Advertisement

Acta Physiologiae Plantarum

, 39:210 | Cite as

Rooting affects the photosystem II activity: in vitro and ex vitro studies on energy hybrid sorrel

  • Halina Ślesak
  • Magdalena Liszniańska
  • Ireneusz Ślesak
  • Małgorzata Kozieradzka-Kiszkurno
  • Marzena Popielarska-Konieczna
  • Andrzej J. Joachimiak
Open Access
Original Article

Abstract

Rumex tianschanicus × Rumex patientia is a high-biomass-yielding plant suitable for fuel and biogas production. The protocol of the hybrid sorrel micropropagation was used to study the changes in the photosystem II (PSII) activity as well as to analyse the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts. The lowest effective PSII quantum yield [Y(II)] and an apparent electron transport rate of PSII [ETR(II)] were observed for adventitious shoots that had been regenerated in vitro, before rooting. These fluorescence parameters were higher and similar for both the leaves of the same adventitious shoots that had been rooted under in vitro conditions and for the shoots that had been acclimated and grown in ex vitro conditions. The analysis indicated that the PSII activity strongly depends on the formation of properly functioning roots and that in vitro or ex vitro culture conditions are, at least to some degree, less important. TEM analysis revealed that chloroplasts from plants rooted in vitro were sufficiently mature and acclimatization processes have less impact on their development. This is the first report concerning the analysis of PSII activity and the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts at all of the stages of micropropagation, i.e. adventitious shoot formation in vitro, rooting in vitro and acclimation to ex vitro conditions. It strongly indicated that rooting under in vitro conditions, rather than the acclimation to ex vitro conditions, plays a key role in the development of a completely functional photosynthetic apparatus in hybrid sorrel.

Keywords

Rumex tianschanicus × Rumex patientia PSII activity Chlorophyll a fluorescence Ultrastructure of chloroplasts In vitro/ex vitro transfer Photosynthetic apparatus 

Introduction

Rumex tianschanicus × Rumex patientia, which is a high-biomass-yielding plant, is a cross between English spinach (R. patientia L.) as the female line and Tien Shan sorrel (R. tianschanicus A. Los.) as the male line (Havlíčková and Suchý 2010). The sorrel, which is also known as the sorrel of Uteush, is one of many newly introduced energy crops that are suitable for manufacturing pellets and briquettes and for producing biogas (Ust’ak and Ust’aková 2004; Myšková et al. 2011; Hedĕnec et al. 2014). This perennial plant can be harvested dry and can produce high yields continuously for more than 10 years. It also tolerates a broad range of fertilization regimes, climatic conditions and soil types (Hedĕnec et al. 2015). Moreover, it belongs to the species that are heavy metal tolerant and, therefore, suitable for the phytoremediation of contaminated soils (Zhuang et al. 2005). The sorrel of Uteush is also known as medicinal plant due to the presence of biologically active substances such as carotenoids, ascorbic acid, linolenic acid and flavonoids (Omarova et al. 1998).

We developed a reproducible and efficient method for the micropropagation of hybrid sorrel through the direct induction of adventitious shoot buds from the hypocotyls (confirmed by histological, SEM and cytometric analyses) (Ślesak et al. 2014). This regeneration protocol could be useful for the rapid clonal propagation of genetically uniform plant material, physiological and biochemical studies or for genetic transformation to improve the properties of this energy plant. The regenerated plantlets were successfully rooted and acclimated to ex vitro conditions with an almost 100% survival rate. It is commonly known that the transfer from in vitro to ex vitro conditions requires adaptation to the new stressful conditions (Pospíšilová et al. 1999; Apóstolo et al. 2005; Joshi et al. 2006; Osório et al. 2010). During this acclimation, plants undergo physiological and morphological changes that enable them to grow in the new environment (Pospíšilová et al. 1999). In the case of many species, the low ex vitro acclimation of regenerated plantlets results from the low photosynthetic capacity that is developed in vitro (Apóstolo et al. 2005; Joshi et al. 2006). The specific environmental conditions inside culture vessels, including high air humidity, the presence of a medium usually supplemented with sugar, low gas exchange, ethylene production and low photosynthetic photon flux density may result in physiological anomalies in the micropropagated plants, such as decreased photosynthetic efficiency, poor water loss control, difficult rooting and a low functionality of the developed roots (Pierik 1990; Pospíšilová et al. 1992, 2000; Kadleček et al. 2001).

