Advertisement

Acta Physiologiae Plantarum

, 40:163 | Cite as

Carotenoids in roots indicated the level of stress induced by mannitol and sodium azide treatment during the early stages of maize germination

  • Lázaro Hernández
  • Daviel Gómez
  • Bárbara Valle
  • Christoph C. Tebbe
  • Richard Trethowan
  • Rosa Acosta
  • Lourdes Yabor
  • José Carlos Lorenzo
Short Communication

Abstract

Chemical mutagens, such as sodium azide, have attracted the interest of plant breeders. Azide creates DNA point mutations and affects plant growth and development, disturbs metabolic activity and inhibits protein and DNA replication, whereas mannitol is used to simulate drought stresses in tissue culture. To identify biochemical markers for stress tolerance, maize seeds were germinated under mannitol and sodium azide induced stress in controlled conditions for 7 days. Then levels of chlorophyll, carotenoids, phenolics and aldehydes produced were subsequently determined. Germination percentage was not affected by either mannitol or sodium azide and was always above 85%. However, total fresh weight decreased by 50% with the application of 153.4 mM mannitol and 0.26 mM azide in combination. This treatment significantly reduced plantlet growth from 0.94 g in the control to 0.53 g in the treated materials. Root weight reduced by 68.1%, cotyledons by 14.3%, stems by 65.0% and leaves by 70.0% in treated samples. The level of carotenoids in roots was the clearest biochemical indicator of stress produced by the mannitol and sodium azide treatment. Carotenoids increased from 0.01 µg g− 1 fresh weight in the control to 9.03 µg g− 1 fresh weight in the treated materials. A large-scale seed treatment with mannitol and sodium azide was carried out. 2296 seeds were placed in magenta containers with 153.4 mM mannitol and 0.26 mM NaN3. At 7 days of germination, the heaviest seedlings (450) (450/2296 = 20%) were transferred to soil environment. Forty-two plants (42/450 = 9.3%) were off-type phenotypes at 45 days. Genetic variants may have been obtained following the novel procedure described here which combines chronic treatment with sodium azide and selection pressure with mannitol to simulate drought conditions.

Keywords

Plant breeding Induced mutagenesis Drought tolerance 

Abbreviations

NaN3

Sodium azide

OCV

Overall coefficient of variation

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

ROS

Reactive oxygen species

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Bioplant Center (University of Ciego de Avila, Cuba), the Thünen Institute of Biodiversity (Germany), The University of Sydney (Australia), and the National Institute for Agricultural Sciences (Cuba). Authors are grateful to Mrs. Julia Martínez for her excellent technical assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors do not have any conflict of interests.

Human and animal rights

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

Informed consent

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

References

  1. Adamu AK, Aliyu M (2007) Morphogical effects of sodium azide on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Sci World J.  https://doi.org/10.4314/swj.v2i4.51755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carloni E, Tommasino E, Colomba EL, Ribotta A, Quiroga M, Griffa S, Grunberg K (2017) In vitro selection and characterization of buffelgrass somaclones with different responses to water stress. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-017-1220-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castillo AM, Cistué L, Vallés MP, Sanz JM, Romagosa I, Molina-Cano JL (2001) Efficient production of androgenic doubled-haploid mutants in barley by the application of sodium azide to anther and microspore cultures. Plant Cell Rep 20:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cushman J, Agarie S, Albion RL, Elliot SM, Taybi T, Borland AM (2008) Isolation and characterization of mutants of common ice plant deficient in Crassulacean acid metabolism. Plant Physiol 147:228–238CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. de Pinto MC, De Gara L (2004) Changes in the ascorbate metabolism of apoplastic and symplastic spaces are associated with cell differentiation. J Exp Bot 55:2559–2569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dubey S, Bist R, Misra S (2017) Sodium azide induced mutagenesis in wheat plant. World J Pharm Pharm Sci 6:294–304Google Scholar
  7. FAO/IAEA (2017) Joint FAO/IAEA Programme: Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture (2017). http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/pbg/mutation-breeding.html; Accessed Jan 2018
  8. Gadakh S, Patel D, Singh D (2017) Use of RAPD markers to characterize salt and drought lines of sugarcane. Int J Adv Res Biol Sci 4:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gao Q, Zhang L (2008) Ultraviolet-B-induced oxidative stress and antioxidant defense system responses in ascorbate-deficient vtc1 mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana. J Plant Physiol 165:138–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gomathi R, Rakkiyapan P (2011) Comparative lipid peroxidation, leaf membrane thermostability, and antioxidant system in four sugarcane genotypes differing in salt tolerance. Int J Plant Physiol Biochem 3:67–74Google Scholar
  11. Gómez D, Hernández L, Valle B, Martínez J, Cid M, Escalona M, Hernández M, Beemster GTS, Tebbe CC, Yabor L, Lorenzo JC (2017) Temporary immersion bioreactors (TIB) provide a versatile, cost-effective and reproducible in vitro analysis of the response of pineapple shoots to salinity and drought. Acta Physiol Plant.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-017-2576-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gruszka D, Szarejko I, Maluszynski M (2012) Sodium azide as a mutagen. In: Shu QY, Forster BP, Nakagawa H (eds) Plant mutation breeding and biotechnology. CABI, The United Kingdom, pp 159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gurr S, McPherson J, Bowles D (1992) Lignin and associated phenolic acids in cell walls. In: Wilkinson DL (ed) Molecular plant pathology. Oxford Press, Oxford, pp 51–56Google Scholar
  14. Hairuddin R, Yamin M, Hama S (2017) Application methods for conventional and modern development of onion (Allium cepa L.) in abiotic stresses. In: Junaid R (ed) Proceeding international conference on natural and social science, ICONSS. Palopo Cokroaminoto University, Makassar, pp B8-51–B8-57Google Scholar
  15. Heath R, Packer J (1968) Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplast: I. Kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acid peroxidation. Arch Biochem Biophys 125:189–198CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hussain S, Khan WM, Khan MS, Akhtar N, Umar N, Ali S, Ahmed S, Shah SS (2017) Mutagenic effect of sodium azide (NaN3) on M2 generation of Brassica napus L. (variety Dunkled) Pure. Appl Biol 6:226–236Google Scholar
  17. ISTA (2005) International Rules for Seed Testing International Seed Testing Association, Bassersdorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Jankowicz-Cieslak J, Mba C, Till BJ (2017) Mutagenesis for crop breeding and functional genomics. In: Jankowicz-Cieslak J (ed) Biotechnologies for Plant Mutation Breeding. IAEA, Vienna.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45021-6_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kothekar VS (2011) Effects of sodium azide on yield parameters of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J Phytol 3:39–42Google Scholar
  20. Li F, Vallabhaneni R, Yu J, Rocheford T, Wurtzel ET (2008) The maize phytoene synthase gene family: overlapping roles for carotenogenesis in endosperm, photomorphogenesis, and thermal stress tolerance. Plant Physiol 147:1334–1346CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Lichtenthaler HK (1987) Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods Enzymol 148:350–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorenzo JC, Yabor L, Medina N, Quintana N, Wells V (2015) Coefficient of variation can identify the most important effects of experimental treatments. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Nap 43:287–291.  https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha4319881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mendiondo GM, Gibbs DJ, Szurman-Zubrzycka M, Korn A, Marquez J, Szarejko I, Maluszynski M, King J, Axcell B, Smart K, Corbineau F, Holdsworth MJ (2016) Enhanced waterlogging tolerance in barley by manipulation of expression of the N-end rule pathway E3 ligase. Plant Biotechnol J 14:40–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mensah JK, Obadoni B (2007) Effects of sodium azide on yield parameters of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). African J Biotech 6:668–671Google Scholar
  25. Mittler R, Finka A, Goloubinoff P (2012) How do plants feel the heat? Trends Biochem Sci 37:118–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mostafa GG (2011) Effect of sodium azide on the growth and variability induction in Helianthus annuus L. Int J Plant Breed Genet 5:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olawuyi OJ, Okoli SO (2017) Genetic variability on tolerance of maize (Zea mays L.) genotypes induced with sodium azide mutagen. Mol Plant Breed 8:27–37Google Scholar
  28. Olawuyi OJ, Bello OB, Abioye AO (2016) Mutagenic effects of ultraviolet radiation on growth and agronomic characters in maize cultivars. Mol Plant Breed 7:1–10Google Scholar
  29. Porra R (2002) The chequered history of the development and use of simultaneous equations for the accurate determination of chlorophylls a and b. Photosynth Res 73:149–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sairam R, Deshmukh P, Saxena D (1998) Role of antioxidant systems in wheat genotypes tolerance to water stress. Biol Plant 41:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Salim K, Fahad A, Firoz A (2009) Sodium azide: a chemical mutagen for enhancement of agronomic traits of crop plants. Environ Int J Sci Tech 4:1–21Google Scholar
  32. Salvi S, Druka A, Milner SG, Gruszka D (2014) Induced genetic variation, TILLING and NGS-based cloning. In: Kumlehn J, Stein N (eds) Biotechnological approaches to barley improvement, biotechnology in agriculture and forestry 69. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Semchuk NM, Lushchak V, Falk J, Krupinska K, Lushchak VI (2009) Inactivation of genes, encoding tocopherol biosynthetic pathway enzymes, results in oxidative stress in outdoor grown Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol Biochem 47:384–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Siefermann-Harms D (1987) The light-harvesting and protective functions of carotenoids in photosynthetic membranes. Physiol Plant 69:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stolarek M, Gruszka D, Braszewska-Zalewska A, Maluszynski M (2015a) Functional analysis of the new barley gene HvKu80 indicates that it plays a key role in double-strand DNA break repair and telomere length regulation. Mutagenesis 30:785–797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Stolarek M, Gruszka D, Braszewska-Zalewska A, Maluszynski M (2015b) Alleles of newly identified barley gene HvPARP3 exhibit changes in efficiency of DNA repair. DNA Repair 28:116–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Szarejko I, Maluszynski M (1999) High frequency of mutations after mutagenic treatment of barley seeds with NaN3 and MNH with application of inter-incubation germination period. Mutat Breed Newslett 44:28–30Google Scholar
  38. Szarejko I, Szurman-Zubrzycka M, Nawrot M, Marzec M, Gruszka D, Kurowska M, Chmielewska B, Zbieszczyk J, Jelonek J, Maluszynski M (2017a) Creation of a TILLING population in barley after chemical mutagenesis with sodium azide and MNU. In: al. JJ-Ce (ed) Biotechnologies for plant mutation breeding. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  39. Szarejko I, Szurman-Zubrzycka M, Nawrot M, Marzec M, Gruszka D, Kurowska M, Chmielewska B, Zbieszczyk J, Jelonek J, Maluszynski M (2017b) In: al. JJ-Ce (ed) Biotechnologies for plant mutation breeding. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang S, Liang D, Li C, Hao Y, Ma F, Shu H (2012) Influence of drought stress on the cellular ultrastructure and antioxidant system in leaves of drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive apple rootstocks. Plant Physiol Bioch 51:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Young AJ (1991) The photoprotective role of carotenoids in higher plants. Physiol Plant 83:702–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zaher-Ara T, Boroomand N, Sadat-Hosseini M (2016) Physiological and morphological response to drought stress in seedlings of ten citrus. Trees 30:985–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lázaro Hernández
    • 1
  • Daviel Gómez
    • 1
  • Bárbara Valle
    • 1
  • Christoph C. Tebbe
    • 2
  • Richard Trethowan
    • 3
  • Rosa Acosta
    • 4
  • Lourdes Yabor
    • 1
  • José Carlos Lorenzo
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Plant Breeding and Conservation of Genetic Resources, Bioplant CenterUniversity of Ciego de AvilaCiego de ÁvilaCuba
  2. 2.Thünen Institute of BiodiversityFederal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and FisheriesBrunswickGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, Plant Breeding InstituteThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.National Institute for Agricultural Sciences (INCA)La HabanaCuba

Personalised recommendations