| Literature DB >> 35982694 |
Piotr T Bednarek1, Renata Orłowska1, Dariusz R Mańkowski2, Janusz Zimny1, Krzysztof Kowalczyk3, Michał Nowak3, Jacek Zebrowski4.
Abstract
Plant tissue culture techniques are handy tools for obtaining unique plant materials that are difficult to propagate or important for agriculture. Homozygous materials derived through in vitro cultures are invaluable and significantly accelerate the evaluation of new varieties, e.g., cereals. The induction of somatic embryogenesis/androgenesis and the regeneration and its efficiency can be influenced by the external conditions of tissue culture, such as the ingredients present in the induction or regeneration media. We have developed an approach based on biological system, molecular markers, Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy, and structural equation modeling technique to establish links between changes in sequence and DNA methylation at specific symmetric (CG, CHG) and asymmetric (CHH) sequences, glutathione, and green plant regeneration efficiency in the presence of variable supplementation of induction medium with copper ions. The methylation-sensitive Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism was used to assess tissue culture-induced variation, Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy to describe the glutathione spectrum, and a structural equation model to develop the relationship between sequence variation, de novo DNA methylation within asymmetric sequence contexts, and copper ions in the induction medium, as well as, glutathione, and green plant efficiency. An essential aspect of the study is demonstrating the contribution of glutathione to green plant regeneration efficiency and indicating the critical role of copper ions in influencing tissue culture-induced variation, glutathione, and obtaining green regenerants. The model presented here also has practical implications, showing that manipulating the concentration of copper ions in the induction medium may influence cell function and increases green plant regeneration efficiency.Entities:
Keywords: androgenesis; copper; glutathione; regeneration efficiency; triticale
Year: 2022 PMID: 35982694 PMCID: PMC9379855 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.926305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
Figure 1Plant material evaluation and analysis. A randomly chosen plant of triticale was used as a source of tissue explants (anthers) to obtain doubled haploid (DH) plants that were self-isolated (bagged) to obtain generative progeny (a set of putative donor plants). The progeny was analyzed via the metAFLP approach for the sequence variation and DNA methylation pattern uniformity. A single randomly chosen progeny (donor plant) was used as a source of anthers to obtain regenerants under the varying concentration of Cu(II), Ag(I) present in the IM, and different Time of in vitro anther cultures according to the Taguchi experimental design. In total, eight such experiments were conducted where the A one reflected control conditions and the B-H required by the approach. The regenerants for each trial were counted, and GPRE was evaluated. Visual morphological inspection, metAFLP, and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) analyses were performed for each regenerant, and the evaluated data was implemented for structural equation modeling.
The arrangement of the induction medium composition and the time of anther culture contraposed with GPRE, metAFLP characteristics, and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) data were used in the structural equation model for regenerants obtained in A-H trials.
| Trial | metAFLP quantitative characteristics (%) | FTIR integrated absorbance (2,550–2,540 cm−1) | GPRE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu (μM) | Ag (μM) | Time (days) | CHH_SV | CHH_DNMV | GSH | ||
| A | 0.1 | 10 | 42 | 8.66 | 0.37 | 0.004591 | 0.87 |
| A | 0.1 | 10 | 42 | 8.66 | 0.37 | 0.00494 | 0.87 |
| A | 0.1 | 10 | 42 | 8.52 | 0.36 | 0.005324 | 0.87 |
| B | 0.1 | 60 | 49 | 8.64 | 0.37 | 0.004879 | 1.52 |
| B | 0.1 | 60 | 49 | 8.64 | 0.37 | 0.00512 | 1.52 |
| B | 0.1 | 60 | 49 | 8.79 | 0.37 | 0.005144 | 1.52 |
| B | 0.1 | 60 | 49 | 8.79 | 0.37 | 0.004353 | 1.52 |
| B | 0.1 | 60 | 49 | 8.79 | 0.56 | 0.004985 | 1.52 |
| C | 5 | 60 | 42 | 8.76 | 0.75 | 0.004768 | 0.71 |
| C | 5 | 60 | 42 | 8.79 | 0.56 | 0.005038 | 0.71 |
| C | 5 | 60 | 42 | 8.64 | 0.55 | 0.00412 | 0.71 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.64 | 0.55 | 0.005176 | 2.38 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.64 | 0.55 | 0.005264 | 2.38 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.76 | 0.75 | 0.005502 | 2.38 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.76 | 0.75 | 0.00604 | 2.38 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.76 | 0.75 | 0.005451 | 2.38 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.76 | 0.75 | 0.005293 | 2.38 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.76 | 0.75 | 0.005133 | 2.38 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.76 | 0.75 | 0.00552 | 2.38 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.76 | 0.75 | 0.004793 | 2.38 |
| D | 5 | 0 | 49 | 8.91 | 0.76 | 0.005358 | 2.38 |
| E | 5 | 10 | 35 | 8.63 | 0.73 | 0.004881 | 1.17 |
| E | 5 | 10 | 35 | 8.63 | 0.73 | 0.004362 | 1.17 |
| E | 5 | 10 | 35 | 8.48 | 0.72 | 0.004652 | 1.17 |
| E | 5 | 10 | 35 | 8.48 | 0.72 | 0.005249 | 1.17 |
| E | 5 | 10 | 35 | 8.50 | 0.54 | 0.005302 | 1.17 |
| F | 10 | 10 | 49 | 8.48 | 0.54 | 0.005046 | 3.79 |
| F | 10 | 10 | 49 | 8.65 | 0.55 | 0.005121 | 3.79 |
| F | 10 | 10 | 49 | 8.65 | 0.55 | 0.005566 | 3.79 |
| G | 10 | 60 | 35 | 8.62 | 0.56 | 0.005394 | 4.24 |
| G | 10 | 60 | 35 | 8.49 | 0.55 | 0.005685 | 4.24 |
| G | 10 | 60 | 35 | 8.49 | 0.55 | 0.005823 | 4.24 |
| G | 10 | 60 | 35 | 8.65 | 0.55 | 0.005085 | 4.24 |
| H | 10 | 0 | 42 | 8.49 | 0.55 | 0.005692 | 6.06 |
| H | 10 | 0 | 42 | 8.49 | 0.55 | 0.005502 | 6.06 |
| H | 10 | 0 | 42 | 8.65 | 0.55 | 0.004594 | 6.06 |
| H | 10 | 0 | 42 | 8.65 | 0.55 | 0.005502 | 6.06 |
Figure 2(A) Mean infrared spectrum of leaf tissues from the regenerants derived via anther cultures using eight experimental trials. (B) FTIR spectrum of glutathione in reduced (red) and oxidized form (blue). (C) The SD to mean ratio of absorbance for particular trails (labeled with letters).
Descriptive statistics of the variables present in the postulated models.
| Variable | Descriptive statistics | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Variance | Skewness | Kurtosis | |
| [Cu(II)] | 5.43 | 12.785 | −0.102 | −1.008 |
| [CHH_SV] | 8.655 | 0.013 | −0.079 | −0.754 |
| [CHH_DNMV] | 0.584 | 0.019 | −0.194 | −1.054 |
| Thiols [GSH] | 0.005 | 0.000 | −0.351 | −0.054 |
| [GPRE] | 2.556 | 2.752 | 0.932 | −0.122 |
Pearson’s linear correlation coefficients for analyzed variables.
| Variable | [Cu(II)] | [CHH_SV] | [CHH_DNMV] | Thiols [GSH] | [GPRE] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Cu(II)] | 1 | ||||
| [CHH_SV] | −0.386 | 1 | |||
| [CHH_DNMV] | −0.32 | 0.247 | 1 | ||
| Thiols [GSH] | 0.385 | −0.132 | 0.171 | 1 | |
| [GPRE] | 0.807 | −0.297 | 0.005 | 0.118 | 1 |
p ≤ 0.05;
p ≤ 0.01.
Figure 3The hypothesized SEM model. Cu(II) ions concentration (μM); GPRE, green plant regeneration efficiency (number of regenerants per 100 plated anthers); the metAFLP quantitative characteristics concerning sequence variation (CHH_SV) and de novo DNA methylation (CHH_DNMV) between donor plant and its regenerants affecting asymmetric CHH sequence contexts; the 2,550–2,540 cm−1 is the FTIR spectrum wavenumber range (thiols give the univocal signal) indicating integrated absorbance used in the model; λ1–λ8 path coefficients, δ1–δ4 residuals (experimental errors).
Summary of the analyzed structural equation model.
| Parameter | Postulated model | Indices range | Recommended value for best fitting | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degrees of freedom ( | 2 | |||
| Chi-square ( | 0.11 | Should be insignificant | ||
| Value of | 0.95 | 0–1 | ||
| Root mean square residuals (RMR) | 0.004 | Closer to 0 is better | ||
| Standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR) | 0.014 | 0–1 | ≤ 0.08 | |
| Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) | 0.999 | 0–1 | Closer to 1 is better |
|
| ≥ 0.95 |
| |||
| ≥ 0.90 |
| |||
| Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) | 0.991 | 0–1 | Closer to 1 is better |
|
| ≥ 0.90 | ||||
| Normed fit index (NFI) | 0.999 | 0–1 | ≥ 0.90 | |
|
| ||||
| ≥ 0.95 | ||||
| Relative fit index (RFI) | 0.993 | 0–1 | ≥ 0.95 | |
| ≥ 0.90 |
| |||
| Incremental fit index (IFI) | 1.025 | ≥ 0.95 | ||
| ≥ 0.90 | ||||
| Comparative fit index (CFI) | 1 | 0–1 | ≥ 0.95 | |
| ≥ 0.90 | ||||
|
| ||||
| Parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) | 0.2 | Lower values indicate a greater models complexity |
| |
| Parsimonious comparative fit index (PCFI) | 0.2 | Lower values indicate a greater models complexity |
| |
| Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) | < 1 ∙ 10−12 | ≤ 0.05 | ||
|
| ||||
| < 0.05–very good fit |
| |||
| 0.05–0.08–good fit | ||||
| 0.08–0.10–mediocre fit | ||||
| > 0.10–poor fit | ||||
| ≤ 0.06 |
| |||
| ≤ 0.07 |
| |||
| ≤ 0.08 |
|
Path coefficients, variances, and covariances for the analyzed model.
| Parameter | Effect | Estimate ( | Standard error | Test statistic | Standardized estimate ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
|
| [Cu(II)] | → | [CHH_DNMV] | 0.0123 | 0.006 | 2.0256 | 0.3199 |
|
| [CHH_DNMV] | → | [CHH_SV] | 0.3457 | 0.1230 | 2.8115 | 0.4131 |
|
| [Cu(II)] | → | [CHH_SV] | −0.0166 | 0.0047 | −3.5252 | −0.5180 |
|
| [Cu(II)] | → | [U2550.2540] | 0 | 0 | −2.5041 | 0.3852 |
|
| [Cu(II)] | → | [GPRE] | 0.4249 | 0.0479 | 8.9650 | 0.9132 |
|
| [CHH_SV] | → | [GPRE] | 2.4888 | 1.3685 | 1.8187 | 0.1715 |
|
| [CHH_DNMV] | → | [GPRE] | −4.4056 | 1.1149 | −3.9515*** | −0.3628 |
|
| [U2550.2540] | → | [GPRE] | 752.6512 | 334.1213 | 2.2526 | 0.1923 |
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.0164 | 0.60039 | 4.24326 | ||||
|
| 0.6014 | 0.1417 | 4.2426 | ||||
|
| 0.0089 | 0.0021 | 4.2426 | ||||
|
| 0 | 0 | 4.2426 | ||||
p ≤ 0.05;
p ≤ 0.01;
p ≤ 0.001.
Direct, indirect, and total effects for the analyzed model.
| Effect | Estimates ( | Standardized Estimates ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect | |||
| [GPRE] | ||||||||
| [Cu(II)] | → | [GPRE] | 0.4249 | −0.0503 | 0.43745 | 0.9132 | −0.1082 | 0.8051 |
| [CHH_DNMV] | → | [GPRE] | −4.4056 | 0.8604 | −3.5452 | −0.3628 | 0.0708 | −0.2919 |
| [U2550.2540] | → | [GPRE] | 752.6512 | 0 | 752.6512 | 0.1923 | 0 | 0.1923 |
| [CHH_SV] | → | [GPRE] | 2.4888 | 0 | 2.4888 | 0.1715 | 0 | 0.1715 |
| [CHH_SV] | ||||||||
| [Cu(II)] | → | [CHH_SV] | −0.0166 | 0.0062 | −0.0124 | −0.518 | 0.1321 | −0.3859 |
| [CHH_DNMV] | → | [CHH_SV] | 0.3457 | 0 | 0.3457 | 0.4131 | 0 | 0.4131 |
| [U2550.2540] | → | [CHH_SV] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| [U2550.2540] | ||||||||
| [Cu(II)] | → | [U2550.2540] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3852 | 0 | 0.3852 |
| [CHH_DNMV] | → | [U2550.2540] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| [CHH_DNMV] | ||||||||
| [Cu(II)] | → | [CHH_DNMV] | 0.0123 | 0 | 0.0123 | 0.3199 | 0 | 0.3199 |