Chlorophyll a fluorescence is a non-invasive technique that can give detailed information on the photosystem II (PSII) activity and is often used in experimental plant biology. Analysis of the chlorophyll a fluorescence induction curves allows to determine physiological conditions that affect photosynthetic electron transport chain in the proximity of PSII (Baker 2008; Murchie and Lawson 2013; Kalaji et al. 2014, 2016, 2017).

The higher biomass production of R. tianschanicus × R. patientia as an energy plant compared to its parental lines may suggest an enhanced photosynthetic capacity in hybrid form. An analysis of the photosynthetic activity of the hybrid sorrel under in vitro and ex vitro conditions during micropropagation that is based on chlorophyll a fluorescence could serve as a source of valuable information related to the development of the photosynthetic apparatus, which is a distinguishing feature of the sorrel of Uteush as an energy plant.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the development of the photosynthetic apparatus of R. tianschanicus × R. patientia as well as to analyse the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts to answer the following questions:
  1. 1.

    During which culture stage the development of an efficient photosynthetic apparatus takes place—adventitious shoots rooting under in vitro conditions or the adaptation of regenerated plantlets to ex vitro conditions?

     
  2. 2.

    Is the transfer from in vitro to ex vitro conditions really a critical point in the development of the photosynthetic apparatus during the micropropagation of the hybrid sorrel?

     

Materials and methods

Plant material and culture conditions

The micropropagation protocol for R. tianschanicus × R. patientia developed by Ślesak et al. (2014) was used. Hypocotyls that were derived from 7-day-old seedlings were cultured on MS medium (Murashige and Skoog 1962) that had been supplemented with 0.17 mg/l indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), 2.2 mg/l benzylaminopurine (BAP) and 2% sucrose. The regenerated adventitious shoots were rooted on ½ MS medium that had been supplemented with 0.5 mg/l indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) and 2% sucrose after which the plantlets were acclimated to ex vitro conditions. The in vitro cultures and acclimated plantlets were incubated in the same growth room to maintain the same light and temperature conditions: 26 ± 3 °C, a 16-h photoperiod at 100 µmol m−2 s−1 of white light (cool-white fluorescent tubes).

For the analyses of the chlorophyll a fluorescence and the TEM analyses of the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts, plant material (detached leaves) from the following culture stages (Fig. 1a) was used:
Fig. 1

Scheme of the experiment: a hypocotyls that were derived from 7-day-old seedlings were used as the explants, for the chlorophyll a fluorescence and TEM analyses of the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts, plant material (detached leaves) from the following culture stages was used—stage 1: adventitious shoots that had been regenerated in vitro (12 weeks from the beginning of the culture), stage 2: the same adventitious shoots rooted under in vitro conditions (17 weeks from the beginning of the culture), stage 3: the same adventitious shoots acclimated and grown in ex vitro conditions for 5 weeks (22 weeks from the beginning of the culture), b as the control, the culture was established from 7-day-old seedlings and plant material (detached leaves) that was derived from unrooted adventitious shoots grown under in vitro conditions (17 weeks from the beginning of the culture, the same age as the shoots that had been rooted under in vitro conditions—see stage 2), scheme (a) and (b) was used for the chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis. The scheme of the measurements (results shown in Figs. 2, 3) is indicated by a dotted line for better clarity

  1. 1.

    adventitious shoots that had been regenerated in vitro (12 weeks from the beginning of the culture);

     
  2. 2.

    the same adventitious shoots that had been rooted under in vitro conditions (17 weeks from the beginning of the culture)—for control the analyses were also done on unrooted adventitious shoots of the same age (Fig. 1b);

     
  3. 3.

    the same adventitious shoots that had been acclimated and grown under ex vitro conditions for 5 weeks (22 weeks from the beginning of the culture).

     

Chlorophyll a fluorescence

To determine PSII efficiency, a Dual PAM 100 fluorescence system (Heinz Walz GmbH, Effeltrich, Germany) was used. PSII activity was measured by means of the chlorophyll a fluorescence on leaves that had been adapted to darkness for 20 min. Dark fluorescence yield (F o) and maximal fluorescence yield (F m) were determined by use of weak red light (5 µmol m−2 s−1) and strong red light (104 µmol m−2 s−1) saturating pulses, respectively. All measurements were performed in a light curve with slow kinetic induction curve mode. Therefore, maximal fluorescence yield (F m′) and fluorescence yield (F) were measured. The quantum efficiency of PSII in the light-adapted state [Y(II) = (F m′F)/F m′] and apparent electron transport rate of PSII [ETR(II) = ((F m′F)/F m′) × intensity of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) × 0.5 × leaf absorptivity] were determined according to Genty et al. (1989) and White and Critchley (1999); the leaf absorptivity was assumed to be 0.84. Nonphotochemical quenching of PSII fluorescence [NPQ = (F mF m′)/F m′] and the quantum yield of regulated energy dissipation [Y(NPQ) = 1 − Y(II) − 1/(NPQ + 1 + qL(F m/F o − 1), where qL is coefficient of photochemical quenching] of the PSII fluorescence were quantified according to Kramer et al. (2004). At stages 1 and 2 of the culture (see above; Fig. 1), the leaves were dark adapted under sterile conditions. The Magenta® vessels were opened inside a laminar chamber, the leaves were wrapped in sterile foil for 20 min and then the leaves were detached and immediately placed in the fluorescence system. All of the above-mentioned fluorescence parameters were recorded as rapid light curves at ten steps (the duration of each step was 30 s) of illumination with actinic, i.e. PAR light of an increasing intensity from 11 to 830 µmol m−2 s−1 (Figs. 2, 3).
Fig. 2

