| Literature DB >> 31921235 |
Yi He1,2, Kaiyue Zhou1, Zhemin Wu3, Boxiu Li4, Junliang Fu1, Chinho Lin5, Dean Jiang1.
Abstract
Stomata control gas exchange and water transpiration and are one of the most important physiological apparatuses in higher plants. The regulation of stomatal aperture is closely coordinated with photosynthesis, nutrient uptake, plant growth, development, and so on. With advances in scanning electron microscopy (SEM), high-resolution images of plant stomata and cell surfaces can be obtained from detached plant tissues. However, this method does not allow for rapid analysis of the dynamic variation of plant stomata and cell surfaces in situ under nondestructive conditions. In this study, we demonstrated a novel plant surface impression technique (PSIT, Silagum-Light as correction impression material based on A-silicones for all two-phase impression techniques) that allows for precise analysis of plant stomata aperture and cell surfaces. Using this method, we successfully monitored the dynamic variation of stomata and observed the nanoscale microstructure of soybean leaf trichomes and dragonfly wings. Additionally, compared with the analytical precision and the time used for preparing the observation samples between PSIT and traditional SEM, the results suggested that the analytical precision of PSIT was the same to traditional SEM, but the PSIT was more easy to operate. Thus, our results indicated that PSIT can be widely applied to the plant science field.Entities:
Keywords: cell surface; nano-scale; plant surface impression technique; stomata; stomatal aperture
Year: 2019 PMID: 31921235 PMCID: PMC6923247 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01569
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Schematic illustration of the plant surface impression technique (PSIT). (A) The procedure for mold preparation using Silagum-Light. The base and catalyst were added at a soybean size (the diameter is 1 cm) (1:1 ratio) on the slide and mixed in a left to right motion about 10 times, avoiding air bubbles. Subsequently, the mixture was placed on the leaf’s surface and allowed to harden for approximately 5 min. After hardening, the mold was removed and placed on the slide in an inverted position. (B) The procedure for cast preparation using NAN PAO epoxy 906. A soybean size (the diameter is 1 cm) of adhesive and hardener (epoxy resin) was mixed about 10 times, avoiding air bubbles. Following this, droplets of the epoxy resin were placed in the hardened molds. The cast and mold were placed in a baking box (60°C) for 1 h to allow the cast to harden completely. Finally, we placed and fixed the hardened cast on the stub specimen mounts for SEM and gilded the cast surface for SEM observation. (C) The principle of plant surface impression technique. This picture illustrates the principle of mold and cast preparation using Silagum-Light (polyaddition silicone rubber) and epoxy resin (NAN PAO epoxy 906), respectively.
Figure 2Application of the plant surface impression technique (PSIT) to study stomatal aperture and the correlation between stomatal conductance and stomatal aperture. The third fully expanded leaves of 25-day-old Melrose and S111-9 under no salt stress and 150 mM salt stress for 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 h were used in this experiment. (A) Effect of salt stress on stomatal conductance (gs). The gs were measured with a portable photosynthesis system (Licor-6400; LICOR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) equipped with a LED red blue light source. All measurements were carried out at photon flux density (PFD) of 1,200 μmol m -2 s-1, a leaf temperature of 25°C, CO2 of 400 ± 5 μmol mol-1, and relative humidity of 70% in the sample chamber (mean ± SD, n = 3). (B) Effect of salt stress on stomatal aperture. SEM images at 1,500× magnification by the PSIT were used for stomatal aperture determination, which were measured by Image J software. In total, 40 stomata were measured from at least three leaves of independent seedlings at each time point, and these were repeated at three biological replicates for statistical analysis (mean ± SD, n = 3). (C) Correlation analysis between gs and stomatal aperture under the control or salt stress condition. The analysis data were obtained from (A, B). (D) Effects of salt stress on stomatal aperture in both soybean varieties (S111-9 and Melrose) by the PSIT. All sections were observed under SEM at 1,500× magnification. Scale bar = 3 μm; n refers to number of biological replicates. ** - extremely significant difference (P < 0.01).
Figure 3Application of the plant surface impression technique (PSIT) to study the dynamic variation in stomatal aperture and the correlation between stomatal conductance and stomatal aperture after light illumination. The third fully expanded leaves of 25-day-old Melrose and S111-9 under no salt stress for 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 min were used in this experiment. (A) Changes in stomatal conductance (gs) after light illumination. The measurement method for gs was the same as described in . (B) Changes in stomatal aperture after light illumination. The determination of stomatal aperture was described in . (C) Correlation analysis between gs and stomatal aperture. The analysis data were obtained from (A, B). (D) Changes in stomatal aperture in both soybean varieties (S111-9 and Melrose) by plant surface impression technique. All sections were observed under SEM at 1,500× magnification. Scale bar = 3 μm. Three biological replicates were completed in this experiment. ** - extremely significant difference (P < 0.01).
Figure 4Application of plant surface impression technique of the (PSIT) in Arabidopsis, tobacco, rice, soybean, and dragonfly. (A) The stomatal aperture of Arabidopsis, tobacco, and rice were determined by the PSIT. All sections were observed under SEM at 2,000× magnification. Scale bar = 20 μm. (B) Protrusions of the rice leaf were determined by the PSIT. The sections were observed under SEM at 1,000×, 5,000×, 10,000×, 20,000×, and 50,000× magnification, with 25, 5, 2.5, 1.25, and 0.5 μm scale bars indicated, respectively. (C) The structure of the dragonfly wing. The surface structure of the dragonfly wing was observed under SEM using dragonfly wing tissue and PSIT. From left to right, the magnification was 50×, 400×, 1,000×, 2,000×, 5,000×, 10,000×, and 100,000×, respectively. The corresponding scale bars were 445, 56, 22, 11, 4.4, 2.2, and 0.22 μm, respectively. (D) Comparison of soybean leaf hair. The surface structure of leaf hair was observed under SEM using soybean leaf tissue and the PSIT. From left to right, the magnification was 220×, 300×, 1,000×, 2,000×, 5,000×, 10,000×, and 100,000×, respectively. The corresponding scale bars are 100, 73, 22, 11, 4.4, 2.2, and 0.22 μm respectively.