Advertisement

Planta

, Volume 249, Issue 1, pp 123–137 | Cite as

Occurrence of brassinosteroids and influence of 24-epibrassinolide with brassinazole on their content in the leaves and roots of Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Golden Promise

  • Andrzej BajguzEmail author
  • Wacław Orczyk
  • Agnieszka Gołębiewska
  • Magdalena Chmur
  • Alicja Piotrowska-Niczyporuk
Open Access
Original Article
  • 505 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Terpenes and Isoprenoids

Abstract

Main conclusion

24-epibrassinolide overcame the inhibitory effect of brassinazole on the barley growth and the content of brassinosteroids.

The present work demonstrates the occurrence of mainly castasterone, brassinolide and cathasterone and lower amounts of 24-epibrassinolide, 24-epicastasterone, 28-homobrassinolide, typhasterol, 6-deoxocastasterone and 6-deoxotyphasterol in 14-day-old de-etiolated barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Golden Promise). We also investigated the endogenous level of brassinosteroids (BRs) in barley seedlings treated with 24-epibrassinolide (EBL) and/or brassinazole (Brz). To our knowledge, this is the first report related to the occurrence of BRs and application of EBL and Brz in terms of the endogenous content of BRs in barley. Brz as a specific inhibitor of BR biosynthetic reactions decreased the level of BRs in the leaves. Application of EBL showed a weak promotive effect on the BR content in Brz-treated seedlings. Brz also inhibited growth of the seedlings; however, addition of EBL overcame the inhibition. The EBL applied alone at 0.01–1 µM increased the BR level in the leaves but at 10 µM lowered the BR content. In opposition to leaves, the Brz in the concentration range from 0.1 to 1 µM did not significantly affect the content of BRs in the roots. However, application of 10 µM Brz caused BRs to decrease, but treatment of EBL concentrations overcame the inhibitory effect of Brz.

Keywords

Barley Distribution Inhibition Interaction Promotive effect 

Introduction

Brassinosteroids (BRs), a class of phytohormones, are essential for plant growth and development, including the promotion of stem elongation, pollen tube growth, leaf bending, leaf unrolling, root inhibition and cell division (Kutschera and Wang 2012; Bajguz and Piotrowska-Niczyporuk 2014; Tarkowska and Strnad 2018). More than 60 compounds with structures related to that of brassinolide (BL) have been isolated from different plant organs such as pollen, anthers, seeds, leaves, stems, roots, flowers and grain as well as insect and crown galls. The presence of some bioactive BRs, i.e. BL, castasterone (CS), 6-deoxocastasterone (6dCS), teasterone (TE) and typhasterol (TY) was confirmed in many plant species that belong to all phyla of the plant kingdom like algae, pteridophytes, gymnosperms, monocots and dicots (Zhabinskii et al. 2015; Kanwar et al. 2017; Zullo 2018).

BRs are synthesised from phytosterols (campesterol and campestanol, CN) through complex oxidative reactions resulting in the synthesis of BL via two parallel pathways, named the early and the late C-6 oxidation pathways. CN is, respectively, converted to 6-oxocampestanol (6-oxoCN), cathasterone (CT), TE, 3-dehydroteasterone (3DT), TY and then to CS, in the early C-6 oxidation pathway. In the second parallel pathway, CN is hydroxylated at C-22 to form 6-deoxocathasterone (6dCT) and then is converted to 6-deoxy forms of TE, 3DT, TY and CS. These pathways converge at CS, which ultimately leads to the synthesis of BL (Ye et al. 2011; Zhao and Li 2012; Chung and Choe 2013).

Brassinazole (Brz) is a triazole derivative and an inhibitor of BR biosynthesis that has been developed to probe the functions of BRs. It can induce morphological changes, including dwarfism and altered leaf colour and curling, in dark-grown Arabidopsis thaliana and light-grown cress (Lepidium sativum) that are rescued by co-application of BR. Brz blocks the conversion of CN to 6dCT, 6dCT to 6-deoxoteasterone (6dTE), 6-oxoCN to CT and CT to TE in the biosynthetic pathways of BRs (Asami and Yoshida 1999; Asami et al. 2000, 2003).

In this study, we report the detection of several intermediates of BR pathways in the seedlings of Hordeum vulgare cv. Golden Promise. The ability of Brz to inhibit the biosynthesis of BRs was evaluated in barley leaves and roots. The application of exogenous BR against the inhibitory effect of Brz on the content of BRs is still poorly studied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to use the combination of 24-epibrassinolide (EBL) and Brz to investigate the level of endogenous BRs.

Materials and methods

Plant material and growth condition

Kernels of Hordeum vulgare cv. Golden Promise were surface sterilised by immersion, first treated with 70% ethanol (EtOH) (5 min), then 4% sodium hypochlorite (10 min) and thoroughly rinsed with distilled water (3 times, 10 min). Kernels were sown in Petri dishes (diameter 10 cm, 10 kernels per dish) on moistened filter paper and kept in the dark for 24 h in 6 °C, then for 3 days in 22 °C. Then, germinated kernels (10 seedlings per pot) were transferred to plastic vessels (diameter 10 cm, height 5 cm) containing 250 mL of Hoagland solution and the appropriate amount of EBL and/or Brz. The following compounds of Hoagland solution were used: 6.5 mM KNO3, 4.0 mM solution of Ca(NO3)2, 2.0 mM NH4H2PO4, 2.0 mM solution of MgSO4, 4.6 µM H3BO3, 0.5 µM solution of MnCl2, 0.2 µM solution of ZnSO4, 0.1 µM solution of Na2MoO4, 0.2 µM solution of CuSO4, 45 µM Na2EDTA, and 45 µM solution of FeSO4. The pH was adjusted at 6.0 with 10 M KOH. Aeration was supplied continuously through air pumps in the nutrient solution. The seedlings were grown in a fully controlled growth chamber at (22.0 ± 0.5)  °C, with a day/night cycle 16/8 h (photon flux of 150 µmol m−2 s−1) and the relative humidity of 65%. After 10 days of treatment, plants were harvested and separated into leaves and roots. Leaves and roots of six randomly selected plants per treatment were weighed and taken to analysis.

Chemicals

Standards: BL (purity > 95%), EBL (purity > 98%), CS (purity > 95%), 24-epicastasterone (ECS, purity > 98%), CT (purity > 95%), 6dCS (purity > 98%), 6dCT (purity > 90%), TY (purity > 90%), 6-deoxytyphasterol (6dTY, purity > 90%), 28-homobrassinolide (HBL, purity > 95%) and stable isotope-labelled standards: [2H3]brassinolide (d3-BL, purity > 95%) and [2H3]castasterone (d3-CS, purity > 94%) were purchased from OlChemIm s.r.o. (Olomouc, Czech Republic). Brz (purity > 93%) was purchased from TCI Europe N.V. (Zwijndrecht, Belgium). Acetonitrile (ACN), methanol (MeOH) and water (LC–MS grade), KOH and formic acid (FA) were purchased from Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany). All reagents used to Hoagland solution were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, USA). All solutions were prepared in ultrapure water (LC–MS grade). A solution of 10 µM EBL was prepared from 0.1 mM EBL stock dissolved in 70% EtOH. Brz was also dissolved in 70% EtOH. Weaker solutions of EBL and Brz were prepared by serial dilution. An equal amount of EtOH was added to the control. The final EtOH concentration in the culture medium did not exceed 0.25%, and this concentration did not affect the growth of seedlings.

