| Literature DB >> 27255929 |
Jenna Lihavainen1, Markku Keinänen2, Sarita Keski-Saari2, Sari Kontunen-Soppela2, Anu Sõber3, Elina Oksanen2.
Abstract
Relative air humidity (RH) is expected to inEntities:
Keywords: Betula; GC-MS; Populus; VPD.; metabolite profiling; mineral nutrients; relative humidity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27255929 PMCID: PMC5301936 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erw219
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Fig. 1.Leaf area (A) and SLA (B) of birch and aspen. Data are represented as mean ±SE (n=14–17), white bars represent ambient VPD (control) and grey bars decreased VPD (humidification). The effect of VPD was tested with nested ANOVA (*P<0.05, **P<0.01).
Foliar mineral nutrient concentrations
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
| N | 20.7±0.53 | 22.1±1.03 | 21.8±0.30 | 20.9±0.33 | * | |
| Ca | 10.0±0.50 | 9.3±0.37 | 19.7±1.95 | 25.3±1.38 | * | |
| K | 7.4±0.32 | 8.8±1.31 | 5.7±0.14 | 5.3±0.52 | ||
| Mg | 3.9±0.14 | 3.8±0.25 | 3.2±0.21 | 3.9±0.25 | * | |
| P | 2.9±0.24 | 3.2±0.27 | 1.7±0.04 | 1.9±0.09 | * | |
| S | 1.2±0.08 | 1.4±0.09 | 1.6±0.09 | 1.8±0.06 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Mn | 1.08±0.060 | 1.06±0.112 | 0.26±0.034 | 0.32±0.028 | ||
| Zn | 0.24±0.026 | 0.28±0.028 | 0.28±0.049 | 0.40±0.016 | * | |
| Fe | 0.07±0.004 | 0.14±0.043 | 0.06±0.003 | 0.09±0.002 | ** | |
| Na | 0.08±0.013 | 0.73±0.314 | ** | 0.05±0.010 | 0.32±0.100 | * |
| B | 0.02±0.001 | 0.02±0.002 | 0.02±0.002 | 0.03±0.003 | ||
|
| ||||||
| V | 11.2±0.64 | 13.9±1.29 | 9.3±0.70 | 12.5±1.06 | * | |
| Cu | 4.8±0.29 | 5.7±0.45 | 6.0±0.34 | 6.3±0.44 | ||
| Ni | 2.0±0.32 | 2.0±0.17 | 1.8±0.20 | 1.3±0.13 | ||
| Cr | 0.9±0.08 | 1.5±0.31 | 2.0±0.59 | 1.6±0.28 | ||
| Cd | 0.3±0.02 | 0.3±0.03 | 1.1±0.19 | 1.6±0.15 | ||
| Co | ND | ND | 0.4±0.07 | 0.6±0.12 | ||
|
| ||||||
| N:P | 7.5±0.72 | 7.6±0.77 | 12.6±0.40 | 11.3±0.68 | * | |
| K:Na | 106.3±15.85 | 22.0±5.40 | ** | 152.7±39.68 | 22.1±3.65 | ** |
Statistically significant effects for VPD were tested by nested ANOVA (**P<0.01, *P<0.05).
Data are represented as mean ±SE, n=6, ND, not detected.
Fig. 2.Principal component analysis (PCA) of metabolic profiles in ambient VPD and decreased VPD. PCA of GC-MS metabolites and starch showed that ambient VPD (n=16) and decreased VPD (n=14) samples of birch formed distinct groups on the basis of the first component, explaining 17% of the variation (A). Ambient VPD (n=17) and decreased VPD (n=16) samples of aspen formed groups on the basis of the third (8%) and fifth (4%) components (B). Open symbols represent ambient VPD (control) samples and filled symbols decreased VPD (humidification) samples; different symbols represent the three replicate experimental plots.
Fig. 3.Impact of decreased VPD on primary (A, B) and secondary metabolism (C). Fold changes (log2) in the metabolite levels between ambient VPD (control) samples and decreased VPD (humidification) samples in birch (left) and aspen (right) are presented next to the metabolites (nd, not detected). Metabolites that were detected in the GC-MS analysis are in bold. Effects of VPD and experimental plots were tested using the nested ANOVA model. Significant VPD effect is presented next to the fold change (*P<0.05). n=11–12 for starch; for GC-MS metabolites, see details in Supplementary Table S1. Gln:Glu, glutamine to glutamate ratio; DHA, dehydroascorbic acid; G6P, glucose 6-phosphate; F6P, fructose 6-phosphate; 3PGA, 3-phosphoglycerate; PEP, phoshoenolpyruvate; DAH 7-P, 3-deoxy-d-arabino-heptulosonic acid 7-phosphate; MEP methylerythritol phosphate; IPP, isopentenyl diphosphate. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
Fig. 4.Shared and unique structures (SUS) plot. The plot is constructed by correlating p(corr) values from birch and aspen OPLS-DA models, where p(corr) is the OPLS-DA loading scaled as a correlation coefficient. The levels of metabolites that are located in the upper right quadrant were higher, and the levels of metabolites that are located in the lower right quadrant were lower in decreased VPD than in ambient VPD samples in both species. Metabolites which are located close to the origin, did not show response to the treatment. Metabolites which are located along the axes displayed species-specific responses and metabolites in the upper left or lower right quadrants displayed opposite responses to the treatment in birch and aspen. See Supplementary Fig. S3 for a detailed SUS plot including all metabolite names.