Light curves for effective PS II quantum yield (Y(II)) (a), apparent electron transport rate of PSII [ETR(II)] (b), nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ) (c), quantum yield of regulated energy dissipation [Y(NPQ)] (d) measured at each of the three analysed stages of the R. tianschanicus × R. patientia culture: in vitro-regenerated adventitious shoots (shoots in vitro), the same adventitious shoots that had been rooted under in vitro conditions (shoots rooted in vitro) and acclimated and grown in ex vitro conditions (shoots acclimated ex vitro) (for details see Fig. 1a); PAR photosynthetically active radiation; data are mean ± SE (n = 8–15). The same letters above/near the bars indicate no significant differences between means, at least at the level of P < 0.05. Two-way ANOVA and the Tukey’s/Sidak’s post tests for the statistical analysis of data were used

TEM analysis

Leaves from the adventitious shoots at each culture stage (Fig. 1a) were detached synchronously with the measurements of PSII activity. Leaf segments (1 mm2) were cut from the middle part of the leaves for the TEM observation. These segments were then fixed in 2.5% formaldehyde (prepared from paraformaldehyde) and 2.5% glutaraldehyde in a 0.05 M cacodylate buffer (pH 7.0) for 4 h at room temperature. The procedure for preparing the samples for TEM was as described earlier (Kowalkowska et al. 2012). The material was dehydrated in a series of graded acetone and embedded in Spurr’s low-viscosity resin (Polysciences, Germany). Ultrathin (50–90 nm) sections were cut with a diamond knife on a Leica EM UC7 ultramicrotome. The sections were stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate and then viewed using a Philips CM 100 transmission electron microscope at 80 kV.

Statistical analysis

Statistics for all of the results are presented as the mean ± SE (standard error). Two-way ANOVA and the Tukey’s/Sidak’s post tests for the statistical analysis of data were used. Statistical analysis was performed using the GraphPad Prism (v. 5.03 and v.7.0) software.

Results

Chlorophyll a fluorescence

Statistical analysis of the fluorescence parameters, which were measured at all of the stages of the R. tianschanicus × R. patientia micropropagation procedure (i.e. formation of adventitious shoots in vitro, rooting in vitro and acclimation to ex vitro conditions; Fig. 1a), revealed that the lowest values of Y(II) (Fig. 2a) and apparent electron transport rate of PSII [ETR(II)] (Fig. 2b) were found in the adventitious shoots that had been regenerated in vitro, before rooting (12 weeks from the beginning of the culture). On the other hand, Y(II) and ETR(II) were higher and were similar for both the leaves of the same adventitious shoots, but that had been rooted under in vitro conditions (17 weeks from the beginning of the culture; Figs. 1, 2a, b) and for the same shoots that had been acclimated and grown in ex vitro conditions for 5 weeks (22 weeks from the beginning of the culture). A trend that the shoots acclimated ex vitro had a slightly higher photosynthetic capacity [ETR(II)] compared to rooted shoots growing under in vitro conditions was only observed, but the differences were statistically insignificant (Fig. 2b). Y(II) and ETR(II) showed that linear electron flux through PSII at the given PAR was more intensive after root formation and that PSII has a higher photosynthetic capacity in a wider range of PAR intensities. However, the lack of significant differences between all of the analysed plant samples for NPQ and quantum yield of regulated energy dissipation [Y(NPQ)] (Fig. 2c, d) demonstrates that some of the processes that are associated with nonradiative energy dissipation in PSII were not affected by the growth conditions. The above-analysed samples were at various ages (Fig. 1). Therefore, to eliminate an age effect, we decided to determine the chlorophyll fluorescence for plants of the same age. An analysis of the PSII photochemistry of the leaves that had been detached from the adventitious shoots that had been rooted under in vitro conditions and of the adventitious shoots of the same age (17 weeks from the beginning of the culture), but that were unrooted (Fig. 1b) revealed that most of the differences between the values of the analysed fluorescence parameters were statistically significant (Fig. 3). Y(II) (Fig. 3a), ETR(II) (Fig. 3b), NPQ (Fig. 3c) and Y(NPQ) (Fig. 3d) were significantly higher for the in vitro-rooted adventitious shoots compared to shoots of the same age that had been grown in vitro without roots. Strong differences in parameters linked to nonradiative energy dissipation in PSII, i.e. NPQ, and Y(NPQ) between rooted and unrooted shoots, even more clearly than data presented in Fig. 2, demonstrated a substantial disruption of PSII activity that includes photochemistry and nonphotochemical reactions (Fig. 3c, d).
Fig. 3

