The use of plant stress biomarkers in assessing the effects of desiccation in zygotic embryos from recalcitrant seeds: challenges and considerations. (4th February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sershen, ; Varghese, B.; Naidoo, C.; Pammenter, N.W.
• Editors: Bekker, R.
• Is Part Of: Plant biology. Volume 18:Number 3(2016)
• Page Start: 433
• Page End: 444
• Publication Date: 2016-02-04
• Subjects: Biomarkers -- desiccation -- oxidative stress -- recalcitrant -- ultrastructure; Botany -- Periodicals; Plants -- genetics -- Periodicals; Plants -- growth & development -- Periodicals; Plant Proteins -- Periodicals; Gene Expression Regulation, Plant -- Periodicals; Botanique -- Périodiques; 580
• DOI: 10.1111/plb.12428
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1435-8603

Abstract

Abstract: Zygotic embryos from recalcitrant seeds are sensitive to desiccation. In spite of their sensitivity, rapid partial dehydration is necessary for their successful cryopreservation. However, dehydration to water contents (WCs) that preclude lethal ice crystal formation during cooling and rewarming generally leads to desiccation damage. This study investigated the effects of rapid dehydration on selected stress biomarkers (electrolyte leakage, respiratory competence, rate of protein synthesis, superoxide production, lipid peroxidation, antioxidant activity and degree of cellular vacuolation) in zygotic embryos of four recalcitrant‐seeded species. Most biomarkers indicated differences in the levels of stress/damage incurred by embryos dried to WCs < and >0.4 g·g −1, within species; however, these changes were often unrelated to viability and percentage water loss when data for the four species were pooled for regression analyses. Dehydration‐induced electrolyte leakage was, however, positively related with percentage water loss, while biomarkers of cellular vacuolation were positively related with both percentage water loss and viability. This suggests that electrolyte leakage and degree of cellular vacuolation can be used to quantify dehydration‐induced stress/damage. Biomarkers such as superoxide production, whilst useful in establishing the nature of the dehydration stress incurred may not be able to distinguish the effects of different WCs/drying times. Irrespective of which biomarker is used, the data suggest that understanding differences in desiccation sensitivity across recalcitrant‐seeded species will remain a challenge unless these biomarkers are related to a generic desiccation stress index that integrates the effects of percentage water loss and drying time.