Skip to main content
Journal of Experimental Botany logoLink to Journal of Experimental Botany
editorial
. 2018 Jun 19;69(14):3313–3315. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ery198

ROS and RNS: key signalling molecules in plants

Ismail Turkan 1,
PMCID: PMC6009602  PMID: 29931350

Both reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) are important signals in plants and key regulators of a variety of processes including metabolism, growth and development, response to abiotic and biotic stresses, solute transport, autophagy and programmed cell death (PCD). The reviews and original research in this special issue reflect a burgeoning area of investigation, and highlight the latest thinking on new roles and interactions of ROS and RNS, the basis of their specificity and flexibility, and emergent fields.

Since Gerschman et al. (1954) advanced the idea of oxygen radicals as harmful molecules and the discovery of the enzyme superoxide dismutase (McCord and Fridovich, 1969), with the superoxide anion radical (O2.–) as a substrate, research on reactive oxygen species (ROS) has grown exponentially. Next key findings were the identification of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a by-product of aerobic metabolism (Sies and Chance, 1970) and demonstration of O2.– production in illuminated chloroplasts (Asada et al., 1974), and then later with the establishment of the ‘oxidative stress’ concept (Sies, 1985) researchers focused on the elucidation of mechanisms that allow the plant to cope with the accumulation of ROS. These efforts led to the identification of various enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants (Mittler et al., 2004). However, identification of plant homologues of NADPH oxidases (Sagi and Fluhr, 2001) and the plant thioredoxin/peroxiredoxin system as redox regulators of different metabolic processes, mainly via thiol switches, established a signalling role for ROS and the cellular redox state (Dietz, 2003; Dietz, 2014). Accumulated evidence indicated that ROS not only damage molecules but are required at low levels and can act as signals, giving rise to the ‘redox signalling’ concept (Foyer and Noctor, 2003).

RNS in plants had already been identified as early as the 1960s (Fewson and Nicholas, 1960), but they did not receive as much attention as their oxygen counterparts (ROS) until the end of the 1990s (Leshem and Haramaty, 1996; Noritake et al., 1996; Delledonne et al., 1998; Durner et al., 1998). These pioneering works established that nitric oxide (NO) acts as a signalling molecule during plant pathogenesis and again attracted the attention of researchers looking to elucidate the physiological roles of RNS in plants. However, in contrast to ROS, which were first recognized as damaging molecules and then signals, RNS were first recognized through their signalling role and the term ‘nitrosative stress’ did not emerge in the plant biology literature until the 2000s. It is now well known that ROS and RNS are important signals in plants and key regulators of a variety of processes including metabolism, growth and development, response to abiotic and biotic stresses, solute transport, autophagy and PCD (Foyer and Noctor, 2015; del Rio, 2015; see also Turkan, 2017). Still, after more than 50 years of intense research, new roles at both physiological and molecular levels are being postulated for ROS and RNS, emphasizing their central role in the functioning of plant cells.

Specificity in ROS signalling: are we there yet?

ROS signals are complex in a variety of ways. First, different types of ROS such as O2.–, 1O2, HO. or H2O2 have different half-lives and affinities for biological molecules. For example 1O2 and HO. are very short-lived and highly reactive, but H2O2 has lower reactivity and a longer half-life; this makes H2O2 a more suitable signalling molecule, while the former examples are known to signal with their breakdown products. Second, their production dynamics and subcellular localization can differ according to the physiological state of the plant cell. Both 1O2 and O2.– can be produced in chloroplasts when the balance between light reactions and Calvin reactions is impaired due to excess excitation of the photosystems or insufficient supply of CO2; O2.– can be produced in mitochondria when the electron transport chain is overloaded; H2O2 can be produced in all the compartments with the dismutation of O2.–. Furthermore, photorespiratory H2O2 produced in peroxisomes, especially in C3 plants, is an important source of ROS. In addition to the particular type of molecule and spatial distribution of ROS, signalling is furthermore complicated by variation in time, i.e. the duration of exposure to ROS or ROS-inducing environmental stimuli.