Light curves for effective PSII quantum yield [Y(II)] (a), apparent electron transport rate of PSII [ETR(II)] (b), nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ) (c), quantum yield of regulated energy dissipation [Y(NPQ)] (d) measured in rooted (shoots rooted in vitro) and unrooted (shoots unrooted in vitro) adventitious shoots of the same age, grown under in vitro conditions (17 weeks from the beginning of the culture) (for details see Fig. 1a, b); PAR photosynthetically active radiation; data are mean ± SE (n = 8–15). Asterisks indicate significant differences between means, at the level of P < 0.05 (*), P < 0.1 (**), P < 0.01 (***), P < 0.001 (****). Two-way ANOVA and the Tukey’s/Sidak’s post tests for the statistical analysis of data were used

In the next step, the ultrastructure of the leaf chloroplasts from unrooted, rooted and acclimated (ex vitro) shoots was analysed.

The ultrastructure of the chloroplasts

TEM analysis of the mesophyll chloroplasts revealed strong differences in the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts in the leaves of the adventitious shoots that had been regenerated in vitro compared to the same shoots that had been rooted in vitro and then acclimated ex vitro, but not between the chloroplasts of the last two.

There were visible morphological differences in the shape of the chloroplasts, the organization of the internal membrane system and the presence or absence of starch grains (Fig. 4). The mesophyll chloroplasts derived from the leaves (12 weeks from the beginning of the culture) of the adventitious shoots that had been regenerated in vitro were elongated. The grana, which were connected with long stromal thylakoids, were thin and they mostly consisted of five to eight thylakoids. Starch grains were not usually present in the stroma. Moreover, a few plastoglobules were visible (Fig. 4a). The vesicles and cytoplasmic materials, which had varying degrees of disorganization, were observed in the vacuoles, as well as multivesicular bodies were also noted (Fig. 4a).
Fig. 4

Electron micrographs of the chloroplasts of the R. tianschanicus × R. patientia leaves that were detached from the adventitious shoots at each culture stages: adventitious shoots that had been regenerated in vitro (a), the same adventitious shoots that had been rooted under in vitro conditions (b) and acclimated and grown in ex vitro conditions (c); cw cell wall, g granum, m mitochondrion, mv multivesicular body, p plastoglobules, sg starch grains, st stromal thylakoids, v vacuole. Bar 1 µm

A TEM analysis of the chloroplasts derived from the leaves of the same adventitious shoots that had been rooted under in vitro conditions (17 weeks from the beginning of the culture) revealed that their size and ultrastructure was the same compared to the chloroplasts in the leaves that were detached from the same adventitious shoots, but that had been acclimated and grown in ex vitro conditions for 5 weeks (22 weeks from the beginning of the culture) (Fig. 4b, c). In both cases, the chloroplasts were convex towards the vacuole and flattened towards the cell wall. Three to four relatively large starch grains were observed inside the stroma. The stromal thylakoids were short and very dense. The grana were built of densely positioned thylakoids, on average 7–19 per granum. All of the thylakoids had a longitudinal orientation in relation to the main axis of the chloroplasts. Numerous plastoglobules were also observed and mitochondria, which were located next to the chloroplasts, were visible (Fig. 4b, c).

In general, changes in the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts in R. tianschanicus × R. patientia during the micropropagation procedure showed that root development is associated with the photosynthetic activity of the chloroplasts and seems to have a positive effect on chloroplasts development.

