Advertisement

Nitric oxide improves thermotolerance in spring maize by inducing varied genotypic defense mechanisms

Original Article
  • 95 Downloads

Abstract

The investigation aimed at determining the effect of nitric oxide on antioxidant defense system of spring maize (Zea mays L.) genotypes namely, LM 11 (stress susceptible) and CML 32 (stress tolerant), that showed differential tolerance towards heat stress. Seed priming with a NO donor, sodium nitroprusside (SNP) improved seedling growth and induced varied defense mechanisms, under stress conditions. 75 μM SNP improved seedling lengths and their biomasses. It specifically enhanced catalase (CAT) activity in the roots of stressed seedlings of the two genotypes. However, it could induce CAT activity only in LM 11 shoots, under heat stress. It also enhanced peroxidase (POX) activity in CML 32 roots. However, such induction of POX activity with SNP treatment was not observed in LM 11 roots. This showed that NO increased the H2O2 scavenging efficiency of CML 32 genotype by enhancing the cumulative activation of CAT and POX in its roots. However, it did not induce activation of any of the H2O2 detoxifying enzymes in CML 32 shoots which showed that ascorbate–glutathione cycle remained non-operational in shoots of SNP-treated seedlings of the tolerant genotype, under high temperature stress. With seed priming, superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity increased in both the tissues of LM 11 seedlings. The shoots of SNP primed CML 32 seedlings, however, did not show any effect on SOD activity which illustrated that nitric oxide might act as a direct scavenger of superoxide radicals in CML 32 seedlings. SNP decreased the contents of H2O2 and MDA and increased proline content in seedlings of both the genotypes indicating reduced oxidative damage. The results thus showed that nitric oxide might induce different mechanisms of stress tolerance in these maize genotypes.

Keywords

Spring maize Temperature stress Antioxidant response Sodium nitroprusside 

Introduction

Nitric oxide (NO) is a signal molecule that participates in a range of biochemical and physiological processes of plants. These include photosynthesis, flowering, fruit ripening, and response to various abiotic and biotic stresses (Oz et al. 2015). A cross talk between NO signaling and reactive oxygen species (ROS) has been reported in the literature (Yildiztugay et al. 2014). NO not only activates antioxidant enzymes through signaling, but also acts as an antioxidant itself (Boogar et al. 2014; Parankusam et al. 2017). It acts either through the cGMP-dependent or -independent pathway and modulates the activities of protein kinases (Arasimowicz and Floryszak-Wieczorak 2007). It has been reported to alter the response of plants towards unfavorable environmental conditions such as temperature, salinity, drought, UV radiations, etc. (Singh et al. 2014; Oz et al. 2015).

High temperature is the main abiotic aspect that affects the development and productivity of crops (Hasanuzzaman et al. 2013). It affects physiological, biochemical, and gene regulation pathways of plants (Bita and Gerats 2013). It induces excessive generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as superoxide (O2−·), singlet oxygen (1O), hydroxyl radicals (OH), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) that are extremely harmful to all cellular components. ROS are generated at controlled levels under non-stress conditions. However, exposure to stress conditions leads to malfunctioning of the ROS scavenging system, causing an imbalance between utilization and production of ROS thereby leading to their accumulation. This imbalance results in lipid peroxidation, DNA damage, protein denaturation, and pigment bleaching in plants subjected to high temperature stress (Ding et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2010). It has been reported that high temperature stress hastened the phenological stages of plants, thereby reducing yield and quality of grains (Farooq et al. 2011; Tewari and Tripathy 1999).

The detrimental effects of high temperature stress have been reported to be reduced by the application of sodium nitroprusside (SNP), a nitric oxide donor. Its role in alleviating oxidative damage by inducing antioxidant enzymes under high temperature stress has been cited earlier (Hasanuzzaman et al. 2012). With sodium nitroprusside (SNP) application, increased activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) were observed in heat exposed plants (Song et al. 2006).

Spring maize (Zea mays L.) belongs to Gramineae family and serves as an important food as well as livestock feed. It is a good source of nutrition as it contains carbohydrates, proteins, fats, fiber, and minerals (Enyisi et al. 2014). It has gained vast importance as a commercial crop due to the production of a large number of products from its grain. Moreover, its cultivation in the spring season helps in crop diversification program as it provides new prospects to utilize the vacated fields. Besides, it possesses high yield potential among all the cereals and is, therefore, known as the “queen of cereals”. Due to these reasons, spring maize is attaining more popularity among farmers and is currently being practiced in agriculture (Ranum et al. 2014). However, high temperature stress is a major problem confronted by spring maize. It led to reduced photosynthesis that further resulted in pollen desiccation, delayed silking, wilting, leaf firing, stunted growth and abortion, ultimately leading to poor yield in spring maize (Naveed et al. 2014).