Quantitative analysis of brassinosteroids

Plant tissues (0.1 g fresh weight (FW) of leaves or roots) were frozen in liquid nitrogen and ground into fine powder with a mortar and a pestle and then transferred into a 2-mL Eppendorf Protein LoBind PCR clean tube. The tissues were resuspended in 1 mL MeOH and homogenised in bead mill (50 Hz, 5 min; TissueLyser LT, Qiagen, Germany) using two 3 mm zirconium balls. The homogenates were centrifuged (9000×g, 5 min; MPW-55 Med. Instruments, Poland). This process was repeated five times. The homogenates (5 mL) were collected in 25 mL glass flask, and then the samples were mixed (90 rpm, dark, 5 °C, 12 h; Laboratory shaker LC-350, Pol-Eko-Aparatura sp. J., Poland). For quantification of BRs, d3-BL (2 ng) and d3-CS (2 ng) were added into the mixture followed by extraction with MeOH as internal standards. For screening of BRs, no internal standards were added. After extraction, plant particles were separated by centrifugation (9000×g, 5 min).

The endogenous BR level was determined using LC–QTOF–MS via sample preparation with ion exchange solid-phase extraction (SPE) (Xin et al. 2013). Oasis MAX cartridge (6 mL, 500 mg; Waters, Milford, USA) was activated and equilibrated with MeOH, water, 1 M KOH, 10% (v/v) MeOH and 95% (v/v) MeOH in turn. The next, Oasis MCX cartridge (6 mL, 500 mg; Waters, Milford, USA) was activated and equilibrated with MeOH, water, 5% (v/v) FA and 10% (v/v) MeOH in turn. Then, the crude plant extracts were passed through a MAX cartridge and collected to be dried by centrifugal evaporator (CentriVap® IR Vacuum Centrifugal Concentrators, Labconco Corp., USA). The samples were dissolved in 4 mL of 10% MeOH and passed through a MCX cartridge. After sequential washing with 5% (v/v) FA in 5% (v/v) MeOH, 5% (v/v) MeOH, 5% (v/v) NH4OH in 5% (v/v) MeOH and 5% (v/v) MeOH, BRs were eluted with 80% (v/v) MeOH. The elution was dried and then dissolved in 98 µL of EtOH to be derivatised with 2 µL 4-(dimethylamino) phenylboronic acid (DMAPBA) (1 h, 45 °C). Finally, the obtained samples were transferred to HPLC vials with inserts.

Detection of BR-DMAPBA was performed on the Agilent 1260 Infinity series HPLC system (Agilent Technologies, USA) consisting of a degasser, binary pump, autosampler and column oven combined with 6540 UHD Accurate-Mass Q-TOF LC/MS (Agilent Technologies, USA) mass spectrometer with Dual AJS ESI source.

Each sample (10 µL) was injected onto a XBridge C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 1.7 µm). The column temperature was held at 25 °C. The inlet method was set as follows: mobile phase A, 0.1% (v/v) FA in water and B, 0.1% (v/v) FA in ACN. Gradient was as follows: 0–2 min, 75% B; 2–14 min, 85% B; 14–40 min, 95% B; 40–42 min, 75% B; and 42–45 min, 75% B. The separation at a flow rate of 0.2 mL min−1 was employed. The MS parameters were optimised with mixture of standard solutions ESI Tuning Mix (Agilent Technologies, USA). Nitrogen was used not only as a nebulizer but also as drying and collision gas. The nebulizer gas pressure, drying gas pressure, curtain gas pressure, source voltage and source temperature were set at 60 psi, 50 psi, 30 psi, 3.5 kV and 350 °C, respectively. Spectra were acquired by summarizing 5000 single spectra. Full scan mode was used. Extraction of centroid spectra peaks with a width of 0.01 Da was used to pick up the extracted ion chromatograms from the total ion chromatogram. BRs and their corresponding internal standards were analysed in the positive-ion mode. Instrument control and data processing were carried out by Agilent MassHunter Workstation Software for LC/MS.

Analyte recovery was calculated as the ratio of the mean peak area of an unlabelled analyte, spiked before SPE purification, to the mean peak area of the same analyte, spiked after SPE purification, multiplied by 100 and finally expressed in percentage (Caban et al. 2012). The average recovery for each determined BR was as follows: 85% for BL, 84% for 6dTY, 83% for EBL and 6dCS, 82% for CT, 81% for CS and TY, 80% for ECS and 78% for HBL.

Statistics

Each treatment consisted of two replicates and each experiment was carried out at least four times at different points (n = 8). Basic descriptive statistical analysis was performed using R (R Core Team 2018). The data were further assessed for normality and homogeneity of variances using the Shapiro–Wilk test [‘stats’ package (R Core Team 2018)] and Levene’s test [‘car’ package (Fox and Weisberg 2011)], respectively. The one-way ANOVA [‘stats’ package (R Core Team 2018)] and Tukey’s post hoc test [‘laercio’ package (da Silva 2010)] were used to group compounds based on their average amount. Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

Results

Barley cv. Golden Promise seedlings treated with Brz, EBL, combinations of Brz and EBL are presented in Fig. 1. Brz-treated seedlings showed limited growth in a concentration-dependent manner from 0.1 to 10 µM (Fig. 1a). Application of EBL alone caused a slight stimulation of seedling growth at 0.1 µM (Fig. 1b). In plants treated with 0.001 µM and 0.01 µM EBL, the phenotype was very similar to that of the control. Moreover, the retarding effect of the Brz on the elongation of barley seedlings was negated by the application of the EBL (Fig. 1c–d).
Fig. 1

Phenotypes of 14-day-old de-etiolated barley Golden Promise seedlings treated with: (a) brassinazole (Brz), (b) 24-epibrassinolide (EBL), c, d Brz and/or EBL vs. control. Scale bar, 1 cm

Brz treatment did not affect the growth of roots and they were comparable to the control. Similar results were obtained when the mixtures of Brz and EBL were applied. However, a slight inhibition of the root growth was noted in plants treated with EBL at 1 µM or higher concentration (Fig. 1b).

A LC–QTOF–MS analysis of barley cv. Golden Promise led to the detection of nine known BRs, i.e. BL, EBL, HBL, CS, ECS, CT, TY 6dTY and 6dCS both in the leaves (Table 1) and roots (Table 2). The presence of these compounds in barley cv. Golden Promise is reported for the first time (Table 3). The highest level of BRs was detected in the leaves, i.e. BL and CT (2.98, 2.25 ng g−1 FW, respectively). Furthermore, the highest content of CS, CT and 6dTY was noted in the roots (1.38, 1.05, 0.19 ng g−1 FW, respectively). Trace amounts (< 1% of all BRs) of HBL and ECS were detected in the leaves; EBL in roots. Total amount of BRs was higher in the leaves (6.69 ng g−1 FW) than roots (2.93 ng g−1 FW).
Table 1

Endogenous content of brassinosteroids in barley leaves treated with brassinazole and/or 24-epibrassinolide

Treatment

Brassinosteroid (ng g−1 fresh weight)

CS

ECS

BL

0

1.01 ± 0.0142de

0.012 ± 0.0002f

2.983 ± 0.0884e

0.1 μM Brz

0.859 ± 0.0058f

0.008 ± 0.0004g

2.631 ± 0.1369g

1 μM Brz

0.544 ± 0.0202j

0.005 ± 0.0001h

1.655 ± 0.0442j

10 μM Brz

0.39 ± 0.0074k

nd

0.565 ± 0.0061l

0.001 μM EBL

1.055 ± 0.0537d

0.031 ± 0.0002e

3.179 ± 0.0621cd

0.01 μM EBL

1.245 ± 0.0173c

0.067 ± 0.0029c

3.686 ± 0.1126b

0.1 μM EBL

2.053 ± 0.0371a

0.136 ± 0.0033a

4.215 ± 0.042a

1 μM EBL

1.568 ± 0.0422b

0.058 ± 0.0006d

2.789 ± 0.1479fg

10 μM EBL

0.752 ± 0.0112h

nd

0.946 ± 0.0142k

0.1 μM EBL + 0.1 μM Brz

1.529 ± 0.0605b

0.087 ± 0.0009b

3.187 ± 0.0268c

0.1 μM EBL + 1 μM Brz

0.986 ± 0.0369e

nd

3.012 ± 0.0902de

0.1 μM EBL + 10 μM Brz

0.452 ± 0.0142k

nd

2.184 ± 0.0618i

1 μM Brz + 0.001 μM EBL

0.768 ± 0.0227gh

nd

2.424 ± 0.0191h

1 μM Brz + 0.01 μM EBL

0.834 ± 0.0114fg

nd

2.853 ± 0.0248ef

1 μM Brz + 0.1 μM EBL

0.986 ± 0.0369e

nd

3.012 ± 0.0902de

1 μM Brz + 1 μM EBL

0.728 ± 0.0293h

nd

1.757 ± 0.0512j

1 μM Brz + 10 μM EBL

0.658 ± 0.0146i

nd

1.628 ± 0.0486j

Treatment

Brassinosteroid (ng g−1 fresh weight)