Discussion

The analyses of selected chlorophyll a fluorescence parameters and the development of the photosynthetic apparatus in leaves from exactly the same shoots of R. tianschanicus × R. patientia at all stages of micropropagation were performed. According to Kalaji et al. (2016), the recent development of chlorophyll a fluorescence measurement methods represents a valuable new approach that can be used to study the photochemical efficiency of leaves and provide details on the status and function of the PSII reaction centres, the donor and acceptor sides of PSII and light-harvesting antenna complexes. Because photosynthesis is sensitive to environmental factors, fluorescence measurements are important components of plant stress studies (Kalaji et al. 2012; Murchie and Lawson 2013).

It was shown during our experiments that rooting plays a crucial role in the PSII activity. Y(II) and ETR(II) were similar for the leaves of the same adventitious shoots that had been rooted under in vitro conditions and for the same shoots that had been acclimated and grown in ex vitro conditions for 5 weeks. Conversely, Sáez et al. (2012) reported that in Castanea sativa plants, the net photosynthetic rate of microshoots that had been rooted in vitro was limited by the Rubisco carboxylation capacity and/or RuBP regeneration in the Calvin–Benson–Bassham (CBB) cycle. They also found low ETR(II). Kadleček et al. (2001) observed a decrease in the starch content and fluorescence parameters several days after transferring plantlets from in vitro to ex vitro conditions. These were interpreted as stress reactions to the shock connected with the removal of the roots from the agar medium and transplanting the plantlets into soil. During this procedure, the root hairs may be damaged and, therefore, the absorption of nutrients and water by the roots could be temporarily impaired. In the case of the hybrid sorrel, the micropropagated in vitro plantlets were acclimated to the ex vitro conditions with almost a 100% survival rate. The analysis of the PSII photochemistry made during our experiments on hybrid sorrel leaves that were detached from the adventitious shoots that had been rooted under in vitro conditions and of adventitious shoots of the same age, which were unrooted, revealed that Y(II), ETR(II), NPQ and Y(NPQ) were significantly higher for the in vitro-rooted adventitious shoots compared to the shoots of the same age that had been grown in vitro without roots. The data that were obtained during our experiments indicated that PSII activity in R. tianschanicus × R. patientia strongly depends on the formation of properly functioning roots and that in vitro or ex vitro culture conditions are of secondary importance.

It is well known that in vitro culture conditions are significantly different compared to field conditions. This can be a source of stress for the plants (Us-Camas et al. 2014). Most in vitro cultures are characterized by low light intensity, increased humidity, poor gas exchange and the presence of sugars in the culture medium. Under in vitro conditions, sugars play specific roles (Sami et al. 2016). Exogenous sugar in the plant system could suppress photosynthetic gene expression and reduce CBB cycle enzymes, leading to low photosynthetic rate (Matysiak and Gabryszewska 2016 and the literature therein). However, in some cases, exogenous sugars improve photosynthesis in vitro and facilitate acclimatization to ex vitro conditions. The effects of sugar can be concentration dependent. In Arabidopsis thaliana, exogenous sugars (3%) present in the medium showed a positive effect on photosynthesis (Eckstein et al. 2012). However, according to Van Dingenen et al. (2016) the transfer of seedlings to sucrose-supplemented medium resulted in significant differences in chloroplast morphology. They were smaller and showed fewer differentiated thylakoid membranes and starch granules compared with control leaves. Sucrose treatment also negatively affects chloroplast division. It was hypothesized that, during early leaf development in A. thaliana, exogenously applied sucrose or sucrose produced by source leaves delays chloroplast differentiation in sink leaves, by which cell expansion is postponed and cell proliferation is stimulated (Van Dingenen et al. 2016).

During our experiments, both the regeneration medium and the rooting medium were supplemented with 2% sucrose. Despite the same concentration of sugar in the medium, TEM analysis of the mesophyll chloroplasts of the adventitious R. tianschanicus × R. patientia shoots revealed strong differences in the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts in the leaves of the adventitious shoots that had been regenerated in vitro, before rooting. Similar to Scheuring et al. (2011), we observed in this case vesicles and cytoplasmic materials in the vacuoles as well as multivesicular bodies.

