| Literature DB >> 27001610 |
Jamuna Risal Paudel1, Alexandre Amirizian1, Sebastian Krosse2, Jessica Giddings1, Shoieb Akaram Arief Ismail1, Jianguo Xia3,4, James B Gloer5, Nicole M van Dam2,6, Jacqueline C Bede7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels predicted to occur before the end of the century will impact plant metabolism. In addition, nitrate availability will affect metabolism and levels of nitrogen-containing defense compounds, such as glucosinolates (GSLs). We compared Arabidopsis foliar metabolic profile in plants grown under two CO2 regimes (440 vs 880 ppm), nitrate fertilization (1 mM vs 10 mM) and in response to mechanical damage of rosette leaves.Entities:
Keywords: Arabidopsis thaliana; Carbon dioxide; Glucosinolate; Nitrate fertilization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27001610 PMCID: PMC4802917 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-016-0752-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1Principal component analysis (PCA) of foliar metabolite profiles of Arabidopsis grown at different levels of CO2, nitrate fertilization and wounding stress. Plants were grown under two different atmospheric CO2 levels (ambient (440 ppm; LC) or elevated (880 ppm; HC)) and fertilized with either 1 mM or 10 mM nitrate and either not treated (control) or mechanically damaged (wound). The average of 4 independent samples were compared by 2-way analysis of variance. a Constitutive foliar metabolic profile. The purple shaded area denotes constitutive metabolites extracted from plants fertilized by 1 mM nitrate and grown at ambient CO2 compared to the red shaded area denotes constitutive metabolites extracted from plants grown at elevated CO2 levels. b Wound-induced metabolite profile. The red shaded area denotes metabolites extracted plants fertilized with 10 mM nitrate and grown under elevated atmospheric CO2. c Metabolite profile of plants grown at ambient CO2 levels (440 ppm). The blue shaded area denotes constitutive metabolites extracted from plants fertilized by 1 mM nitrate. d Metabolite profile of plants grown at elevated CO2 levels (880 ppm). Blue shaded area denotes constitutive metabolites compared to the green shaded area that denotes wound-induced metabolites extracted from plants fertilized with 1 mM nitrate. The red shaded area denotes constitutive and wound-induced metabolites extracted from plants fertilized with 10 mM nitrate. e Metabolite profile of plants fertilized with 1 mM nitrate. The purple shaded area denotes constitutive metabolites extracted from plants grown at ambient CO2 levels compared to the red shaded are that denotes constitutive metabolites extracted from plants grown at elevated atmospheric CO2. f Metabolite profile of plants fertilized with 10 mM nitrate. Green circle denotes wound-induced metabolites extracted from plants grown at ambient CO2 levels
Fig. 2Foliar phytohormones in Arabidopsis grown at different levels of CO2, nitrate fertilization and wounding stress. Plants were grown under ambient (440 ppm) or elevated (880 ppm) carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and fertilized with either 1 mM or 10 mM nitrate (1 mM N or 10 mM N). At 6 weeks, Arabidopsis rosette leaves were mechanically damaged (mech. damaged, black bars) or untouched (control, white bars) and phytohormone levels analyzed. a Jasmonic acid (JA) b 7-Jasmonoyl-L-isoleucine (JA-Ile) c 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid (OPDA). Statistical differences were determined by 3-factor analysis of variance (Additional file 4: Table 3). When interactions were significant, data were separated to show treatment effects. Significant differences in response to wounding are denoted by alphabetical letters (p ≤ 0.05). An asterisk indicates significant differences between grouped variables
Fig. 3Foliar MYB transcription factor gene expression in Arabidopsis grown at different levels of CO2, nitrate fertilization and wounding stress. Arabidopsis plants were grown under ambient (440 ppm) or elevated (880 ppm) carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and fertilized with either 1 mM or 10 mM nitrate (1 mM N or 10 mM N). At 6 weeks, rosette leaves were mechanically damaged (mech. damaged, black bars) or untouched (control, white bars). Expression of transcription factors that regulate glucosinolate biosynthesis a) AtMYB28 b) AtMYB29 c) AtMYB76 d) AtMYB34 and e) AtMYB51. Statistical differences were determined by 3-factor analysis of variance (Additional file 4: Table 3). When interactions were significant (p ≤ 0.05), data were separated to show treatment effects. In CO2 levels and nitrate fertilization treatments, only significant changes in gene expression are highlighted. Significant differences in response to treatments are denoted by alphabetical letters
Fig. 4Foliar glucosinolate levels in Arabidopsis grown at different levels of CO2, nitrate fertilization and wounding stress. Plants were grown under ambient (440 ppm) or elevated (880 ppm) carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and fertilized with either 1 mM or 10 mM nitrate (1 mM N or 10 mM N). At 6 weeks, rosette leaves were mechanically damaged (Mech damaged) or untouched (control, C). a Total glucosinolates, white bars represent aliphatic GSLs and hatched bars represent indole GSLs. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) in response to wounding of aliphatic GSLs are denoted inside the white bar, of indole GSLs are denoted inside the hatched bar and total GSLs are denoted on top of the bar by alphabetical letters. b Aliphatic glucosinolates Bi) Glucoiberin (IBE; 3-methylsulfinylpropyl GSL), Bii) Glucoerucin (ERU; 4-methylthiobutyl GSL), Biii) Glucoraphanin (RAPH; 4-methylsulfinylbutyl GSL) and Biv) d) Glucoalyssin (ALY; 5-methylsulfinylpentyl GSL). c Indole glucosinolates Ci) Glucobrassicin (GBC), Cii) Neo-glucobrassicin (NeoGB) and Ciii) Methoxyglucobrassicin (MeOGB). Statistical differences were determined by 3-factor analysis of variance (Additional file 4: Table S3). When interactions were significant, data were separated to show treatment effects. Significant differences in response to wounding are denoted by alphabetical letters (p ≤ 0.05). An asterisk indicates significant differences between grouped variables