Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2019
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-019-03250-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative sensitivity to gamma radiation at the organismal, cell and DNA level in young plants of Norway spruce, Scots pine and Arabidopsis thaliana

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Norway spruce recovers better from inhibited growth 77 dpi after 48 h exposure to 290 mGy h -1 (Fig. 1 D and F-H) compared to the previous situation (after 144 h exposure to 40 mGy h -1 , (Blagojevic, et al 2019) despite the total dose after 48 h being higher (13,920 mGy) than after 144 h (5,760 mGy), emphasising the severity of chronic exposure. Consistent with previous findings, A. thaliana did not show any significant growth or developmental effects in this study (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Norway spruce recovers better from inhibited growth 77 dpi after 48 h exposure to 290 mGy h -1 (Fig. 1 D and F-H) compared to the previous situation (after 144 h exposure to 40 mGy h -1 , (Blagojevic, et al 2019) despite the total dose after 48 h being higher (13,920 mGy) than after 144 h (5,760 mGy), emphasising the severity of chronic exposure. Consistent with previous findings, A. thaliana did not show any significant growth or developmental effects in this study (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Since phenotypic effects of gamma irradiation may take some time to be manifested, the post-irradiation effects of the 48 h of gamma exposure were recorded after transfer of seedlings to pots filled with S-soil (Hasselfors Garden AS, Örebro, Sweden), one plant per pot. All plants were kept in growth chambers (manufactured by Norwegian University of Life Sciences) with temperature, relative air humidity (RH), R:FR ratio, and photoperiod maintained as previously described (Blagojevic, et al 2019).…”
Section: Post-irradiation Growing Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Radiation did not lead to early gap formation and the creation of widespread tree regeneration. Rather, negative effects on regeneration might result from the well‐documented intolerance of conifers’ reproductive organs (such as flowers and cones) to the DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation (e.g., Blagojevic et al, 2019). While this effect was not strong enough to hamper the overall reforestation of abandoned agricultural fields in the ChEZ (see Section 4.1 above), it might have contributed to reduced regeneration in highly contaminated sites.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous work has, for instance, investigated the influence of radiation on agricultural crops (e.g., Dmitriev et al, 2011), fish (e.g., Lerebours et al, 2018) and dairy products (e.g., Labunska et al, 2018). Studies regarding the effects of radiation on forest ecosystems have to date largely focused on radiation-induced changes at the level of genes (Zelena et al, 2005), cells (Blagojevic et al, 2019) or organs (Geraskin et al, 2019). They show that conifers are more sensitive to contamination compared to broadleaved trees (e.g., Yoschenko et al, 2011Yoschenko et al, , 2017Watanabe et al, 2015), suggesting that chronic levels of radiation might have particularly severe effects in coniferous forests (Fesenko, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gene-specific primers for the target genes PaFTL2, PaCOL1, PaCOL2 and PaSOC1 and the genes used as internal reference genes, Paα-TUBULIN, PaACTIN (PaACT) and PaELONGATION FACTOR 1α (PaEF1α), were designed using the Primer3 software and the melting points and product lengths were assessed as described previously [11,39; primers in 11]. The transcript levels were analysed using a 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) and the relative transcript levels quantified on basis of the threshold cycle (CT) values from the quantitative PCR analyses, all according to [39]. All samples were analysed in triplicate and the transcript levels of the target genes were normalised to the mean values of the internal reference genes that all had stable transcript levels under the experimental conditions, and thereafter related to the day 0 samples.…”
Section: Rna Extraction and Purification And Analyses Of Transcript Levelsmentioning
confidence: 99%