The structural organization of the chloroplasts in in vitro-cultivated plants is a very important indicator for evaluating the regenerative potential of plant species (Stefanova et al. 2013, 2015). Many studies have indicated that in vitro conditions can alter the shape of the chloroplasts, an accumulation of plastoglobuli, starch or an irregular orientation of the thylakoid system (Majada et al. 2002; Stefanova et al. 2015; Ladygin et al. 2008). Such abnormalities are considered to be responsible for the decreased photosynthetic capacity of regenerated plantlets. Moreover, it has been stated that, e.g. Stevia plants had only a slight ability to accumulate starch because of their lower photosynthetic rate as a result of having been grown in closed vessels in which there is a slow diffusion of gases (Ladygin et al. 2008). Sáez et al. (2012) reported that in C. sativa, the chloroplasts of plantlets that had been grown in vitro were devoid of starch, probably because of a low photosynthetic activity or because exogenous sucrose created negative feedback on the enzymes in the plastids that are responsible for starch biosynthesis. However, it should be emphasized that starch accumulation also depends on its degradation rate in sink heterotrophic organs (Patrick et al. 2013). In addition, low plastoglobulus content under in vitro conditions may result in a low capacity of in vitro plantlets to prevent oxidative damage in the membrane systems of chloroplasts. During our experiment, there were no differences in chloroplasts ultrastructure when we compared chloroplasts in leaves of the same adventitious shoots rooted growing in in vitro conditions and chloroplast in shoots that had been acclimated to ex vitro conditions (growing in pots, without exogenous sugar supply). We have not observed expected photoinhibition in the case of adventitious shoots rooted and growing under in vitro condition (inside a vessel). Similarly, in the case of regenerants acclimated to ex vitro conditions, in spite of lower air humidity and no additional external carbon source after ex vitro transfer, the chloroplast ultrastructure was not changed. The obtained results of TEM analysis suggest that proper chloroplast maturation is linked to root formation. Therefore, only after rooting, which enabled efficiently uptake of water and micronutrients from the medium, the leaf chloroplasts developed properly functioning thylakoid membrane system that was reflected in PSII activity.

Improving the photosynthetic functioning of in vitro plantlets that are transferred to ex vitro is essential to assure high survival rates after transfer to in vivo conditions (Carvalho et al. 2001). Reduced leaf photosynthetic activity as a result of the poor development of the photosynthetic apparatus, inadequate gas exchange, stomata deformation and suppressed Rubisco activity has been revealed to limit successful in vitro to ex vitro transfer (Zenkteler and Borkowska 2002; Apóstolo et al. 2005; Joshi et al. 2006; de Oliveira et al. 2008 and the literature therein). High mortality during acclimation to ex vitro conditions is mainly associated with the low ability of plantlets to regulate water loss as the result of anatomical abnormalities that had developed in vitro such as increased stomatal density (Joshi et al. 2006) or root system damage during transfer from in vitro to ex vitro conditions. Because the photosynthetic apparatus of plantlets that are cultured in vitro is adapted to relatively low light intensities, they can be considered to be shade plants (Borkowska 2005). These anomalies are evident during the transfer of in vitro plants to a greenhouse or a field with high light intensity and cause their slow establishment and low survival percentage compared to plants that are cultured by traditional propagation (Pospíšilová et al. 2000). In our experiments, light and also temperature conditions were the same for in vitro and ex vitro plants; therefore, an effect of light intensity and the culture temperature was the most likely insignificant.

Conclusions

Here, we show for the first time the analysis of the PSII activity and chloroplast development in leaves from the same shoots of R. tianschanicus × R. patientia during micropropagation. Chloroplasts from plants rooted in vitro were sufficiently mature and photochemically active. Moreover, acclimation processes, i.e. plants being transferred from in vitro to ex vitro conditions, have relatively little impact on their development.

Our data indicate that in R. tianschanicus × R. patientia, rooting under in vitro conditions predominantly affects the development of a completely functional photosynthetic apparatus, but not the acclimation to ex vitro conditions per se.

Author contribution statement

HŚ—design of the study, conducting in vitro culture experiments, measurements of the chlorophyll a fluorescence, data interpretation and writing a manuscript; ML—conducting in vitro culture experiments and measurements of the chlorophyll a fluorescence; IŚ—measurements of the chlorophyll a fluorescence, statistical analysis, data interpretation and participation in preparing manuscript; MKK—TEM analysis of the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts; MPK—data interpretation and participation in preparing manuscript; AJJ—proofreading the manuscript and critical revision. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was partially supported by the statutory research funds K/DSC/002299 of the Department of Plant Cytology and Embryology, Faculty of Biology and Earth Sciences, Jagiellonian University in Kraków.

