Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants logoLink to Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants
. 2010 Nov 30;16(3):241–247. doi: 10.1007/s12298-010-0025-7

Activities of enzymes of fermentation pathways in the leaves and roots of contrasting cultivars of sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor L.) during flooding

Veena Jain 1,✉, Naveen K Singla 1, Sunita Jain 1, Kaushalya Gupta 1
PMCID: PMC3550673  PMID: 23572974

Abstract

Flooding evoked a differential response in the activities of enzymes of fermentation pathway in leaves and roots of flood sensitive (S-308) and flood-tolerant (SSG-59-3) cultivars of sorghum. Activities of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and alanine aminotransferase (AlaAT) enhanced in roots of SSG-59-3 during 72 h of flooding. In contrast, a transient increase in the activities was discerned in roots of S-308 up to 24 h flooding followed by a decline in activities of these enzymes. In leaves of SSG-59-3, the activities of ADH and LDH increased to about three fold during flooding stress as compared to that in the non-flooded control plants. Though elevation in activities of these enzymes was observed in leaves of S-308 up to 48 h of flooding, the magnitude of enhancement was much lower than that in SSG-59-3. Alanine aminotranferase activity depressed in leaves of both the cultivars but the level of decline was more pronounced in sensitive cultivar S-308 as compare to tolerant SSG-59-3. The amount of alcohol, lactic acid and alanine were higher in both roots and leaves of SSG-59-3 than that in S-308 during flooding stress. It is thus apparent that roots and leaves of flood tolerant variety tends to attain greater capacity to perform reactions of various fermentation pathways to sustain production of ATP under flooded conditions.

Keywords: Sorghum bicolor, Alanine aminotransferase, Alcohol, Alcohol dehydrogenase, Flood-sensitive and tolerant cultivars, Lactate dehydrogenase, Lactic acid, Waterlogging

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (257.7 KB).

