Advertisement

Journal of Plant Research

, Volume 131, Issue 4, pp 719–724 | Cite as

Euclidean distance can identify the mannitol level that produces the most remarkable integral effect on sugarcane micropropagation in temporary immersion bioreactors

  • Daviel Gómez
  • L.ázaro Hernández
  • Lourdes Yabor
  • Gerrit T. S. Beemster
  • Christoph C. Tebbe
  • Jutta Papenbrock
  • José Carlos Lorenzo
Technical Note

Abstract

Plant scientists usually record several indicators in their abiotic factor experiments. The common statistical management involves univariate analyses. Such analyses generally create a split picture of the effects of experimental treatments since each indicator is addressed independently. The Euclidean distance combined with the information of the control treatment could have potential as an integrating indicator. The Euclidean distance has demonstrated its usefulness in many scientific fields but, as far as we know, it has not yet been employed for plant experimental analyses. To exemplify the use of the Euclidean distance in this field, we performed an experiment focused on the effects of mannitol on sugarcane micropropagation in temporary immersion bioreactors. Five mannitol concentrations were compared: 0, 50, 100, 150 and 200 mM. As dependent variables we recorded shoot multiplication rate, fresh weight, and levels of aldehydes, chlorophylls, carotenoids and phenolics. The statistical protocol which we then carried out integrated all dependent variables to easily identify the mannitol concentration that produced the most remarkable integral effect. Results provided by the Euclidean distance demonstrate a gradually increasing distance from the control in function of increasing mannitol concentrations. 200 mM mannitol caused the most significant alteration of sugarcane biochemistry and physiology under the experimental conditions described here. This treatment showed the longest statistically significant Euclidean distance to the control treatment (2.38). In contrast, 50 and 100 mM mannitol showed the lowest Euclidean distances (0.61 and 0.84, respectively) and thus poor integrated effects of mannitol. The analysis shown here indicates that the use of the Euclidean distance can contribute to establishing a more integrated evaluation of the contrasting mannitol treatments.

Keywords

Abiotic factors Biostatistics Drought In vitro culture Saccharum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Institute of Botany (Leibniz University of Hannover, Germany), the Laboratory for Integrated Plant Physiology Research (University of Antwerp, Belgium), the Thünen Institute of Biodiversity (Braunschweig, Germany) and the Bioplant Centre (University of Ciego de Ávila, Cuba). Authors are grateful to Mrs. Bárbara Valle, Mrs. Julia Martínez, Mrs. Mariela Cid, Dr. Maritza Escalona and Dr. Martha Hernández for their important suggestions provided.

Author contributions

DG, LH, LY, GTSB, CCT, JP and JCL designed the biological and mathematical research; DG and LH conducted the experiment; DG, LH, LY, GTSB, CCT, JP and JCL wrote the paper; JCL had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflict of interests.

Human and animal rights

This research did not involve experiments with human or animal participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

References

  1. Anderson C, Kohorn B (2001) Inactivation of Arabidopsis SIP1 leads to reduced levels of sugars and drought tolerance. J Plant Physiol 158:1215–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avramova V, AbdElgawad H, Zhang Z, Fotschki B, Casadevall R, Vergauwen L, Knapen D, Taleisnik E, Guisez Y, Asard H, Beemster GTS (2015) Drought induces distinct growth response, protection and recovery mechanisms in the maize leaf growth zone. Plant Physiol 169:1382–1396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Awasthi P, Gupta AP, Bedi YS, Vishwakarma RA, Gandhi SG (2016) Mannitol stress directs flavonoid metabolism toward synthesis of flavones via differential regulation of two cytochrome p450 monooxygenases in Coleus forskohlii. Front Plant Sci 7:985CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Chao SK, Kim JE, Jong AP, Eom TJ, Kim WT (2006) Constitutive expression of abiotic stress-inducible hot pepper CaXTH3, which encodes a xyloglucan endotransglycosylase/hydrolase homolog, improves drought and salt tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis plants. FEBS Lett 580:3136–3144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Díaz-López L, Gimeno V, Simón I, Martínez V, Rodríguez-Ortega W, García-Sánchez F (2012) Jatropha curcas seedlings show a water conservation strategy under drought conditions based on decreasing leaf growth and stomatal conductance. Agr Wat Manag 105:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duda R, Hart P, Stork D (2001) Pattern classification. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Escalona M, Lorenzo JC, González B, Daquinta M, Borroto C, González JL, Desjardines Y (1999) Pineapple micropropagation in temporary immersion systems. Plant Cell Rep 18(9):743–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galle A, Haldimann P, Feller U (2007) Photosynthetic performance and water relations in young pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens) trees during drought stress and recovery. New Phytol 174:799–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gindaba J, Rozanov A, Negash L (2004) Response of seedlings of two Eucalyptus and three deciduous tree species from Ethiopia to severe water stress. For Ecol Man 201:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gomez-Pando L, Jimenez-Davalos J, Eguiluz-de la Barra A, Aguilar-Castellanos E, Falconí-Palomino J, Ibañez-Tremolada M, Varela M, Lorenzo JC (2009) Field performance of new in vitro androgenesis-derived double haploids of barley. Euphytica 166:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Granahan J, Sweet J (2001) An evaluation of atmospheric correction techniques using the spectral similarity scale. IEEE 5:2022–2024Google Scholar
  12. Gupta P, Sharma S, Saxena S (2015) Biomass yield and steviol glycoside production in callus and suspension culture of Stevia rebaudiana treated with proline and polyethylene glycol. Appl Biochem Biotech 176:863–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guretzki S, Papenbrock J (2013) Comparative analysis of methods analyzing effects of drought on herbaceous plants. J Appl Bot Food Chem 86:47–54.  https://doi.org/10.5073/JABFQ.2013.086.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gurmani AR, Bano A, Saleem M (2007) Effect of ABA and BA on growth and ion accumulation of wheat under salinity stress. Pak J Bot 39:141–149Google Scholar
  15. Gurr S, McPherson J, Bowles D (1992) Lignin and associated phenolic acids in cell walls. In: Wilkinson DL (ed) Molecular plant pathology. Oxford Press, Oxford, pp 51–56Google Scholar
  16. Heath R, Packer J (1968) Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplast: I. Kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acid peroxidation. Arch Biochem Biophys 125:189–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hernández L, Loyola-González O, Valle B, Martínez J, Díaz-López L, Aragón C, Vicente O, Papenbrock J, Trethowan R, Yabor L, Lorenzo JC (2015) Identification of discriminant factors after exposure of maize and common bean plantlets to abiotic stresses. Not Bot Horti Agrobo Cluj-Nap 43:589–598Google Scholar
  18. Hoagland RE (1990) Alternaria cassiae alters phenylpropanoid metabolism in Sicklepod (Casia obstusifolia). J Phytopathol 130:177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ichino M (1988) General metrics for mixed features-the cartesian space theory for pattern recognition. IEEE 1:494–497Google Scholar
  20. Jafar M, Zilouchian A (2001) Application of soft computing for desalination technology. In: Zilouchian A, Jamshidi M (eds) Intelligent control systems using soft computing methodologies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 315–353Google Scholar
  21. Jiménez E, Pérez J, Gil V, Herrera J, García Y, Alonso E (1995) Sistema para la propagación de la caña de azúcar. In: Estrade M, Riego E, Limonta E, Tellez P, Fuente J (eds) Avances en Biotecnología Moderna. Elfos Scientiae, La Habana, Cuba, pp 11.2Google Scholar
  22. Kantardzic M (2003) Data mining: concepts, models, methods and algorithms. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  23. Khamis G, Schaarschmidt F, Papenbrock J (2017) Genetic diversity among populations of the xerophytic tree Balanites aegyptiaca (desert date) species and its morpho-physiological responses to water deficiency. Afr J Agric Res 12:3252–3269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kogan J (2007) Introduction to clustering large and high dimensional data. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Lichtenthaler HK (1987) Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Meth Enzymol 148:350–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lorenzo JC, González B, Escalona M, Teisson C, Espinosa P, Borroto C (1998) Sugarcane shoot formation in an improved temporary immersion system. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 54:197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorenzo JC, Varela M, Hernández M, Gutiérrez A, Pérez A, Loyola O (2013) Integrated criteria to identify the best treatment in plant biotechnology experiments. Acta Physiol Plant.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-013-1352-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lorenzo JC, Yabor L, Medina N, Quintana N, Wells V (2015) Coefficient of variation can identify the most important effects of experimental treatments. Not Bot Horti Agrobo Cluj-Nap 43:287–291.  https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha4319881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant 5:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porra R (2002) The chequered history of the development and use of simultaneous equations for the accurate determination of chlorophylls a and b. Photosynth Res 73:149–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Quan R, Shang M, Zhang H, Zhao Y, Zhang J (2004) Engineering of enhanced glycine betaine synthesis improves drought tolerance in maize. Plant Biotechnol J 2:477–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Schachtman D, Goodger J (2008) Chemical root to shoot signaling under drought. Trends Plant Sci 13:281–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Silva E, Ferreira-Silva S, Viegas R, Silveira J (2010) The role of organic and inorganic solutes in the osmotic adjustment of drought-stressed Jatropha curcas plants. Environ Exp Bot 69:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tavazoie S, Hughes J, Campbell M (1999) Systematic determination of genetic network architecture. Nat Genet 22:281–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Zaher-Ara T, Boroomand N, Sadat-Hosseini M (2016) Physiological and morphological response to drought stress in seedlings of ten citrus. Trees 30:985–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zaker A, Sykora C, Gössnitzer F, Abrishamchi P, Asili J, Mousavi SH, Wawrosch C (2015) Effects of some elicitors on tanshinone production in adventitious root cultures of Perovskia abrotanoides Karel. Ind Crops Prod 67:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daviel Gómez
    • 1
  • L.ázaro Hernández
    • 1
  • Lourdes Yabor
    • 1
  • Gerrit T. S. Beemster
    • 2
  • Christoph C. Tebbe
    • 3
  • Jutta Papenbrock
    • 4
  • José Carlos Lorenzo
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Plant Breeding, Bioplant CenterUniversity of Ciego de AvilaCiego de ÁvilaCuba
  2. 2.Laboratory for Integrated Plant Physiology Research (IMPRES)University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  3. 3.Thünen Institute of BiodiversityFederal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and FisheriesBrunswickGermany
  4. 4.Institute of BotanyLeibniz University HannoverHanoverGermany

Personalised recommendations