Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Whole plant response of Pongamia pinnata to drought stress tolerance revealed by morpho-physiological, biochemical and transcriptome analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Molecular Biology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Pongamia is considered an important biofuel species worldwide. Drought stress in the early growth stages of Pongamia influences negatively on the germination and seedling development. Due to lack of cultivar stability under drought stress conditions, establishment of successful plantation in drought hit areas becomes a major problem. To address this issue, drought stress response of four Pongamia genotypes was studied at morphological, physio-chemical and transcriptome levels.

Methods and results

Drought stress was levied by limiting water for 15 days on three months old seedlings of four genotypes. A significant effect of water stress was observed on the traits considered. The genotype NRCP25 exhibited superior morpho-physiological, biochemical drought responses. Also, the genotype had higher root length, photosynthetic pigments, higher antioxidant enzymes and solute accumulation compared to other genotypes. In addition, transcript profiling of selected drought responsive candidate genes such as trehalose phosphate synthase 1 (TPS1), abscisic acid responsive elements-binding protein 2 (ABF2-2), heat shock protein 17 (HSP 17 kDa), tonoplast intrinsic protein 1 (TIP 1–2), zinc finger homeodomain protein 2 (ZFP 2), and xyloglucan endotransglucolase 13 (XET 13) showed only up-regulation in NRCP25. Further, the transcriptome responses are in line with key physio-chemical responses exhibited by NRCP25 for drought tolerance.

Conclusions

As of now, there are no systematic studies on Pongamia drought stress tolerance; therefore this study offers a comprehensive understanding of whole plant drought stress responsiveness of Pongamia. Moreover, the results support important putative trait indices with potential candidate genes for drought tolerance improvement of Pongamia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Authors are comply with field standards of this journal.

References

  1. Oshunsanya SO, Nwosu NJ, Li Y (2019)Sustainable Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management

  2. Ahmad P, Prasad MNV (2011) Abiotic stress responses in plants: metabolism, productivity and sustainability. Springer Science & Business Media

  3. Sturrock RN, Frankel SJ, Brown AV et al (2011) Climate change and forest diseases. Plant Pathol 60:133–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02406.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Taria S, Rane J, Alam B et al (2020) Combining IR imaging, chlorophyll fluorescence and phenomic approach for assessing diurnal canopy temperature dynamics and desiccation stress management in Azadirachta indica and Terminalia mantaly. Agrofor Syst 94:941–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00461-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McDowell N, Pockman WT, Allen CD et al (2008) Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: Why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol 178:719–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02436.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rao N, Dong L, Li J, Zhang H (2008) Influence of Environmental Factors on Seed Germination and Seedling Emergence of American Sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne). Weed Sci 56:529–533. https://doi.org/10.1614/ws-07-158.1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Harreh D, Saleh AA, Reddy ANR, Hamdan S (2018) An Experimental Investigation of Karanja Biodiesel Production in Sarawak, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4174205. J Eng (United Kingdom) 2018:

  8. Kesari V, Madurai Sathyanarayana V, Parida A, Rangan L (2010) Molecular marker-based characterization in candidate plus trees of Pongamia pinnata, a potential biodiesel legume. AoB Plants 2010

  9. Karmee SK, Chadha A (2005) Preparation of biodiesel from crude oil of Pongamia pinnata. Bioresour Technol 96:1425–1429

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pavithra HR, Gowda B, Prasanna KT, Shivanna MB (2013) Pod and seed traits in candidate plus trees of Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre from southern peninsular India in relation to provenance variation and genetic variability. J Crop Sci Biotechnol 16:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. PaVela R (2009) Effectiveness of some botanical insecticides against Spodoptera littoralis Boisduvala (Lepidoptera: Noctudiae), Myzus persicae Sulzer (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae). Plant Prot Sci 45:161–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Swapna B, Rajendrudu G (2015) Seed Germination of Pongamia Pinnata (L.) Pierre under Water Stress. 4:62–66

  13. Rajarajan K, Handa AK (2020) Drought stress responses in seedlings of three multipurpose agroforestry trees species of central India. Range Manag Agrofor 41:182–187

