Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2019 Dec 19;14(12):e0226151. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226151

Metabolic responses of wheat seedlings to osmotic stress induced by various osmolytes under iso-osmotic conditions

Eva Darko 1,*, Balázs Végh 1, Radwan Khalil 2, Tihana Marček 3, Gabriella Szalai 1, Magda Pál 1, Tibor Janda 1
Editor: Mayank Gururani4
PMCID: PMC6922385  PMID: 31856179

Abstract

Many environmental stresses cause osmotic stress which induces several metabolic changes in plants. These changes often vary depending on the genotype, type and intensity of stress or the environmental conditions. In the current experiments, metabolic responses of wheat to osmotic stress induced by different kinds of osmolytes were studied under iso-osmotic stress conditions. A single wheat genotypes was treated with PEG-6000, mannitol, sorbitol or NaCl at such concentrations which reduce the osmotic potential of the culture media to the same level (-0.8MPa). The metabolic changes, including the accumulation of proline, glycine betaine (GB) and sugar metabolites (glucose, fructose, galactose, maltose and sucrose) were studied both in the leaves and roots together with monitoring the plant growth, changes in the photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll content of the leaves. In addition, the polyamine metabolism was also investigated. Although all osmolytes inhibited growth similarly, they induced different physiological and metabolic responses: the CO2 assimilation capacity, RWC content and the osmotic potential (ψπ) of the leaves decreased intensively, especially after mannitol and sorbitol treatments, followed by NaCl treatment, while PEG caused only a slight modification in these parameters. In the roots, the most pronounced decrease of ψπ was found after salt-treatments, followed by PEG treatment. Osmotic stress induced the accumulation of proline, glycine betaine and soluble sugars, such as fructose, glucose, sucrose and galactose in both the root and leaf sap. Specific metabolic response of roots and leaves under PEG included accumulation of glucose, fructose and GB (in the roots); sucrose, galactose and proline synthesis were dominant under NaCl stress while exposure to mannitol and sorbitol triggered polyamine metabolism and overproduction of maltose. The amount of those metabolites was time-dependent in the manner that longer exposure to iso-osmotic stress conditions stimulated the sugar metabolic routes. Our results showed that the various osmolytes activated different metabolic processes even under iso-osmotic stress conditions and these changes also differed in the leaves and roots.

Introduction

Plants are often exposed to different kinds of abiotic stress conditions, like drought or salinity stress that results in diminished plant growth and crop productivity. Most of these environmental stresses impose osmotic stress on plants by reducing the water potential of the environment. The consequences of osmotic stress manifest in the inhibition of cell elongation, stomata closure, reduction of photosynthetic activity, disturbances in water and ion uptake, translocation of assimilates, and changes of various metabolic processes. Wide-ranging studies on the underlying physiological and biochemical mechanisms related to plant responses to osmotic stress have identified several primary and secondary metabolites that are involved in plant stress responses and tolerance (see review in Wang et al.[1]). Osmotic stress triggers the accumulation of amino acids and their derivatives (especially proline and glycine betaine), soluble sugars (such as fructose, glucose, sucrose, galactose, trehalose), sugar alcohols or polyols (e.g. mannitol, sorbitol, inositols) and polyamines (PA), such as putrescine (PUT), spermidine (SPD) and spermine (SPN). However, the synthesis and accumulation of these osmoprotectants strongly depend on environmental conditions, type, strength and duration of stress, and sensitivity of the plants. For instance, the accumulation of proline, GB, γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), soluble sugars, intermediates of tricarboxylic (TCA) cycle and myo-inositol were found in several wheat genotypes exposed to drought stress, but the amounts of these metabolites depended on the genotype [2,3]. When Do et al. [4] compared the metabolic responses of 21 rice cultivars to salt stress, the PUT levels increased or did not change in tolerant genotypes but decreased in susceptible ones, while SPD showed minor changes and SPN increased in all the genotypes. However, when these plants were exposed to long-term, mild drought stress [5], the amounts of PUT and SPD decreased while SPN increased together with proline and GABA, but there was no correlation between the levels of these metabolites and the drought tolerance of the cultivars. The accumulation of osmoprotective compounds may also be tissue-specific [6]. For instance, when maize was exposed to salt stress, a clear dose-dependent effect was observed in both roots and shoots, which was correlated with the accumulation of sucrose and alanine in both tissues, but there were differences between root and shoot in the accumulation of other osmoprotectants: elevated levels of GB, glutamate and aspartate were found in the shoots together with the lower amounts of malic acid and glucose, while the GABA, malic acid and succinate levels increased in the roots [6]. Since the metabolic changes are affected by many factors including the sensitivity of plants, growth conditions and the type and severity of stress applied, it is really difficult to understand the metabolic changes independently of genotypic and environmental factors.