EBL

HBL

CT

0

0.125 ± 0.0007c

0.04 ± 0.0012e

2.247 ± 0.0145c

0.1 μM Brz

0.091 ± 0.0007e

0.033 ± 0.0003g

1.587 ± 0.0613e

1 μM Brz

0.049 ± 0.0012i

0.017 ± 0.0001h

1.143 ± 0.0168gh

10 μM Brz

0.018 ± 0.0007j

nd

0.504 ± 0.0033i

0.001 μM EBL

0.121 ± 0.0007c

0.043 ± 0.0004d

2.362 ± 0.0713bc

0.01 μM EBL

0.176 ± 0.0055b

0.08 ± 0.0017b

2.461 ± 0.0182b

0.1 μM EBL

0.353 ± 0.0067a

0.176 ± 0.0019a

2.994 ± 0.1573a

1 μM EBL

0.102 ± 0.003d

0.036 ± 0.0007f

1.376 ± 0.0542f

10 μM EBL

nd

nd

1.104 ± 0.0511h

0.1 μM EBL + 0.1 μM Brz

0.122 ± 0.0039c

0.074 ± 0.0017c

2.277 ± 0.0415c

0.1 μM EBL + 1 μM Brz

0.093 ± 0.0012e

nd

2.009 ± 0.057d

0.1 μM EBL + 10 μM Brz

nd

nd

1.257 ± 0.0323fg

1 μM Brz + 0.001 μM EBL

0.056 ± 0.0014h

nd

1.371 ± 0.0687f

1 μM Brz + 0.01 μM EBL

0.071 ± 0.0022fg

nd

1.709 ± 0.0844e

1 μM Brz + 0.1 μM EBL

0.093 ± 0.0012e

nd

2.009 ± 0.057d

1 μM Brz + 1 μM EBL

0.075 ± 0.0007f

nd

1.276 ± 0.0659fg

1 μM Brz + 10 μM EBL

0.069 ± 0.0007g

nd

1.146 ± 0.047gh

Treatment

Brassinosteroid (ng g−1 fresh weight)

TY

6dTY

6dCS

0

0.075 ± 0.0016g

0.074 ± 0.0005c

0.122 ± 0.003e

0.1 μM Brz

0.062 ± 0.0004h

0.027 ± 0.0007g

0.109 ± 0.0027f

1 μM Brz

0.048 ± 0.002ij

0.015 ± 0.0002h

0.046 ± 0.0011i

10 μM Brz

0.022 ± 0.0006k

0.009 ± 0.0001i

nd

0.001 μM EBL

0.096 ± 0.0008e

0.069 ± 0.0031d

0.132 ± 0.0049d

0.01 μM EBL

0.181 ± 0.0071b

0.122 ± 0.0016b

0.173 ± 0.0032b

0.1 μM EBL

0.317 ± 0.0095a

0.178 ± 0.0072a

0.216 ± 0.0064a

1 μM EBL

0.121 ± 0.0031c

nd

nd

10 μM EBL

0.079 ± 0.001fg

nd

nd

0.1 μM EBL + 0.1 μM Brz

0.109 ± 0.0028d

0.048 ± 0.0009e

0.146 ± 0.0055c

0.1 μM EBL + 1 μM Brz

0.084 ± 0.0036f

0.037 ± 0.0009f

0.087 ± 0.002g

0.1 μM EBL + 10 μM Brz

nd

nd

nd

1 μM Brz + 0.001 μM EBL

0.048 ± 0.0011ij

0.028 ± 0.0005g

0.052 ± 0.0015i

1 μM Brz + 0.01 μM EBL

0.054 ± 0.0016i

0.031 ± 0.0008g

0.072 ± 0.0005h

1 μM Brz + 0.1 μM EBL

0.084 ± 0.0036f

0.037 ± 0.0009f

0.087 ± 0.002g

1 μM Brz + 1 μM EBL

0.065 ± 0.0027h

nd

nd

1 μM Brz + 10 μM EBL

0.044 ± 0.0005j

nd

nd

Data represent the mean (n = 8)  ±  standard deviation (SD). Means  ±  SD connected by the same letter are not significantly different (p ≥ 0.05) according to Tukey’s post hoc test; data were grouped according to treatments of each compound

nd not detected

Table 2

Endogenous content of brassinosteroids in barley roots treated with brassinazole and/or 24-epibrassinolide

Treatment

Brassinosteroid (ng g−1 fresh weight)

CS

ECS

BL

0

1.38 ± 0.0348de

0.057 ± 0.0024d

0.043 ± 0.0004g

0.1 μM Brz

1.379 ± 0.0669de

0.057 ± 0.0005d

0.043 ± 0.0023g

1 μM Brz

1.380 ± 0.0221de

0.056 ± 0.0025d

0.043 ± 0.0014g

10 μM Brz

1.102 ± 0.0386f

0.034 ± 0.0018f

0.028 ± 0.0015h

0.001 μM EBL

1.372 ± 0.0654e

0.056 ± 0.0012d

0.043 ± 0.0023g

0.01 μM EBL

1.381 ± 0.0513de

0.057 ± 0.0031d

0.041 ± 0.0013g

0.1 μM EBL

1.528 ± 0.057bc

0.072 ± 0.0031b

0.070 ± 0.003d

1 μM EBL

1.113 ± 0.0077f

0.028 ± 0.0012g

0.029 ± 0.0002h

10 μM EBL

0.985 ± 0.0161g

0.012 ± 0.0001h

0.015 ± 0.0006i

0.1 μM EBL + 0.1 μM Brz

1.361 ± 0.0108e

0.042 ± 0.0009e

0.041 ± 0.0003g

0.1 μM EBL + 1 μM Brz

1.689 ± 0.0128a

0.082 ± 0.0018a

0.098 ± 0.0021a

0.1 μM EBL + 10 μM Brz

1.458 ± 0.0375cd

0.064 ± 0.0025c

0.082 ± 0.0018b

1 μM Brz + 0.001 μM EBL

1.442 ± 0.0367de

0.062 ± 0.0013c

0.058 ± 0.0032e

1 μM Brz + 0.01 μM EBL

1.561 ± 0.0109b

0.078 ± 0.0032a

0.076 ± 0.0025c

1 μM Brz + 0.1 μM EBL

1.689 ± 0.0128a

0.082 ± 0.0018a

0.098 ± 0.0021a

1 μM Brz + 1 μM EBL

1.410 ± 0.0374de

0.063 ± 0.0031c

0.049 ± 0.001f

1 μM Brz + 10 μM EBL

1.395 ± 0.011de

0.059 ± 0.0026cd

0.044 ± 0.0004fg

Treatment

Brassinosteroid (ng g−1 fresh weight)

