Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 327, Issue 1–2, pp 225–234 | Cite as

Quantitative proteome analysis of wheat gluten as influenced by N and S nutrition

  • Christian ZörbEmail author
  • Claudia Grover
  • Dorothee Steinfurth
  • Karl Hermann Mühling
Regular Article

Abstract

To increase grain quality, optimal nutrient management is desirable. Recently, atmospheric S emissions from industry have decreased leading to reduced grain quality. Fertilization of N primarily affects protein concentration and biomass production while S fertilization affects the fine tuning of storage protein composition. Additionally, high N supply increases the N/S ratio to the extent that the grains could be classified as S-deficient. Although total protein amounts were not changed by the fertilizer treatments, the amounts of individual gluten proteins were altered. High resolution proteomic analysis of S-containing gluten protein fractions demonstrates that under high N supply, low or high S fertilization significantly changed 41 and 66 of the gliadin and the glutenin proteins. In particular, this change may lead to different dough and baking quality. In conclusion, a high N fertilization induces S deficiency together with a change in gluten proteins and a loss of nutritional quality of grains.

Keywords

Sulphur Nitrogen Wheat grain Gliadin Glutenin Gluten Proteome 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mrs. Christa Lein for excellent technical assistance.

Supplementary material

11104_2009_49_MOESM1_ESM.doc (130 kb)
(DOC 130 kb)

References

  1. De Ruiter JM, Martin RJ (2001) Management of nitrogen and sulphur fertiliser for improved bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) quality. NZ J Crop Hortic Sci 29:287–299Google Scholar
  2. Ewart JAD (1978) Glutamin and dough tenacity. J Sci Food Agric 29:551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Görg A, Weiss W (1998) High-resolution two-dimensional electrophoresis of proteins using immobilized pH gradients. In: Celis J (ed) Cell Biology. A Laboratory Handbook. Academic Press NY, pp 386–397Google Scholar
  4. Granvogl M, Wieser H, Koehler P, von Tucher S, Schieberle P (2008) Influence of sulfur fertilization on the amounts of free amino acids in wheat. Correlation with baking properties as well as with 3-aminoproprionamide and acrylaminde generation during baking. J Agric Food Chem 55:4271–4277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Haneklaus S, Murpy DLP, Nowak G, Schnug E (1995) Effects of the timing of sulphur application on grain yield and yield components of wheat. Z Pflanzenernähr Bodenk 158:83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jahn-Deesbach W, Marquard R, Schipper A (1970) Untersuchungen über den Einfluß von Sorte und Stickstoffdüngung auf die Eiweißfraktionen von Weizen und Gerste. Z Acker- und Pflanzenbau 132:151–162Google Scholar
  7. Kopriva S, Rennenberg H (2004) Control of sulphate assimilation and glutathione synthesis: interaction with N and C metabolism. J Exp Bot 55:1831–1842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Lerner SE, Seghezzo ML, Molfese ER, Ponzio NR, Cogliatti M, Rogers WJ (2006) N- and S-fertilizer effects on grain composition, industrial quality and end-use in durum wheat. J Cereal Sci 44:2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Martre P, Porter JR, Jamieson PD, Triboï E (2003) Modeling grain nitrogen accumulation and protein composition to understand the sink/source regulations of nitrogen remobilization for wheat. Plant Physiol 133:1959–1967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Moss HJ, Wrigley CW, MacRitchie F, Randall PJ (1981) Sulfur and Nitrogen fertilizer effects on wheat. II. Influence on grain quality. Austral J Agric Res 32:213–2276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Randall PJ, Wrigley CW (1986) Effects of sulphur supply on the yield, composition, and quality of grain from cereals, oilseeds and legumes. Adv Cereal Sci Technol 8:171–206Google Scholar
  12. Salvagiotti F, Miralles DJ (2008) Radiation interception, biomass production and grain yield as affected by the interaction of nitrogen and sulphur fertilization in wheat. Europ J Agronomy 28:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sarandon SJ, Gianibelli MC (1990) Effect of foliar urea spraying and nitrogen application at sowing upon dry matter and nitrogen distribution in wheat (Triticum aestivum L). Agronomie 10:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shewry PR, Halford NG (2002) Cereal seed storage proteins: structures, properties and role in grain utlization. J Exp Bot 53:947–958CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Strong WM (1982) Effect of late application of nitrogen on the yield and protein content of wheat. Aust J Exp Agric Anim Husb 22:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tea I, Genter T, Naulet N, Marie LM, Kleiber D (2007) Interaction between nitrogen and sulfur by foliar application and its effects on flour bread-making quality. J Sci Food Agric 87:2853–2859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Bel AJE, Offler CE, Patrick JW (2003) Sources and sinks. In: Van Bel AJE (ed) Photosynthesis and partitioning / Sources and sinks. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  18. Westermeier R, Naven T, Höpker HR (2008) Proteomics in practice. A guide to successful experimental design, Sec. Ed. Wiley-VHC, Verlag Weinheim, Germany Google Scholar
  19. Wieser H, Seilmeier W (1998) The influence of nitrogen fertilization on quantities and proportions of different protein types in wheat flour. J Sci Food Agric 76:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wieser H, Gutser R, von Tucher S (2004) Influence of sulphur fertilization on quantities and proportions of gluten protein types in wheat flour. J Cereal Sci 40:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wooding AR, Kavale S, MacRitchie F, Stoddard FL, Wallace A (2000) Effects of nitrogen and sulfur fertilizer on protein composition, mixing requirements, and dough strength of flour wheat cultivars. Cereal Chem 77:798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wrigley CW, du Cros DL, Archer MJ, Downie PG, Roxburgh CM (1980) The sulfur content in wheat endosperm and its relevance to grain quality. Aust J Plant Physiol 7:755–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhao FJ, Hawkesford MJ, McGrath SP (1999) Sulphur assimilation and effects on yield and quality of wheat. J Cereal Sci 30:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zörb C, Schmitt S, Neeb A, Karl S, Linder M, Schubert S (2004) The biochemical reaction of maize (Zea mays L.,) to salt is characterized by a mitigation of symptoms and not by a specific adaptation. Plant Sci 167:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Zörb
    • 1
    Email author
  • Claudia Grover
    • 2
  • Dorothee Steinfurth
    • 1
  • Karl Hermann Mühling
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Plant Nutrition and Soil ScienceChristian Albrechts University KielKielGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Plant Nutrition, Interdisciplinary Research Center for Environmental Research (IFZ)Justus Liebig University GiessenGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations