| Literature DB >> 25866549 |
Céline Rousseau1, Gilles Hunault2, Etienne Belin1,3, Tristan Boureau1,4, Sylvain Gaillard5, Julie Bourbeillon6, Gregory Montiel7, Philippe Simier7, Claire Campion4, Marie-Agnès Jacques1,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Image analysis is increasingly used in plant phenotyping. Among the various imaging techniques that can be used in plant phenotyping, chlorophyll fluorescence imaging allows imaging of the impact of biotic or abiotic stresses on leaves. Numerous chlorophyll fluorescence parameters may be measured or calculated, but only a few can produce a contrast in a given condition. Therefore, automated procedures that help screening chlorophyll fluorescence image datasets are needed, especially in the perspective of high-throughput plant phenotyping.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25866549 PMCID: PMC4392743 DOI: 10.1186/s13007-015-0068-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Methods ISSN: 1746-4811 Impact factor: 4.993
CF parameters used in this study
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FO | Minimal chlorophyll fluorescence intensity | Measured | |||
| measured in the dark-adapted state measured in the dark-adapted state (FO) and during the dark relaxation (FO(85)) | |||||
| F’O | Minimal chlorophyll fluorescence intensity measured in the light-adapted state | Measured | |||
| measured during the light adaptation (F’O(n)) and at the steady-state (F’O(74)) | |||||
| Fm | Maximal chlorophyll fluorescence intensity measured in the dark-adapted state | Measured | Fm(85)* | ||
| measured in the dark-adapted state (Fm) and during the dark adaptation (Fm(85)) | |||||
| F’m | Maximum chlorophyll fluorescence intensity measured in the light adapted state | Measured | F’m(25)**, F’m(38)**, F’m(50)*, F’m(62)*, F’m(74)* | ||
| measured during the ligth-adaptation (F’m(n)) and at the steady-state (F’m(74)) | |||||
| FP | Peak fluorescence during the initial phase of the Kautsky effect | Measured | |||
| measured at the begining of the light adaptation | |||||
| FT | Instantanueous fluorescence | Measured | FT(25)*, FT(50)*, FT(62)**, FT(74)* | ||
| measured in the dark-adapted state (FT(85)), during the light adaptation (FT(n)) and at the steady-state (FT(74)) | |||||
| Fv/Fm | Maximum PSII quantum yield | (Fm-FO)/Fm | Fv/Fm** | Fv/Fm* | |
| measured at the dark-adaptated state | |||||
| F’v/F’m | PSII quantum yield of light adapted sample | (F’m-F’O)/F’m | F’v/F’m(25)**, F’v/F’m(38)**, F’v/F’m(50)**, F’v/F’m(62)**, F’v/F’m(74)** | ||
| calculated during the light adaptation (F’v/F’m(n)) and at the steady-state (F’v/F’m(74)) | |||||
| NPQ | Non-photochemical quenching | (Fm-F’m)/Fm | NPQ(38)* | NPQ(25)* | NPQ(85)*, NPQ(62)**, NPQ(74)* |
| calculated in the dark-adapted state (NPQ(85)during the light adaptation (NPQ(n)) and at the steady-state (NPQ(74)) | |||||
| qL | estimator of the fraction of open PSII centers | qP(F’O/FT) | qL(25)**, qL(38)**, qL(50)**, qL(62)**, qL(74)** | ||
| calculated during the light adaptation (qL(n)) and at the steady-state (qL(74)) | |||||
| qP | Coefficient of photochemical quenching | (Fm-FT)/(Fm-FO) | qP(85)**, qP(25)**, qP(38)**, qP(50)**,qP(62)* | qP(25)**, qP(38)**, qP(50)**,qP(62)**,qP(74)** | qP(74)* |
| calculated in the dark-adapted state (qP(85)), during the light adaptation (qP(n)) and at the steady-state (qP(74)) | |||||
| Qy | Instantaneous PSII quantum yield | (Fm-Ft)/Fm | Qy(85)**, Qy(25)*,Qy(38)**, Qy(50)*, Qy(62)*, Qy(74)* | Qy(25)**,Qy(38)**, Qy(50)**, Qy(62)**, Qy(74)** | |
| calculated during the light adaptation (Qy(n)) and at the steady-state (Qy(74)) | |||||
| RFD | Fluorescence decline ratio | (Fp-FT)/FT | RFD(25)**, RFD(38)**, RFD(50)**, RFD(62)**, RFD(74)* | RFD(50)**, RFD(62)**, RFD(74)** | |
| calculated during the light adaptation (RFD(n)) and at the steady-state (RFD(74)) |
Plants of ecotypes Ler and Col-0 of A. thaliana non-inoculated or inoculated with P. ramosa were imaged for 13 CF parameters (55 transient measures). This table presents the symbols and the names of the measured and the calculated CF parameters (§: n can be 25, 38, 50 or 62. For example, Fo was measured four times during the light adaptation at 25 s, 38 s, 50 s and 62 s).
Significant differences between the global CF values of non-inoculated and inoculated plants of ecotype Col-0, non-inoculated and inoculated plants of ecotype Ler or non-inoculated plants of ecotype Col-0 and non-inoculated plants of ecotype Ler are indicated respectively in the fourth, fifth and sixth columns (*: Mann–Whitney U test, p-value < 0.05, **: Mann–Whitney U test, p-value < 0.01).
Figure 1Work flow of the R script. The users upload the previously captured fluorescence images and/or their associated histograms as input. The data are sorted out according to the information indicated by the user on the web interface. To get an overview of the data, the data are represented in the form of contact sheets of images or of histograms (A). Here, A. thaliana plants were imaged 15, 17 and 21 days after inoculation (d.a.i.) by P. ramosa. Images and histograms are displayed on the contact sheet to visualize a variation during time. The mean of the global CF values for each treatment are graphically represented in a radial plot where each point represents the mean for one treatment and each radius represents a CF parameter (B). In order to detect a significant difference in the global CF values between the treatments, the means of the global CF values for each treatment are represented in the form of a box plot (C) in which horizontal lines indicate the 0.25 and 0.75 percentile from bottom to top, the interior line indicates the median and the exterior shapes represent the overall distribution. The results of the Mann–Whitney U tests are indicated in box plots. To compare the various histograms, a dendrogram based on the histograms is produced (D).
Figure 2Clustering analysis of plants of ecotype Col-0 non-inoculated or inoculated with . . Fifteen plants of A. thaliana of ecotype Col-0 were inoculated with P. ramosa and 15 plants were not inoculated. The plants were imaged for 55 fluorescence parameters. Dendrograms were built based on the histograms of the CF parameter qP(25) using the WPGMA agglomeration method. Inoculated plants (red) and non-inoculated plants (blue) globally belong to different branches of the dendrogram. However, inoculated plants INOC-P9 and INOC-P3 group with non-inoculated plants. These plants are visually healthier than other inoculated plants, as seen on photo at the bottom of the figure. The non-inoculated plant Ctrl-P13 groups with inoculated plants. This plant is visually less healthy than other non-inoculated plants.