EBL

HBL

CT

0

0.009 ± 0.0002d

0.123 ± 0.0022f

1.053 ± 0.0487de

0.1 μM Brz

0.009 ± 0.0004de

0.123 ± 0.003f

1.052 ± 0.0381de

1 μM Brz

0.009 ± 0.0001d

0.123 ± 0.0031f

1.051 ± 0.0482de

10 μM Brz

0.006 ± 0.00004f

0.098 ± 0.0008g

0.759 ± 0.0114f

0.001 μM EBL

0.009 ± 0.0001de

0.123 ± 0.0016f

1.052 ± 0.0173de

0.01 μM EBL

0.009 ± 0.0001de

0.123 ± 0.0007f

1.052 ± 0.0236de

0.1 μM EBL

0.012 ± 0.0002c

0.198 ± 0.0077b

1.214 ± 0.0073b

1 μM EBL

0.008 ± 0.0004ef

0.102 ± 0.0007g

1.035 ± 0.0469de

10 μM EBL

0.005 ± 0.00004g

0.096 ± 0.0023g

1.016 ± 0.0451e

0.1 μM EBL + 0.1 μM Brz

0.009 ± 0.0003de

0.118 ± 0.001f

1.048 ± 0.0061de

0.1 μM EBL + 1 μM Brz

0.034  ± 0.0014a

0.225 ± 0.0119a

1.354 ± 0.0677a

0.1 μM EBL + 10 μM Brz

0.021 ± 0.0006b

0.189 ± 0.0076bc

1.185 ± 0.0079bc

1 μM Brz + 0.001 μM EBL

0.012 ± 0.0003c

0.154 ± 0.0025d

1.072 ± 0.0273de

1 μM Brz + 0.01 μM EBL

0.021 ± 0.0009b

0.182 ± 0.0093c

1.121 ± 0.014cd

1 μM Brz + 0.1 μM EBL

0.034 ± 0.0014a

0.225 ± 0.0119a

1.354 ± 0.0677a

1 μM Brz + 1 μM EBL

0.012 ± 0.0005c

0.142 ± 0.0073de

1.075 ± 0.0409de

1 μM Brz + 10 μM EBL

0.010 ± 0.0001d

0.130 ± 0.0055ef

1.068 ± 0.0497de

Treatment

Brassinosteroid (ng g−1 fresh weight)

TY

6dTY

6dCS

0

0.038 ± 0.0004e

0.186 ± 0.0038fg

0.036 ± 0.0007e

0.1 μM Brz

0.037 ± 0.002e

0.186 ± 0.0026fg

0.036 ± 0.002e

1 μM Brz

0.038 ± 0.0016e

0.186 ± 0.0022fg

0.037 ± 0.0003de

10 μM Brz

0.021 ± 0.0011g

0.114 ± 0.0018i

0.011 ± 0.0003gh

0.001 μM EBL

0.037 ± 0.002e

0.186 ± 0.0055fg

0.037 ± 0.0007de

0.01 μM EBL

0.038 ± 0.0016e

0.186 ± 0.0045fg

0.036 ± 0.0003de

0.1 μM EBL

0.059 ± 0.0019b

0.201 ± 0.0011de

0.048 ± 0.0005c

1 μM EBL

0.015 ± 0.0003h

0.150 ± 0.0036h

0.014 ± 0.0007g

10 μM EBL

0.009 ± 0.0005i

0.110 ± 0.0022i

0.009 ± 0.0002h

0.1 μM EBL + 0.1 μM Brz

0.036 ± 0.002e

0.178 ± 0.0044g

0.031 ± 0.001f

0.1 μM EBL + 1 μM Brz

0.078 ± 0.0008a

0.389 ± 0.0055a

0.061 ± 0.0006a

0.1 μM EBL + 10 μM Brz

0.051 ± 0.0028c

0.264 ± 0.0052c

0.052 ± 0.0022b

1 μM Brz + 0.001 μM EBL

0.045 ± 0.0014d

0.210 ± 0.0083d

0.048 ± 0.0022c

1 μM Brz + 0.01 μM EBL

0.052 ± 0.0011c

0.292 ± 0.0051b

0.052 ± 0.0023b

1 μM Brz + 0.1 μM EBL

0.078 ± 0.0008a

0.389 ± 0.0055a

0.061 ± 0.0006a

1 μM Brz + 1 μM EBL

0.027 ± 0.0011f

0.202 ± 0.0067d

0.039 ± 0.0021d

1 μM Brz + 10 μM EBL

0.022 ± 0.0004g

0.192 ± 0.0012ef

0.035 ± 0.0019e

Data represent the mean (n = 8) ± standard deviation (SD). Means ± SD connected by the same letter are not significantly different (p ≥ 0.05) according to Tukey’s post hoc test; data were grouped according to treatments of each compound)

Table 3

Comparison of chromatographic and MS properties between standards and endogenous brassinosteroids

 

CT (Rt 7.25 min)

BL (Rt 7.89 min)

EBL (Rt 8.27 min)

Standard

Endogenous

Standard

Endogenous

Standard

Endogenous

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

Isotopic pattern of [M + H]+

433.3683

34.13

433.3679

32.16

609.4298

22.15

609.4290

24.03

609.4296

22.45

609.4287

25.04

434.3719

100.00

434.3719

100.00

610.4292

100.00

610.4280

100.00

610.4290

100.00

610.4281

100.00

435.3707

20.97

435.3825

20.20

611.4313

35.64

611.4305

38.13

611.4312

35.70

611.4305

36.32

Characteristic fragment ions

118.1259

55.57

118.1267

42.23

118.1264

32.86

118.1271

32.70

118.1266

24.26

118.1263

25.87

127.0772

13.90

127.0771

18.41

122.0867

13.10

122.0866

15.41

122.0868

7.41

122.0866

7.06

131.1375

17.37

131.1381

21.05

129.1071

25.69

129.1074

26.65

129.1072

18.34

129.1078

17.99

139.1125

11.51

139.1127

19.23

130.1486

6.44

130.1471

7.30

130.1484

4.38

130.1486

6.35

145.1379

9.40

145.1385

6.53

139.1274

7.33

139.1277

8.90

139.1282

5.33

139.1287

5.83

155.1219

11.91

155.1201

18.38

141.1046

6.78

141.1075

7.91

141.1052

4.77

141.1065

6.12

170.1340

10.70

170.1315

15.53

144.9720

21.99

144.9781

21.15

144.9719

18.08

144.9715

19.67

184.9906

34.04

184.9914

41.74

155.1203

6.23

155.1225

5.41

155.1203

4.49

155.1211

6.49

195.1218

14.56

195.1207

11.29

158.9658

11.14

158.9662

14.96

158.9657

8.99

158.9646

10.47

217.1084

12.31

217.1088

20.45

166.1081

25.55

166.1068

22.62

166.0927

7.95

166.0929

9.73

223.9904

18.07

223.9909

26.10

173.1697

9.48

173.1689

10.96

173.1703

6.94

173.1734

6.08

262.1826

18.80

262.1820

11.69

184.9907

15.37

184.9904

15.10

184.9912

10.46

184.9915

12.01

284.3338

14.53

284.3333

7.24

195.1207

6.84

195.1207

6.91

195.1209

5.05

195.1203

6.15

425.2160

13.82

425.2155

10.48

217.1094

6.68

217.1086

7.13

217.1097

4.90

195.1208

16.91

    

262.1784

12.56

262.1785

14.68

234.2242

3.86

234.2248

5.47

    

284.3329

7.12

284.3325

9.91

262.1810

20.20

262.1827

22.02

        

284.3329

5.12

284.3349

7.36

 

CS (Rt 9.75 min)

ECS (Rt 10.43 min)

HBL (Rt 9.85 min)