Therefore, this investigation was carried out to study the role of nitric oxide in inducing thermotolerance in spring maize.

Materials and methods

Plant material

The seeds of two genotypes, namely, LM 11 (stress susceptible) and CML 32 (stress tolerant), were primed for 24 h either with different concentrations of sodium nitroprusside (SNP) or water and then sown in disposable plastic cups containing manure and siphoned soil with four seeds per cup. The cups with unprimed seeds were taken as control (heat stress treatment without seed priming). All the cups were kept in incubator at 25 °C for 3 days. On the fourth day, cups were shifted to 40 °C to provide high temperature stress. On the ninth day, growth of seedlings was measured in terms of lengths, fresh weights, and dry weights of shoots and roots. The activities of antioxidant enzymes and contents of antioxidant molecules were also determined in maize seedlings at the fifth and ninth day of seedling growth (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Timeline figure showing the execution of the experiment

Determination of antioxidant enzymes

Superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, and glutathione reductase were extracted with 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.5) containing 1 mM EDTA, 1% polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and 10 mM β-mercaptoethanol. Pyrogallol was used as substrate for determining superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity (Marklund and Marklund 1974). It was determined using 0.5 ml of 6 mM pyrogallol solution, 1.5 ml of 100 mM Tris HCl buffer (pH 8.2), and 0.1 ml enzyme extract. The absorbance was determined at 420 nm for 3 min with 30 s interval. The substrates, guaiacol and H2O2 were used for determining peroxidase activity (Shannon et al. 1966). The assay system had 3 ml of 50 mM guaiacol (in 100 mM phosphate buffer, pH 6.5) and 0.1 ml enzyme extract to which 0.1 ml of 800 mM H2O2 was added to initiate the reaction. The absorbance was recorded at 470 nm for 3 min with 30 s interval. The activity of glutathione reductase was determined using glutathione (oxidized) as substrate, following the methodology of Esterbaur and Grill (1978). For this, 0.1 ml of 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.1 ml of 0.2 mM EDTA, 0.2 ml of 0.025 mM NADPH, 0.2 ml of 200 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.5), and 0.2 ml of enzyme extract were added to the spectrophotometric cuvette followed by the addition of 0.2 ml of 0.25 mM glutathione (oxidized). The absorbance was recorded at 340 nm for 3 min with 30 s interval. The molar extinction coefficient was 6.22 mM−1 cm−1 for NADPH.

Catalase activity was determined after homogenizing the tissue with sodium phosphate buffer (50 mM, pH 7.5). It was assayed by taking 1.8 ml sodium phosphate buffer (50 mM, pH 7.5), 0.2 ml enzyme extract and 0.1 ml of 39 mM H2O2 as substrate. The absorbance was recorded at 240 nm for 3 min with 30 s interval (Chance and Maehly 1955). Ascorbate peroxidase activity was determined after homogenizing the tissue with 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.5) having 1% PVP and 1 mM ascorbic acid. It was assayed by taking 0.8 ml of 0.5 mM ascorbate, 1 ml of 39 mM H2O2, 1 ml of 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) and 0.2 ml enzyme extract. Absorbance was measured spectrophotometrically at 290 nm for 3 min with 30 s interval (Nakano and Asada 1987). The content of proteins was also determined (Lowry et al. 1951).

Determination of H2O2 and MDA contents

H2O2 was extracted with sodium phosphate buffer (10 mM, pH 7.0) and estimated by the method described by Sinha (1971). 2 ml supernatant was mixed with 2 ml of solution containing glacial acetic acid and 5% potassium dichromate (1:3 v/v), and filtered using Whatman filter paper no. 1; and then, absorbance was read against the reagent blank at 570 nm. H2O2 content was determined from standard curve prepared by taking different concentration of H2O2 ranging from 20 to 100 µmol. MDA was extracted using 5% trichloroacetic acid and assayed by mixing the supernatant with an equal volume of 20% (w/v) TCA having 0.5% thiobarbituric acid (TBA). Absorbance was read at 532 nm and corrected by subtracting the absorbance at 600 nm for non-specific turbidity (Heath and Packer 1968). Extinction coefficient of 155 mM−1 cm−1 was used for calculating malondialdehyde content.

Determination of nitric oxide and proline contents

For extraction of nitric oxide, the tissue was homogenized with sodium acetate buffer (50 mM, pH 3.6) having 4% zinc acetate. It was then centrifuged for 15 min at 10,000 g. The supernatants were collected and pooled after repeated washings of the pellet. To the pooled extract, 0.1 g charcoal was added and the mixture was again filtered. 1 ml of filtrate was then mixed with 1 ml of Greiss reagent and the solution was kept at room temperature for 30 min. Thereafter, it was spectrophotometrically measured at 540 nm. The content of nitric oxide was determined by taking NaNO2 (10–50 nmol) as standard (Zhou et al. 2005). Methodology of Bates et al. (1973) was followed for determining proline content. For extracting proline content, the tissue was homogenized with 3% sulfosalicylic acid. The extract was then filtered. Estimation was carried out by adding 2 ml acidic ninhydrin solution and 2 ml glacial acetic acid to 2 ml of filtrate. The mixture was kept at 100 °C for 60 min. The tubes were then kept in an ice bath and 4 ml toluene was added to them. Absorbance of the upper toluene layer was read at 520 nm using toluene as blank.

Statistical analysis

Results were expressed as mean ± SD of three replicates. The data on seedling growth were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance with post hoc analysis, the Fisher’s LSD. Data for the other biochemical parameters were analyzed by applying factorial experiment in the CRD (SAS software 9.3).

Results and discussion

Effect of nitric oxide on seedling growth

Under high temperature, LM 11 seedlings showed reduced seedling growth as compared to the tolerant genotype, CML 32. The lengths and biomass of seedlings were observed to be lower in LM 11 as compared to CML 32 (Fig. 2). When seeds were primed for 24 h with different concentrations of SNP and then exposed to heat stress (40 °C), it was observed that 75 µM SNP significantly alleviated the deleterious effects of high temperature and resulted in improved seedling growth. It increased the biomass of seedlings of both the genotypes. The shoot lengths were also effectively improved by SNP treatment in both the genotypes (Fig. 2). 75 µM SNP has been earlier reported to improve seed germination and seedling growth by Ismail (2012). The low concentrations of SNP reduced stress severity by inducing transient oxidative stress that attributed to the hardening effect and the increased antioxidant capacity of plants (Alavi et al. 2014). Improved seedling growth with SNP treatment has been observed in plants under stressful conditions (Liu et al. 2013; Nejadalimoradi et al. 2014). It was further observed that the increasing SNP concentration beyond 75 µM, in fact, reduced the biomass of both the genotypes (Fig. 2). On the basis of these results, 75 µM SNP was selected as NO donor for the next experiment.
Fig. 2

Effect of different concentrations of sodium nitroprusside (SNP) on LM 11 and CML 32 seedlings under high temperature stress. ac Length, fresh weight (Fwt), and dry weight (Dwt), respectively, of LM 11 seedlings, while df represent length, fresh weight (Fwt), and dry weight (Dwt), respectively, of CML 32 seedlings. LSD represents least significant difference at p < 0.05. ‘a’ and ‘c’ represent values significantly different with respect to roots and shoots of heat-stressed seedlings, respectively, at p < 0.05. ‘b’ and ‘d’ represent values significantly different with respect to roots and shoots of water primed heat-stressed seedlings, respectively, at p < 0.05

Effect of nitric oxide on antioxidant defense system

Catalases (CAT) catalyze the conversion of H2O2 into H2O (Sanchez-Casas and Klessig 1994). A comparison of the two genotypes under high temperature stress showed that LM 11 had high CAT activity in shoots at 5 DSG stage, while roots and shoots of CML 32 seedlings had increased CAT activity at 9 DSG stage (Fig. 3a, b). The increased CAT activity in CML 32 seedlings might be due to its induction in response to increased H2O2 content under stress conditions as was reported by Foyer et al. (1997). Seed priming with SNP elevated CAT activity in roots of both the genotypes, though the enzyme activity was manifolds high in CML 32 roots than those of LM 11 ones (Fig. 3a). The shoots of SNP primed LM 11 seedlings also showed increased CAT activity at 5 DSG stage. This indicated the protective role of nitric oxide in scavenging H2O2 molecules. The results were in parallel to those observed by Hasanuzzaman et al. (2012) who also reported an increased CAT activity in nitric oxide treated seedlings of wheat, under high temperature conditions. However, SNP could not improve CAT activity in CML 32 shoots under high temperature stress (Fig. 3b).
Fig. 3

