Advertisement

Differential protein profiles in interspecific hybrids between Elaeis oleifera and E. guineensis with contrasting responses to somatic embryogenesis competence acquisition

  • Raphael Ferreira Almeida
  • Ivonaldo Reis Santos
  • Filipe Sathler Meira
  • Priscila Grynberg
  • Ricardo Lopes
  • Raimundo Nonato Vieira da Cunha
  • Octávio L. Franco
  • Jonny Everson Scherwinski-PereiraEmail author
  • Angela MehtaEmail author
Original Article
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Understanding the molecular events that initiate somatic embryogenesis (SE) may help optimize clonal propagation protocols in oil palm. The objective of this work was to identify differentially abundant proteins during the induction of SE in two interspecific F1 hybrids of Elaeis oleifera × Elaeis guineensis with contrasting responses (responsive and non-responsive) to the SE process. Leaf explants were obtained and submitted to SE induction medium for up to 180 days. Explants were collected at 0, 14, 90 and 150 days of induction (doi). Proteins were extracted and analyzed by two-dimensional electrophoresis. Analyses were focused at 14 and 150 doi, representing the initial and late stages of embryogenic competence acquisition, respectively. The results indicate that at 14 doi a high amount of stress is present which results in cellular dedifferentiation. At 90 doi, cells (of the responsive genotype) seem adapted and have kept stress under control, allowing the use of energy for cellular proliferation that occurs at 150 doi. Therefore, the control of stress and oxidation seem to be crucial for callus development. We highlight proteins associated to oxidative stress, protein processing, energy metabolism and development as potentially involved in embryogenic competence acquisition.

Keywords

Arecaceae Mass spectrometry Oil palm Proteomics Somatic embryogenesis 2-DE 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by Embrapa, Coordenaçao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior- CAPES, Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia—MCT, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—CNPq.

Author contributions

RFA performed and designed experiments, analyzed and interpreted data and wrote the manuscript. IRS assisted in proteomic data analysis. FSM assisted in morfo-anatomical and histochemical analysis. PG assisted in bioinformatic data analysis and interpretation. RL and RNVdC assisted in selection and collection of oil palm material in the field. OLF assisted with mass spectrometry analysis. JES-P and AM designed experiments, analyzed data and wrote the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

11240_2018_1545_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (3.2 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 1. Enlarged image of the protein profiles of the oil palm genotypes responsive and non-responsive to the acquisition of embryogenic competence at 0, 14, 90 and 150 days of induction (doi). Circled numbers indicate unique spots. (PPTX 3240 KB)
11240_2018_1545_MOESM2_ESM.tif (10 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 2. Time course of the proteins identified as possibly involved in the acquisition of embryogenic competence in the interspecific F1 hybrids of Elaeis oleifera x E. guineensis. Red = responsive genotype; Blue = non-responsive genotype. ACT1 = Actin-3-like; ANN1 = Annexin D1; CAT2 = Catalase isozyme 2; ENO1 = Enolase-like; GND1 = 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase, decarboxylating 1-like; HSP81-1= Heat shock protein 81-1; MDAR5 = Monodehydroascorbate reductase 5, mitochondrial; OASA = Cysteine synthase; PFP-BETA = pyrophosphate fructose 6-phosphate 1phosphotransferase subunit beta-like; PGM = 2,3-bisphosphoglycerate-independent phosphoglycerate mutase; RBCL = RuBisCO large subunit; RUBA = RuBisCO large subunit-binding protein subunit alpha, isoform X2. (TIF 10259 KB)
11240_2018_1545_MOESM3_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 34 KB)
11240_2018_1545_MOESM4_ESM.docx (40 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 39 KB)
11240_2018_1545_MOESM5_ESM.docx (81 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 80 KB)

