Plant physiology and proteomics reveals the leaf response to drought in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.).
Despite its relevance, protein regulation, metabolic adjustment, and the physiological status of plants under drought is not well understood in relation to the role of nitrogen fixation in nodules. In this study, nodulated alfalfa plants were exposed to drought conditions. The study determined the physiological, metabolic, and proteomic processes involved in photosynthetic inhibition in relation to the decrease in nitrogenase (N(ase)) activity. The deleterious effect of drought on alfalfa performance was targeted towards photosynthesis and N(ase) activity. At the leaf level, photosynthetic inhibition was mainly caused by the inhibition of Rubisco. The proteomic profile and physiological measurements revealed that the reduced carboxylation capacity of droughted plants was related to limitations in Rubisco protein content, activation state, and RuBP regeneration. Drought also decreased amino acid content such as asparagine, and glutamic acid, and Rubisco protein content indicating that N availability limitations were caused by N(ase) activity inhibition. In this context, drought induced the decrease in Rubisco binding protein content at the leaf level and proteases were up-regulated so as to degrade Rubisco protein. This degradation enabled the reallocation of the Rubisco-derived N to the synthesis of amino acids with osmoregulant capacity. Rubisco degradation under drought conditions was induced so as to remobilize Rubisco-derived N to compensate for the decrease in N associated with N(ase) inhibition. Metabolic analyses showed that droughted plants increased amino acid (proline, a major compound involved in osmotic regulation) and soluble sugar (D-pinitol) levels to contribute towards the decrease in osmotic potential (Ψ(s)). At the nodule level, drought had an inhibitory effect on N(ase) activity. This decrease in N(ase) activity was not induced by substrate shortage, as reflected by an increase in total soluble sugars (TSS) in the nodules. Proline accumulation in the nodule could also be associated with an osmoregulatory response to drought and might function as a protective agent against ROS. In droughted nodules, the decrease in N(2) fixation was caused by an increase in oxygen resistance that was induced in the nodule. This was a mechanism to avoid oxidative damage associated with reduced respiration activity and the consequent increase in oxygen content. This study highlighted that even though drought had a direct effect on leaves, the deleterious effects of drought on nodules also conditioned leaf responsiveness.
Aranjuelo
Iker
I
Unitat de Fisiologia Vegetal, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Diagonal 645, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain. iker.aranjuelo@gmail.com
Molero
Gemma
G
Erice
Gorka
G
Avice
Jean Christophe
JC
Nogués
Salvador
S
D055864:Droughts; D000455:Medicago sativa / Q000201:enzymology / Q000378:metabolism*; D009591:Nitrogenase / Q000378:metabolism; D010788:Photosynthesis; D018515:Plant Leaves / Q000201:enzymology / Q000378:metabolism*; D010940:Plant Proteins / Q000378:metabolism; D040901:Proteomics; D014867:Water / Q000378:metabolism*
D010940:Plant Proteins; D014867:Water; D009591:Nitrogenase
Plant Physiol. 2005 Apr;137(4):1389-96
15778462
Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1996 Jun;47:509-540
15012299
Plant Physiol. 1991 Aug;96(4):1228-36
16668324
Planta. 1981 Dec;153(4):376-87
24276943
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2009 Dec;22(12):1565-76
19888822
J Exp Bot. 2000 Jul;51(348):1309-17
10937707
Plant Physiol. 2007 Oct;145(2):539-46
17720761
Proteomics. 2009 Jul;9(13):3580-608
19609964
Proteomics. 2003 Jul;3(7):1299-302
12872230
Funct Plant Biol. 2003 Mar;30(3):239-264
32689007
J Exp Bot. 2005 Sep;56(419):2551-61
16061503
Plant Physiol. 2000 Oct;124(2):823-32
11027730
Planta. 1991 Jan;183(2):178-84
24193618
Anal Biochem. 1976 May 7;72:248-54
942051
J Exp Bot. 2006;57(3):665-73
16415332
Plant Physiol. 2008 Jul;147(3):1437-49
18467460
Ann Bot. 2009 Feb;103(4):581-97
18552366
Plant Physiol. 2007 Jun;144(2):1104-14
17468213
Plant Mol Biol. 1999 Feb;39(3):395-405
10092169
J Exp Bot. 2008;59(7):1605-14
18212026
Ann Bot. 2002 Jun;89 Spec No:925-40
12102518
Plant Cell Physiol. 2000 Mar;41(3):335-43
10805597
Ann Bot. 2009 Feb;103(4):551-60
18662937
Nature. 1998 Jan 29;391(6666):485-8
9461215
Plant Physiol. 2008 Aug;147(4):1830-44
18552235
Plant Physiol. 1987 May;84(1):456-60
11539766
Electrophoresis. 2003 Jul;24(14):2369-75
12874872
J Chromatogr B Biomed Appl. 1995 Mar 10;665(1):15-25
7795786
J Exp Bot. 2003 May;54(386):1321-33
12709478
Planta. 1991 Dec;186(1):58-69
24186575
Ann Bot. 2009 Feb;103(4):561-79
19155221
Photosynth Res. 1990 Sep;25(3):173-85
24420348
Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Jan;48(1-2):133-41
11860206
Biochem J. 1954 Jul;57(3):508-14
13181867
Ann Bot. 2002 Jun;89 Spec No:895-905
12102515
J Plant Physiol. 2004 Nov;161(11):1189-202
15602811
Photosynth Res. 1993 Oct;38(1):15-26
24317826
J Exp Bot. 2004 Nov;55(407):2365-84
15475377
Plant Cell Environ. 2002 Feb;25(2):275-294
11841670
Plant Physiol. 1992 Apr;98(4):1429-36
16668811
Funct Plant Biol. 2007 Jun;34(6):526-549
32689382
J Biol Chem. 1992 Feb 5;267(4):2810-6
1733975
Ann Bot. 2002 Jun;89 Spec No:907-16
12102516
Plant Physiol. 2007 Feb;143(2):876-92
17158588
J Exp Bot. 2008;59(7):1615-24
17975207
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2002 Jun;5(3):193-8
11960735
Ann Bot. 2002 Jun;89 Spec No:833-9
12102509
J Exp Bot. 2002 May;53(372):1321-9
11997378
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2005 Sep;43(9):828-35
16289945
Plant Physiol. 1999 Jul;120(3):727-38
10398707
Biochem J. 1996 Jan 01;313 ( Pt 1):229-34
8546688
Plant Physiol. 1997 Jul;114(3):937-946
12223754
Plant Physiol. 1986 Sep;82(1):90-5
16665029
Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1999 Jun;50:601-639
15012221
J Exp Bot. 2008;59(7):1569-80
18436543