The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Enhancement of Phloem Exudation from Cut Petioles by Chelating Agents
Open accessAbstract
The photosynthetic assimilates in leaves of Perilla crispa attached to the plant were labeled by treating the leaves with (14)CO(2). When subsequently detached, these leaves exuded a negligible amount of radioactivity from the cut petiole into water. Ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA), citric acid, and ethyleneglycol-bis (beta-aminoethyl ether) N,N'-tetraacetate greatly increased exudation of labeled assimilates into a solution bathing the petioles. The optimal concentration of EDTA was 20 mm, and maximal exudation took place between 2 and 4 hours after excision. Up to 22% of the radioactivity fixed in the leaf was exuded into an EDTA solution as compared to an export of 38% from attached leaves. The amount of radioactivity in the exudate was much reduced at low temperature. Presence of EDTA was required in the collecting solution for only 1 to 2 hours; upon transfer to water, exudation continued as in continuous presence of EDTA. Ca(2+) completely inhibited the effect of EDTA.Anatomical studies indicated that callose formation on the sieve plates near the cut surface of the petioles was less in leaves on EDTA than on water.More than 95% of the radioactivity exuded by detached leaves was present in the sugars verbascose, stachyose, raffinose, and sucrose, which are translocated in the phloem of Perilla. Labeled glucose, fructose, and galactinol were detected in the leaf blade and petiole, but not in exudates.The addition of EDTA to a solution bathing the petiole of detached leaves of Chenopodium rubrum and Pharbitis nil also increased the exudation of labeled assimilates. In these two species, label appeared only in a compound that cochromatographed with sucrose.It is concluded that the radioactive products in the solution are actually exuded by the phloem. Possibly EDTA chelates Ca(2+) that otherwise participates in the reactions that seal cut phloem.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Molecular sabotage of plant defense by aphid saliva
Will, T., Tjallingii, W. F., Thönnessen, A., & van Bel, A. J. E. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0703535104 · Cited by 527
Bourgis, F., Roje, S., Nuccio, M. L., Fisher, D. B., Tarczynski, M. C., Li, C., Herschbach, C., Rennenberg, H., Pimenta, M. J., Shen, T.-L., et al. (1999) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.11.8.1485 · Cited by 304
The Nutritional Physiology of Aphids
Douglas, A. E. (2003) · Advances in Insect Physiology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2806(03)31002-1 · Cited by 271
Raps, A., Kehr, J., Gugerli, P., Moar, W. J., Bigler, F., & Hilbeck, A. (2001) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01236.x · Cited by 205
Metadata
- Authors
- King, R. W., & Zeevaart, J. A. D.
- Venue
- Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1974-01-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 96-103
- ISSN
- 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2548
- OpenAlex
- W1980558055
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Enhancement of Phloem Exudation from Cut Petioles by Chelating Agents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1104/pp.53.1.96
- The paper
- King, R. W., & Zeevaart, J. A. D. (1974). Enhancement of Phloem Exudation from Cut Petioles by Chelating Agents. Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.53.1.96
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.