References

  1. Atkinson N, Urwin P (2012) The interaction of plant biotic and abiotic stresses: from genes to the field. J Exp Bot 63:3523–3543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babu BK, Mathur RK, Kumar PN et al (2017) Development, identification and validation of CAPS marker for SHELL trait which governs dura, pisifera and tenera fruit forms in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). PLoS ONE 12:e0171933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balzon TA, Luis ZG, Scherwinski-Pereira JE (2013) New approaches to improve the efficiency of somatic embryogenesis in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) from mature zygotic embryos. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 49:41–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-012-9479-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauwe H, Hagemann M, Kern R, Timm S (2012) Photorespiration has a dual origin and manifold links to central metabolism. Curr Opin Plant Biol 15:269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beulé T, Camps C, Debiesse S et al (2011) Transcriptome analysis reveals differentially expressed genes associated with the mantled homeotic flowering abnormality in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis). Tree Genet Genomes 7:169–182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-010-0323-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmo LST, Resende RO, Silva LP et al (2013) Identification of host proteins modulated by the virulence factor AC2 of tomato chlorotic mottle virus in Nicotiana benthamiana. Proteomics 13:1947–1960.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201200547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi J, Sung Z (1984) Two-dimensional gel analysis of carrot somatic embryonic proteins. Plant Mol Biol Rep 2:19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02885643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corley R, Hereward V, Tinker P (2003) The oil palm. Blackwell Science Ltd, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dai S, Wang T, Yan X, Chen S (2007) Proteomics of pollen development and germination. J Proteome Res 6:4556–4563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Gara L, Tommasi F (1999) Ascorbate redox enzymes: a network of reactions involved in plant development. Recent Res Dev Phytochem 3:1–15Google Scholar
  11. de Carvalho Silva R, Carmo LST, Luis ZG et al (2014) Proteomic identification of differentially expressed proteins during the acquisition of somatic embryogenesis in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). J Proteomics 104:1112–1127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2014.03.013 Google Scholar
  12. Duval Y, Gasselin TD, Konan K, Pannetier C (1988) Multiplication végétative du palmier à huile (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) par culture in vitro. Stratégie et résultats. Oléagineux 43:39–47Google Scholar
  13. Fehér A (2015) Somatic embryogenesis—stress-induced remodeling of plant cell fate. Biochim Biophys Acta Gene Regul Mech 1849:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fehér A, Pasternak TP, Dudits D (2003) Transition of somatic plant cells to an embryogenic state. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 74:201–228.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024033216561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foyer C, Noctor G (2005) Redox homeostasis and antioxidant signaling: a metabolic interface between stress perception and physiological responses. Plant Cell 17:1866–1875.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.105.033589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foyer C, Noctor G (2012) Managing the cellular redox hub in photosynthetic organisms. Plant Cell Environ 35:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johansen DA (1940) Plant microtechnique. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones LH (1974) Propagation of clonal oil palms by tissue culture. Oil Palm News 17:1–8Google Scholar
  19. Joo JH, Yoo HJ, Hwang I et al (2005) Auxin-induced reactive oxygen species production requires the activation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase. FEBS Lett 579:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konan KE, Durand-Gasselin T, Kouadio YJ et al (2010) In vitro conservation of oil palm somatic embryos for 20 years on a hormone-free culture medium: characteristics of the embryogenic cultures, derived plantlets and adult palms. Plant Cell Rep 29:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-009-0787-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laohavisit A, Davies J (2011) Annexins. New Phytol 189:40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin HC, Morcillo F, Dussert S et al (2009) Transcriptome analysis during somatic embryogenesis of the tropical monocot Elaeis guineensis: evidence for conserved gene functions in early development. Plant Mol Biol 70:173–192.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-009-9464-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu Y, Chaturvedi P, Fu J et al (2016) Induction and quantitative proteomic analysis of cell dedifferentiation during callus formation of lotus (Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn.spp. baijianlian). J Proteomics 131:61–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2015.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lopes R, Cunha RNV da, Resende MDV de (2012) Produção de cachos e parâmetros genéticos de híbridos de caiaué com dendezeiro. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 47:1496–1503.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2012001000012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Low E-T, Alias H, Boon S-H et al (2008) Oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) tissue culture ESTs: identifying genes associated with callogenesis and embryogenesis. BMC Plant Biol 8:62.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-8-62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mahdavi-Darvari F, Noor NM, Ismanizan I (2015) Epigenetic regulation and gene markers as signals of early somatic embryogenesis. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 120:407–422.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-014-0615-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCarthy FM, Wang N, Magee GB et al (2006) AgBase: a functional genomics resource for agriculture. BMC Genomics 7:229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morel A, Trontin JF, Corbineau F et al (2014) Cotyledonary somatic embryos of Pinus pinaster Ait. most closely resemble fresh, maturing cotyledonary zygotic embryos: biological, carbohydrate and proteomic analyses. Planta 240:1075–1095.