Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 14;18(12):2420–2435. doi: 10.1111/pbi.13416

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Cytological characterization of WT and mdh4‐1 seeds at different stages. (a) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of mature WT and mdh4 endosperms; scale bars, 10 µm. (b) Paraffin sections of 12 DAP and (c) 16 DAP of WT and mdh4‐1 kernels. Scale bars of whole seed and basal endosperm transfer layer (BETL, red rectangle), 1 mm and 200 µm, respectively. En, endosperm; Em, embryo. (d) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of WT and the mdh4‐1 mutant seeds 18 DAP. Scale bars in left and right panels, 5 µm and 1 µm, respectively. (e) Number and (f) size of starch grains in WT vs. mdh4‐1 endosperms at 18 DAP with eight replicates. En, endosperm; Em, embryo; SG, starch granule; PB, protein body; M, mitochondria. Values are represented as means ± SE, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 (Student's t‐test).