Although general mechanisms and dynamics of ROS production have been elucidated in plant cells under different environmental stimuli and at different developmental stages, we are far from a full picture. Reviews by Turkan et al. (2018), Ozgur et al. (2018) and Krasensky-Wrzaczek and Kangasjärvi (2018) illustrate this well. Turkan et al. (2018) provide a comparative overview of redox regulation in C3 and C4 plants, with particular emphasis on the mesophyll and bundle sheath cells of the C4 plants, a topic which is gaining a wide audience due to efforts to convert C3 plants to C4 plants to increase yield (Furbank, 2016). The review focuses on linear and cyclic electron transport in the chloroplasts of C3 and C4 plants (also mesophyll and bundle sheath cells) and discusses implications for photosynthetic light reactions, ROS production dynamics, antioxidant defence, and thiol-based redox regulation. In this sense, it draws attention to the issue that it appears impossible to utilize efficient C4 photosynthesis without understanding its exact redox needs, which will certainly be a topic of interest in the future.

Similarly, Ozgur et al. (2018) review a previously unexplored topic, the connections between endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress (accumulation of unfolded proteins in the ER lumen), the unfolded protein response, and ROS. The focus is on mechanisms of ROS production originating from the ER, the interaction between ER stress and overall ROS signalling processes in the cell, and the interaction of ER stress with other organellar ROS signalling pathways such as those in the mitochondria and chloroplasts.

In contrast, Krasensky-Wrzaczek and Kangasjärvi (2018) focus on the temporal dynamics of ROS production rather than their subcellular localization. They provide an overview of ROS production, redox regulation and antioxidant defence in plants grown under short and long days. Further, they relate the ROS production with the circadian clock, based on both transcription-translation feedback loops and the non- transcriptional oscillating redox-based clock (oxidation status of peroxiredoxins). The authors also provide a new concept as to how PCD is regulated in response to different day lengths via ROS, glutathione (GSH) and salicylic acid, which seems to be of paramount importance during pathogen defence.

Specificity in ROS signalling depends on the type, site, amount and duration of the ROS signature, as well as the ability to regulate gene expression in response to the perceived stimuli. Huaming et al. (2018) provide an overview of current knowledge on the control of ROS and thiol-dependent transcriptional machinery. Detailed information is provided on oxidative stress-responsive cis-regulatory elements, ROS-sensitive transcription factors and ROS-responsive transcripts. In addition, using cat2 mutants as a model system, they assess the impact of redox perturbations and oxidative stress on transcriptome adjustments and discuss how redox homeostasis can modify the various parts of the transcriptional machinery.

As second messengers, besides induction of specific signals, ROS can act during the acquisition of cross-stress tolerance, which usually occurs during intense and prolonged exposure to oxidative stress. Locato et al. (2018) discuss the retrograde signalling mechanisms, especially from chloroplasts and mitochondria, that are involved in acquiring cross-tolerance. In addition, they provide an overview of new developments in research on imprinting stress memory, including the interaction between epigenetic mechanisms and redox metabolism during stress responses, which involve DNA methylation and histone modifications, as well as the emerging roles of GSH in histone glutathionylation and regulation of histone-modifying enzymes.

A final review related to ROS and oxidative stress, by Kim et al. (2018), relates to the recently isolated Orange gene (encoding a holdase chaperone protein) that is responsible for regulation of carotenoid homeostasis. Since carotenoids are indispensable for organisms that use oxygenic photosynthesis and are vital components for protection of photosynthetic machinery from oxidative damage, the authors discuss the rationale of increasing plant tolerance by controlling carotenoid biosynthesis via Orange.

Research articles in this special issue cover various areas of plant biology reflecting again the involvement of ROS in a plethora of cellular functions, including regulation of Na+ transport by ROS (Niu et al., 2018) or redox-active ascorbate (Makavitskaya et al., 2018; see also the Insight article by Pottosin and Zepeda-Jazo, 2018) and changes in the structure and function of a protein malate dehydrogenase with oxidative modifications (Huang et al., 2018).

Progress with RNS

Unlike for ROS, production mechanisms of RNS in plants remain in part unresolved and this is an active area of research. Also, in the past decade, research on the signalling mechanisms mediated by RNS have accelerated, partly due to the elucidation of their interactions with ROS. NO is a small signalling molecule involved in many physiological aspects of plant growth, as comprehensively outlined by Astier et al. (2018). These authors also highlight what we know about NO production and signalling in plants, as well as looking at the gaps in our knowledge. Complementing this coverage, Gupta et al. (2018) describe the regulation of NO production by the mitochondrial electron transport chain, especially complex I, alternative NAD(P)H dehydrogenases, complex II, alternative oxidase, complex III, cytochrome c and complex IV. These authors also highlight the importance of the relationship between RNS and respiration processes in responses to environmental stresses, as well as our lack of knowledge on the regulatory role of NO in mitochondrial metabolism during stress.

The regulation of cellular metabolism and signalling via post-translational modifications such as S-nitrosylation is one of the most interesting roles of RNS. S-nitrosylation of non-enzymatic antioxidant glutathione activates the production of S-Nitrosoglutathione (GSNO), which is also an important molecule involved in responses to abiotic stress and plant immunity (Begara-Morales et al., 2018). GSNO turnover mechanisms in plants and various methods used in the detection of NO and S-nitrosothiol (SNO) levels are addressed by Begara-Morales et al. (2018). The authors also provide a list of SNO and GSNO levels in various plant tissues and species measured using different methods. Umbreen et al. (2018) review the specificity of NO signalling and especially elaborate on the role of protein denitrosylation and its interaction with RNS and ROS. Furthermore, these authors highlight the removal of S-nitrosylation via GSNO reductase and thioredoxin h5 (Trxh5) as being as important as generation of S-nitrosylation during RNS signalling. The final review on RNS in the special issue, by Corpas et al. (2018), provides an overview of the involvement of H2O2, NADPH, NO, peroxynitrite (ONOO) and SNOs during fruit ripening. They follow a translational approach and discuss the use of basic research on ROS/RNS interaction to improve fruit yield and quality of pepper and tomato.

Perspectives

As can be seen, new roles and interactions are being postulated for ROS and RNS, increasing our understanding of the underlying mechanisms allowing signalling, yet we still lack the fundamental knowledge as to how these reactive molecules act as such specific signals. To dissect both their specificity and their flexibility, recently attention has been given to their interactions at the molecular level, following technological advances. Another emerging area of research is the dissection and study of the roles of breakdown products as a result of biomolecule and ROS/RNS interaction. To conclude, it is of paramount importance to highlight the importance of physical interactions between different organelles to understand the specificity of the ROS/RNS signals, since the site of production and target for regulation must be in close proximity due to the reactive nature of these molecules.

Acknowledgements

The articles in this issue were inspired by the 13th Plant Oxygen Group (POG) meeting, which was held in Kusadasi, Turkey (2017). POG was established in 1993 under the umbrella of the Society for Free Radical Research (SFRR) and since then has been a forum for researchers from diverse fields of plant biology fascinated with the biology of ROS and RNS.