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-014-2125-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moss S, Morgan R (2004) The annexins. Genome Biol 5:219.1-219.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1962.tb08052.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noah AM, Niemenak N, Sunderhaus S et al (2013) Comparative proteomic analysis of early somatic and zygotic embryogenesis in Theobroma cacao L. J Proteomics 78:123–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2012.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nunes-Nesi A, Florian A, Howden A et al (2014) Is there a metabolic requirement for photorespiratory enzyme activities in heterotrophic tissues? Mol Plant 7:248–251.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/sst111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Brien TP, Feder N, McCully ME (1964) Polychromatic staining of plant cell walls by toluidine blue O. Protoplasma 59:368–373.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01248568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ribeiro DG, Almeida RF, Fontes W, Castro MS, Souza MV, Ricart CAO, Cunha RNV, Lopes R, Scherwinski-Pereira JV (2018) Stress and cell cycle regulation during somatic embryogenesis plays a key role in oil palm callus development. J Proteomics 192:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rocha DI, Vieira LM, Tanaka FAO et al (2012) Somatic embryogenesis of a wild passion fruit species Passiflora cincinnata Masters: histocytological and histochemical evidences. Protoplasma 249:747–758.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-011-0318-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rode C, Gallien S, Heintz D et al (2011) Enolases: storage compounds in seeds? Evidence from a proteomic comparison of zygotic and somatic embryos of Cyclamen persicum Mill. Plant Mol Biol 75:305–319.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-010-9729-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogowska-Wrzesinska A, Le Bihan MC, Thaysen-Andersen M, Roepstorff P (2013) 2D gels still have a niche in proteomics. J Proteomics 88:4–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2013.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roowi SH, Ho CL, Alwee SSRS et al (2010) Isolation and characterization of differentially expressed transcripts from the suspension cells of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) in response to different concentration of auxins. Mol Biotechnol 46:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-010-9262-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Santos IR, Maximiano MR, Almeida RF, Cunha RNV, Lopes R, Scherwinski-Pereira JE, Mehta A (in press) Genotype-dependent changes of gene expression during somatic embryogenesis in oil palm hybrids (Elaeis oleifera × E. guineensis). PLoS ONEGoogle Scholar
  40. Shevchenko A, Wilm M, Vorm O, Mann M (1996) Mass spectrometric sequencing of proteins silver-stained polyacrylamide gels. Anal Chem 68:850–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Silveira V, Santa-catarina C, Iochevet E, Floh S (2004) Effect of plant growth regulators on the cellular growth and levels of intracellular protein, starch and polyamines in suspension cultures of Pinus taeda. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 76:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sin T, Liddell S, Abdullah M et al (2016) Differential proteomic analysis of embryogenic lines in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq). J Proteomics 143:334–345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2016.04.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smertenko A, Franklin-Tong V (2011) Organisation and regulation of the cytoskeleton in plant programmed cell death. Cell Death Differ 18:1263–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Supek F, Bošnjak M, Škunca N, Šmuc T (2011) Revigo summarizes and visualizes long lists of gene ontology terms. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021800 Google Scholar
  45. Tonietto Â, Sato JH, Teixeira JB et al (2012) Proteomic analysis of developing somatic embryos of Coffea arabica. Plant Mol Biol Rep 30:1393–1399.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-012-0425-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vidal BC (1969) Dichroism in collagen bundles stained with Xylidine-Ponceau 2R. Ann d’histochim 15:289–296Google Scholar
  47. Wang W, Vinocur B, Shoseyov O, Altman A (2004) Role of plant heat-shock proteins and molecular chaperones in the abiotic stress response. Trends Plant Sci 9:244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Youssefian S, Nakamura M, Orudgev E, Kondo N (2001) Increased cysteine biosynthesis capacity of transgenic tobacco overexpressing an O-acetylserine (thiol) lyase modifies plant responses to oxidative stress. Plant Physiol 126:1001–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang D, Ren L, Chen G, qun et al (2015) ROS-induced oxidative stress and apoptosis-like event directly affect the cell viability of cryopreserved embryogenic callus in Agapanthus praecox. Plant Cell Rep 34:1499–1513.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-015-1802-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhou T, Yan X, Guo K et al (2016) ROS homeostasis regulates somatic embryogenesis via the regulation of auxin signaling in cotton. Mol Cell Proteomics 15:2108–2124.  https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M115.049338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zi J, Zhang J, Wang Q et al (2013) Stress responsive proteins are actively regulated during rice (Oryza sativa) embryogenesis as indicated by quantitative proteomics analysis. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074229 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphael Ferreira Almeida
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ivonaldo Reis Santos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Filipe Sathler Meira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Priscila Grynberg
    • 2
  • Ricardo Lopes
    • 3
  • Raimundo Nonato Vieira da Cunha
    • 3
  • Octávio L. Franco
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jonny Everson Scherwinski-Pereira
    • 2
    Email author
  • Angela Mehta
    • 2
    Email author return OK on get
  1. 1.Departamento de BotânicaUniversidade de Brasília, UnBBrasíliaBrazil
  2. 2.Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e BiotecnologiaBrasíliaBrazil
  3. 3.Embrapa Amazônia OcidentalManausBrazil
  4. 4.Centro de Analises Proteômicas e BioquímicasUniversidade Católica de BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil
  5. 5.S-Inova BiotechUniversidade Católica Dom BoscoCampo GrandeBrazil

Personalised recommendations