| Literature DB >> 24835559 |
María Florencia Babuin1, María Paula Campestre1, Rubén Rocco1, Cesar D Bordenave1, Francisco J Escaray1, Cristian Antonelli1, Pablo Calzadilla1, Andrés Gárriz1, Eva Serna2, Pedro Carrasco3, Oscar A Ruiz1, Ana B Menendez4.
Abstract
The current knowledge regarding transcriptomic changes induced by alkalinity on plants is scarce and limited to studies where plants were subjected to the alkaline salt for periods not longer than 48 h, so there is no information available regarding the regulation of genes involved in the generation of a new homeostatic cellular condition after long-term alkaline stress. Lotus japonicus is a model legume broadly used to study many important physiological processes including biotic interactions and biotic and abiotic stresses. In the present study, we characterized phenotipically the response to alkaline stress of the most widely used L. japonicus ecotypes, Gifu B-129 and MG-20, and analyzed global transcriptome of plants subjected to 10 mM NaHCO3 during 21 days, by using the Affymetrix Lotus japonicus GeneChip®. Plant growth assessment, gas exchange parameters, chlorophyll a fluorescence transient (OJIP) analysis and metal accumulation supported the notion that MG-20 plants displayed a higher tolerance level to alkaline stress than Gifu B-129. Overall, 407 and 459 probe sets were regulated in MG-20 and Gifu B-129, respectively. The number of probe sets differentially expressed in roots was higher than that of shoots, regardless the ecotype. Gifu B-129 and MG-20 also differed in their regulation of genes that could play important roles in the generation of a new Fe/Zn homeostatic cellular condition, synthesis of plant compounds involved in stress response, protein-degradation, damage repair and root senescence, as well as in glycolysis, gluconeogenesis and TCA. In addition, there were differences between both ecotypes in the expression patterns of putative transcription factors that could determine distinct arrangements of flavonoid and isoflavonoid compounds. Our results provided a set of selected, differentially expressed genes deserving further investigation and suggested that the L. japonicus ecotypes could constitute a useful model to search for common and distinct tolerance mechanisms to long-term alkaline stress response in plants.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24835559 PMCID: PMC4024010 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Primers used for quantitative real-time PCR.
| Probeset ID | Forward primer | Reverse primer |
| ljwgs_124992.1_at |
|
|
| ljwgs_011581.2_at |
|
|
| ljwgs_086126.1_at |
|
|
| chr5.cm0456.15_at |
|
|
| Ljwgs_012445.1_at |
|
|
| chr6.cm0437.7_at |
|
|
| cm0528.2_at |
|
|
| ljwgs_038566.1_at |
|
|
| ljwgs_049882.1_at |
|
|
| ljwgs_021886.2_at |
|
|
| chr1.cm0378.1_at |
|
|
| chr3.cm0279.2_at |
|
|
| ljwgs_063085.1_x_at |
|
|
| chr5.cm0019.23_at |
|
|
| chr1.cm0433.18_at |
|
|
| ljwgs_147904.1.1_at |
|
|
| ljwgs_055792.1_at |
|
|
| chr1.cm0800.52_at |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stem length and dry weight in samples of L. japonicus MG-20 and Gifu B-129 plants.
| MG-20 | Gifu B-129 | |||
| Growth parameter | Control | Alkaline | Control | Alkaline |
| Stem length (cm) | 11.5±0.45 a | 6.17±0.44 b | 9.0±0.27 a | 3.96±0.28 b |
| Root dry weight (g) | 0.092±0.008 a | 0.028±0.008 b | 0.065±0.008 a | 0.057±0.008 a |
| Stem dry weight (g) | 0.032±0.003 a | 0.012±0.003 b | 0.019±0.002 a | 0.008±0.002 b |
| Leaf dry weight (g) | 0.12±0.032 a | 0.032±0.010 b | 0.047±0.004 a | 0.028±0.004 b |
| Total dry weight (g) | 0.24±0.02 a | 0.07±0.02 b | 0.13±0.012 a | 0.093±0.013 b |
| Stem length reduction (%) | 46.38±3.68 b | 56.06±2.42 a | ||
| Total biomass reduction (%) | 70.47±3.85 a | 29.67±8.33 b | ||
Seven-day-old plants were watered with 0.50 Hoagland’s nutrient solution, with or without the addition of 10 mM NaHCO3 during a period of 21 days. Results are the mean of 12 biological replicates ±SE. Statistical differences between control and treatments within each ecotype are shown as P<0.001 (Duncan’s post-hoc test).
Figure 1Plant growth response to alkalinization of the two L. japonicus ecotypes Gifu B-129 and MG-20.
Plants of both ecotypes grown under alkalinity and control treatments (A); close up views of alkalinized Gifu B-129 (B) and MG-20 (C) plants. Plants at the two full developed leaves stage were watered with nutrient solution containing or lacking 10 mM NaHCO3 addition during 21 days.
Gas exchange parameters transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (Gs), net photosynthesis (Pn) and water use efficiency (WUE) in basal and apical leaves of L. japonicus Gifu B-129 and MG-20 plants.
| E | Gs | Pn | WUE | |||
| (mol H2O m−2 s−1) | (mmol H2O m−2 s−1) | (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1) | (µmol CO2 mmol−1H2O) | |||
| Basal leaf | Gifu B-129 | control | 2,22±0,25a | 197±35a | 3,6±0,6a | 1,7±0,2a |
| alkaline | 1,48±0,29a | 126±41a | 1,5±0,6b | 1,1±0,2b | ||
| MG-20 | control | 2,18±0,25a | 213±36a | 3,1±0,6ab | 1,5±0,2a | |
| alkaline | 1,69±0,25a | 178±36a | 2,9±0,6ab | 1,7±0,2a | ||
| Apical leaf | Gifu B-129 | control | 2,2±0,4a | 197±41a |
| 1,28±0,25a |
| alkaline | 2,4±0,4a | 214±41a |
| 0,43±0,25b | ||
| MG-20 | control | 2±0,4a | 200±41a | 3,3±0,5a | 1,63±0,25a | |
| alkaline | 1,8±0,5a | 193±47a | 2,33±0,6ab | 1,4±0,28a |
Seven-day-old plants were watered with 0.50 Hoagland’s nutrient solution, with or without the addition of 10 mM NaHCO3 during a period of 21 days. Results are the mean of 12 biological replicates ±SE. Statistical differences between control and treatments within each ecotype are shown as P<0.001 (Duncan’s post-hoc test).
Contents of chlorophyll a, b and total in apical leaves of L. japonicus Gifu B-129 and MG-20 plants.
| Chlorophyll a | Chlorophyll b | Total chlorophyll | ||
| Gifu B-129 | control | 0,9±0,1b | 0,34±0,03a | 1,24±0,14b |
| alkaline | 0,4±0,1c | 0,18±0,03b | 0,59±0,14c | |
| MG-20 | control | 1,25±0,1a | 0,25±0,43a | 1,68±0,14a |
| alkaline | 0,82±0,1b | 0,41±0,33a | 1,15±0,14b |
Seven-day-old plants were watered with 0.50 Hoagland’s nutrient solution, with or without the addition of 10 mM NaHCO3 during a period of 21 days. Results are the mean of 12 biological replicates ±SE. Statistical differences between control and treatments within each ecotype are shown as P<0.001 (Duncan’s post-hoc test).
Total, leaf, stem and root iron and zinc contents in plants of L. japonicus MG-20 and Gifu B-129 plants.
| Ion | Ecotype | Treatment | Total (ppm) | Leaf (ppm) | Stem (ppm) | Root (ppm) |
| Fe | MG-20 | Control | 1848,9±174,72b | 179,44±22,97a | 181,33±19,56a | 1516±170,3a |
| MG-20 | Alkalinity | 2681,54±174,72a | 174,5±22,97a | 306,7±55,46b | 2199±170,3b | |
| Gifu B-129 | Control | 2065,23±165,76b | 233,71±22,97a | 306,65±18,76a | 1579±161,6a | |
| Gifu B-129 | Alkalinity | 2609,01±198,12a | 184,5±23,99a | 354,73±35,12a | 2091±193,1b | |
| Zn | MG-20 | Control | 104,63±5,67a | 27,64±1,69a | 43,05±3,32a | 36,42±3,38a |
| MG-20 | Alkalinity | 39,16±5,4b | 10,45±1,69b | 7,02±4,34b | 24,88±3,09a | |
| Gifu B-129 | Control | 122,49±5,4a | 35,78±1,69a | 64,91±3,46a | 23,25±3,09a | |
| Gifu B-129 | Alkalinity | 33,27±5,4b | 9,18±1,95b | 14,28±4,34b | 16,68±3,23b |
Seven-day-old plants were watered with 0.5×Hoagland’s nutrient solution, with or without addition of 10 mM NaHCO3 over 21 days. Average data (±SE; n = 12) with the same letter within each ecotype are not significant different (Duncan, P<0.001).
Available iron contents (nmol/gr de peso fresco) in leaves, stems and roots of L. japonicus Gifu B-129 and MG-20 plants.
| Root | Stem | Leaf | ||
| Gifu B-129 | control | 0,6±0,07b | 0,53±0,08b | 0,85±0,06a |
| alkaline | 1,18±0,07a | 1,22±0,08a | 0,51±0,06b | |
| MG-20 | control | 0,51±0,07a | 0,25±0,08a | 0,59±0,06a |
| alkaline | 0,57±0,07a | 0,41±0,08a | 0,53±0,06a |
Seven-day-old plants were watered with 0.5× Hoagland’s nutrient solution, with or without addition of 10 mM NaHCO3 over 21 days. Average data (±SE; n = 12) with the same letter within each ecotype×organ are not significant different (Duncan, P<0.001).
Fv/Fm and PIABS measured on leaves of L. japonicus MG-20 and Gifu B-129 plants.
| Ecotype | Treatment | Fv/Fm | PI abs |
| MG20 | Control | 0,84±0,01a | 5,68±0,31 ab |
| MG20 | Alkalinity | 0,84±0,01a | 6,15±0,31 a |
| Gifu | Control | 0,83±0,01a | 4,8±0,31 b |
| Gifu | Alkalinity | 0,77±0,01b | 1,22±0,31 c |
Seven-day-old plants were watered with 0.5× Hoagland’s nutrient solution, with or without addition of 10 mM NaHCO3 over 21 days. Average data (±SE; n = 12) with the same letter within each ecotype are not significant different (Duncan, P<0.001).
Figure 2Venn diagram showing common and unique regulated genes by alkalinity between roots and shoots of MG-20 and Gifu B-129.
Number of alkalinity-responsive probesets classified in each putative functional annotation, for each ecotype×organ combination.
| Ecotype | Organ | Regulation | Amino acid metabolism | Biodegradation of Xenobiotics | Cell organisation | Cell wall | Development | DNA synthesis | Fermentation | Gluconeogenesis | Glycolysis | Hormone metabolism | Lipid metabolism | Major CHO degradation metabolism | Metal handling | Minor CHO metabolism | Miscelany | N-metabolism | Protein metabolism | Redox proteins | Secondary metabolism | Signalling | Stress | TCA | Transcription factors | Transporters | Unknown genes | Total 1 | Total 2 | Up/down-regulated genes |
| Gifu | Leaf | Down | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 17 | 93 | 4,5 |
| Up | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 16 | 26 | 76 | ||||
| Root | Down | 3 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 14 | 12 | 38 | 141 | 382 | 1,7 | |
| Up | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 34 | 0 | 24 | 1 | 23 | 17 | 15 | 1 | 21 | 8 | 58 | 241 | ||||
| MG20 | Leaf | Down | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 15 | 93 | 5,2 |
| Up | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 16 | 78 | ||||
| Root | Down | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 13 | 5 | 37 | 109 | 301 | 1,8 | |
| Up | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 34 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 57 | 192 | ||||
| Total | 15 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 27 | 16 | 6 | 12 | 7 | 113 | 3 | 68 | 8 | 49 | 41 | 35 | 4 | 88 | 72 | 243 | 869 | 869 |
Probesets with a mean absolute expression ratio of at least 1.5 (linear scale) and a P-value of P<0.05 in a t-test for significance were classified into the categories shown. Those probesets for which no annotation could be inferred were regarded as unknown.
Microarray and qRT-PCR analysis of expression of 20 randomnly selected genes in Lotus japonicus roots and leaves treated with NaHCO3 during 21 days.
| Probeset | Relative expression (fold change) | Ecotype×organ | |
| Microarray | qRT-PCR | ||
| chr1.cm0800.52 | 1 | 1,552 | Gifu B-129 root |
| ljwgs_021886.2 | 1,109 | 3,918 | MG-20 leaf |
| ljwgs_063085.1 | 1,192 | 2,526 | MG-20 leaf |
| chr1.cm0378.1 | 1,195 | 3,109 | MG-20 leaf |
| cm0528.2 | 1,304 | 1,156 | MG-20 root |
| cm0528.2 | 1,627 | 4,757 | MG-20 leaf |
| cm0528.2 | 1,685 | 3,477 | Gifu B-129 leaf |
| chr3.cm0279.2 | 1,987 | 2,607 | MG-20 root |
| ljwgs_147904.1.1 | 1,99 | 2,301 | Gifu B-129 root |
| ljwgs_055792.1 | 2 | 2,168 | MG-20 root |
| chr1.cm0433.8 | 2,264 | 2,378 | Gifu B-129 root |
| chr5.cm0019.23 | 2,365 | 2,492 | MG-20 root |
| chr6.cm0437.7 | 2,567 | 5,155 | MG-20 leaf |
| ljwgs_038566.1 | 2,884 | 4,512 | MG-20 root |
| ljwgs_049882.1 | 2,935 | 4,155 | MG-20 root |
| chr5.cm0456.170.r2.d | 4,047 | 35,302 | MG-20 leaf |
| ljwgs_086126.1 | 4,209 | 77,753 | MG-20 leaf |
| Ljwgs_012445.1 | 4,262 | 23,316 | MG-20 leaf |
| ljwgs_124992.1 | 5,059 | 99,971 | MG-20 leaf |
| ljwgs_011581.2 | 6,33 | 89,008 | MG-20 leaf |
Figure 3Comparison of microarray and quantitative real-time PCR data for 15 selected genes.
Symbols represent Log2 transformation of mean expression levels relative to control treatments.