Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 8 No. 4 (2021)

Evaluation of proteome complexes normalizing osmoregulation in salt stressed Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb.

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2021.8.4.1262
Submitted
16 May 2021
Published
05-09-2021 — Updated on 05-02-2022
Versions

Abstract

Modern-day agriculture is facing the challenge of sustaining global food security. However, the rapid increase in salinity stress among arable areas poses a major threat to crop health and yield. Salinity stress is one of the most common and rapidly spreading stress that has a detrimental effect on the productivity of edible plant family i.e. Cucurbitaceae. The present study endeavors to evaluate the Osmoregulators (anti-oxidants and proteins), that supports the growth of two varieties of Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb. under salt stress. The 2-3 weeks old saplings were exposed to salt stress (up to 200 mM NaCl) for one week. Post-treatment the osmoregulatory metabolites like Trehalose, Proline & enzymic anti-oxidants like peroxidase (POD), Superoxide dismutase (SOD) and proteins using LC-MS/MS were analyzed. In both the varieties, Trehalose increased with increasing salt concentration, while the level of Proline increased in Variety 1 and decreased in Variety 2. With increasing salt concentrations, the POD activity decreased in both varieties whereas that of SOD levels increased in Variety 2 and decreased in Variety 1. The protein identified by LC-MS/MS and functional annotation analysis employing Uniport database & BlastP algorithm, aided in the detection of differentially expressed proteins in response to salt stress. This was followed by metabolic interaction annotation enrichment analysis by FunRich 3.0 tool, enabling characterization of proteins to be involved in the Calvin cycle, amino acids biosynthesis, carbohydrate and energy metabolism, ROS defence, hormonal biosynthesis and signal transduction. The augmentation of the metabolic activities of the Calvin cycle, biosynthesis of amino acids, carotenoids and peroxisomes, glycolytic pathway and the tricarboxylic acid cycle will conceivably influence the photosynthetic capacity in L. acutangula varieties under salt stress. The upsurge of key enzymes involved in these above described biological processes possibly appears to play an important role in the enhancement of salt tolerance.

References

  1. Greenway H, Munns R. Mechanisms of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes. Annu Rev Plant Physiol. 1980;31(1):149-90. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.31.060180.001053
  2. Kurtar ES, Balkaya A, Kandemir D. Screening for salinity tolerance in developed winter squash (Cucurbita maxima) and pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata) lines. YYU J Agr Sci. 2016;26(2): 183-95. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/yyutbd/issue/24190/256539
  3. Tabur S, Demir K. Cytogenetic response of 24-epibrassinolide on the root meristem cells of barley seeds under salinity. Plant Growth Regul. 2009;58(1):119-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-008-9357-5
  4. Sevengor S, Yasar F, Kusvuran S, Ellialtioglu S. The effect of salt stress on growth, chlorophyll content, lipid peroxidation and antioxidative enzymes of pumpkin seedling. AJAR. 2011;6(21):4920-24. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.668
  5. Yadav S, Irfan M, Ahmad A, Hayat S. Causes of salinity and plant manifestations to salt stress: a review. J Environ Biol. 2011;32(5):667-85.
  6. Kumar P, Sharma PK. Soil salinity and food security in India. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.533781
  7. Jeffrey C. A new system of cucurbitaceae. Bot Z. 2005;90:332-35.
  8. Akhilesh S, Rana C, Singh S, Katoch V. Soil salinity causes, effects and management in Cucurbits. In: Handbook of Cucurbits: Growth, Cultural Practices and Physiology. ; 2016:419-34.
  9. V??llora G, Moreno DA, Pulgar G, Romero L. Yield improvement in zucchini under salt stress: determining micronutrient balance. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam). 2000;86(3):175-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4238(00)00149-7
  10. Trajkova F, Papadantonakis N, Savvas D. Comparative effects of NaCl and CaCl2 salinity on cucumber grown in a closed hydroponic system. Hort Science. 2006;41(2):437-41. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.41.2.437
  11. Shendge PN, Belemkar S. Therapeutic potential of Luffa acutangula: a review on Its traditional uses, phytochemistry, pharmacology and toxicological aspects. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.01177
  12. Samvatsar S, Diwanji V. Plant sources for the treatment of jaundice in the tribals of western Madhya Pradesh of India. J Ethnopharmacol. 2000;73(1-2):313-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8741(00)00274-9
  13. Rajan S, Pushpa DA. In vitro evaluation of enzymic antioxidants in the seed and leaf samples of Syzygium cumini and Momordica charantia. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2015;05(12):476-80. http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-1215.php?rp=P484928
  14. Patel N, Parab M, Anchalkar K, Varunjikar M, Singh S. Effect of salinity on antioxidant, proline and ion content in Luffa acutangula. Trends Biosci. 2017;10(6):1426-30.
  15. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil. 1973;39(1):205-07. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018060
  16. WWU, Robert HB, John Frederick S. Manometric and Biochemical Techniques; a Manual Describing Methods Applicable to the Study of Tissue Metabolism. Minneapolis, Burgess Pub. Co; 1972.
  17. Dudhwadkar S, Parab M, Singh S. Diversity analysis among few Cucurbitaceae using seed protein profile. Int J Plant, Anim Environ Sci. 2015;5(1):146-51. http://www.ijpaes.com/admin/php/uploads/765_pdf.pdf
  18. Orsburn BC. Proteome Discoverer—A community enhanced data processing suite for rotein informatics. Proteomes. 2021;9(1):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/proteomes9010015
  19. Chen C, Huang H, Wu CH. Protein bioinformatics databases and resources. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1558:3-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6783-4_1
  20. Pathan M, Keerthikumar S, Ang C-S et al. FunRich: An open access standalone functional enrichment and interaction network analysis tool. Proteomics. 2015;15(15):2597-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201400515
  21. Pathan M, Keerthikumar S, Chisanga D et al. A novel community driven software for functional enrichment analysis of extracellular vesicles data. J Extracell Vesicles. 2017;6(1):1321455. https://doi.org/10.1080/20013078.2017.1321455
  22. Zou X, Tan X, Hu C, et al. The transcriptome of Brassica napus L. roots under waterlogging at the seedling stage. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(2):2637-51. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14022637
  23. Shavrukov Y. Salt stress or salt shock: which genes are we studying? J Exp Bot. 2013;64(1):119-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers316
  24. Medeiros CD, Ferreira Neto JRC, Oliveira MT et al. Photosynthesis, antioxidant activities and transcriptional responses in two sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) cultivars under salt stress. Acta Physiol Plant. 2014;36(2):447-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-013-1425-4
  25. Poonsawat W, Theerawitaya C, Suwan T et al. Regulation of some salt defense-related genes in relation to physiological and biochemical changes in three sugarcane genotypes subjected to salt stress. Protoplasma. 2015;252(1):231-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-014-0676-2
  26. Chen THH, Murata N. Glycinebetaine protects plants against abiotic stress: mechanisms and biotechnological applications. Plant Cell Environ. 2011;34(1):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02232.x
  27. Chun SC, Paramasivan M, Chandrasekaran M. Proline accumulation influenced by osmotic stress in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiotic plants. Front Microbiol. 2018;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02525
  28. Ma Y, Dias MC, Freitas H. Drought and salinity stress responses and microbe-induced tolerance in plants. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.591911
  29. Gharsallah C, Fakhfakh H, Grubb D, Gorsane F. Effect of salt stress on ion concentration, proline content, antioxidant enzyme activities and gene expression in tomato cultivars. AoB Plants. 2016;8:plw055. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plw055
  30. Hamooh BT, Sattar FA, Wellman G, Mousa MAA. Metabolomic and biochemical analysis of two potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars exposed to In vitro osmotic and salt stresses. Plants. 2021;10(1):98. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10010098
  31. Kibria MG, Hossain M, Murata Y, Hoque MA. Antioxidant defense mechanisms of salinity tolerance in rice genotypes. Rice Sci. 2017;24(3):155-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2017.05.001
  32. Modarresi M, Moradian F, Nematzadeh G. Antioxidant responses of halophyte plant Aeluropus littoralis under long-term salinity stress. Biologia (Bratisl). 2014;69(4). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-014-0338-z
  33. Zhang C, Qin Y, Guo L. Correlations between polymorphisms of extracellular superoxide dismutase, Aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 genes, as well as drinking behavior and pancreatic cancer. Chinese Med Sci J. 2014;29(3):162-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-9294(14)60062-6
  34. Panja AS, Maiti S, Bandyopadhyay B. Protein stability governed by its structural plasticity is inferred by physicochemical factors and salt bridges. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1822. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58825-7
  35. Quan X, Zeng J, Ye L et al. Transcriptome profiling analysis for two Tibetan wild barley genotypes in responses to low nitrogen. BMC Plant Biol. 2016;16(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-016-0721-8
  36. Witzel K, Weidner A, Surabhi G-K, Börner A, Mock H-P. Salt stress-induced alterations in the root proteome of barley genotypes with contrasting response towards salinity. J Exp Bot. 2009;60(12):3545-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp198
  37. Joseph B, Jini D. Proteomic Analysis of Salinity Stress-responsive Proteins in Plants. Asian J Plant Sci. 2010;9(6):307-13. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2010.307.313
  38. Ghatak A, Chaturvedi P, Weckwerth W. Cereal crop proteomics: systemic analysis of crop drought stress responses towards marker-assisted selection breeding. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00757
  39. Salekdeh GH, Siopongco J, Wade LJ, Ghareyazie B, Bennett J. Proteomic analysis of rice leaves during drought stress and recovery. Proteomics. 2002;2(9):1131-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/1615-9861(200209)2:9<1131::AID-PROT1131>3.0.CO;2-1
  40. Nohzadeh Malakshah S, Habibi Rezaei M, Heidari M, Hosseini Salekdeh G. Proteomics reveals new salt responsive proteins associated with rice plasma membrane. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007;71(9):2144-54. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.70027
  41. Jiang Y, Yang B, Harris NS, Deyholos MK. Comparative proteomic analysis of NaCl stress-responsive proteins in Arabidopsis roots. J Exp Bot. 2007;58(13):3591-607. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erm207
  42. Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59(1):651-81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911
  43. Guo M, Liu X, Wang J et al. Investigation on salt-response mechanisms in Arabidopsis thaliana from UniProt protein knowledgebase. J Plant Interact. 2019;14(1):21-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2018.1551581
  44. Rani UR, Reddy AR. Salt stress responsive polypeptides in germinating seeds and young seedlings of Indica rice (Oryza sativa l.). J Plant Physiol. 1994;143(2):250-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(11)81696-2
  45. Zörb C, Schmitt S, Neeb A, Karl S, Linder M, Schubert S. The biochemical reaction of maize (Zea mays L.) to salt stress is characterized by a mitigation of symptoms and not by a specific adaptation. Plant Sci. 2004;167(1):91-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.03.004
  46. Silva C, Martinez V, Carvajal M. Osmotic versus toxic effects of NaCl on pepper plants. Biol Plant. 2008;52(1):72-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10535-008-0010-y
  47. Arefian M, Vessal S, Malekzadeh-Shafaroudi S, Siddique KHM, Bagheri A. Comparative proteomics and gene expression analyses revealed responsive proteins and mechanisms for salt tolerance in chickpea genotypes. BMC Plant Biol. 2019;19(1):300. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-019-1793-z
  48. Kristensen BK, Bloch H, Rasmussen SK. Barley coleoptile peroxidases. Purification, molecular cloning and induction by pathogens. Plant Physiol. 1999;120(2):501-12. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.120.2.501
  49. Passardi F, Penel C, Dunand C. Performing the paradoxical: how plant peroxidases modify the cell wall. Trends Plant Sci. 2004;9(11):534-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2004.09.002
  50. Smalle J, Vierstra RD. The Ubiquitin 26s proteasome proteolytic pathway. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2004;55(1):555-90. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141801
  51. Ji F-S, Tang L, Li Y-Y, et al. Differential proteomic analysis reveals the mechanism of Musa paradisiaca responding to salt stress. Mol Biol Rep. 2019;46(1):1057-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-018-4564-2
  52. Gnutt D, Sistemich L, Ebbinghaus S. Protein folding modulation in cells subject to differentiation and stress. Front Mol Biosci. 2019;6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2019.00038
  53. Cheng Y, Qi Y, Zhu Q et al. New changes in the plasma-membrane-associated proteome of rice roots under salt stress. Proteomics. 2009;9(11):3100-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200800340
  54. Sobhanian H, Razavizadeh R, Nanjo Y et al. Proteome analysis of soybean leaves, hypocotyls and roots under salt stress. Proteome Sci. 2010;8(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5956-8-19
  55. Caruso G, Cavaliere C, Foglia P, Gubbiotti R, Samperi R, Laganà A. Analysis of drought responsive proteins in wheat (Triticum durum) by 2D-PAGE and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Plant Sci. 2009;177(6):570-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.08.007
  56. Ndimba BK, Chivasa S, Simon WJ, Slabas AR. Identification of Arabidopsis salt and osmotic stress responsive proteins using two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry. Proteomics. 2005;5(16):4185-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200401282
  57. Dani V, Simon WJ, Duranti M, Croy RRD. Changes in the tobacco leaf apoplast proteome in response to salt stress. Proteomics. 2005;5(3):737-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200401119
  58. Bartels D, Sunkar R. Drought and salt tolerance in plants. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2005;24(1):23-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680590910410

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.