References

  1. Asada K, Kiso K, Yoshikawa K. 1974. Univalent reduction of molecular oxygen by spinach chloroplasts on illumination. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 249, 2175–2181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Astier J, Gross I, Durner J. 2018. Nitric oxide production in plants: an update. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3401–3421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Begara-Morales JC, Chaki M, Valderrama R, Sánchez-Calvo B, Mata-Pérez C, Padilla MN, Corpas FJ, Barroso JB. 2018. Nitric oxide buffering and conditional nitric oxide release in stress response. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3425–3438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Corpas FJ, Freschi L, Rodríguez-Ruiz M, Mioto PT, González-Gordo S, Palma JM. 2018. Nitro-oxidative metabolism during fruit ripening. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3449–3463. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Del Río LA. 2015. ROS and RNS in plant physiology: an overview. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 2827–2837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Delledonne M, Xia Y, Dixon RA, Lamb C. 1998. Nitric oxide functions as a signal in plant disease resistance. Nature 394, 585–588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dietz KJ. 2003. Plant peroxiredoxins. Annual Review of Plant Biology 54, 93–107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dietz KJ. 2014. Redox regulation of transcription factors in plant stress acclimation and development. Antioxidants & Redox Signaling 21, 1356–1372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Durner J, Wendehenne D, Klessig DF. 1998. Defense gene induction in tobacco by nitric oxide, cyclic GMP, and cyclic ADP-ribose. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 95, 10328–10333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fewson CA, Nicholas DJ. 1960. Utilization of nitric oxide by micro-organisms and higher plants. Nature 188, 794–796. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Foyer CH, Noctor G. 2003. Redox sensing and signalling associated with reactive oxygen in chloroplasts, peroxisomes and mitochondria. Physiologia Plantarum 119, 355–364. [Google Scholar]
  12. Foyer CH, Noctor G. 2015. Defining robust redox signalling within the context of the plant cell. Plant, Cell & Environment 38, 239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Furbank RT. 2016. Walking the C4 pathway: past, present, and future. Journal of Experimental Botany 67, 4057–4066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gerschman R, Gilbert DL, Nye SW, Dwyer P, Fenn WO. 1954. Oxygen poisoning and X-irradiation: a mechanism in common. Science 119, 623–626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gupta KJ, Kumari A, Flores-Sarasa I, Fernie AR, Igamberdiev AU. 2018. Interaction of nitric oxide with the components of the plant mitochondrial electron transport chain. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3413–3424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Huaming HE, Van Breusegem F, Mhamdi A. 2018. Redox-dependent control of nuclear transcription in plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3359–3372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Huang J, Khan Niazi A, Young D, et al. . 2018. Self-protection of cytosolic malate dehydrogenase against oxidative stress in Arabidopsis. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3491–3505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim HS, Yoon Ji C, Lee CJ, Kim SE, Park SC, Kwak SS. 2018. Orange: a target gene for regulating carotenoid homeostasis and increasing plant tolerance to environmental stress in marginal lands. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3393–3400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Krasensky-Wrzaczek J, Kangasjärvi J. 2018. The role of reactive oxygen species in the integration of temperature and light signals. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3347–3358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Leshem YY, Haramaty E. 1996. Plant aging: the emission of NO and ethylene and effect of NO-releasing compounds on growth of pea (Pisum sativum) foliage. Journal of Plant Physiology 148, 258–263. [Google Scholar]
  21. Locato V, Cimini S, De Gara L. 2018. ROS and redox balance as multifaceted players of cross-tolerance: epigenetic and retrograde control of gene expression. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3373–3391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Makavitskaya M, Svistunenko D, Navaselsky I, et al. . 2018. Novel roles of ascorbate in plants: induction of cytosolic Ca2+ signals and efflux from cells via anion channels. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3477–3489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. McCord JM, Fridovich I. 1969. Superoxide dismutase. An enzymic function for erythrocuprein (hemocuprein). The Journal of Biological Chemistry 244, 6049–6055. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mittler R, Vanderauwera S, Gollery M, Van Breusegem F. 2004. Reactive oxygen gene network of plants. Trends in Plant Science 9, 490–498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Niu M, Huang Y, Sun S, Sun J, Cao H, Shabala S, Bie Z. 2018. Root respiratory burst oxidase homologue-dependent H2O2 production confers salt tolerance on a grafted cucumber by controlling Na+ exclusion and stomatal closure. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3465–3476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Noritake T, Kawakita K, Doke N. 1996. Nitric oxide induces phytoalexin accumulation in potato tuber tissues. Plant and Cell Physiology 37, 113–116. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ozgur R, Uzilday B, Iwata Y, Koizumi N, Turkan I. 2018. Interplay between unfolded protein response and reactive oxygen species: a dynamic duo. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3333–3345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Pottosin I, Zepeda-Jazo I. 2018. Powering the plasma membrane Ca2+-ROS self-amplifying loop. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3317–3320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sagi M, Fluhr R. 2001. Superoxide production by plant homologues of the gp91(phox) NADPH oxidase. Modulation of activity by calcium and by tobacco mosaic virus infection. Plant Physiology 126, 1281–1290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sies H, ed. 1985. Oxidative stress. London: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sies H, Chance B. 1970. The steady state level of catalase compound I in isolated hemoglobin-free perfused rat liver. FEBS Letters 11, 172–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Turkan I. 2017. Emerging roles for ROS and RNS—versatile molecules in plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 68, 4413–4416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Turkan I, Uzilday B, Dietz KJ, Bräutigam A, Ozgur R. 2018. Reactive oxygen species and redox regulation in mesophyll and bundle sheath cells of C4 plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3321–3331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Umbreen S, Lubega J, Cui B, Pan Q, Jiang J, Loake G. 2018. Specificity in nitric oxide signaling. Journal of Experimental Botany 69, 3439–3448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Experimental Botany are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES