well as metadata frameworks for meaningful and usable provenance information during creation, collection, and processing of (sensitive) scientific biomedical data. This review also covers the examination of quality aspects of provenance criteria. METHODS: This scoping review will follow the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Relevant publications will be obtained by querying PubMed and Web of Science. All papers in English language will be included, published between January 1, 2006 and March 23, 2021. Data retrieval will be accompanied by manual search for grey literature. Potential publications will then be exported into a reference management software, and duplicates will be removed. Afterwards, the obtained set of papers will be transferred into a systematic review management tool. All publications will be screened, extracted, and analyzed: title and abstract screening will be carried out by 4 independent reviewers. Majority vote is required for consent to eligibility of papers based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text reading will be performed independently by 2 reviewers and in the last step, key information will be extracted on a pretested template. If agreement cannot be reached, the conflict will be resolved by a domain expert. Charted data will be analyzed by categorizing and summarizing the individual data items based on the research questions. Tabular or graphical overviews will be given, if applicable. RESULTS: The reporting follows the extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statements for Scoping Reviews. Electronic database searches in PubMed and Web of Science resulted in 469 matches after deduplication. As of September 2021, the scoping review is in the full-text screening stage. The data extraction using the pretested charting template will follow the full-text screening stage. We expect the scoping review report to be completed by February 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Information about the origin of healthcare data has a major impact on the quality and the reusability of scientific results as well as follow-up activities. This protocol outlines plans for a scoping review that will provide information about current approaches, challenges, or knowledge gaps with provenance tracking in biomedical sciences. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/31750.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...