Effect of 75 μM sodium nitroprusside on the catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POX) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities in the roots and shoots of LM 11 and CML 32 seedlings under high temperature stress (40 °C). One unit of SOD activity is the amount of enzyme that would inhibit 50% of auto oxidation of pyrogallol observed in blank. ‘*’, ‘¶’, ‘†’, and ‘‡’ represent statistical differences between HS LM 11 vs. HS SNP LM 11, HS CML 32 vs. HS SNP CML 32, HS LM 11 vs. HS CML 32, and HS SNP LM 11 and HS SNP CML 32, respectively, at p < 0.05

Peroxidases (POX) catalyze the cleavage of H2O2 with the oxidation of a range of substrates (Yali and Bingru 2010). Our results showed that CML 32 seedlings had comparatively higher POX activity than LM 11 seedlings under high temperature stress (Fig. 3c). This showed that CML 32 seedlings had an efficient mechanism of scavenging reactive oxygen species as compared to the susceptible genotype, LM 11. Priming of CML 32 seeds with SNP improved peroxidase activity in their roots during seedling growth under stress conditions (Fig. 3c). An increase in POX activity with nitric oxide treatment has been cited earlier in response to other abiotic stresses (Kausar et al. 2013). This showed that NO enhanced the H2O2 scavenging efficiency of CML 32 seedlings by the cumulative activation of CAT and POX activities in their roots, under high temperature stress. However, such induction of POX activity with SNP treatment was not observed in the roots of LM 11 as well as shoots of both CML 32 and LM 11 genotypes (Fig. 3c, d).

Superoxide dismutase (SOD) regulates the concentrations of O 2 −· and H2O2 molecules and thus plays a vital role in antioxidant defense (Bowler et al. 1992). SOD activity was higher in the roots of the tolerant genotype (CML 32) than those of the susceptible (LM 11) ones at 5 DSG, under high temperature conditions. However, at 9 DSG, the roots of heat-stressed LM 11 seedlings achieved the same levels as those acquired by CML 32 at 5 DSG (Fig. 3e). The high SOD activity in shoots of CML 32 seedlings at 5 DSG might be responsible for scavenging super oxide radicals, thereby assisting the genotype in tolerating heat stress to a higher extent than that of LM 11 seedlings. SNP treatment induced an increase in SOD activity of LM 11 shoots under high temperature (Fig. 3f), thus improving the superoxide scavenging efficiency of the susceptible genotype. Induction of SOD activity with SNP treatment has also been reported in the literature under various abiotic stresses (Kausar et al. 2013). The increase in SOD activity thus provided a defensive pathway in shoots of LM 11 seedlings against superoxide radicals as was suggested by Ostrovskaya et al. (2009).

SNP treatment resulted in reduced SOD activity in CML 32 roots, under high temperature stress (Fig. 3e). The shoots of SNP primed CML 32 seedlings, however, did not affect SOD activity (Fig. 3f). The reduced or unaffected SOD activity in SNP-treated heat-stressed CML 32 seedlings showed that nitric oxide might act as a direct scavenger of superoxide radicals as was suggested by Zhou et al. (2005). As a result, the activation of SOD might not be required by the system for scavenging superoxide radicals. The results thus showed that there are genotypic differences in the mechanism of action of nitric oxide in LM 11 and CML 32 seedlings.

Ascorbate peroxidase (APX) provides protection against various abiotic stresses by scavenging H2O2 (Gill and Tuteja 2010). When both the genotypes were compared, higher activity of APX was noticed in CML 32 seedlings than that of the susceptible genotype, LM 11 (Fig. 4a, b). An enhanced APX activity was also reported in heat tolerant cultivars of wheat (Dash and Mohanty 2002). The increased APX activity has been reported to reduce H2O2 accumulation leading to decreased heat-induced plant senescence (Yali and Bingru 2010). SNP treatment, however, reduced APX activity in the heat-stressed seedlings of both the genotypes at five DSG stages, which became comparable with untreated heat-stressed seedlings at 9 DSG stage. These results were in parallel to the reports of Fotopoulos et al. (2014).
Fig. 4

Effect of 75 μM sodium nitroprusside on the ascorbate peroxidase (APX), glutathione reductase (GR) activities in the roots and shoots of LM 11 and CML 32 seedlings under high temperature stress (40 °C). ‘*’, ‘¶’, ‘†’, and ‘‡’ represent statistical differences between HS LM 11 vs. HS SNP LM 11, HS CML 32 vs. HS SNP CML 32, HS LM 11 vs. HS CML 32, and HS SNP LM 11 and HS SNP CML 32, respectively, at p < 0.05

