Advertisement

Salinity effect on germination, seedling growth and cotyledon membrane complexes of a Portuguese salt marsh wild beet ecotype

  • C. Pinheiro
  • I. C. Ribeiro
  • V. Reisinger
  • S. Planchon
  • M. M. Veloso
  • J. Renaut
  • L. Eichacker
  • C. P. Ricardo
Article
  • 194 Downloads

Abstract

Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) high yields have been achieved through irrigation and this crop is described as coping with mild salinity (40–120 mM NaCl). However, during seed germination, sugar beet is salinity sensitive and soil salinity should not exceed 3 dS/m. Wild beets, ancestors of sugar beet, are naturally able to germinate and grow in saline environments. Salinity tolerance during germination and early seedling development of three Portuguese wild beet ecotypes [Comporta (CMP), Oeiras (OEI), Vaiamonte (VMT)] and one sugar beet cultivar (Isella) was evaluated. Concerning germination, VMT outperformed all the other beets, with 98% (± 2%) of glomerules germinating in 200 mM NaCl after 14 days of scarification. However, in 500 mM NaCl, only CMP was able to initiate and maintain radicle emergence, though in a very small extension (< 3%). On the basis of the relative salinity tolerance index, CMP is the less affected by salinity, despite reduced seedling growth and biomass. Since cotyledons length and membrane proteins abundance were negatively affected by salinity, the hypothesis was raised that membranes functionality, including the photochemical multiprotein complexes, was compromised. To test this hypothesis, a blue-native two-dimensional electrophoresis was applied to CMP seedlings. In the cotyledonary leaves, complexes LC1 and LC4 and several components of LC2, LC5, LC6 complexes were negatively affected by salinity. The components of the complexes of photosystem I and ATP synthase were less abundant what points out to a lower cotyledon capacity for ATP synthesis and ferredoxin reduction. Lower availability of ATP and reduced ferredoxin imply reduced photosynthetic assimilation and, therefore, lower carbon availability for growth.

Keywords

Crop wild relatives Blue-native electrophoresis Relative germination index 

Abbreviations

2D

Two-dimensional electrophoresis

DIGE

Difference gel electrophoresis

RuBisCO

Ribulose 1,5-biphosphate carboxylase

ATP

Adenosine tri-phosphate

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Javier Fuertes (KWS Semillas Ibérica) for the kind gift of sugar beet seeds (Isella variety). This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through the projects PTDC/AGR-AAM/73144/2006.

Supplementary material

40626_2018_107_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (680 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 680 kb)