Standard

Endogenous

Standard

Endogenous

Standard

Endogenous

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

Isotopic pattern of [M + H]+

593.4347

21.60

593.4339

25.18

623.4455

22.28

623.4449

24.05

593.4346

22.22

593.4344

19.25

594.4343

100.00

594.4328

100.00

624.4446

100.00

624.4439

100.00

594.4339

100.00

594.4336

100.00

595.4360

34.00

595.4349

36.34

625.4464

37.10

625.4460

37.23

595.4359

35.63

595.4356

32.79

Characteristic fragment ions

118.1267

67.03

118.1263

83.83

118.1266

90.62

118.1262

80.19

118.1259

42.19

118.1257

43.83

121.0555

8.24

121.0557

3.80

121.0556

15.59

121.0554

14.91

121.0552

5.60

121.0553

4.78

128.1104

23.91

128.1100

18.64

139.1127

6.66

139.1127

7.03

128.1102

15.65

128.1106

20.03

132.1057

11.03

132.1059

13.81

143.9631

20.28

143.9635

18.45

132.1063

7.10

132.1060

18.14

144.9719

37.86

144.9718

22.14

146.9856

31.58

146.9850

28.62

144.9718

27.64

144.9719

21.55

155.1204

12.21

155.1195

15.21

155.1204

15.64

155.1193

14.76

155.1206

8.00

155.1198

10.09

159.1537

16.97

159.1532

17.91

158.1331

7.42

158.1322

9.49

159.1525

11.71

159.1530

7.50

171.1551

10.86

171.1532

6.88

166.1072

42.72

166.1079

22.18

171.1546

6.67

171.1537

10.33

184.9745

33.63

184.9745

20.57

173.1699

25.34

173.1691

24.48

184.9745

23.05

184.9751

15.37

186.9840

15.85

186.9837

17.11

184.9913

53.17

184.9914

47.24

186.9829

17.77

186.9837

22.15

195.1209

13.22

195.1205

15.88

194.1211

15.23

194.1204

12.62

195.1209

8.00

195.1211

4.22

217.1085

14.29

217.1101

10.97

217.1087

19.08

217.1082

15.98

217.1094

8.70

217.1091

17.62

223.9906

12.65

223.9907

16.43

223.9910

17.44

223.9912

15.57

223.9904

7.65

223.9901

22.45

262.1823

18.10

262.1817

25.11

262.1825

24.37

262.1821

19.88

262.1822

12.46

262.1819

15.10

284.3335

23.93

284.3336

29.04

284.3330

19.08

284.3336

17.18

284.3323

9.00

284.3338

5.19

368.4244

25.21

368.4243

31.07

368.4246

20.76

368.4253

15.99

368.4244

8.23

368.4249

17.62

 

TY (Rt 15.52 min)

6dCS (Rt 18.89 min)

6dTY (Rt 34.89 min)

Standard

Endogenous

Standard

Endogenous

Standard

Endogenous

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

m/z

Relative abundance (%)

Isotopic pattern of [M + H]+

577.4406

22.15

577.4412

21.85

579.4568

22.23

579.4564

22.63

563.4603

23.88

563.4591

22.60

578.4392

100.00

578.4388

100.00

580.4552

100.00

580.4548

100.00

564.4591

100.00

564.4584

100.00

579.4411

35.81

579.4425

35.74

581.4573

36.23

581.4569

36.13

565.4617

36.49

565.4611

37.99

Characteristic fragment ions

118.1129

7.02

118.1129

5.18

118.1128

52.99

118.1129

44.09

118.1127

6.15

118.1125

10.44

125.0979

36.60

125.0979

28.68

121.0555

29.83

121.0555

20.47

125.0979

22.42

125.0974

18.06

128.1326

35.76

128.1339

26.93

125.0979

32.14

125.0979

27.54

128.1325

7.88

128.1342

6.75

131.1205

15.34

131.1213

11.84

130.1486

16.32

130.1487

13.59

131.1207

25.66

131.1211

21.30

139.1277

23.61

139.1277

18.38

139.1127

17.11

139.1128

14.80

139.1230

16.11

139.1231

25.33

143.9634

14.18

143.9629

11.12

144.9865

56.53

144.9865

43.94

143.9635

20.93

143.9628

31.15

146.9849

32.16

146.9855

24.11

158.1588

5.80

158.1589

8.87

146.9848

17.55

146.9851

27.10

155.1194

17.35

155.1188

13.57

173.1537

19.66

173.1539

16.94

155.1190

9.81

155.1188

17.99

159.1528

26.75

159.1536

21.11

184.9904

21.42

184.9744

12.97

159.1532

31.70

159.1537

35.30

173.1538

23.16

173.1538

17.68

195.1228

15.46

195.1233

12.11

173.1537

9.47

173.1540

18.50

184.9908

37.92

184.9909

29.36

217.1094

22.40

217.1100

18.34

184.9911

30.14

184.9909

25.22

186.9847

14.60

186.9851

11.01

262.1814

32.17

262.1814

26.75

186.9852

20.04

186.9849

16.28

195.1225

17.10

195.1223

8.73

284.3326

16.54

284.3334

9.07

195.1225

21.23

195.1221

9.21

217.1091

24.38

217.1089

18.14

    

217.1092

33.10

217.1089

16.68

262.1819

33.95

262.1812

25.33

    

262.1815

26.21

262.1817

9.47

284.3333

18.54

284.3339

14.46

    

284.3337

5.77

284.3344

15.35

The influence of different treatments on BR accumulation in barley leaves was investigated (Fig. 2, Table 1). According to the results, the application of Brz (0.1–10 µM) significantly decreased the content of BRs (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2a). The content of BRs decreased gradually with the increasing concentrations of Brz, reaching the lowest level in seedlings treated with 10 µM Brz in relation to the control. For example, the content of BL decreased by 81% compared to untreated seedlings. In the range of concentrations 0.001–0.1 µM, the EBL had a stimulatory effect on the content of BRs in the leaves. However, the 1–10 µM EBL had an opposite effect, i.e. ECS, EBLS, HBL, 6dTY and 6dCS had not been detected in plants treated with 10 µM EBL (Fig. 2b).
Fig. 2

Endogenous content of brassinosteroids in barley leaves treated with: (a) brassinazole (Brz), (b) 24-epibrassinolide (EBL), (c and d) Brz and/or EBL vs. control. Bars show the mean with the respective standard deviation. Means (n = 8) with at least one letter the same are not significantly different (p ≥ 0.05) according to Tukey’s post hoc test (data were grouped according to concentration)

Application of 0.1 µM EBL had a slightly stimulatory effect on synthesis of BL and CS in seedlings treated with 0.1 µM Brz. Combination of 0.1 µM EBL and 1 µM Brz caused a slight decrease of CT, EBL, TY, 6dTY and 6dCS contents in relation to the control. However, in plants treated with 1 µM EBL and 10 µM Brz at least 30% decrease in BR content was reported (Fig. 2c, Table 1). Inhibition effect of 1 µM Brz on the BR content was restored by application of EBL at the range of concentrations 0.001–1 µM. In seedlings treated with the mixture of 1 µM Brz and 0.1 µM EBL the content of BRs was very similar to the control (Fig. 2d). Total inhibition of synthesis of ECS, HBL and 6dCS was noted in plants treated with 10 µM Brz and this effect had not been restored by the application of EBL (Table 1).

In opposite to what was observed in the leaves, the Brz treatment in the range of concentration from 0.1 to 1 µM did not exert significant influence on the content of BRs in the roots. However, the highest 10 µM concentration of Brz led to the decreased BR content (Fig. 3a).
Fig. 3

Endogenous content of brassinosteroids in barley roots treated with: (a) brassinazole (Brz), (b) 24-epibrassinolide (EBL), (c and d) Brz and/or EBL vs. control. Bars show the mean with the respective standard deviation. Means (n = 8) with at least one letter the same are not significantly different (p ≥ 0.05) according to Tukey’s post hoc test (data were grouped according to concentration)

The effect of EBL in the range 0.001–10 µM on the BR content is shown in Table 2 and Fig. 3b. A significant (p < 0.05) increase was found after application of 0.1 µM EBL. By contrast, treatment with 1–10 µM EBL resulted in inhibition of BR accumulation compared to the control or other EBL concentrations. However, the EBL treatment in 0.001–0.01 µM did not alter the endogenous levels of BRs, which were very similar to those of the control.