The overall results of H2O2 scavenging enzymes thus showed that the role of H2O2 detoxification was primarily played by the nitric oxide induced CAT and POX activities in CML 32 roots under stress conditions (Fig. 3a, c). However, in the roots of LM 11 genotype, CAT is the principal enzyme responsible for H2O2 detoxification (Fig. 3a). Since APX activity was not required for scavenging H2O2 molecules, it was reduced in the SNP-treated seedlings of the tolerant and susceptible genotypes, under heat stress (Fig. 4a, b). Contrary to our results, there are reports in the literature that showed increased APX activity with SNP treatment under various abiotic stresses (Hasanuzzaman et al. 2012). An important observation of the results showed that nitric oxide did not induce activation of any of the H2O2 detoxifying enzymes in the CML 32 shoots but caused induction of CAT activity in those of LM 11 seedlings. This showed that nitric oxide might induce different mechanisms of heat stress tolerance in the two genotypes. Nitric oxide, being an antioxidant, either acts as a ROS scavenger (H2O2 and O 2 −· ) or as an antioxidant system inducer (Singh et al. 2009). As a direct scavenger of H2O2 molecules, nitric oxide might take over the functions of the H2O2 scavenging enzymes, thereby preventing their activation in CML 32 shoots under high temperature stress (Fig. 6). However, in LM 11 shoots, nitric oxide might act as an inducer of antioxidant system, causing enhanced CAT activity under stress conditions (Fig. 3b).

Glutathione reductase (GR) activity enhanced from 5 to 9 DSG stages in LM 11 roots, whereas an opposite trend was observed in CML 32 roots, under high temperature stress (Fig. 4c). SNP treatment improved its activity in the roots of both the genotypes under stress conditions (Fig. 4c). SNP-induced GR activity, under high temperature stress, has been reported earlier (Hasanuzzaman et al. 2012). SNP treatment also increased its activity in LM 11 shoots at 5 DSG stage (Fig. 4d). With further seedling growth, GR activity maintained itself at the same levels leading to its reduced activity as compared to stress conditions (Fig. 4d). In the shoots of CML 32 seedlings, GR activity decreased significantly at 9 DSG as compared to 5 DSG under stress conditions. In other words, SNP treatment did not improve GR activity in CML 32 shoots, under stress conditions. It, in fact, decreased GR activity under stress conditions (Fig. 4d). The results thus showed that, with SNP treatment, the Halliwell–Asada pathway becomes inactive in CML 32 shoots, under heat stress. In other words, nitric oxide resulted in non-operational Halliwell–Asada pathway in CML 32 shoots under heat stress.

Hydrogen peroxide, malondialdehyde, nitric oxide, and proline contents

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) acts as a signaling molecule. However, above optimum levels, it becomes toxic to the cell that results in membrane injury and lipid peroxidation (Sairam et al. 1998). With an exception of LM 11 shoots, a significant decrease in H2O2 content was noticed in the untreated seedlings of susceptible and tolerant genotypes at 9 DSG stage compared to 5 DSG stage, under heat stress (Fig. 5a, b).
Fig. 5

Effect of 75 μM sodium nitroprusside on hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and malondialdehyde (MDA) contents in the roots and shoots of LM 11 and CML 32 seedlings under high temperature stress (40 °C). ‘*’, ‘¶’, ‘†’, and ‘‡’ represent statistical differences between HS LM 11 vs. HS SNP LM 11, HS CML 32 vs. HS SNP CML 32, HS LM 11 vs. HS CML 32, and HS SNP LM 11 and HS SNP CML 32, respectively, at p < 0.05

SNP treatment led to a reduction in H2O2 content of LM 11 and CML 32 seedlings than those of untreated ones, under heat stress (Fig. 5a, b). This reduction in H2O2 content with SNP treatment might be due to its direct quenching by nitric oxide or due to changes in the activities of CAT/POX (Groß et al. 2013) that in turn led to reduced cell injury and protection against cell death. The decreased accumulation of H2O2 in SNP-treated plants, under high temperature, has been reported in the literature (El-Beltagi et al. 2016). A similar decline in H2O2 accumulation by nitric oxide, under other stresses, has been reported (Liu et al. 2013).

Malondialdehyde (MDA) content, an indicator for the determination of the degree of oxidative stress (Davey et al. 2005), reflects the extent of membrane injury (Wang et al. 2011). Our results reflected that heat stress led to enhanced MDA content from 5 to 9 DSG stages in the roots of the susceptible and tolerant genotypes (Fig. 5c, d). However, the content was significantly higher in LM 11 seedlings than those of CML 32. This showed that membrane injury was higher in LM 11 as compared to CML 32 seedlings. An increase in lipid peroxidation, under high temperature, has been observed earlier (James et al. 2015). SNP treatment reduced membrane injury in CML 32 and LM 11 genotypes, under stress conditions. This was inferred from the reduced MDA levels in SNP-treated seedlings of the two maize genotypes (Fig. 5c, d). However, MDA content remained comparatively higher in the SNP-treated LM 11 seedlings than those of the other genotype, under heat stress (Fig. 5c, d). Cechin et al. (2015) also showed a similar reduction in MDA content in SNP-treated seedlings, under high temperature stress. The results thus showed that nitric oxide treatment reduced the levels of ROS either by its direct quenching or through activation of antioxidant defense system which in turn led to reduced membrane injury.