References

  1. Apóstolo N, Brutti C, Llorente B (2005) Leaf anatomy of Cynara scolymus L. in successive micropropagation stages. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 41:307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker NR (2008) Chlorophyll fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:89–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Borkowska B (2005) The photosynthetic activity of plants growing under different environmental conditions. Int J Fruit Sci 5(2):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho L, Osòrio M, Chaves M, Amâncio S (2001) Chlorophyll fluorescence as an indicator of photosynthetic functioning of in vitro grapevine and chestnut plantlets under ex vitro acclimatization. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 67:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Oliveira LM, Paiva R, Ferreira de Santana JR, Alves E, Nogueira RC, Pereira FD (2008) Effect of cytokinins on in vitro development of autotrophism and acclimatization of Annona glabra L. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 44:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eckstein A, Zięba P, Gabryś H (2012) Sugar and light effects on the condition of the photosynthetic apparatus of Arabidopsis thaliana cultured in vitro. J Plant Growth Regul 31:90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Genty B, Briantais JM, Baker NR (1989) The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochim Biophys Acta 990:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Havlíčková K, Suchý J (2010) Development model for energy crop plantations in the Czech Republic for the years 2008–2030. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:1925–1936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hedĕnec P, Novotný D, Ust’ak S, Honzík R, Kovářová M, Šimáčková H, Frouz J (2014) Allelopathic effect of new introduced biofuel crops on the soil biota: a comparative study. Eur J Soil Biol 63:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hedĕnec P, Novotný D, Ust’ak S, Honzík R, Váňa V, Petříková V, Frouz J (2015) Effect of long term cropping hybrid sorrel (Rumex patientia × Rumex tianschanicus) on soil biota. Biomass Bioenergy 78:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Joshi P, Joshi N, Purohit SD (2006) Stomatal characteristics during micropropagation of Wrightia tomentosa. Biol Plant 50:275–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kadleček P, Tichá I, Haisel D, Čapková V, Schäfer Ch (2001) Importance of in vitro pretreatment for ex vitro acclimatization and growth. Plant Sci 161:695–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalaji HM, Carpentier R, Allakhverdiev SI, Bosa K (2012) Fluorescence parameters as early indicators of light stress in barley. J Photochem Photobiol B 112:1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalaji HM, Schansker G, Ladle RJ, Goltsev V, Bosa K, Allakhverdiev SI, Brestic M, Bussotti F, Calatayud A, Dąbrowski P, Elsheery NI, Ferroni L, Guidi L, Hogewoning SW, Jajoo A, Misra AN, Nebauer SG, Pancaldi S, Penella C, Poli DB, Pollastrini M, Romanowska-Duda ZB, Rutkowska B, Serôdio J, Suresh K, Szulc W, Tambussi E, Yanniccari M, Zivcak M (2014) Frequently asked questions about in vivo chlorophyll fluorescence: practical issues. Photosynth Res 122:121–158CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalaji HM, Jajoo A, Oukarroum A, Marian Brestic M, Zivcak M, Samborska IA, Cetner MD, Łukasik I, Goltsev V, Ladle RJ (2016) Chlorophyll a fluorescence as a tool to monitor physiological status of plants under abiotic stress conditions. Acta Physiol Plant 38:102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalaji HM, Schansker G, Brestic M, Bussotti F, Calatayud A, Ferroni L, Goltsev V, Guidi L, Jajoo A, Li P, Losciale P, Mishra VK, Misra AN, Nebauer SG, Pancaldi S, Penella C, Pollastrini M, Suresh K, Tambussi E, Yanniccari M, Zivcak M, Cetner MD, Samborska IA, Stirbet A, Olsovska K, Kunderlikova K, Shelonzek H, Sz Rusinowski, Bąba W (2017) Frequently asked questions about chlorophyll fluorescence, the sequel. Photosynth Res 132:13–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kowalkowska AK, Margońska HB, Kozieradzka-Kiszkurno M, Bohdanowicz J (2012) Studies on the ultrastructure of a three-spurred fumeauxiana form of Anacamptis pyramidalis. Plant Syst Evol 298:1025–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramer DM, Johnson G, Kiirats O, Edwards GE (2004) New flux parameters for the determination of QA redox state and excitation fluxes. Photosynth Res 79:209–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ladygin VG, Bondarev NI, Semenova GA, Smolov AA, Reshetnyak OV, Nosov AM (2008) Chloroplast ultrastructure, photosynthetic apparatus activities and production of steviol glycosides in Stevia rebaudiana in vivo and in vitro. Biol Plant 52:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Majada JP, Fal MA, Tadeo F, Sánchez-Tamés R (2002) Effects of natural ventilation on leaf ultrastructure of Dianthus caryophyllus L. cultured in vitro. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 38:272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matysiak B, Gabryszewska E (2016) The effect of in vitro culture conditions on the pattern of maximum photochemical efficiency of photosystem II during acclimatisation of Helleborus niger plantlets to ex vitro conditions. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 125:585–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant 15:437–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murchie EH, Lawson T (2013) Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis: a guide to good practice and understanding some new applications. J Exp Bot 64:3683–3998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myšková R, Obršálová I, Langášek P (2011) Economic, environmental and social aspects of renewable energy using for small sources of heating. WSEAS Trans Environ Dev 8:244–253Google Scholar