Addition of different combination of Brz and EBL concentrations overcame the inhibitory effect of Brz. The most effective on the content of BRs was a mixture of 0.1 µM EBL with 1 µM Brz. Furthermore, plants treated with 0.1 µM EBL and 10 µM Brz had higher level of 6dTY compared to the control and plants treated with 0.1 µM EBL alone. The combination of 0.1 µM EBL and 0.1 µM Brz appeared not to affect the BR level as compared to the control. Application of 1–10 µM EBL and 1 µM Brz had no influence on the endogenous content of BRs. However, combined treatment with 0.001–0.01 µM EBL and 1 µM Brz appeared to have a stimulatory effect on the BR content as compared to the control and seedlings treated with 1 µM Brz alone.

Discussion

BRs are commonly found in plants at very low concentrations. The presence of BRs has been confirmed both in monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous, as well as in algae, pteridophytes, gymnosperms. The largest amounts of BRs are present in the generative parts of plants, e.g. in pollen, fruits and seeds, but in fact the amount of BR varies considerably, and it may depend on the species and even the variety. The content of BRs in stems is in the range of 0.12–2 ng g−1 FW; however, in roots the levels are one magnitude lower, i.e. 0.05 ng g−1 FW (Bajguz and Tretyn 2003).

In plants of the Poaceae family, BRs have been found so far in rice (Oryza sativa) (Abe et al. 1984, 1995; Park et al. 1994; Suzuki et al. 1995; Wu et al. 2008; Asahina et al. 2014), maize (Zea mays) (Gamoh et al. 1990; Suzuki et al. 1986; Kim et al. 2005), wheat (Triticum aestivum) (Yokota et al. 1994; Janeczko et al. 2010; Janeczko and Swaczynova 2010), rye (Secale cereale) (Schmidt et al. 1995; Antonchick et al. 2003, 2005), barley (Janeczko et al. 2011; Dockter et al. 2014) as well as in canary grass (Phalaris canariensis) (Shimada et al. 1996) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) (Taylor et al. 1993).

There are significant differences between types of BRs and their concentrations in different cereal species. The most widely distributed BRs in Poaceae are CS, BL, TY, 6dTY, TE and 6dTE. The levels and the profiles of BRs in Poaceae vary and there are many factors that modify them. Differences have been found between individual families, plant species and cultivars as well as between plant organs (Asahina et al. 2014). Recent reports showed that few BRs have been identified in leaves of barley cultivars, i.e. BL, CS in cv. Sezam (Janeczko et al. 2011); CS, EBL and 28-homocastasterone (HCS) in cv. Bowman (Dockter et al. 2014; Gruszka et al. 2016a); CS in cv. Delisa (Gruszka et al. 2016b). In the present study, we detected more BRs, i.e. BL, EBL, HBL, CS, ECS, CT, TY 6dTY and 6dCS both in the leaves and roots of cv. Golden Promise. The three BL, CT and CS are dominating in leaves, while the two CS and CT in roots. The present work revealed that some of the early and the late C-6 oxidation pathway metabolites were also detected. Because some of the BRs have not been analysed yet, i.e. 6dCT, 6dTE, 6-deoxo-3DT, TE and 3DT, there is no evidence which pathway is dominating in leaves and in roots. However, the results showed that the biosynthetic pathways of BRs also operate in barley seedlings of cv. Golden Promise.

It is known that bioactive BRs can be inactivated via different reactions including hydroxylation, glycosylation, sulfonation, demethylation, epimerization, esterification, dehydrogenation and side-chain cleavage at multiple positions (Bajguz 2007). Present results showed that two epimers of BRs, i.e. EBL and ECS, were present in trace amounts. In the future, additional investigation will be required to reveal next downstream metabolites of BR biosynthetic pathways in this plant.

BRs regulate many aspects of plant growth and development. To examine the occurrence and functions of endogenous BRs in barley seedlings, we tested the action of the BR biosynthesis inhibitor—Brz. Barley growth (Fig. 1) and the composition of BRs were modified in leaves treated with Brz (Table 1). However, the inhibition could be reversed by the exogenous treatment with EBL. Similarly, it was also reported that Brz induced dwarfism and curly phenotypes in soybean (Glycine max) (Mazorra et al. 2004), dark-green leaves in light-grown cress (Lepidium sativum), cucumber (Cucumis sativus), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) (Nagata et al. 2001; Sekimata et al. 2001) and inhibition of Wolffia arrhiza growth (Bajguz and Asami 2005).

In cereals, the content and the profile of BRs were influenced by the exogenous application of BRs (Janeczko and Swaczynova 2010). The impact of BR treatment on fluctuations of endogenous BR content may be explained by alterations of intermediate steps of BR metabolism or the direct influence on the biosynthetic pathways (Joo et al. 2015).

Both pre-sowing soaking of the seeds or spraying the plants in the heading phase with an aqueous solution containing traces of ethanol increased the content of BL as well as ECS relative to the content of these compounds in the untreated seeds (Janeczko et al. 2010). Similarly to these results, EBL treatment (0.001–0.1 µM) also increased the endogenous content of BRs in seedlings of cv. Golden Promise but decreased BRs level when applied in higher concentrations, i.e. 1–10 µM. The treatment of seeds or plants also affected the BRs’ profile in the newly emerging grains. BRs are most often applied as a spray on the aerial parts of plants (Kroutil et al. 2010), while application through the root system (Janeczko and Swaczynova 2010) or through pre-sowing soaking of the seeds are less often reported (Sairam 1994).

It has been found that the uptake and transport of the exogenous BRs depend on the application method (Symons et al. 2008). More efficient BR uptake and subsequently BR transport were associated with root application because roots’ function is to uptake substances from the soil solution. The application of EBL to roots led to twofold increase of the endogenous content of EBL in the leaves compared to the control. Furthermore, the amount of EBL increased threefold after the application of a 20-fold higher concentration in leaves (Janeczko and Swaczynova 2010). Presented results indicate that application of EBL to hydroponically cultured seedlings of barley has affected the content of BRs in leaves and roots in a dose-dependent manner. Effective BR transport applies only to hydroponic cultures, where direct and permanent contact of the solution with the root is ensured. Therefore, this study confirms that the exogenous BR could effectively either stimulate or inhibit the biosynthesis of BRs.

Present results revealed that the exogenous application of EBL at high concentrations (1–10 µM) inhibits the elongation of barley seedlings and root growth. Similarly, the bean second internode bioassay shows that application of high BR concentration resulted in the inhibition of growth (Thompson et al. 1981; Swaczynová et al. 2006). On the other hand, low concentration of BR exerts a growth-promoting effect in stems of seedlings and young plants (Horvath et al. 2003). The effect of BRs on root growth depends on the applied BR concentration, i.e. low concentrations can stimulate primary root growth, while higher ones can inhibit it (Roddick 1994; Haubrick and Assmann 2006). EBL has an inhibitory effect on root formation in mung bean (Vigna radiata), wheat, maize, tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Arabidopsis seedlings (Guan and Roddick 1988a, b; Roddick and Ikekawa 1992; Clouse et al. 1993; Roddick et al. 1993).

Auxin and BRs are known for their interdependence and demonstration of synergistic interactions in promoting mesocotyl elongation in maize seedlings (Kutschera and Wang 2016). Despite the fact that the cross regulation between these phytohormones has been observed at several levels, including auxin activation of BR biosynthetic genes, BR regulation of the expression levels of auxin transporters and BIN2 phosphorylation of ARF2, its mechanisms appear unclear and insufficient to explain their mutual interdependence (Oh et al. 2014). It is also known that BR not only does regulate cell elongation by modulating gibberellin (GA) metabolism in rice, but also promotes the accumulation of GA by regulating the expression of its metabolic genes to stimulate cell elongation. Low BR concentrations induce GA biosynthesis and inhibit GA inactivation, causing increased GA levels and cell elongation; however, high concentrations induce GA inactivation and the inhibition of cell elongation. In contrast, low GA concentrations repress BR signalling as well as biosynthesise BR through a feedback mechanism. Furthermore, high GA concentrations can activate BR signalling pathway to facilitate cell elongation (Tong et al. 2014). Further research is required to explain the effect of interaction between BRs and other phytohormones on the level of these compounds in barley seedlings.

