| Literature DB >> 36077099 |
Martina Šrajer Gajdošik1, Antonia Vicić1, Vlatka Gvozdić1, Vlatko Galić2, Lidija Begović3, Selma Mlinarić3.
Abstract
Industrial hemp is a fast-growing, short-day plant, characterized by high biomass yields and low demands for cultivation. To manipulate growth, hemp is usually cultivated under prolonged photoperiods or continuous light that could cause photooxidative damage and adjustments of photosynthetic reactions. To determine the extent of changes in photosynthetic response caused by prolonged light exposure, we employed chlorophyll a fluorescence measurements accompanied with level of lipid peroxidation (TBARS) and FT-IR spectroscopy on two Cannabis cultivars. Plants were grown under white (W) and purple (P) light at different photoperiods (16/8, 20/4, and 24/0). Our results showed diverse photosynthetic reactions induced by the different light type and by the duration of light exposure in two cultivars. The most beneficial condition was the 16/8 photoperiod, regardless of the light type since it brought the most efficient physiological response and the lowest TBARS contents suggesting the lowest level of thylakoid membrane damage. These findings indicate that different efficient adaptation strategies were employed based on the type of light and the duration of photoperiod. White light, at both photoperiods, caused higher dissipation of excess light causing reduced pressure on PSI. Efficient dissipation of excess energy and formation of cyclic electron transport around PSI suggests that P20/4 initiated an efficient repair system. The P24/0 maintained functional electron transport between two photosystems suggesting a positive effect on the photosynthetic reaction despite the damage to thylakoid membranes.Entities:
Keywords: FT-IR; G-band; H-band; OJIP; TBARS; industrial hemp
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36077099 PMCID: PMC9456486 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23179702
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1Differences in the shapes and amplitudes of OJIP transient curves measured in Cannabis cultivars Finola and USO31 exposed to 16/8, 20/4, and 24/0 photoperiods and grown under white and purple light are presented as kinetics of relative variable fluorescence Vt and as difference kinetics ΔVOP (A,F). Difference kinetics ΔVt, for individual bands, L (B,G), K (C,H), H (D,I), and G (E,J) are plotted at different time ranges. Each curve represents the average of five measurements (n = 5) per treatment. The 16/8 photoperiods were used as referent values for each cultivar and growth light. The O, J, I, and P steps are indicated in Vt curves.
Figure 2Radar plot of selected JIP-test parameters characterizing PSII functioning measured in Cannabis cultivars Finola (A) and USO31 (B) exposed to 16/8, 20/4, and 24/0 photoperiods and grown under white and purple light. Data are normalized to their respective controls measured at the 16/8 photoperiod for each cultivar and growth light separately (control = 1). Each curve represents mean values of 5 measurements (n = 5); LSDFinola = 0.019; LSDUSO31 = 0.008.
Figure 3Cannonical variate analysis (CVA) representing the explanatory variables within Cannabis cultivars Finola (A) and USO31 (B) exposed to 16/8, 20/4, and 24/0 photoperiods and grown under white (W) and purple (P) light. Points represent values for each treatment. Ellipses around the different groups represent the 95% confidence intervals.
Coefficients of the first two canonical variates (Figure 3) in Finola and USO31 cultivars.
| Parameter | Finola | USO31 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CV1 | CV2 | CV1 | CV2 | |
| ABS/RC | −54.3 | 154.9 | −212.3 | −310.6 |
| DI0/RC | −407.8 | 307.9 | −228.3 | −465.6 |
| TR0/RC | 353.6 | −153.0 | 16.0 | 155.1 |
| ET0/RC | −156.2 | −95.2 | 681.3 | 685.8 |
| RE0/RC | 232.1 | 189.6 | −87.5 | 189.7 |
| φP0 | −1016.8 | −936.9 | −1565.2 | 3258.2 |
| ψE0 | 2373.0 | −5883.1 | −745.5 | 8882.0 |
| φE0 | −3768.5 | 7400.1 | −2460.7 | −13,393.0 |
| δR0 | −408.7 | −256.3 | −1348.0 | 947.1 |
| φR0 | 260.5 | −327.2 | 4068.7 | −2938.0 |
| γRC/(1 − γRC) | 682.7 | 1803.5 | −870.0 | −1354.0 |
| φP0/(1 − φP0) | −24.8 | −0.1 | −76.0 | −78.6 |
| ψE0/(1 − ψE0) | −7.0 | 273.9 | −375.8 | −282.4 |
| PIabs | 153.3 | −197.7 | 323.2 | 314.4 |
| δR0/(1 − δR0) | 14.3 | 35.6 | 48.0 | −109.7 |
| PItotal | −9.1 | 6.2 | −75.1 | 79.2 |
Mahalanobis distances in Finola and USO31 cultivars exposed to 16/8, 20/4, and 24/0 photoperiods and grown under white (W) and purple (P) light. * represents significance at p < 0.05, ** represents significance at p < 0.01, *** represents significance at p < 0.001, based on 1000 permutations.