Abbreviations

ADH

alcohol dehydrogenase

AlaAT

alanine aminotransferase

GPT

glutamate pyruvate transferase

LDH

lactate dehydrogenase

References

  1. Bernt E, Gutmann I. Ethanol determination with alcohol dehydrogenase and NAD. In: Bergmeyer HU, editor. Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, vol 3. New York: Academic; 1974. pp. 1499–1502. [Google Scholar]
  2. Boamfa EI, Ram PC, Jackson MB, Reuss J, Harren FJM. Dynamic aspects of alcoholic fermentation of rice seedlings in response to anoxia and to complete submergence: relationship to submergence tolerance. Ann Bot. 2003;91:279–290. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcf205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bouny JM, Saglio PH. Glycolytic flux and hexokinase activities in anoxic maize root tips acclimated by hypoxic treatment. Plant Physiol. 1996;111:187–194. doi: 10.1104/pp.111.1.187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Couldwell DL, Dunford R, Kruger NJ, Llyod DC, Ratcloffe RG, Smith AMO. Response of cytoplasmic pH to anoxia in plant tissue with altered activities of fermentation enzymes: application of methyl phosphonate as an NMR pH probe. Ann Bot. 2009;103:249–258. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcn174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dennis ES, Dolferus R, Ellis H, Rahman M, Wu Y, Hoeren FU, Peacock WJ. Molecular strategies for improving waterlogging tolerance in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2000;51:89–97. doi: 10.1093/jexbot/51.342.89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Drew MC. Oxygen deficiency and root metabolism. Injury and acclimation under hypoxia and anoxia. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Mol. Biol. 1997;48:223–250. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Felle HH. pH regulation in anoxic plants. Ann. Bot. 2005;96:519–532. doi: 10.1093/aob/mci207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fox GG, NcCallan NR, Ratcliffe RG. Manipulating cytoplasmic pH under anoxia: a critical test of the role of pH in the switch from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism. Planta. 1995;195:324–330. doi: 10.1007/BF00202588. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gibbs J, Morrell S, Valdez A, Selter TL, Greenway H. Regulation of alcoholic fermentation in coleoptiles of two rice cultivars differing in tolerance to anoxia. J. Exp. Bot. 2000;51:785–796. doi: 10.1093/jexbot/51.345.785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Good AG, Crosby WL. Anaerobic induction of alanine aminotransferase in barley root tissue. Plant Physiol. 1989;90:1305–1309. doi: 10.1104/pp.90.4.1305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Good AG, Muench DG. Purification and characterization of an anaerobically induced alanine aminotransferase from barley roots. Plant Physiol. 1992;99:1520–1525. doi: 10.1104/pp.99.4.1520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Good AG, Muench DG. Long term anaerobic metabolism in root tissue: metabolic product of pyruvate metabolism. Plant Physiol. 1993;101:1163–1168. doi: 10.1104/pp.101.4.1163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Grassl M. Determination of alanine using GPT and LDH. In: Bergmeyer HU, editor. Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, vol 4. New York: Academic; 1974. pp. 1682–1685. [Google Scholar]
  14. Greenway H, Gibbs H. Mechanism of anoxia tolerance in plants. II. Energy requirements for maintenance and energy distribution to essential processes. Functional Plant Biol. 2003;30:999–1036. doi: 10.1071/PP98096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Guttmann I, Wahlefeld IW. L(+) Lactate determination with lactate dehydrogenase and NAD+ In: Bergmeyer HU, editor. Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, vol 3. New York: Academic; 1974. pp. 1464–1468. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hanson AD, Jacobsen JV. Control of lactate dehydrogenase, lactate glycolysis and amylase by O2 in barley aleurone layers. Plant Physiol. 1986;75:566–572. doi: 10.1104/pp.75.3.566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoffman NE, Bent AF, Hanson AD. Induction of lactate dehydrogenase isozymes by oxygen deficit in barley tissue. Plant Physiol. 1986;82:658–663. doi: 10.1104/pp.82.3.658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ismail AM, Ella ES, Vergara GV, Mackill DJ. Mechanisms associated with tolerance to flooding during germination and early seedling growth in rice. Ann. Bot. 2009;103:197–203. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcn211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackson MB, Colmer TD. Response and adaptation by plants to flooding stress. Ann. Bot. 2005;96:501–505. doi: 10.1093/aob/mci205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kato-Noguchi H. Evaluation of the importance of lactate for the activation of ethanolic fermentation in the lettuce in anoxia. Physiol. Plant. 2000;109:28–33. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2000.100105.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kennedy RA, Rumpho ME, Fox TC. Anaerobic metabolism in plants. Plant Physiol. 1992;100:1–6. doi: 10.1104/pp.100.1.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kolb RM, Joly CA (2009). Flooding tolerance of Tabebuia cassinoides: Metabolic, morphological and growth responses. Flora- Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecol. Plants (In press)
  23. Kumutha D, Sairam RK, Ezhilmathi K, Chinnusamy V, Meena RC. Effect of waterlogging on carbohydrate metabolism in pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.): Upregulation of sucrose synthase and alcohol dehydrogenase. Plant Sci. 2008;175:706–716. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2008.07.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Limami AM, Glevarec G, Ricoult C, Cliquet J. Concerted modulation of alanine and glutamate metabolism in Medicago trancatula seedlings under hypoxic conditions. J. exp. Bot. 2008;59:2325–2335. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ern102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 1951;193:265–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mohanty B, Wilson PM, ap Rees T. Effect of anoxia on the growth and carbohydrate metabolism in suspension cultures of soybean and rice. Phytochemistry. 1993;34:75–82. doi: 10.1016/S0031-9422(00)90785-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Muench DG, Archibold OW, Good AG. Hypoxic metabolism in wild rice (Zizania palustris): Enzyme induction and metabolic production. Physiol. Plant. 1993;89:165–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1993.tb01800.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Newsome RD, Kozlowski TT, Tang ZC. Response of Ulmus americana seedlings to flooding of soil. Can. J. Bot. 1981;60:1688–1695. doi: 10.1139/b82-219. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Perata P, Alpi A. Plant responses to anaerobiosis. Plant Sci. 1993;93:1–17. doi: 10.1016/0168-9452(93)90029-Y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Perata P, Guglieminetti L, Alpi A. Mobilization of endosperm reserves in cereal seeds under anoxia. Ann. Bot. 1997;79:49–56. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ricoult C, Echeverria LO, Cliquet JB, Limami AM. Characterization of alanine aminotransferase multigene family and hypoxic response in young seedlings of model legume Medicago truncatula. J. exp. Bot. 2006;57:3079–3089. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erl069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sachs MM, Subbaiah CC, Saab IN. Anaerobic gene expression and flooding tolerance in maize. J. Exp. Bot. 1996;47:1–15. doi: 10.1093/jxb/47.1.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sairam RK, Kumutha D, Chinnusamy V, Meena RC. Waterlogging-induced increase in sugar mobilization, fermentation and related gene expression in roots of mungbean (Vigna radiata) J. Plant Physiol. 2009;166:602–616. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2008.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. SenaGomes AR, Kozlowski TT. Growth responses and adaptation of Franxinus pennsylvanica seedlings to flooding. Plant Physiol. 1980;66:267–271. doi: 10.1104/pp.66.2.267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Setter TL, Ella ES, Valdez AP. Relationship between coleoptile elongation and alcoholic fermentation in rice exposed to anoxia. II Cultivar differences. Ann. Bot. 1994;74:273–279. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1994.1118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Setter TL, Waters I. Review of prospects for germplasm improvement for waterlogging tolerance in wheat. Plant Soil. 2003;253:1–34. doi: 10.1023/A:1024573305997. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Singla NK, Jain V, Jain S, Sawhney SK. Activities of glycolytic enzymes in leaves and roots of contrasting cultivars of sorghum during flooding. Biol. Plant. 2004;47:555–560. doi: 10.1023/B:BIOP.0000041061.40923.76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Subbaiah CC, Sachs MM. Molecular and cellular adaptations of maize to flooding stress. Ann Bot. 2003;91:119–127. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcf210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Yin D, Chen S, Chen F, Guan Z, Fang W. Morphological and physiological responses of two chrysanthemum cultivars differing in their tolerance to waterlogging. Enviorn. Exp. Bot. 2009;67:87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.06.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES