Next Article in Journal
Leaf Senescence by Magnesium Deficiency
Previous Article in Journal
DNA and Flavonoids Leach out from Active Nuclei of Taxus and Tsuga after Extreme Climate Stresses
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hormonal Regulation and Expression Profiles of Wheat Genes Involved during Phytic Acid Biosynthesis Pathway
Review

Seed Biofortification and Phytic Acid Reduction: A Conflict of Interest for the Plant?

Institute of Agricultural Biology and Biotechnology, CNR, Via Bassini 15, 20133 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Rishi R. Burlakoti
Plants 2015, 4(4), 728-755; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants4040728
Received: 3 August 2015 / Accepted: 13 November 2015 / Published: 20 November 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Phytic Acid Pathway and Breeding in Plants)
Most of the phosphorus in seeds is accumulated in the form of phytic acid (myo-inositol-1,2,3,4,5,6-hexakisphosphate, InsP6). This molecule is a strong chelator of cations important for nutrition, such as iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium. For this reason, InsP6 is considered an antinutritional factor. In recent years, efforts to biofortify seeds through the generation of low phytic acid (lpa) mutants have been noteworthy. Moreover, genes involved in the biosynthesis and accumulation of this molecule have been isolated and characterized in different species. Beyond its role in phosphorus storage, phytic acid is a very important signaling molecule involved in different regulatory processes during plant development and responses to different stimuli. Consequently, many lpa mutants show different negative pleitotropic effects. The strength of these pleiotropic effects depends on the specific mutated gene, possible functional redundancy, the nature of the mutation, and the spatio-temporal expression of the gene. Breeding programs or transgenic approaches aimed at development of new lpa mutants must take into consideration these different aspects in order to maximize the utility of these mutants. View Full-Text
Keywords: gene regulation; inositol phosphates; mineral deficiency; phytate; signal transduction gene regulation; inositol phosphates; mineral deficiency; phytate; signal transduction
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Sparvoli, F.; Cominelli, E. Seed Biofortification and Phytic Acid Reduction: A Conflict of Interest for the Plant? Plants 2015, 4, 728-755. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants4040728

AMA Style

Sparvoli F, Cominelli E. Seed Biofortification and Phytic Acid Reduction: A Conflict of Interest for the Plant? Plants. 2015; 4(4):728-755. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants4040728

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sparvoli, Francesca, and Eleonora Cominelli. 2015. "Seed Biofortification and Phytic Acid Reduction: A Conflict of Interest for the Plant?" Plants 4, no. 4: 728-755. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants4040728

Find Other Styles

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Back to TopTop