Application of osmotically active compounds in hydroponic system is a simplified method for studying the effects of osmotic stress. Polyethylene-glycol (PEG), mannitol or sorbitol are widely applied to stimulate osmotic stress [7,8]. NaCl is also added to the nutritional solution when the salt stress response of plants is studied [9]. Usually dose-response curves of certain osmotic agents are analysed, but limited information is available on metabolic changes under iso-osmotic stress conditions. Comparative studies are scarce. Slama et al. [8] compared the effects of mannitol and PEG on growth, water content and solute (proline and total soluble sugars) accumulation in a halophyte plant and found that mannitol caused less injury than PEG. During the treatments, the soluble sugar content remained unchanged while proline increased strongly, especially in mannitol-treated plants [8]. Later, the effects of PEG and NaCl were also compared under iso-osmotic conditions [10,11]. When Ghuge et al. [12] studied the effects of mild (-0.4 MPa) osmotic stress induced by NaCl, PEG or mannitol treatments in potato, the rate of sugar accumulation was similar in all the treatments while salt stress induced higher proline accumulation than PEG or mannitol and the GB accumulation was higher in the PEG-treated leaves.

The aim of the present study was to identify the common and specific metabolic responses to osmotic stress induced by various osmolytes including NaCl, PEG-6000, mannitol or sorbitol in young wheat plants under iso-osmotic stress conditions. Changes in growth, photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll content were monitored together with proline and GB accumulation and changes in the sugar and polyamine metabolites in both roots and shoots. This approach could contribute to a better understanding of the differences in metabolic responses independently of genotypic and environmental factors.

Materials and methods

Plant material and growth conditions

A modern wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivar, Mv Béres, developed at the Agricultural Institute, Centre for Agricultural Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Martonvásár), was used in the experiments. Wheat seeds were germinated on water-wetted filter paper for 3 days. Seedlings with similar root length w ere then grown in pots (12 plants/0.6 L) containing modified ½-strength Hoagland solution [13] in a phytotron growth chamber (PGR 15, Conviron, Controlled Environments Ltd., Winnipeg, MB, Canada) under a 16/8h day/night photoperiod at 150μmol m-2 s-1 PPFD with 22/20˚C day/night temperature for 9 days. After this, control plants continued to grow in modified ½-strength Hoagland solution, which had an osmotic potential of -0.035MPa, while in the stress treatments osmotic stress was induced by adding NaCl (150mM), polyethylene glycol (PEG-6000, 20%), mannitol (300 mM) and sorbitol (300mM) resulting in a reduction of the osmotic potential to -0.8 MPa, similarly as found by Lokhande et al. [14] and Patade et al. [10]. The solutions were renewed every two days and the stress treatments were continued for 6 days. Leaf and root samples were collected every second day before changing the culture medium.

Determination of plant growth and leaf RWC

The effect of the osmolytes was monitored by measuring the length and weight of roots and shoots of 20 plants collected from different pots in each treatment every two days. The relative water content (RWC) of the leaves was determined by measuring the fresh weight (FW), turgid weight (TW) and dry weight (DW) of leaf segments. Approximately 0.3 g leaves were sliced into 2cm segments for each sample, and 5 samples were prepared for each day and treatment. TW was determined after floating the leaf segments on distilled water for 5 h and DW was measured after drying the leaf segments in an oven at 80 ºC for 24 h. RWC was calculated according to the equation: RWC (%) = [FW-DW)/(TW-DW] * 100 with five repetitions per day and treatment.

