| Literature DB >> 35567173 |
Zhiwen Zhou1, Jiajia Li1, Changan Zhu1, Beiyu Jing1, Kai Shi1, Jingquan Yu1,2,3, Zhangjian Hu1,2.
Abstract
Due to global warming, high-temperature stress has become a major threat to plant growth and development, which causes a severe challenge to food security worldwide. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the plant bioactive molecules, which could be a promising approach to strengthening plant thermotolerance. Rosmarinic acid (RA) serves as a plant-derived phenolic compound and has beneficial and health-promoting effects for human beings. However, the involvement of RA in plant stress response and the underlying molecular mechanism was largely unknown. In this study, we found that exogenous RA application conferred improved thermotolerance in tomatoes. The transcript abundance and the enzyme activity of enzymatic antioxidants, such as ascorbate peroxidase (APX), catalase (CAT), glutathione reductase (GR), and dehydroascorbate reductase (DHAR), were further promoted by RA treatment in tomato plants subjected to high-temperature stress. Moreover, RA activated the antioxidant system and modulated the cellular redox homeostasis also associated with the redox status of nonenzymatic glutathione and ascorbic acid. The results of RNA-seq data showed that transcriptional regulation was involved in RA-mediated thermotolerance. Consistently, the gene expression of several high temperature-responsive transcription factors like HsfA2, and WRKY family genes were substantially induced by RA treatment, which potentially contributed to the induction of heat shock proteins (HSPs). Overall, these findings not only gave a direct link between RA and plant thermotolerance but also provided an attractive approach to protecting crop plants from high-temperature damage in a global warming future.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant system; heat shock proteins; oxidative stress; rosmarinic acid; thermotolerance; tomato; transcription regulation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35567173 PMCID: PMC9099758 DOI: 10.3390/plants11091172
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Effect of RA in tomato thermotolerance. (a) Representative images of tomato plants as influenced by RA and high-temperature treatment. Five-week-old tomato plants were pretreated with 2 mmol L−1 RA or dH2O control once per day for three successive days. Then, the plants were subjected to normal temperature (25 °C) or high temperature (42 °C) for 12 h. (b) The electrolyte leakage of tomato leaves after 12 h of different temperature treatments. (c) The representative leaf images show the Fv/Fm value after 12 h of different temperature treatments. The color gradient scale on the right indicates the magnitude of the fluorescence signal represented by each color. (d) the MDA content in tomato leaves after 12 h of different temperature treatments. (e) Representative images of H2O2 accumulation as determined by DAB staining. (f) Representative images of O2•− accumulation as determined by NBT staining. The data presented in (b–d) are the mean values ± SD, n = 3. Statistically significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test) are shown by different letters.
Figure 2RA treatment activates the antioxidant system in tomato plants during high-temperature stress. (a) Effects of RA treatment on transcript abundance of antioxidant enzyme-encoding genes in tomato plants subjected to normal temperature (25 °C) or high temperature (42 °C) for 1 h. APX encodes an ascorbate peroxidase, CAT encodes a catalase, DHAR encodes a dehydroascorbate reductase, and GR encodes glutathione reductase. (b) Effects of RA treatment on enzyme activity of antioxidant enzymes in tomato plants subjected to different temperature conditions for 6 h. (c) Effects of RA treatment on AsA content in tomato plants subjected to different temperature conditions for 6 h. (d) Effects of RA treatment on GSH content in tomato plants subjected to different temperature conditions for 6 h. (e) Effects of RA treatment on AsA/DHA ratio in tomato plants subjected to different temperature conditions for 6 h. (f) Effects of RA treatment on GSH/GSSG ratio in tomato plants subjected to different temperature conditions for 6 h. The data presented are the mean values ± SD, n = 3. Statistically significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test) are shown by different letters.
Figure 3RA treatment promotes the transcription and protein abundance of tomato HSPs in response to high temperatures. (a) Effects of RA treatment on transcript abundance of HsfA2, HSP70, and HSP90 in tomato plants subjected to normal temperature (25 °C) or high temperature (42 °C) for 1 h. (b) Effects of RA treatment on the protein abundance of HSP70 and HSP90 in tomato plants with 6 h of different temperature treatments. The data presented are the mean values ± SD, n = 3. Statistically significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test) are shown by different letters.
Figure 4RA globally regulates high temperature-responsive gene expression in tomato plants. (a) Numbers of differentially high temperature-changed (fold change ≥ 2, p < 0.05) genes in RA-pretreated or dH2O-pretreated tomato plants, respectively. The color gradient scale on the right indicates the relative expression of each gene represented by each color. (b) Venn diagram exhibiting the numbers of high temperature-induced genes (fold change ≥ 2, p < 0.05) in RA-pretreated and dH2O-pretreated tomato plants. (c) Heatmap of high temperature-induced genes (fold change ≥ 2, p < 0.05) in RA-pretreated and dH2O-pretreated tomato plants. (d) GO analysis of RA-induced high temperature-responsive genes. (e) Heatmap of the induction fold of WRKY genes by high temperature in RA-pretreated and dH2O-pretreated tomato plants. (f) RT-qPCR analysis confirming transcript abundance of selected WRKY genes. The data presented in (f) are the mean values ± SD, n = 3. Statistically significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test) are shown by different letters.
Gene-specific primers designed for qRT-PCR analysis.
| Gene Name | Gene ID | Forward Primer, 5′-3′ | Reverse Primer, 5′-3′ |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Solyc03g078400 | TGTCCCTATTTACGAGGGTTATGC | CAGTTAAATCACGACCAGCAAGAT |
|
| Solyc11g018550 | CGCCATATCACACAAGAAGC | TAACTCAGAGCCACCACTGC |
|
| Solyc09g065900 | GATGATGAAATGCGAGCTGT | TTGTGTTAGGGAGACGACCA |
|
| Solyc05g054760 | CCCTGATGTCCTTGGAGACT | AAGAACCATTTGGGCTTGTC |
|
| Solyc12g094620 | TGATCGCGAGAAGATACCTG | CTTCCACGTTCATGGACAAC |
|
| Solyc06g036290 | TGTGGGTTTCTACTCTGCGT | CTGCCCAATTGCTCTCCATC |
|
| Solyc09g010630 | CAAGCTGAAAGAGCTCAAGG | CTGTCCCAGCTGCATTACTT |
|
| Solyc09g082670 | TCTGTTGTGACAGCAAATGG | TACTTCCTCTGCTGCTCGAT |
|
| Solyc12g096350 | TGGCTGAAGACGGAGGGATA | ACGTTTGAAGCCATAGGGATCT |
|
| Solyc09g014990 | CCAAACCGAGACTCGTCCAA | CGAATCCTGTGGTGCTCTGT |
|
| Solyc01g095630 | ATTGGGAGCGGAGGAGTTTG | ACGATGGAGAAGACGAACCC |
|
| Solyc08g067340 | GCACGCATCGATTCACACAA | CCACAACCAATCCTGTCCGA |
|
| Solyc04g072070 | CCGTTGATGGTGGTGGAGAA | TCTTGGCCGGGCAATTGTAT |
|
| Solyc09g015770 | GGTCAAGTCGCCGGAAGATT | AACATCGGGCGAGGTCATAC |