Nitric oxide (NO) plays a key role in extreme temperature tolerance (Lamattina et al. 2003). During high temperature, NO content became higher in the tolerant seedlings than those of the susceptible ones, at 5 DSG stage (Fig. 6a, b). The higher NO content, under stress conditions, might act as an adaptive mechanism for CML 32 seedlings in tolerating extreme temperatures. High NO level in plants, under heat stress, has been cited earlier (Gould et al. 2003). With further seedling growth, NO content increased in seedlings of both the genotypes with an exception of CML 32 shoots that showed a significant decrease at 9 DSG stage (Fig. 6a, b). In SNP-treated heat-stressed seedlings, NO content increased considerably in seedlings of both the genotypes (Fig. 6a, b). It reached comparable levels in the roots of both the maize genotypes at 5 DSG but remained higher in CML 32 seedlings at 9 DSG (Fig. 6a). It was also noticed to be at elevated levels in the shoots of CML 32 seedlings at 5 DSG stage. During later stage of seedling growth, NO content of LM 11 shoots also reached comparable levels with those of CML 32 seedlings (Fig. 6b).
Fig. 6

Effect of 75 μM sodium nitroprusside on nitric oxide (NO) and proline contents in the roots and shoots of LM 11 and CML 32 seedlings under high temperature stress (40 °C). ‘*’, ‘¶’, ‘†’, and ‘‡’ represent statistical differences between HS LM 11 vs. HS SNP LM 11, HS CML 32 vs. HS SNP CML 32, HS LM 11 vs. HS CML 32, and HS SNP LM 11 and HS SNP CML 32, respectively, at p < 0.05

Proline acts as an osmolyte as well as an antioxidant in providing defense against abiotic stresses (Gosavi et al. 2014). The content of proline was comparatively higher in LM 11 seedlings than those of CML 32 under high temperature stress (Fig. 6c, d). Accumulation of proline in plants is reported to be a modulation against stress conditions (Sadeghipour 2016). SNP treatment further increased its content in seedlings of the two genotypes under heat stress (Fig. 6c, d). Similar results were observed by Fan and Du (2012) and Liu et al. (2013). The results thus showed that nitric oxide improved heat tolerance in the two genotypes by increasing proline accumulation that might be due to the increased activities of proline synthesizing enzymes or decreased activities of those involved in proline oxidation as suggested by Khan et al. (2013).

Conclusions

It may thus be concluded that nitric oxide improves thermotolerance in spring maize genotypes by inducing varied genotypic mechanisms of antioxidant system.

Author contribution statement

Khushdeep Kaur performed all the experiments discussed in the manuscript entitled, “Nitric oxide improves thermotolerance in spring maize by inducing varied genotypic defense mechanisms”. Kamaljit Kaur designed the overall project, formulated the objectives, and analyzed the results critically for the manuscript entitled, “Nitric oxide improves thermotolerance in spring maize by inducing varied genotypic defense mechanisms”.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr. Gurjit Kaur Gill, Sr. Maize Breeder, Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, for providing maize genotypes for this investigation.

