Indirect regeneration in Ficus lyrata Warb. and metabolite profiles influenced by nitric oxide and Plant growth regulators.
Fiddle leaf fig tree
Free amino acids
Indirect morphogenesis
Nitric oxide
Primary metabolites
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jun 2023
17 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
15
01
2023
accepted:
09
06
2023
medline:
19
6
2023
pubmed:
17
6
2023
entrez:
16
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To establish an indirect regeneration protocol in Ficus lyrata, a three-phase experiment (callus induction, morphogenic callus induction, and plant regeneration) based on auxin, cytokinin, and nitric oxide interactions was designed and implemented using leaf explants. The metabolite profiles (amino acid profile, total phenolic content, total soluble sugars, and total antioxidant activity) alteration patterns were also investigated to determine the metabolites contributing to the progress of each phase. Results demonstrated that 11 out of 48 implemented treatments resulted in morphogenic callus induction (morphogenic treatments), and nitric oxide played a key role in increasing efficiency from 13 to 100%. More importantly, nitric oxide cross-talk with cytokinins was necessary for shoot regeneration from morphogenic calli. Only 4 out of all 48 implemented treatments were capable of shoot regeneration (regenerative treatments), and among them, PR42 treatment led to the highest shoot regeneration rate (86%) and maximum mean number of shoot/explant (10.46). Metabolite analyses revealed that the morphogenic and regenerative treatments followed similar metabolite alterations, which were associated with increased biosynthesis of arginine, lysine, methionine, asparagine, glutamine, histidine, threonine, leucine, glycine, serine amino acids, total soluble sugars content, and total antioxidant activity. On the contrary, non-morphogenic and non-regenerative treatments caused the accumulation of a significantly greater total phenolic content and malondialdehyde in the explant cells, which reflexed the stressful condition of the explants. It could be concluded that the proper interactions of auxin, cytokinins, and nitric oxide could result in metabolite biosynthesis alterations, leading to triggering cell proliferation, morphogenic center formation, and shoot regeneration.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To establish an indirect regeneration protocol in Ficus lyrata, a three-phase experiment (callus induction, morphogenic callus induction, and plant regeneration) based on auxin, cytokinin, and nitric oxide interactions was designed and implemented using leaf explants. The metabolite profiles (amino acid profile, total phenolic content, total soluble sugars, and total antioxidant activity) alteration patterns were also investigated to determine the metabolites contributing to the progress of each phase.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Results demonstrated that 11 out of 48 implemented treatments resulted in morphogenic callus induction (morphogenic treatments), and nitric oxide played a key role in increasing efficiency from 13 to 100%. More importantly, nitric oxide cross-talk with cytokinins was necessary for shoot regeneration from morphogenic calli. Only 4 out of all 48 implemented treatments were capable of shoot regeneration (regenerative treatments), and among them, PR42 treatment led to the highest shoot regeneration rate (86%) and maximum mean number of shoot/explant (10.46). Metabolite analyses revealed that the morphogenic and regenerative treatments followed similar metabolite alterations, which were associated with increased biosynthesis of arginine, lysine, methionine, asparagine, glutamine, histidine, threonine, leucine, glycine, serine amino acids, total soluble sugars content, and total antioxidant activity. On the contrary, non-morphogenic and non-regenerative treatments caused the accumulation of a significantly greater total phenolic content and malondialdehyde in the explant cells, which reflexed the stressful condition of the explants.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
It could be concluded that the proper interactions of auxin, cytokinins, and nitric oxide could result in metabolite biosynthesis alterations, leading to triggering cell proliferation, morphogenic center formation, and shoot regeneration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37328837
doi: 10.1186/s12870-023-04339-z
pii: 10.1186/s12870-023-04339-z
pmc: PMC10276444
doi:
Substances chimiques
Plant Growth Regulators
0
Nitric Oxide
31C4KY9ESH
Antioxidants
0
Cytokinins
0
Indoleacetic Acids
0
Sugars
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
325Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Biomolecules. 2020 Aug 28;10(9):
pubmed: 32872300
3 Biotech. 2014 Oct;4(5):477-491
pubmed: 28324379
Plant Cell Physiol. 2018 Apr 1;59(4):708-714
pubmed: 29294130
Methods Mol Biol. 2012;918:165-78
pubmed: 22893292
Front Plant Sci. 2022 Feb 11;13:822022
pubmed: 35222480
Front Plant Sci. 2016 May 04;7:557
pubmed: 27200031
Nat Commun. 2013;4:1529
pubmed: 23443557
J Photochem Photobiol B. 2014 Jan 5;130:264-71
pubmed: 24362323
Planta. 2017 Jun;245(6):1067
pubmed: 28456836
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 19;8(1):16978
pubmed: 30451961
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Feb 28;10:118
pubmed: 30873184
Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 15;11(1):18367
pubmed: 34526563
Protoplasma. 2018 Mar;255(2):655-667
pubmed: 29080994
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Mar 12;12:541171
pubmed: 33777060
J Genet Eng Biotechnol. 2021 Jan 20;19(1):14
pubmed: 33474639
Cell Rep. 2020 Sep 8;32(10):108127
pubmed: 32905770
Nitric Oxide. 2019 Dec 1;93:53-70
pubmed: 31541734
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Oct 05;19(10):
pubmed: 30301169
Plant Cell Rep. 2013 Nov;32(11):1783-93
pubmed: 23926030
Plant J. 2005 Sep;43(6):849-60
pubmed: 16146524
Mol Plant. 2013 Jul;6(4):1214-25
pubmed: 23239827
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Aug 09;22(16):
pubmed: 34445260
Plant Cell Physiol. 2018 Apr 1;59(4):744-755
pubmed: 29121271
Plant J. 2012 May;70(3):492-500
pubmed: 22171938
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jun 1;118(22):
pubmed: 34050019
Plant Cell. 2013 Sep;25(9):3159-73
pubmed: 24076977
Mol Plant. 2015 Nov 2;8(11):1563-79
pubmed: 26384576
Front Plant Sci. 2015 Jul 30;6:534
pubmed: 26284079