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sultana N, Limon SH, Rahman MS et al (2021) Germination and growth responses to water stress of three agroforestry tree species from Bangladesh. Environ Challenges 5:100256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. ICAR-CAFRI (2019) Annual Report. Jhansi, India

  16. Krause GHWE (1991) Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: the basics. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 42:313–349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lichtenthaler HK, Buschmann C (2001) Chlorophylls and carotenoids: Measurement and characterization by UV-VIS spectroscopy. Curr Protoc food Anal Chem 1:F4–F3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rao L, Perez D, White E (1996) Lamin proteolysis facilitates nuclear events during apoptosis. J Cell Biol 135:1441–1455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jebara S, Jebara M, Limam F, Aouani ME (2005) Changes in ascorbate peroxidase, catalase, guaiacol peroxidase and superoxide dismutase activities in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) nodules under salt stress. J Plant Physiol 162:929–936

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Heath RL, Packer L (1968) Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplasts: I. Kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acid peroxidation. Arch Biochem Biophys 125:189–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee YP, Takahashi T (1966) An improved colorimetric determination of amino acids with the use of ninhydrin. Anal Biochem 14:71–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39:205–207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rozen S, Skaletsky H (2000) Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. Bioinformatics methods and protocols. Springer, pp 365–386

  24. Kozera B, Rapacz M (2013) Reference genes in real-time PCR. J Appl Genet 54:391–406

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Alam B, Singh R, Uthappa AR et al (2018) Different genotypes of Dalbergia sissoo trees modified microclimate dynamics differently on understory crop cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) as assessed through ecophysiological and spectral traits in agroforestry system. Agric For Meteorol 249:138–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mafakheri A, Siosemardeh A, Bahramnejad B et al (2010) Effect of drought stress on yield, proline and chlorophyll contents in three chickpea cultivars. Aust J Crop Sci 4:580–585

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rajarajan K, Ganesamurthy K, Raveendran M et al (2021) Differential responses of sorghum genotypes to drought stress revealed by physio-chemical and transcriptional analysis. Mol Biol Rep 48:2453–2462

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kapanigowda MH(2011) Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping of transpiration efficiency related to pre-flower drought tolerance in sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Texas A&M University

  29. Hessini K, Kronzucker HJ, Abdelly C, Cruz C (2017) Drought stress obliterates the preference for ammonium as an N source in the C4 plant Spartina alterniflora. J Plant Physiol 213:98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2017.03.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Awasthi R, Kaushal N, Vadez V, Turner NC, Berger J, Siddique KH (2014) Individual and combined effects of transient drought and heat stress on carbon assimilation and seed filling in chickpea. Funct Plant Biol 41:1148–1167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen D, Wang S, Cao B et al (2016) Genotypic variation in growth and physiological response to drought stress and re-watering reveals the critical role of recovery in drought adaptation in maize seedlings. Front Plant Sci 6:1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Camilo S, Odindo AO, Kondwakwenda A, Sibiya J (2021) Root traits related with drought and phosphorus tolerance in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agronomy 11:552

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Eldhuset TD, Nagy NE, Volařík D et al (2013) Drought affects tracheid structure, dehydrin expression, and above-and belowground growth in 5-year-old Norway spruce. Plant Soil 366:305–320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Zang C, Hartl-Meier C, Dittmar C et al (2014) Patterns of drought tolerance in major European temperate forest trees: climatic drivers and levels of variability. Glob Chang Biol 20:3767–3779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ye G, Zhang H, Chen B et al (2019) De novo genome assembly of the stress tolerant forest species Casuarina equisetifolia provides insight into secondary growth. Plant J 97:779–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.14159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Comas L, Becker S, Cruz VMV et al (2013) Root traits contributing to plant productivity under drought. Front Plant Sci 4:442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Armas C, Padilla FM, Pugnaire FI, Jackson RB (2010) Hydraulic lift and tolerance to salinity of semiarid species: Consequences for species interactions. Oecologia 162:11–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1447-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Contreras-Soto RI, Rafael DZ, Moiana LD et al(2022) Variation in Root-Related Traits Is Associated With Water Uptake in Lagenaria siceraria Genotypes Under Water-Deficit Conditions.Front Plant Sci13