| Finola | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P16/8 | P20/4 | P24/0 | W16/8 | W20/4 | |
| P20/4 | 11.18 * | ||||
| P24/0 | 11.96 ** | 8.36 | |||
| W16/8 | 18.32 *** | 19.88 *** | 17.31 *** | ||
| W20/4 | 12.47 ** | 8.32 | 3.49 | 17.8 *** | |
| W24/0 | 12.98 ** | 12.66 ** | 8.34 | 16.77 *** | 9.12 |
|
| |||||
| P20/4 | 11.1 | ||||
| P24/0 | 9.4 | 13.64 | |||
| W16/8 | 33.91 *** | 42.47 *** | 34.07 *** | ||
| W20/4 | 8.64 | 11.86 | 8.04 | 34.83 *** | |
| W24/0 | 14.44 | 21.75 * | 10.13 | 28.07 ** | 15.04 |
Figure 4Relative changes in the difference in driving forces (ΔDF) measured in Cannabis cultivars Finola (A) and USO31 (B) exposed to 16/8, 20/4, and 24/0 photoperiods and grown under white (W) and purple (P) light. Stacked columns are showing the difference in DFs at 20/4 (left columns per panel) and 24/0 (right columns per panel) photoperiods minus the DF at 16/8 (control). Each DF is calculated by summing up their partial driving forces: log γRC/(1 − γRC), log φP0/(1 − φP0), log ψE0/(1 − ψE0), and log δR0/(1 − δR0). The performance index for energy conservation from exciton to the reduction of the final electron acceptor at PSI, PItotal for each cultivar is shown in the inserts. Yellow bars represent plants grown under white light, while purple bars represent plants grown under purple light. Results are shown as the mean of five independent measurements (n = 5) ± SD. Different letters represent a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA, LSD).
Figure 5Changes in content of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS, nmol/g FW) measured in Cannabis cultivars Finola (F) and USO31 (U) exposed to 16/8, 20/4, and 24/0 photoperiods and grown under white (W) and purple (P) light. Results are shown as mean of five independent measurements (n = 5) ± SD. Different letters represent significant differences at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA, LSD); LSD = 0.187.
Figure 6Characteristic bands (range 400–4000 cm−1) of FT-IR spectra measured in the Cannabis samples. (A) shows characteristic peaks marked with numbers. The FTIR spectrum was recorded using 12 scans at a resolution of 2 cm−1 in the wavenumbers range from 400 to 4000 cm−1. The insert represents the FTIR spectral analysis in Cannabis cultivars for each treatment. PCA (B) represents the explanatory FT-IR variables between and within Cannabis cultivars Finola (F) and USO31 (U) exposed to 16/8, 20/4, and 24/0 photoperiods and grown under white (W) and purple (P) light. Points represent values for each treatment. The analysis provides the score results provided in the insert.
Calculations and definitions of selected JIP-test parameters [38,59,69,70,71].
| Recorded Data and Technical | Description |
|---|---|
| F0 | Minimal fluorescence intensity (20 μs) |
| Fm | Maximal fluorescence intensity |
| VJ = (FJ − F0)/(Fm − F0) | Relative variable fluorescence at 2 ms |
| VI = (FI − F0)/(Fm − F0) | Relative variable fluorescence at 30 ms |
| VK = (FK – F0)/(Fm – F0) | Relative variable fluorescence at 0.3 ms |
| FV = Fm − F0 | Maximal variable fluorescence |
| M0 = (d | Approximated initial slope of relative variable fluorescence Fv |
| φP0 = TR0/ABS = Fv/Fm | Maximum quantum yield of PSII |
| ψE0 = ET0/TR0 = 1 − VJ | Probability that a trapped exciton moves an electron further than QA |
| φE0 = ET0/ABS = [1 − (F0/Fm)](1 − VJ) | Quantum yield for electron transport |
| δR0 = RE0 − ET0 = (1 − VI)/(1 − VJ) | Probability with which an electron from the intersystem electron carriers moves to reduce end electron acceptors at the PSI acceptor side |
| φR0 = RE0/ABS = [1 − (F0/Fm)]ψE0 δR0 | Quantum yield for reduction of end electron acceptors at the PSI acceptor side |
| %OEC = [1 − (VK/VJ)]treatment/[1 − (VK/VJ)control | Fraction of Oxygen Evolving Complexes (OEC) |
| ABS/RC = M0(1/VJ)[1/φP0] | Absorption flux per active RC |
| TR0/RC = M0(1/VJ) | Trapping flux per active RC |
| ET0/RC = M0(1/VJ)(1 − VJ) | Electron transport flux per active RC |
| DI0/RC = (ABS/RC) − (TR0/RC) | Dissipation flux per active RC |
| γRC = ChlRC/Chltotal = RC/(ABS + RC) | Electron flux reducing end electron acceptors at the PSI acceptor side, per RC |
| RE0/RC = M0(1/VJ)ψE0 δR0 | Probability that a PSII Chl molecule functions as RC |
| PIABS = | Performance index on an absorption basis |
| PItotal = PIABS[δR0/(1 − δR0)] | Performance index for energy conservation from exciton to the reduction of the PSI end acceptor |