References

  1. Alavi SMN, Arvin MJ, Kalantari KM (2014) Salicylic acid and nitric oxide alleviate osmotic stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings. J Plant Interact 9:683–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arasimowicz M, Floryszak-Wieczorak J (2007) Nitric oxide as a bioactive signalling molecule in plant stress responses. Plant Sci 172:876–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil 39:205–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bita CE, Gerats T (2013) Plant tolerance to high temperature in a changing environment: scientific fundamentals and production of heat stress-tolerant crops. Front Plant Sci 4:273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Boogar AR, Salehi H, Jowkar A (2014) Exogenous nitric oxide alleviates oxidative damage in turfgrasses under drought stress. South Afr J Bot 92:78–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowler C, Montagu MV, Inze D (1992) Superoxide dismutase and stress tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Phys 43:83–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cechin I, Cardoso GS, Fumis T, Corniani N (2015) Nitric oxide reduces oxidative damage induced by water stress in sunflower plants. Bragantia Campinas 74:200–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chance B, Maehly AC (1955) Assay of catalases and peroxidases. Methods Enzymol 2:764–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dash S, Mohanty N (2002) Response of seedlings to heat-stress in cultivars of wheat: growth temperature-dependent differential modulation of photosystem I and II activity and foliar antioxidant defense capacity. J Plant Physiol 159:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davey MW, Stals E, Pains B, Keulemans J, Swennen RL (2005) High through put determination of malondialdehyde in plant tissues. Anal Biochem 347:201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ding HD, Zhang XH, Liu H, Liang JS, Liu B (2012) Involvement of calcium and calmodulin signalling in adaptation to heat stress induced oxidative stress in Solanum lycopersicum L. leaves. Afr J Biotechnol 11:3259–3269Google Scholar
  12. El-Beltagi HS, Ahmed OK, Hegazy AE (2016) Protective effect of nitric oxide on high temperature induced oxidative stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum) callus culture. Not Sci Biol 8:192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enyisi SI, Umoh VJ, Whong CMZ, Abdullahi IO, Alabi O (2014) Chemical and nutritional value of maize products obtained from selected markets. Afr J Food Sci Technol 5:100–104Google Scholar
  14. Esterbaur H, Grill D (1978) Seasonal variation of glutathione and glutathione reductase in seedlings of Picea abies. Plant Physiol 61:119–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fan H, Du C (2012) Effect of nitric oxide on proline metabolism in cucumber seedlings under salinity stress. J Am Soc Sci 137:127–133Google Scholar
  16. Farooq MH, Bramley J, Palta A, Siddique KHM (2011) Heat stress in wheat during reproductive and grain filling phases. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30:491–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fotopoulos V, Antoniou C, Filippou P, Mylona P, Fasoula D, Ioannides I, Polidoros A (2014) Application of sodium nitroprusside results in distinct antioxidant gene expression patterns in leaves of mature and senescing Medicago truncatula plants. Protoplasma 251:973–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Foyer CH, Lopez-Delgado H, Dat JF, Scott IM (1997) Hydrogen peroxide and glutathione-associated mechanisms of acclamatory stress tolerance and signaling. Plant Physiol 100:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gill SS, Tuteja N (2010) Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol Biochem 48:909–930CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gosavi GU, Jadhav AS, Kale AA, Gadakh SR, Pawar BD, Chimote VP (2014) Effect of heat stress on proline, chlorophyll content, heat shock proteins and antioxidant enzyme activity in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) at seedling stage. Indian J Biotechnol 13:356–363Google Scholar
  21. Gould K, Lamotte O, Klinguer A, Pugin A, Wendehenne D (2003) Nitric oxide production in tobacco leaf cells: a generalized stress response? Plant Cell Environ 26:1851–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groß F, Durner J, Gaupels F (2013) Nitric oxide, antioxidants and pro-oxidants in plant defence responses. Front Plant Sci 4:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Alam MM, Futija M (2012) Exogenous nitric oxide alleviates high temperature induced oxidative stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings by modulating the antioxidant defense and glyoxalase system. Aust J Crop Sci 6:1314–1323Google Scholar
  24. Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Mahabub A, Roychowdhury R, Futija M (2013) Physiological, biochemical and molecular mechanisms of heat stress tolerance in plants. Int J Mol Sci 14:9643–9684CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Heath RL, Packer L (1968) Photo peroxidation in isolated chloroplasts. Arch Biochem Biophys 125:189–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ismail GSM (2012) Protective role of nitric oxide against arsenic-induced damages in germinating mung bean seeds. Acta Physiol Plant 34:1303–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. James D, Tarafdar A, Biswas K, Sathyavathi TC, Padaria JC, Kumar PA (2015) Development and characterization of a high temperature stress responsive subtractive cDNA library in Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). Indian J Exp Biol 53:543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kausar F, Shahbaz M, Ashraf M (2013) Protective role of foliar-applied nitric oxide in Triticum aestivum under saline stress. Turk J Bot 37:1155–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khan MIR, Iqbal N, Masood A, Per TS, Khan NA (2013) Salicylic acid alleviates adverse effects of heat stress on photosynthesis through changes in proline production and ethylene formation. Plant Signal Behav 8:26374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lamattina L, Garcia-Mata C, Graziano M, Pagnusat G (2003) Nitric oxide the versatility of an extensive signal molecule. Annu Rev Plant Biol 54:109–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu S, Dong YJ, Xu LL, Kong J, Bai XY (2013) Roles of exogenous nitric oxide in regulating equilibrium and moderating oxidative stress in cotton seedlings during salt stress. J Plant Sci Plant Nutr 34:929–941Google Scholar