  25. Omarova MA, Artamonova NA, Chasovitina GM (1998) Chemical composition of the hybrid Rumex K-1. Chem Nat Compd 34:426–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osório ML, Osório J, Romano A (2010) Chlorophyll fluorescence in micropropagated Rhododendron ponticum subsp. baeticum plants in response to different irradiances. Biol Plant 54:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patrick JW, Botha FC, Birch RG (2013) Metabolic engineering of sugars and simple sugar derivatives in plants. Plant Biotechnol J 11:142–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pierik R (1990) Rejuvenation and micropropagation. In: Nijkamp H, Van der Plas LHW, Van Artrijk J (eds) Progress in plant cellular and molecular biology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pospíšilová J, Solárová J, Častský J (1992) Photosynthetic responses to stresses during in vitro cultivation. Photosynthetica 26:3–18Google Scholar
  30. Pospíšilová J, Tichá I, Kadleček P, Haisel D, Plzáková Š (1999) Acclimatization of micropropagated plants to ex-vitro conditions. Biol Plant 42:481–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pospíšilová J, Haisel D, Synková H, Čatský J, Wilhelmová N, Plzáková S, Procházková D, Šrámek F (2000) Photosynthetic pigments and gas exchange during ex vitro acclimation of tobacco plants as affected by CO2 supply and abscisic acid. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 61:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sáez PL, Bravo LA, Sáez KL, Sánchez-Olate L, Latsague MI, Ríos DG (2012) Photosynthetic and leaf anatomical characteristics of Castanea sativa: a comparison between in vitro and nursery plants. Biol Plant 56(1):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sami F, Yusuf M, Faizan M, Faraz A, Hayat S (2016) Role of sugars under abiotic stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 109:54–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Scheuring D, Viotti C, Krüger F, Künzl F, Sturm S, Bubeck J, Hillmer S, Frigerio L, Robinson DG, Pimpl P, Schumacher K (2011) Multivesicular bodies mature from the trans-Golgi network/early endosome in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 23:3469–3481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ślesak H, Liszniańska M, Popielarska-Konieczna M, Góralski G, Sliwinska E, Joachimiak AJ (2014) Micropropagation protocol for the hybrid sorrel Rumex tianschanicus × Rumex patientia, an energy plant. Histological, SEM and flow cytometric analyses. Ind Crop Prod 62:156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stefanova M, Koleva D, Ganeva T (2013) Effect of plant growth regulators on chloroplast ultrastructure in Lamium album plantlets. Bulg J Agric Sci 19:1208–1212Google Scholar
  37. Stefanova M, Koleva D, Ganeva T (2015) Variations in the chloroplast ultrastructure in in vitro-cultured Hypericum spp. plants. Bulg J Agric Sci 21:300–304Google Scholar
  38. Us-Camas R, Rivera-Solís G, Duarte-Aké F, De-la-Pena C (2014) In vitro culture: an epigenetic challenge for plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 118:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ust’ak S, Ust’aková M (2004) Potential for agricultural biomass to produce bioenergy in the Czech Republic. In: Parris K (ed) Biomass and agriculture: sustainability, markets and policies. OECD, France, pp 229–239Google Scholar
  40. Van Dingenen J, De Milde L, Vermeersch M, Maleux K, De Rycke R, De Bruyne M, Storme V, Gonzalez N, Dhondt S, Inzé D (2016) Chloroplasts are central players in sugar-induced leaf growth. Plant Physiol 171:590–605CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. White AJ, Critchley C (1999) Rapid light curves: a new fluorescence method to assess the state of the photosynthetic apparatus. Photosynth Res 59:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zenkteler E, Borkowska B (2002) The photosynthetic status of in vitro strawberry shoots. Acta Hortic 567:309–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhuang P, Ye ZH, Lan CY, Xie ZW, Shu WS (2005) Chemically assisted phytoextraction of heavy metal contaminated soils using three plant species. Plant Soil 276:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis 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

  • Halina Ślesak
    • 1
  • Magdalena Liszniańska
    • 1
  • Ireneusz Ślesak
    • 2
  • Małgorzata Kozieradzka-Kiszkurno
    • 3
  • Marzena Popielarska-Konieczna
    • 1
  • Andrzej J. Joachimiak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Cytology and Embryology, Institute of BotanyJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland
  2. 2.The Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant PhysiologyPolish Academy of SciencesKrakówPoland
  3. 3.Department of Plant Cytology and EmbryologyUniversity of GdańskGdańskPoland

Personalised recommendations