  39. Lohithaswa HC, Desai SA, Hanchinal RR et al(2014) Combining ability in tetraploid wheat for yield, yield attributing traits, quality and rust resistance over environments.Karnataka J Agric Sci26

  40. Liu C, Liu Y, Guo K et al (2011) Effect of drought on pigments, osmotic adjustment and antioxidant enzymes in six woody plant species in karst habitats of southwestern China. Environ Exp Bot 71:174–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.11.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Uarrota VG, Stefen DLV, Leolato LS et al (2018) Revisiting carotenoids and their role in plant stress responses: from biosynthesis to plant signaling mechanisms during stress. Antioxidants and antioxidant enzymes in higher plants. Springer, pp 207–232

  42. Khazaei Z, Esmaielpour B, Estaji A (2020) Ameliorative effects of ascorbic acid on tolerance to drought stress on pepper (Capsicum annuum L) plants. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 26:1649–1662

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hou X, Rivers J, León P et al (2016) Synthesis and function of apocarotenoid signals in plants. Trends Plant Sci 21:792–803

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Yang F, Zhang Q, Yao Q et al(2020) Direct and indirect plant defenses induced by (Z)-3-hexenol in tomato against whitefly attack. J Pest Sci (2004) 93:1243–1254

  45. Sarker U, Oba S (2018) Catalase, superoxide dismutase and ascorbate-glutathione cycle enzymes confer drought tolerance of Amaranthus tricolor. Sci Rep 8:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34944-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Gill SS, Tuteja N (2010) Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol Biochem 48:909–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Khaleghi A, Naderi R, Brunetti C et al (2019) Morphological, physiochemical and antioxidant responses of Maclura pomifera to drought stress. Sci Rep 9:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Petridis A, Therios I, Samouris G et al (2012) Effect of water deficit on leaf phenolic composition, gas exchange, oxidative damage and antioxidant activity of four Greek olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. Plant Physiol Biochem 60:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2012.07.014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Xing H, Fu X, Yang C et al (2018) Genome-wide investigation of pentatricopeptide repeat gene family in poplar and their expression analysis in response to biotic and abiotic stresses. Sci Rep 8:2817. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21269-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Wu S, Tian J, Ren Y, Wang Y(2022) Osmotic adjustment and antioxidant system regulated by nitrogen deposition improve photosynthetic and growth performance and alleviate oxidative damage in dwarf bamboo under drought stress.Front Plant Sci1009

  51. Zhou Z, Li G, Chao W et al (2019) Physiological responses and tolerance evaluation of five poplar varieties to waterlogging. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Napoca 47:658–667. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha47311440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Galeano E, Vasconcelos TS, De Oliveira PN, Carrer H (2019) Physiological and molecular responses to drought stress in teak (Tectona grandis L.f.). PLoS ONE 14:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221571

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Acosta-Pérez P, Camacho-Zamora BD, Espinoza-Sánchez EA et al (2020) Characterization of trehalose-6-phosphate synthase and trehalose-6-phosphate phosphatase genes and analysis of its differential expression in maize (Zea mays) seedlings under drought stress. Plants 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9030315

  54. Yang Y, Guo Y, Zhong J et al (2020) Root Physiological Traits and Transcriptome Analyses Reveal that Root Zone Water Retention Confers Drought Tolerance to Opisthopappus taihangensis. Sci Rep 10:2627. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59399-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Lin Q, Yang J, Wang Q et al (2019) Overexpression of the trehalose-6-phosphate phosphatase family gene AtTPPF improves the drought tolerance of Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Plant Biol 19:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-019-1986-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Joshi R, Sahoo KK, Singh AK et al (2020) Enhancing trehalose biosynthesis improves yield potential in marker-free transgenic rice under drought, saline, and sodic conditions. J Exp Bot 71:653–668. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Nuccio ML, Wu J, Mowers R et al (2015) Expression of trehalose-6-phosphate phosphatase in maize ears improves yield in well-watered and drought conditions. Nat Biotechnol 33:862–869

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Sah SK, Reddy KR, Li J (2016) Abscisic acid and abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Front Plant Sci 7:1–26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Fujita Y, Fujita M, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2011) ABA-mediated transcriptional regulation in response to osmotic stress in plants. J Plant Res 124:509–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10265-011-0412-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Aghaie P, Tafreshi SAH (2020) Central role of 70-kDa heat shock protein in adaptation of plants to drought stress. Cell Stress Chaperones 25:1071–1081

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Xiang J, Chen X, Hu W et al (2018) Overexpressing heat-shock protein OsHSP50.2 improves drought tolerance in rice. Plant Cell Rep 37:1585–1595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-018-2331-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rodrigues MI, Takeda AAS, Bravo JP, Maia IG (2016) The eucalyptus tonoplast intrinsic protein (TIP) gene subfamily: Genomic organization, structural features, and expression profiles. Front Plant Sci 7:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Khan MIR, Fatma M, Per TS et al (2015) Salicylic acid-induced abiotic stress tolerance and underlying mechanisms in plants. Front Plant Sci 6:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yuan X, Huang P, Wang R et al (2018) A zinc finger transcriptional repressor confers pleiotropic effects on rice growth and drought tolerance by down-regulating stress-responsive genes. Plant Cell Physiol 59:2129–2142. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcy133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Han G, Lu C, Guo J et al (2020) C2H2 Zinc Finger Proteins: Master Regulators of Abiotic Stress Responses in Plants. Front Plant Sci 11:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Spollen WG, Lenoble ME, Samuels TD et al (2000) Abscisic acid accumulation maintains maize primary root elongation at low water potentials by restricting ethylene production. Plant Physiol 122:967–976. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.122.3.967

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Kuluev BR, Musin KhG, Mikhaylova ZAB, Zaikina EV(2019) EA Role of the expansin and xyloglucan endotransglycosylase genes in the regulation of tobacco growth under the influence of abiotic stress factors. Plant Biotechnol postgenomic era 135–136

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, India, for facilities to complete this work.

Funding

No funding has been received separately for completion of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICAR-Central Agroforestry Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India

    K Rajarajan Ph.D. Scientist (Genetics and Plant Breeding), S Sakshi Young Professional (Biotechnology), S Taria M.Sc. Scientist (Plant Physiology), H Anuragi Ph.D. (Genetics and Plant Breeding), M Ashajyothi M.Sc. Plant Pathology, A Bharati M.Sc. Plant Biotechnology, AK Handa Ph.D. Principal Scientist (Forestry) & A Arunachalam Ph.D. Director

  2. Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India

    PT Prathima Ph.D Senior Scientist (Biotechnology)

  3. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India

    A Radhakrishna M.Sc. Scientist (Biotechnology)

Authors
  1. K Rajarajan Ph.D. Scientist (Genetics and Plant Breeding)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S Sakshi Young Professional (Biotechnology)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S Taria M.Sc. Scientist (Plant Physiology)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. PT Prathima Ph.D Senior Scientist (Biotechnology)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A Radhakrishna M.Sc. Scientist (Biotechnology)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H Anuragi Ph.D. (Genetics and Plant Breeding)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M Ashajyothi M.Sc. Plant Pathology
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A Bharati M.Sc. Plant Biotechnology
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. AK Handa Ph.D. Principal Scientist (Forestry)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. A Arunachalam Ph.D. Director
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KR conceived the idea. KR, SS, HA and AA wrote the main manuscript text. KR, PT, ST, SS and AK prepared the manuscript. KR, AB, AJ, AR and revised the manuscript at different stages of the writing process.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K Rajarajan Ph.D. Scientist (Genetics and Plant Breeding).

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the Authors declared that no conflicts of interest are associated with this publication.

Consent to Participate

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Consent to Publish

The Author’s hereby consents to publication of the Work in Molecular Biology Reports Journal.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rajarajan, K., Sakshi, S., Taria, S. et al. Whole plant response of Pongamia pinnata to drought stress tolerance revealed by morpho-physiological, biochemical and transcriptome analysis. Mol Biol Rep 49, 9453–9463 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-022-07808-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-022-07808-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation