Abstract
Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) root parenchyma and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) stem pith, both known to increase peroxidase activity after excision, differed from each other in their isoperoxidase patterns and in the isoperoxidase responses to injury and exogenous ethylene.In potato root sections, the injury-dependent peroxidase increase was due to an induction of two isoenzymes, as well as to a promotion of some constitutive ones. In tobacco pith, this increase was entirely due to seven isoperoxidases not detectable, or detectable only in traces, immediately after excision. Actinomycin D did not inhibit the development of any isoperoxidases in the potato root sections and strongly repressed the development of all injury-induced isoenzymes in tobacco pith. Cycloheximide totally inhibited the development of all isoperoxidases in both species, with the exception of two injury-enhanced isoenzymes in root parenchyma.In root sections, indoleacetic acid had a weak inhibitory effect on one injury-induced isoperoxidase only, whereas in tobacco pith it inhibited the development of the injury-induced, as well as the constitutive, isoperoxidases.Exogenous ethylene did not induce, enhance, or significantly suppress any of the tobacco pith isoenzymes, whereas in potato root sections, it suppressed slightly the development of the injury-induced, had no effect on some of the injury-enhanced, and greatly promoted some of the injury-unaffected or-enhanced isoperoxidases. Removal of ethylene stopped the ethylene-dependent peroxidase increase without affecting the injury-induced increase. When applied to intact potato roots, ethylene did not induce any new isoperoxidases and promoted the same constitutive isoenzymes as it did in root sections.Thus, the tissue peroxidase response to ethylene seems independent of its response to injury. Differences between tissue species in their response to ethylene may depend on the presence or absence of isoperoxidases sensitive to ethylene. The inhibition of injury-dependent peroxidase development by indoleacetic acid cannot be explained by an ethylene-induced inhibition.