References

  1. Ashraf M, Harris PJC (2013) Photosynthesis under stressful environments: an overview. Photosynthetica 51:163–190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-013-0021-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayers RS, Westcot DW (1989) Salinity problems (continued). Water quality for agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  3. Bao A, Guo Z-G, Zhang H-F, Wang S-M (2009) A procedure for assessing the salt tolerance of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) cultivar seedlings by combining agronomic and physiological indicators. New Zeal J Agric Res 52:435–442.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00288230909510525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bisognin DA, Velasquez L, Widders I (2005) Cucumber seedling dependence on cotyledonary leaves for early growth. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 40:531–539.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2005000600002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bor M, Özdemir F, Türkan I (2003) The effect of salt stress on lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in leaves of sugar beet Beta vulgaris L. and wild beet Beta maritima L. Plant Sci 164:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulesteix A-L (2009) WilcoxCV: Wilcoxon-based variable selection in cross-validation. R package version 1.0-2Google Scholar
  7. Chaves MM, Flexas J, Pinheiro C (2009) Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Ann Bot 103:551–560.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn125 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Elamrani A, Raymond P, Saglio P (1992) Nature and utilization of seed reserves during germination and heterotrophic growth of young sugar beet seedlings. Seed Sci Res 2:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960258500001045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elamrani A, Gaudillère J-P, Raymond P (1994) Carbohydrate starvation is a major determinant of the loss of greening capacity in cotyledons of dark-grown sugar beet seedlings. Physiol Plant 91:56–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1994.tb00659.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Felisberto-Rodrigues C, Ribeiro IC, Veloso M et al (2010) Germination under aseptic conditions of different ecotypes of wild beet (Beta vulgaris L. ssp maritima). Seed Sci Technol 38:517–521.  https://doi.org/10.15258/sst.2010.38.2.24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghoulam C, Foursy A, Fares K (2002) Effects of salt stress on growth, inorganic ions and proline accumulation in relation to osmotic adjustment in five sugar beet cultivars. Environ Exp Bot 47:39–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(01)00109-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heinemeyer J, Scheibe B, Schmitz UK, Braun H-P (2009) Blue native DIGE as a tool for comparative analyses of protein complexes. J Proteomics 72:539–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kronzucker HJ, Britto DT (2011) Sodium transport in plants: a critical review. New Phytol 189:54–81.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03540.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lawlor DW (2009) Musings about the effects of environment on photosynthesis. Ann Bot 103:543–549.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn256 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Li X, Su RT, Hsu HT, Sze H (1998) The molecular chaperone calnexin associates with the vacuolar H(+)-ATPase from oat seedlings. Plant Cell 10:119–130.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.10.1.119 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li H, Pan Y, Zhang Y et al (2015) Salt stress response of membrane proteome of Sugar beet monosomic addition line M14. J Proteomics 127:18–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2015.03.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu H, Wang Q, Yu M et al (2008) Transgenic salt-tolerant sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) constitutively expressing an Arabidopsis thaliana vacuolar Na+/H+ antiporter gene, AtNHX3, accumulates more soluble sugar but less salt in storage roots. Plant Cell Environ 31:1325–1334.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01838.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Marschner H, Kylin A, Kuiper PJC (1981) Differences in salt tolerance of three sugar beet genotypes. Physiol Plant 51:234–238.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1981.tb02704.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mittal S, Kumari N, Sharma V (2012) Differential response of salt stress on Brassica juncea: photosynthetic performance, pigment, proline, D1 and antioxidant enzymes. Plant Physiol Biochem 54:17–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2012.02.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Miyake H, Mitsuya S, Rahman MDS (2006) Ultrastructural effects of salinity stress in higher plants. In: Rai AK, Takabe T (eds) Abiotic stress tolerance in plants: toward the improvement of global environment and food. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monteiro F, Romeiras MM, Batista D, Duarte MC (2013) Biodiversity assessment of sugar beet species and its wild relatives: linking ecological data with new genetic approaches. Am J Plant Sci 4:21–34.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.48a003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mühlbauer SK, Eichacker LA (1999) The stromal protein large subunit of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase is translated by membrane-bound ribosomes. Eur J Biochem 26:784–788.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1432-1327.1999.00337.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Negrão S, Schmöckel SM, Tester M (2017) Evaluating physiological responses of plants to salinity stress. Ann Bot 119:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcw191 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Neuhoff V, Arold N, Taube D, Ehrhardt W (1988) Improved staining of proteins in polyacrylamide gels including isoelectric focusing gels with clear background at nanogram sensitivity using coomassie brilliant blue G-250 and R-250. Electrophoresis 9:255–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ober ES, Rajabi A (2010) Abiotic stress in sugar beet. Sugar Tech 12:294–298.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-010-0035-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Omoto E, Taniguchi M, Miyake H (2010) Effects of salinity stress on the structure of bundle sheath and mesophyll chloroplasts in NAD-malic enzyme and PCK type C4 plants. Plant Prod Sci 13:169–176.  https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.13.169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parida AK, Das AB (2005) Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: a review. Ecotox Environ Safe 60:324–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peleg Z, Apse MP, Blumwald E (2011) Engineering salinity and water-stress tolerance in crop plants. Getting closer to the field. Adv Bot Res 57:405–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387692-8.00012-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinheiro C, Sergeant K, Machado CMCM et al (2013) Two traditional maize inbred lines of contrasting technological abilities are discriminated by the seed flour proteome. J Proteome Res 12:3152–3165.  https://doi.org/10.1021/pr400012t CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pitman MG, Läuchli A (2002) Global Impact of Salinity and Agricultural Ecosystems. In: Läuchli A, Lüttge U (eds) Salinity: environment—plants—molecules. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  32. Plöscher M, Reisinger V, Eichacker LA (2011) Proteomic comparison of etioplast and chloroplast protein complexes. J Proteomics 74:1256–1265.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2011.03.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pohlert T (2014) The pairwise multiple comparison of mean ranks package (PMCMR). R Packag http://CRANR-project.org/package=PMCMR
  34. Reisinger V, Eichacker LA (2007) How to analyze protein complexes by 2D Blue Native SDS-PAGE. Proteomics 7:6–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ribeiro IC, Pinheiro C, Ribeiro CMCM et al (2016) Genetic diversity and physiological performance of portuguese wild beet (Beta vulgaris spp. maritima) from three contrasting habitats. Front Plant Sci 7:1293.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01293 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saleki R, Young PG, Lefebvre DD (1993) Mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana capable of germination under saline conditions. Plant Physiol 101:839–845.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.101.3.839 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Schumacher K, Krebs M (2010) The V-ATPase: small cargo, large effects. Curr Opin Plant Biol 13:724–730.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2010.07.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Shu S, Guo SR, Sun J, Yuan LY (2012) Effects of salt stress on the structure and function of the photosynthetic apparatus in Cucumis sativus and its protection by exogenous putrescine. Physiol Plant 146:285–296.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2012.01623.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Trotta A, Redondo-Gómez S, Pagliano C et al (2012) Chloroplast ultrastructure and thylakoid polypeptide composition are affected by different salt concentrations in the halophytic plant Arthrocnemum macrostachyum. J Plant Physiol 169:111–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2011.11.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsugane K, Kobayashi K, Niwa Y et al (1999) A Recessive Arabidopsis mutant that grows photoautotrophically under salt stress shows enhanced active oxygen detoxification. Plant Cell 11:1195–1206.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.11.7.1195 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Geyt JPC, Lange W, Oleo M, De Bock TSM (1990) Natural variation within the genus Beta and its possible use for breeding sugar beet: a review. Euphytica 49:57–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00024131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wakeel A, Asif AR, Pitann B, Schubert S (2011) Proteome analysis of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) elucidates constitutive adaptation during the first phase of salt stress. J Plant Physiol 168:519–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Werner JE, Finkelstein RR (1995) Arabidopsis mutants with reduced response to NaCl and osmotic stress. Physiol Plant 93:659–666.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1995.tb05114.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Brazilian Society of Plant Physiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Tecnologia Química e BiológicaUniversidade Nova de LisboaOeirasPortugal
  2. 2.DCV — Faculdade de Ciências e TecnologiaUniversidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal
  3. 3.Center for Organelle Research, Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway
  4. 4.Department Environmental Research and Innovation- Integrated Biology PlatformLuxembourg Institute of Science and TechnologyBelvauxLuxembourg
  5. 5.INIAV, I.P, Unidade de Investigação de Biotecnologia e Recursos Genéticos, Quinta do MarquêsOeirasPortugal

Personalised recommendations