Author contribution statement

AB and WO conceived the study and wrote the manuscript. AB and AG performed the barley cultivation. AB assembled photographic documentation and performed statistical analysis. AB, MC, and AG performed the brassinosteroid extraction. AP-N performed the interpretation of LC–MS data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project has been financed from the funds of the National Science Centre allocated on the basis of the decision number DEC-2014/13/B/NZ9/02381. This work was funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education as part of subsidies for maintaining research potential awarded to the Faculty of Biology and Chemistry of the University of Bialystok. The equipment of Center BioNanoTecho University of Bialystok (Q-TOF LC/MS) was partly supported by EU funds via Project number POPW.01.03.00-20-004/11.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial relationships, and there was no potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abe H, Nakamura K, Morishita T, Uchiyama M, Takatsuto S, Ikekawa N (1984) Endogenous brassinosteroids of the rice plant—castasterone and dolichosterone. Agr Biol Chem 48:1103–1104.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00021369.1984.10866278 Google Scholar
  2. Abe H, Takatsuto S, Nakayama M, Yokota T (1995) 28-Homotyphasterol, a new natural brassinosteroid from rice (Oryza sativa L.) bran. Biosci Biotech Bioch 59:176–178.  https://doi.org/10.1271/Bbb.59.176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonchick AP, Schneider B, Zhabinskii VN, Konstantinova OV, Khripach VA (2003) Biosynthesis of 2,3-epoxybrassinosteroids in seedlings of Secale cereale. Phytochemistry 63:771–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonchick A, Svatos A, Schneider B, Konstantinova OV, Zhabinskii VN, Khripach VA (2005) 2,3-Epoxybrassinosteroids are intermediates in the biosynthesis of castasterone in seedlings of Secale cereale. Phytochemistry 66:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asahina M, Tamaki Y, Sakamoto T, Shibata K, Nomura T, Yokota T (2014) Blue light-promoted rice leaf bending and unrolling are due to up-regulated brassinosteroid biosynthesis genes accompanied by accumulation of castasterone. Phytochemistry 104:21–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2014.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asami T, Yoshida S (1999) Brassinosteroid biosynthesis inhibitors. Trends Plant Sci 4:348–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(99)01456-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asami T, Min YK, Nagata N, Yamagishi K, Takatsuto S, Fujioka S, Murofushi N, Yamaguchi I, Yoshida S (2000) Characterization of brassinazole, a triazole-type brassinosteroid biosynthesis inhibitor. Plant Physiol 123:93–99.  https://doi.org/10.1104/Pp.123.1.93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asami T, Mizutani M, Shimada Y, Goda H, Kitahata N, Sekimata K, Han SY, Fujioka S, Takatsuto S, Sakata K, Yoshida S (2003) Triadimefon, a fungicidal triazole-type P450 inhibitor, induces brassinosteroid deficiency-like phenotypes in plants and binds to DWF4 protein in the brassinosteroid biosynthesis pathway. Biochem J 369:71–76.  https://doi.org/10.1042/Bj20020835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bajguz A, Tretyn A (2003) The chemical characteristic and distribution of brassinosteroids in plants. Phytochemistry 62:1027–1046.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(02)00656-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bajguz A, Asami T (2005) Suppression of Wolffia arrhiza growth by brassinazole, an inhibitor of brassinosteroid biosynthesis and its restoration by endogenous 24-epibrassinolide. Phytochemistry 66:1787–1796.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2005.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kanwar MK, Bajguz A, Zhou J, Bhardwaj R (2017) Analysis of brassinosteroids in plants. J Plant Growth Regul 36:1002–1030.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-017-9732-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bajguz A (2007) Metabolism of brassinosteroids in plants. Plant Physiol Bioch 45:95–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2007.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caban M, Migowska N, Stepnowski P, Kwiatkowski M, Kumirska J (2012) Matrix effects and recovery calculations in analyses of pharmaceuticals based on the determination of β-blockers and β-agonists in environmental samples. J Chromatogr A 1258:117–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2012.08.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bajguz A, Piotrowska-Niczyporuk A (2014) Brassinosteroids implicated in growth and stress responses. In: Tran L-SP, Pal S (eds) Phytohormones: a window to metabolism, signaling and biotechnological applications. Springer, New York, pp 163–190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0491-4_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chung Y, Choe S (2013) The regulation of brassinosteroid biosynthesis in Arabidopsis. Crit Rev Plant Sci 32:396–410.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2013.797856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clouse SD, Hall AF, Langford M, Mcmorris TC, Baker ME (1993) Physiological and molecular effects of brassinosteroids on Arabidopsis thaliana. J Plant Growth Regul 12:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. da Silva LJ (2010) Laercio-package: Duncan test, Tukey test and Scott-Knott test. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=laercio. Accessed 20 Feb 2015
  18. Dockter C, Gruszka D, Braumann I, Druka A, Druka I, Franckowiak J, Gough SP, Janeczko A, Kurowska M, Lundqvist J, Lundqvist U, Marzec M, Matyszczak I, Muller AH, Oklestkova J, Schulz B, Zakhrabekova S, Hansson M (2014) Induced variations in brassinosteroid genes define barley height and sturdiness, and expand the green revolution genetic toolkit. Plant Physiol 166:1912–1927.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.114.250738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R Companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  20. Gamoh K, Okamoto N, Takatsuto S, Tejima I (1990) Determination of traces of natural brassinosteroids as dansylaminophenylboronates by liquid chromatography with fluorimetric detection. Anal Chim Acta 228:101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gruszka D, Gorniak M, Glodowska E, Wierus E, Oklestkova J, Janeczko A, Maluszynski M, Szarejko I (2016a) A reverse-genetics mutational analysis of the barley HvDWARF gene results in identification of a series of alleles and mutants with short stature of various degree and disturbance in BR biosynthesis allowing a new insight into the process. Int J Mol Sci 17:600.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17040600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gruszka D, Janeczko A, Dziurka M, Pociecha E, Oklestkova J, Szarejko I (2016b) Barley brassinosteroid mutants provide an insight into phytohormonal homeostasis in plant reaction to drought stress. Front Plant Sci 7:1824.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guan M, Roddick JG (1988a) Comparison of the effects of epibrassinolide and steroidal estrogens on adventitious root growth and early shoot development in mung bean cuttings. Physiol Plantarum 73:426–431.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1988.tb00621.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guan M, Roddick JG (1988b) Epibrassinolide-inhibition of development of excised, adventitious and intact roots of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum): comparison with the effects of steroidal estrogens. Physiol Plantarum 74:720–726.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1988.tb02043.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haubrick LL, Assmann SM (2006) Brassinosteroids and plant function: some clues, more puzzles. Plant Cell Environ 29:446–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horvath DP, Schaffer R, West M, Wisman E (2003) Arabidopsis microarrays identify conserved and differentially expressed genes involved in shoot growth and development from distantly related plant species. Plant J 34:125–134.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2003.01706.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janeczko A, Swaczynova J (2010) Endogenous brassinosteroids in wheat treated with 24-epibrassinolide. Biol Plantarum 54:477–482.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10535-010-0084-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Janeczko A, Biesaga-Koscielniak J, Oklest’kova J, Filek M, Dziurka M, Szarek-Lukaszewska G, Koscielniak J (2010) Role of 24-epibrassinolide in wheat production: physiological effects and uptake. J Agron Crop Sci 196:311–321.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2009.00413.x Google Scholar
  29. Janeczko A, Oklestkova J, Pociecha E, Koscielniak J, Mirek M (2011) Physiological effects and transport of 24-epibrassinolide in heat-stressed barley. Acta Physiol Plant 33:1249–1259.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-010-0655-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joo S-H, Jang M-S, Kim MK, Lee J-E, Kim S-K (2015) Biosynthetic relationship between C28-brassinosteroids and C29-brassinosteroids in rice (Oryza sativa) seedlings. Phytochemistry 111:84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim YS, Kim TW, Kim SK (2005) Brassinosteroids are inherently biosynthesized in the primary roots of maize, Zea mays L. Phytochemistry 66:1000–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kroutil M, Hejtmánková A, Lachman J (2010) Effect of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) treatment with brassinosteroids on the content of cadmium and lead in plant aerial biomass and grain. Plant Soil Environ 56:43–50.  https://doi.org/10.17221/148/2009-PSE CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kutschera U, Wang ZY (2012) Brassinosteroid action in flowering plants: a Darwinian perspective. J Exp Bot 63:3511–3522.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kutschera U, Wang ZY (2016) Growth-limiting proteins in maize coleoptiles and the auxin-brassinosteroid hypothesis of mesocotyl elongation. Protoplasma 253:3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-015-0787-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazorra LM, Nunez M, Napoles MC, Yoshida S, Robaina C, Coll F, Asami T (2004) Effects of structural analogs of brassinosteroids on the recovery of growth inhibition by a specific brassinosteroid biosynthesis inhibitor. Plant Growth Regul 44:183–185.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:Grow.0000049412.30708.D3 Google Scholar
  36. Nagata N, Asami T, Yoshida S (2001) Brassinazole, an inhibitor of brassinosteroid biosynthesis, inhibits development of secondary xylem in cress plants (Lepidium sativum). Plant Cell Physiol 42:1006–1011.  https://doi.org/10.1093/Pcp/Pce122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oh E, Zhu JY, Bai MY, Arenhart RA, Sun Y, Wang ZY (2014) Cell elongation is regulated through a central circuit of interacting transcription factors in the Arabidopsis hypocotyl. Elife 3:e03031.  https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.03031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Park KH, Park JD, Hyun KH, Nakayama M, Yokota T (1994) Brassinosteroids and monoglycerides with brassinosteroid-like activity in immature seeds of Oryza sativa and Perilla frutescens and in cultured cells of Nicotiana tabacum. Biosci Biotech Bioch 58:2241–2243.  https://doi.org/10.1271/Bbb.58.2241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R version 3.5.2, Eggshell Igloo). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 20 Dec 2018
  40. Roddick JG (1994) Comparative root-growth inhibitory activity of 4 brassinosteroids. Phytochemistry 37:1277–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roddick JG, Ikekawa N (1992) Modification of root and shoot development in monocotyledon and dicotyledon seedlings by 24-epibrassinolide. J Plant Physiol 140:70–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roddick JG, Rijnenberg AL, Ikekawa N (1993) Developmental effects of 24-epibrassinolide in excised roots of tomato grown in vitro. Physiol Plantarum 87:453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sairam RK (1994) Effects of homobrassinolide application on plant metabolism and grain yield under irrigated and moisture-stress conditions of 2 wheat-varieties. Plant Growth Regul 14:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmidt J, Spengler B, Yokota T, Nakayama M, Takatsuto S, Voigt B, Adam G (1995) Secasterone, the first naturally occurring 2,3-epoxybrassinosteroid from Secale cereale. Phytochemistry 38:1095–1097.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9422(94)00797-W CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sekimata K, Kimura T, Kaneko I, Nakano T, Yoneyama K, Takeuchi Y, Yoshida S, Asami T (2001) A specific brassinosteroid biosynthesis inhibitor, Brz 2001: evaluation of its effects on Arabidopsis, cress, tobacco, and rice. Planta 213:716–721.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004250100546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shimada K, Abe H, Takatsuto S, Nakayama M, Yokota T (1996) Identification of castasterone and teasterone from seeds of canary grass (Phalaris canariensis). Rec Res Dev Chem Pharm Sci 1:1–5Google Scholar
  47. Suzuki Y, Yamaguchi I, Yokota T, Takahashi N (1986) Identification of castasterone, typhasterol and teasterone from the pollen of Zea mays. Agr Biol Chem 50:3133–3138.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00021369.1986.10867873 Google Scholar
  48. Suzuki H, Fujioka S, Takatsuto S, Yokota T, Murofushi N, Sakurai A (1995) Biosynthesis of brassinosteroids in seedlings of Catharanthus roseus, Nicotiana tabacum, and Oryza sativa. Biosci Biotech Bioch 59:168–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swaczynová J, Sisa M, Hnilickova J, Kohout L, Strnad M (2006) Synthesis, biological, immunological and anticancer properties of a new brassinosteroid ligand. Pol J Chem 80:629–636Google Scholar
  50. Symons GM, Ross JJ, Jager CE, Reid JB (2008) Brassinosteroid transport. J Exp Bot 59:17–24.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erm098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tarkowska D, Strnad M (2018) Isoprenoid-derived plant signaling molecules: biosynthesis and biological importance. Planta 247:1051–1066.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-018-2878-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor PE, Spuck K, Smith PM, Sasse JM, Yokota T, Griffiths PG, Cameron DW (1993) Detection of brassinosteroids in pollen of Lolium perenne L. by immunocytochemistry. Planta 189:91–100Google Scholar
  53. Thompson MJ, Mandava NB, Meudt WJ, Lusby WR, Spaulding DW (1981) Synthesis and biological activity of brassinolide and its 22β,23β-isomer: novel plant growth-promoting steroids. Steroids 38:567–580.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-128X(81)90055-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tong HN, Xiao YH, Liu DP, Gao SP, Liu LC, Yin YH, Jin Y, Qian Q, Chu CC (2014) Brassinosteroid regulates cell elongation by modulating gibberellin metabolism in rice. Plant Cell 26:4376–4393.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.114.132092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu CY, Trieu A, Radhakrishnan P, Kwok SF, Harris S, Zhang K, Wang JL, Wan JM, Zhai HQ, Takatsuto S, Matsumoto S, Fujioka S, Feldmann KA, Pennell RI (2008) Brassinosteroids regulate grain filling in rice. Plant Cell 20:2130–2145.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.107.055087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xin PY, Yan JJ, Fan JS, Chu JF, Yan CY (2013) An improved simplified high-sensitivity quantification method for determining brassinosteroids in different tissues of rice and Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 162:2056–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ye HX, Li L, Yin YH (2011) Recent advances in the regulation of brassinosteroid signaling and biosynthesis pathways. J Integr Plant Biol 53:455–468.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2011.01046.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yokota T, Nakayama M, Wakisaka T, Schmidt J, Adam G (1994) 3-Dehydroteasterone, a 3,6-diketobrassinosteroid as a possible biosynthetic intermediate of brassinolide form wheat grain. Biosci Biotech Bioch 58:1183–1185.  https://doi.org/10.1271/Bbb.58.1183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhabinskii VN, Khripach NB, Khripach VA (2015) Steroid plant hormones: effects outside plant kingdom. Steroids 97:87–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.steroids.2014.08.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhao BL, Li J (2012) Regulation of brassinosteroid biosynthesis and inactivation. J Integr Plant Biol 54:746–759.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2012.01168.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zullo MAT (2018) Brassinosteroids and related compounds. Lambert Academic Publishing, Beau BassinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

OpenAccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Biochemistry and ToxicologyUniversity of Bialystok, Faculty of Biology and Chemistry, Institute of BiologyBiałystokPoland
  2. 2.Department of Genetic EngineeringPlant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, National Research InstituteBloniePoland

Personalised recommendations