| Literature DB >> 31037309 |
Santiago Signorelli1,2,3, Jeremy Shaw4, Dina Hermawaty2, Zi Wang5, Pieter Verboven5, John A Considine2, Michael J Considine1,2,6,7.
Abstract
The physiological constraints on bud burst in woody perennials, including vascular development and oxygenation, remain unresolved. Both light and tissue oxygen status have emerged as important cues for vascular development in other systems; however, grapevine buds have only a facultative light requirement, and data on the tissue oxygen status have been confounded by the spatial variability within the bud. Here, we analysed apoplastic development at early stages of grapevine bud burst and combined molecular modelling with histochemical techniques to determine the pore size of cell walls in grapevine buds. The data demonstrate that quiescent grapevine buds were impermeable to apoplastic dyes (acid fuchsin and eosin Y) until after bud burst was established. The molecular exclusion size was calculated to be 2.1 nm, which would exclude most macromolecules except simple sugars and phytohormones until after bud burst. We used micro-computed tomography to demonstrate that tissue oxygen partial pressure data correlated well with structural heterogeneity of the bud and differences in tissue density, confirming that the primary bud complex becomes rapidly and preferentially oxygenated during bud burst. Taken together, our results reveal that the apoplastic porosity is highly regulated during the early stages of bud burst, suggesting a role for vascular development in the initial, rapid oxygenation of the primary bud complex.Entities:
Keywords: Apoplast; bud; bud burst; computed tomography; development; dormancy; grapevine; hypoxia; light; oxygen
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31037309 PMCID: PMC6946006 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erz200
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Fig. 1.Effect of light on vascular development. Micro-computed tomography of buds (A). 0 h C refers to 0 h buds untreated with the contrast agent caesium iodide (CsI). All the other buds were treated with contrast agent in order to visualize the vascular tissue (observed as rings and indicated with blue arrows); Apoplastic connectivity evidenced by acid fuchsin (B) and eosin Y (C) staining. Arrows in the magnified image indicate eosin Y staining. Refer also to Supplementary data files.
Fig. 2.Chemical modelling of rhodamine green, acid fuchsin, and eosin Y in their associated and dissociated forms. (A) Optimized structure and electron density. Electron density was generated using an isovalue of 0.0004. (B) Charges and dipole moments. The colours indicate the charge and the blue arrows indicate the dipole moment. (C) Electrostatic potentials. Red indicates electronegative zones, whereas blue indicates electropositive zones.
Fig. 3.Solvent-accessible surfaces for ionic forms of acid fuchsin and eosin Y. Anionic acid fuchsin (A) and anionic eosin Y (B). A lateral, frontal, and top view of each molecule is reported, together with the rough area of a pore that they need to pass through.
Fig. 4.Internal oxygen profiles and micro-computed tomography of a grapevine bud. (A) 3D structure of the bud showing the electrode path. (B) O2 profile graph overlapped with the path of the electrode. (C) Internal O2 profile overlapped with the intensity of the signal determined by a probe line over the path in the µCT. This figure represents the analysis of one bud (corresponding to DL at 168 h). A total of 12 buds used for internal O2 were scanned by µCT including 0 h, 168 h D, and 168 h DL.
Fig. 5.Porosity and moisture of grapevine buds. (A) At the top, a sectioned bud is shown to depict the three evaluated parts of the bud: the green tissue, the trichomes, and the outer scales. The porosity and the moisture are represented as percentages and were determined by tissue density and weight, respectively. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences between the different types of tissue using a Tukey comparison (n=5, P<0.0001). (B) Section of a µCT scan representing the four types of tissues evaluated to calculate the porosity by pixel analysis. (C) Comparison of porosity determined by pixel analysis at 0 h and 168 h. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between the different types of tissue using a Tukey comparison (n=3, P<0.0001). No statistically significant differences were observed between 0 h and 168 h for any type of tissue.