Non-rolling flag leaves use an effective mechanism to reduce water loss and light-induced damage under drought stress.
Blue and red fluorescence
cell wall phenolics
chlorophyll fluorescence
flag leaf rolling
hydrogen peroxide
photosynthetic apparatus proteins
triticale
Journal
Annals of botany
ISSN: 1095-8290
Titre abrégé: Ann Bot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372347
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 09 2022
19 09 2022
Historique:
received:
07
12
2021
accepted:
15
03
2022
pubmed:
17
3
2022
medline:
23
9
2022
entrez:
16
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The study reports on four different types of flag leaf rolling under soil drought in relation to the level of cell wall-bound phenolics. The flag leaf colonization by aphids, as a possible bioindicator of the accumulation of cell wall-bound phenolics, was also estimated. The proteins of the photosynthetic apparatus that form its core and are crucial for maintaining its stability (D1/PsbA protein), limit destructive effects of light (PsbS, a protein binding carotenoids in the antennas) and participate in efficient electron transport between photosystems II (PSII) and PSI (Rieske iron-sulfur protein of the cytochrome b6f complex) were evaluated in two types of flag leaf rolling. Additionally, biochemical and physiological reactions to drought stress in rolling and non-rolling flag leaves were compared. The study identified four types of genome-related types of flag leaf rolling. The biochemical basis for these differences was a different number of phenolic molecules incorporated into polycarbohydrate structures of the cell wall. In an extreme case of non-rolling dehydrated flag leaves, they were found to accumulate high amounts of cell wall-bound phenolics that limited cell water loss and protected the photosynthetic apparatus against excessive light. PSII was also additionally protected against excess light by the accumulation of photosynthetic apparatus proteins that ensured stable and efficient transport of excitation energy beyond PSII and its dissipation as far-red fluorescence and heat. Our analysis revealed a new type of flag leaf rolling brought about by an interaction between wheat and rye genomes, and resulting in biochemical specialization of flexible, rolling and rigid, non-rolling parts of the flag leaf. The study confirmed limited aphid colonization of the flag leaves with enhanced content of cell wall-bound phenolics. Non-rolling leaves developed effective adaptation mechanisms to reduce both water loss and photoinhibitory damage to the photosynthetic apparatus under drought stress.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The study reports on four different types of flag leaf rolling under soil drought in relation to the level of cell wall-bound phenolics. The flag leaf colonization by aphids, as a possible bioindicator of the accumulation of cell wall-bound phenolics, was also estimated.
METHODS
The proteins of the photosynthetic apparatus that form its core and are crucial for maintaining its stability (D1/PsbA protein), limit destructive effects of light (PsbS, a protein binding carotenoids in the antennas) and participate in efficient electron transport between photosystems II (PSII) and PSI (Rieske iron-sulfur protein of the cytochrome b6f complex) were evaluated in two types of flag leaf rolling. Additionally, biochemical and physiological reactions to drought stress in rolling and non-rolling flag leaves were compared.