  32. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Frase AT, Randall RJ (1951) Protein measurement with folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 193:265–275PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Marklund S, Marklund G (1974) Involvement of superoxide anion radical in the auto-oxidation of pyrogallol and a convenient assay for superoxide dismutase. Eur J Biochem 47:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller G, Suzuki N, Ciftci- Yilmaz S, Mittler R (2010) Reactive oxygen homeostatis and signalling during drought and salinity stress. J Agric Res 45:269–276Google Scholar
  35. Nakano Y, Asada K (1987) Purification of ascorbate peroxidase in spinach chloroplast: its inactivation in ascorbate depleted medium and reactivation by monodehyroascorbate radical. Plant Cell Physiol 28:131–140Google Scholar
  36. Naveed S, Aslam M, Maqbool MA, Bano S, Zaman QU, Ahmad RM (2014) Physiology of high temperature stress tolerance at reproductive stages in maize. J Anim Plant Sci 24:1141–1145Google Scholar
  37. Nejadalimoradi H, Nasibi F, Manoochehri K, Zanganeh R (2014) Effect of seed priming with l-arginine and sodium nitroprusside on some physiological parameters and antioxidant enzymes of sunflower plants exposed to salt stress. Agric Commun 2:23–30Google Scholar
  38. Ostrovskaya LK, Truch VV, Mikhailik OM (2009) Superoxide dismutase activation in response to lime-induced chlorosis. New Phytol 114:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oz MT, Eyidogan F, Yucel M, Oktem HA (2015) Functional role of nitric oxide under abiotic stress conditions. In: Khan MN, Mobin M, Mohammad F, Corpas FJ (eds) Nitric oxide action in abiotic stress responses in plants. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 21–41Google Scholar
  40. Parankusam S, Adimulam SS, Mathur PB, Sharma KK (2017) Nitric oxide (NO) in plant heat stress tolerance: current knowledge and perspectives. Front Plant Sci.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01582 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Ranum P, Pena-Rosas JP, Garcia-Casal MN (2014) Global maize production, utilization and consumption. Ann Acad Sci 1312:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sadeghipour O (2016) Pretreatment with nitric oxide reduces lead toxicity in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Arch Biol Sci 68:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sairam RK, Deshmukh PS, Saxena DC (1998) Role of antioxidant systems in wheat genotypes tolerance to water stress. Biol Plant 41:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanchez-Casas P, Klessig DF (1994) A salicylic acid binding activity and a salicylic acid-inhibitable catalase activity are present in a variety of plant species. Plant Physiol 106:1675–1779CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Shannon LM, Kay E, Law JY (1966) Peroxidase isozymes from horse radish roots. I. Isolation and physical properties. J Biol Chem 241:2166–2172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Singh PH, Kaur S, Daizy R, Batish VP, Sharma N, Kohli RK (2009) Nitric oxide alleviates arsenic toxicity by reducing oxidative damage in the roots of Oryza sativa (rice). Nitric Oxide 20:289–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh NB, Yadav K, Amist N (2014) Positive effects of nitric oxide on Solanum lycopersicum. J Plant Interact 9:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sinha AK (1971) Calorimetric assay of catalase. Anal Biochem 47:389–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Song L, Ding W, Zhao M, Sun B, Zhang L (2006) Nitric oxide protects against oxidative stress under heat stress in calluses from two genotypes of reed. Plant Sci 171:449–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tewari AK, Tripathy BC (1999) Assimilation of chlorophyll biosynthetic reactions to temperature stress in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Planta 208:431–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang C, Zhang SH, Li W, Wang PF, Li L (2011) Nitric oxide supplementation alleviates ammonium toxicity in the submerged macrophyte Hydrilla verticillata (L.) Royle. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 74:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yali H, Bingru H (2010) Differential responses to heat stress in activities and isozymes of four antioxidant enzymes for two cultivars of Kentucky bluegrass contrasting in heat tolerance. J Ami Soc Hortic Sci 135:116–124Google Scholar
  53. Yildiztugay E, Ozfidan-Konakci C, Kucukoduk M (2014) Exogenous nitric oxide (as sodium nitroprusside) ameliorates polythene glycol-induced osmotic stress in hydroponically grown maize roots. J Plant Growth Regul 33:683–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhou B, Guo Z, Xing J, Huang B (2005) Nitric oxide is involved in abscisic acid-induced antioxidant activities in Stylosanthes guianensis. J Exp Bot 56:3223–3228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiochemistryPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhianaIndia

Personalised recommendations