KEY RESULTS
The study identified four types of genome-related types of flag leaf rolling. The biochemical basis for these differences was a different number of phenolic molecules incorporated into polycarbohydrate structures of the cell wall. In an extreme case of non-rolling dehydrated flag leaves, they were found to accumulate high amounts of cell wall-bound phenolics that limited cell water loss and protected the photosynthetic apparatus against excessive light. PSII was also additionally protected against excess light by the accumulation of photosynthetic apparatus proteins that ensured stable and efficient transport of excitation energy beyond PSII and its dissipation as far-red fluorescence and heat. Our analysis revealed a new type of flag leaf rolling brought about by an interaction between wheat and rye genomes, and resulting in biochemical specialization of flexible, rolling and rigid, non-rolling parts of the flag leaf. The study confirmed limited aphid colonization of the flag leaves with enhanced content of cell wall-bound phenolics.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-rolling leaves developed effective adaptation mechanisms to reduce both water loss and photoinhibitory damage to the photosynthetic apparatus under drought stress.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35294964
pii: 6549744
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcac035
pmc: PMC9486892
doi:
Substances chimiques
Environmental Biomarkers
0
Phenols
0
Photosystem II Protein Complex
0
Soil
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Chlorophyll
1406-65-1
Carotenoids
36-88-4
Cytochrome b6f Complex
9035-40-9
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
393-408Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Exp Bot. 2018 Apr 27;69(10):2705-2716
pubmed: 29617837
Mol Genet Genomics. 2017 Apr;292(2):415-433
pubmed: 28028612
J Exp Bot. 2003 Feb;54(383):757-69
pubmed: 12554719
Theor Appl Genet. 2004 Apr;108(6):1147-50
pubmed: 15067402
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Feb 14;10:174
pubmed: 30838014
Plant Physiol. 2015 Dec;169(4):2462-80
pubmed: 26438788
J Exp Bot. 2001 Oct;52(363):2007-14
pubmed: 11559736
Nat Plants. 2017 Jan 30;3:16225
pubmed: 28134919
New Phytol. 2004 Oct;164(1):157-164
pubmed: 33873480
Mol Plant. 2015 Sep;8(9):1304-20
pubmed: 25997389
PeerJ. 2018 Jun 25;6:e5107
pubmed: 29967749
Photosynth Res. 2001;67(1-2):27-39
pubmed: 16228314
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Sep 22;21(18):
pubmed: 32971899
Ann Bot. 2008 Apr;101(6):825-32
pubmed: 18252766
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2017 Sep;118:529-540
pubmed: 28778044
Photochem Photobiol. 2000 Jul;72(1):75-84
pubmed: 10911731
Plant Physiol. 2017 Sep;175(1):134-145
pubmed: 28754840
Planta. 1983 Mar;157(2):111-23
pubmed: 24264064
Anal Biochem. 1976 May 7;72:248-54
pubmed: 942051
Plant Cell Environ. 2018 May;41(5):1098-1112
pubmed: 29210070
Front Plant Sci. 2019 May 24;10:677
pubmed: 31178885
Biochemistry. 2004 Sep 7;43(35):11321-30
pubmed: 15366942
Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 18;9(1):19390
pubmed: 31852989
Front Plant Sci. 2020 May 15;11:505
pubmed: 32499795
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2015 Sep;22(9):650-2
pubmed: 26333711
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2015 Sep;22(9):729-35
pubmed: 26258636
J Exp Bot. 2000 Jul;51(348):1309-17
pubmed: 10937707
Plant Cell Environ. 2019 May;42(5):1532-1544
pubmed: 30620079
Planta. 2012 Aug;236(2):513-23
pubmed: 22434315
J Plant Physiol. 2012 Feb 15;169(3):262-7
pubmed: 22118877
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007 Jun;1767(6):414-21
pubmed: 17207454
J Plant Physiol. 2019 May;236:109-116
pubmed: 30947027
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2015 Mar;17(2):437-48
pubmed: 25213398
Macromol Biosci. 2007 Feb 12;7(2):128-35
pubmed: 17295399
Plant Physiol. 1997 Mar;113(3):967-973
pubmed: 12223657
Plant Cell Environ. 2019 Jan;42(1):115-132
pubmed: 29532945
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010 Jun-Jul;1797(6-7):1313-26
pubmed: 20226756
Phytochemistry. 2011 Jun;72(8):723-9
pubmed: 21420135
Photosynth Res. 1990 Sep;25(3):147-50
pubmed: 24420345
Biophys J. 2017 Dec 5;113(11):2364-2372
pubmed: 29211990
J Plant Physiol. 2009 Sep 15;166(14):1520-8
pubmed: 19428140
Plant Sci. 2012 Jan;182:42-8
pubmed: 22118614
Plant Cell Environ. 2016 Apr;39(4):804-22
pubmed: 26476233
Microbiol Res. 2020 Jan;231:126355
pubmed: 31704544
Planta. 1987 Jun;171(2):205-11
pubmed: 24227327
J Plant Physiol. 2012 Nov 15;169(17):1728-36
pubmed: 22980393
Trends Plant Sci. 2008 Apr;13(4):178-82
pubmed: 18328775
Plant Physiol. 2016 Apr;170(4):1903-16
pubmed: 26864015
J Plant Physiol. 2016 Sep 1;202:1-9
pubmed: 27450489