Determination of the photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll content of the leaves

The photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll content of the leaves were determined to monitor the physiological responses induced by osmotic stress. A Ciras 2 portable photosynthesis system with a narrow (1.7 cm2) leaf cuvette (Amesbury, USA) was used to measure the net photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (gs) and transpiration rate (E). These parameters were determined at the steady-state level of photosynthesis using a CO2 level of 400μL L-1 and light intensity of 550μmol m-2 s-1. Five randomly selected mature leaves (of similar age) were measured each day for each treatment.

The chlorophyll content of attached leaves was determined with a SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Spectrum Technologies, Plainfield, IL, USA). Fifteen fully developed leaves were measured per day and treatment.

Determination of the osmotic potential of leaf and root sap

Leaf and root sap was isolated to analyse the osmotic potential of the tissues and to determine the concentration of certain metabolites. One gram of frozen leaf and root sample was crushed in liquid nitrogen and the cold powders were centrifuged at 13000 g for 15 min at 4°C in centrifuge tubes containing micro-SpinFilter (Micro-SpinFilter Tubes, Fisher Scientific; 0.45 μm). Aliquots of the tissue saps were stored at -80°C until required. Five isolation processes were performed per day and treatment ensuring five biological replicates for each treatment. The osmotic potential of the leaf and root saps was determined using of an Osmomat 030 freezing-point osmometer (Gonotech, GmbH, Berlin, Germany) and the osmotic potential (ψπ) values were calculated according to Bajji et al. [15].

Determination of metabolites from leaf and root sap

For metabolic analyses, the root and leaf saps were diluted with ultrapure water. The amount of proline and soluble quaternary ammonium compounds (QAC), including glycine-betaine (GB), were determined from the diluted (1:17.5) supernatants of root and leaf saps (n = 5 for each day and treatment) using a UV-Visible spectrophotometer (160A, Shimadzu Corp, Kyoto, Japan). The determination of proline was based on its reaction with ninhydrin [16] while the QAC content was measured using the periodide method [17]. Briefly, for the determination of proline content, reaction mixtures containing diluted tissue sap, glacial acetic acid and ninhydrin reagents (1:1:1) were placed in a water bath at 100°C for 1h, then cooled on ice. The purplish chromophores were extracted with toluene and the absorbance of the samples was measured at 520 nm. For the determination of soluble QAC, the diluted samples were combined with ice-cold 2N H2SO4 (1:1) and incubated on ice for 1 h. Then cold KI-I2 reagent was added to the solution and the samples were stored on ice in the dark for 24 h. After centrifugation at 10000 rpm for 10 minutes at 0°C, the KI-I2 solution was removed and the periodite crystals were washed gently with cold distilled water and then dissolved in 1,2-dichloroethan. The absorbance of the samples was read at 365 nm. Proline and glycine-betaine standards purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany) were used for the quantification.

The sugar content of the tissue saps (n = 5 for each day and treatment) was analysed by HPLC according to Gondor et al. [18]. Briefly, the diluted (1:5) samples were incubated at 96°C for 10 min, then centrifuged at 10000g for 10 min. The sugars were separated on a Supelcosil LC-NH2 column (250 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm, Supelco, Bellefonte, USA) under isocratic elution with 75% acetonitrile, and the sugar components were detected with a differential refractometer (W410, Waters, USA). Standards purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany) were used for the quantification.

Determination of polyamine content

The amounts of the most abundant polyamines (PAs), putrescine (PUT), spermidine (SPD) and spermine (SPN) were determined from leaf and root samples collected at the end of the experiment in three repetitions. A modified protocol of Smith and Davies [19] was used for the analyses. Briefly, 0.2 g samples were homogenized with 1mL of 0.2 M perchloric acid, stored on ice for 20 min then centrifuged at 10 000g for 10 min. PAs were determined from the supernatants (named as free polyamines) after producing their dansylated derivatives. These products were separated by HPLC using a W2690 separation module on a reverse phase column (Kinetex C18, 5μ, 100 × 4.6 mm, Phenomenex, Inc.) and detected with a W474 scanning fluorescence detector (Waters, Milford, MA, USA) with excitation at 340 nm and emission at 515 nm. Standards purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany) were used for the quantification and the amount of PAs was calculated as μg/g FW.

Statistics

The results were obtained from three independent experiments with 6 pots of treatment. For the determination of morphological and biochemical parameters, plants or plant tissues were collected from each pots randomly. The values presented in the figures and tables are the mean ± standard deviation. Comparisons between all treatments and the control were made using Tukey’s post hoc test with the SPSS 16.0 statistical program. Different letters indicate significant differences at the P < 0.05 level. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed using the STATISTICA software package (version 13.4) to determine the metabolic responses to different kinds of treatments. PCA was done using records of ten variables. The loadings showed correlations between different principal components (PC) and variables whereby high loadings represented strong correlation (>0.75). PCA plots were plotted separately for the root and shoot.

Results

Growth modifications induced by osmotic stress

The growth potential of young wheat plants immediately declined in hydroponic medium with highly negative (-0.8 MPa) osmotic potential. Thereafter, neither the root nor the shoot lengths showed any significant change during the 6 days of treatment, irrespective of the type of osmotically active compound (PEG, NaCl, mannitol or sorbitol) (Fig 1). Similar results were found for plant weight (Fig 2). Mannitol and sorbitol treatments completely inhibited an increase in fresh weight in both roots and shoots while PEG and NaCl treatment resulted in a slight increase in the shoot weight but not in the root weight. These results showed that in the applied concentration, all the osmolytes inhibited the growth rapidly and to a similar extent. However, a detailed analysis of the physiological and biochemical mechanisms revealed several differences.

Fig 1. Root and shoot length of plants (n = 20) grown in hydroponic solution containing NaCl, PEG, mannitol or sorbitol for 2, 4 or 6 days.

Fig 1

Data represent the mean ± STD. Different letters indicate significant differences at the p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test.

Fig 2. Root and shoot weight of plants (n = 20) grown in hydroponic solution containing NaCl, PEG, mannitol or sorbitol for 2, 4 or 6 days.

Fig 2

Data show the mean ± STD. Different letters indicate significant differences at the p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test.

Changes in photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll content in the leaves

All the osmolytes caused reduction in the photosynthetic activity of the leaves, which was manifested as a decrease in CO2 assimilation rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (gs, indicating stomatal closure) and transpiration rate (E) (Table 1). The most intense decrease in Pn was detected in the leaves treated with mannitol or sorbitol, followed by the salt treatment. The least reduction was induced by PEG treatment. The gs and E values exhibited similar tendencies, except that the difference in gs between PEG- and salt-treated leaves was not significant.

Table 1. Photosynthetic activity (Pn), stomatal conductance (gs) and transpiration rate (E) in the leaves of plants grown in hydroponic solution containing NaCl, PEG, mannitol or sorbitol for 6 days (n = 5 for each treatment).

The SPAD values indicate the chlorophyll content of the leaves (n = 15 for each treatment).

Pn
(μmol CO2 m-2 s-1)
gs
(mmol H2O m-2 s-1)
E
(mmol H2O m-2 s-1)
SPAD value
Control 19.6 ± 1.06 a 282 ± 32 a 3.4 ± 0.38 a 39.0 ± 2.4 a
NaCl 9.8 ± 0.88 c 84 ± 17 b 1.3 ± 0.34 c 32.5 ± 2.0 b
PEG 15.4±0.82 b 121 ±24 b 2.1±0.32 b 39.8 ± 1.8 a
Mannitol 7.31 ± 0.58 d 25 ± 6.7 c 0.6 ± 0.25 d 28.1 ± 1.8 c
Sorbitol 7.4 ± 0.72 d 23 ± 5.8 c 0.6 ± 0.17 d 29.6 ± 1.6 bc

Data show the mean ± STD; different letters indicate significant differences at the p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test.

The SPAD values of the leaves also decreased when the plants were exposed to osmotic stress, except in the case of PEG treatment. Chlorophyll degradation was observed, especially in plants treated with mannitol, followed by sorbitol and NaCl treatment. Chlorosis was not detected after PEG treatment (Table 1).

Decrease in leaf water content and changes in the osmotic potential of leaf and root saps during osmotic stress

The exposure of young wheat plants to various osmotically active compounds reduced the leaf water content to different extents. RWC declined slightly after PEG or NaCl treatment but dropped substantially in leaves treated with mannitol or sorbitol (Fig 3). In these plants crystal formation was observed in guttated sap, especially after mannitol treatment (S1 Fig.).

Fig 3. Relative water content of leaves 2, 4 or 6 days after treatment with NaCl, PEG, mannitol or sorbitol.

Fig 3

Data are the means ± STD of 5 replicates for each day and treatment. Different letters indicate significant differences at the p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test.

The osmotic potential of both root and leaf sap decreased after treatment with NaCl, mannitol or sorbitol but the changes were less pronounced in the roots than in the leaves (Fig 4). In contrast, PEG treatment caused a decrease in the osmotic potential in the roots but it was unaffected in the leaves. In the roots, the most negative osmotic potential was detected after 6 days of NaCl treatment, followed by PEG treatment, whereas mannitol and sorbitol treatment only slightly modified the osmotic potential of root sap compared to that of the medium (-0.8 MPa). In leaves, however, mannitol and sorbitol caused a substantial, time-dependent decrease in the osmotic potential, similarly as it was found in NaCl-treated leaves and roots. These results suggest that different osmoregulatory processes may operate in the leaves and roots and that these processes also depend on the osmotically active agent applied. To determine what metabolites take part in osmoregulation, the amounts of several compatible solutes were measured from leaf and root sap.

Fig 4. Changes in the osmotic potential of leaf (A) and root (B) sap 2, 4 or 6 days after treatment with NaCl, PEG, mannitol or sorbitol.

Fig 4

Data are the means ± STD (n = 5 for each day and treatment); different letters indicate significant differences at the p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test.

Metabolism during the osmotic stress induced by various compounds

Substantial differences were found in the concentration of proline, GB and sugar metabolites in tissue sap after various osmolyte treatment. The most pronounced proline accumulation was found in the roots and leaves of NaCl-treated plants (Fig 5A and 5B). Intense proline accumulation was also observed in the leaves of mannitol- and sorbitol-treated plants while PEG-treatment only caused a slight increase in proline in the leaves. In the roots, however, PEG, mannitol and sorbitol treatments all resulted in moderate proline accumulation. The glycine-betaine (GB) content in the roots was not influenced substantially by any of the treatments compared to the control, except that PEG caused extremely high GB accumulation (Fig 5C and 5D). In the leaves, a slight increase in GB was found in plants treated with NaCl, mannitol or sorbitol, but these changes were only temporary, as the GB content gradually decreased after 2 days of treatment.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Changes in the amount of proline (A,B) and QAC including GB (C,D) of tissue sap prepared from the leaves (A,C) and roots (B,D) of wheat plants grown in hydroponic solution containing NaCl, PEG, mannitol or sorbitol for 2, 4 or 6 days. On figure D, the scale on the right refers to the PEG treatment. Data are the means ± STD of 5 replicates for each day and treatment and the different letters indicate significant differences at the p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test.

With respect to total soluble sugars, the highest sugar accumulation was observed in root and leaf sap isolated from plants treated with mannitol or sorbitol (Fig 6). Soluble sugars accumulated more slowly in the roots of plants treated with PEG or NaCl, not reaching the level found for mannitol and sorbitol on the 2nd day of treatment until the 6th day. In the leaves, however, lower amounts of sugar were found in PEG- and NaCl-treated plants than after mannitol or sorbitol treatments throughout the treatment period. The sugar composition also differed among the treatments. Salt treatment especially enhanced sucrose accumulation together with the induction of galactose synthesis in both roots and leaves. PEG treatment induced glucose, fructose and sucrose accumulation, especially in the roots. The main sugar compounds in leaf and root sap were mannitol and sorbitol when the plants were treated with these osmolytes, but fructose, sucrose and maltose could also be detected in both roots and leaves on the 2nd day of treatment. The amounts of these sugars decreased continuously in the roots but increased in the leaves as the treatment progressed. All these results demonstrated that the accumulation of compatible osmolytes was strongly dependent on the type of treatment and showed tissue specific responses.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Changes in sugar metabolites in the leaf (A) and root (B) sap of wheat plants grown in hydroponic solution containing NaCl, PEG, mannitol or sorbitol for 2, 4 or 6 days. Data are the means ± STD (n = 5 for each day and treatment). The results of statistical analysis using Tukey’s post hoc test are presented in S1 Table.

PCA analysis (Fig 7) revealed the metabolic changes induced by various osmolytes separately for the root and shoot. The PCA of leaf yielded the most important components (PC1 and PC2) representing 59.9% of the total variance (Fig 7A). The score plots (Fig 7B) presented three clusters. Cluster I included both control and PEG-treated leaves due to lower negative values of osmotic potential and the accumulation of fructose and glucose. Cluster II concerned to mannitol- and sorbitol-treated leaves related to greater accumulation of maltose. Cluster III separated NaCl-treated leaves based on great amount of proline, sucrose and galactose. For root, the total variation of two most important principal components (PC1 and PC2) was 63.68% of data variation (Fig 7C). The score plots demonstrated four distinct groups in root (Fig 7D). Group I included control while PEG-exposed roots separated in group II because of accumulation of GB, glucose and fructose. Cluster III belonged to mannitol and sorbitol stress, which had a similar influence on maltose synthesis while the cluster IV discriminated NaCl roots as separate group due to galactose, proline and sucrose accumulation. Factor loadings and variance analysis of various parameters for root and shoot are presented in S3S6 Tables.

Fig 7.

Fig 7

Principal component analysis of root (A) and shoot (B) data sets. Loadings of the first two factors (C and D). Principle component analysis (PCA) was applied for the evaluation of proline (Pro), glycine betaine (GB), osmotic potential (OP) and sugar metabolites (glucose-Glu; fructose-Fru; sucrose-Suc; galactose-Gal; and maltose-Malt) under control and different iso-osmotic stresses for 2, 4 and 6 days. Data were analysed by using STATISTICA 13.4 software package.

The polyamine metabolism was studied by determining free PAs (PUT, SPD and SPN) after exposing the plants to various osmolytes (Fig 8). The total amount of free PAs, especially the amounts of PUT and SPD increased in the leaves of mannitol- and sorbitol-treated plants and in the roots of PEG-treated plants. However, the relative amounts of PUT, SPD and SPN also changed in all the treated plants depending on the type of treatment. In NaCl-treated plants, the amounts of PUT and SPD decreased while that of SPN increased in both roots and leaves. After mannitol or sorbitol treatment, PUT and SPD increased considerably and SPN decreased in the leaves. PUT also increased in the roots but SPD and SPN decreased. PEG treatment did not modify the amounts of any of the PAs in the leaves as compared to the control but induced the accumulation of PUT, SPD and SPN in the roots. These results indicated that different osmotic treatments induced different processes in polyamine metabolism even under iso-osmotic stress conditions.

Fig 8. Amounts of the free polyamines (PAs) putrescine (PUT), spermidine (SPD) and spermine (SPN) in the leaves and roots of wheat plants grown in hydroponic solution containing NaCl, PEG, mannitol or sorbitol for 6 days.

Fig 8

Data are the mean ± STD of 3 repetitions. The results of statistical analysis are presented in S2 Table.

Discussion

Plant responses to various osmolytes

The responses of plants to osmotic stress induced either by PEG, mannitol, sorbitol or NaCl have been widely investigated separately, but comparative studies under iso-osmotic conditions are rare [8,12]. The present results showed that although all the osmotic stress treatments inhibited growth immediately, as manifested in a reduction in both the length and weight of roots and shoots (Figs 1 and 2), the metabolic response of root and leaves depended on the nature of the osmotica.

A decrease in the osmotic potential of the culture media resulted in a reduction of the osmotic potential in the root sap too, but only NaCl treatment caused an additional decrease in osmotic potential over time (the osmotic potential values were lower than -0.8 MPa) (Fig 3). In the leaves, however, the osmotic potential decreased gradually in plants treated with NaCl, mannitol or sorbitol, showing that osmolyte accumulation increased over time. As indicated previously [12] NaCl, mannitol and sorbitol are able to penetrate into root cells and move towards the shoot and leaves (as also indicated by the guttation of mannitol through leaf pores; S1 Fig). The penetration of both non-ionic organic solutes (such as mannitol and sorbitol) and inorganic ions (e.g. NaCl) decreased the osmotic potential (Fig 3) in both the roots and leaves The same was demonstrated by Chen and Jiang [20]. In contrast, PEG molecules with higher than 3000 molecular weight cannot pass through the apoplastic barrier of root cells, and has no toxic effect within the cells while it reduces the water potential of the culture medium [21]. Accordingly, the PEG-induced decrease in osmotic potential was lower than that of the other osmolytes and was less pronounced in the leaves than in the roots. It is also related to the small decreases in RWC, photosynthesis activity and chlorophyll content in the PEG-treated leaves. The metabolic responses induced by PEG also differed from those of the other osmolytes. PCA analysis showed separation of PEG-treated plants from mannitol-, sorbitol-or NaCl-treated plants. It is manifested in the accumulation of glucose and fructose both in the leaves and roots and that of GB in the roots. NaCl treatment mainly caused changes in proline, sucrose and galactose accumulation in both roots and leaves. Treatments with mannitol and sorbitol not only resulted in the high accumulation of the relevant osmolytes in both leaves and roots but also induced maltose accumulation, especially in the leaves.

Role of GB and proline in osmoregulation

The role of GB, an important quaternary ammonium compound, in osmotic stress protection has been studied in detail. GB acts as an osmoprotectant in osmoregulation, it is involved in the stabilization of macromolecules, the maintenance of photosynthetic activity in leaves, and the scavenging of ROS [22]. In the present experiments, the amount of GB did not increase either in the leaves or in the roots after salt, mannitol or sorbitol treatment, so it cannot play an important role in osmotic adjustment, except in the case of PEG treatment after which a large amount of GB was accumulated in the roots. PCA also confirmed this observation. Since the osmotic potential inside of the cells is lower than in the solution, water can be absorbed from the nutrient solution. A similar conclusion was presented by Ghuge et al. [12].

Proline is an indispensable compound in studies related to osmotic stress. However, highlighting the role of proline in plant adaptation to osmotic stress is not always reliable. For instance, the proline content was similar when 150mM NaCl or 20% PEG were applied for 15 days in sugarcane [10] but it was higher in the leaves of a halophyte plant, Sesuvium portulacastrum, after 140 or 500mM mannitol treatment than after 10 or 20% PEG treatment [8]. In potato leaves, greater proline accumulation was observed in plants exposed to 100mM NaCl than in those exposed to 12% PEG or 100mM mannitol [12]. The present results are in accordance with the above [12] in spite of stronger stress (150mM NaCl, 20% PEG and 300mM mannitol and sorbitol) was applied in the present work. The highest proline accumulation was detected in the leaves of NaCl-treated plants, followed by mannitol and sorbitol and finally by PEG. Furthermore, a similar tendency was observed in the roots, except that the proline content of the roots in the PEG-treated plants was comparable to that of the roots of plants s treated with mannitol or sorbitol. According to Meloni et al. [23], proline cannot contribute significantly to the reduction in the osmotic potential, so it cannot play an important role in osmotic adjustment as an osmolyte. Instead, proline plays a role in the stabilization of cellular structures by forming a hydration shell around the proteins and/or by stabilization of redox potential [24]. The difference in the proline accumulation between the salt-treated plants and others also support the view that proline is more inducible by ionic than by osmotic effect of salt.

Role of sugars in osmoregulation

It is widely documented that osmotic stress triggers the accumulation of soluble sugars, such as glucose, fructose, sucrose, galactose and trehalose [3]. These sugars take part in osmoregulation and in the stabilization of protein structure enabling them to maintain their functions. They serve as metabolic precursors for other metabolites or together with other metabolites, such as GABA or polyamines, may act as signalling molecules, controlling the gene expression in various metabolic pathways [25]. Yasseen et al. [26] concluded that sugars can contribute to about 30–50% of the osmotic adjustment in the leaves of many glycophytes. In the present work, we found that sugar accumulation also depended on the nature of the osmotica. PEG treatment mainly influenced the fructose and glucose metabolism in both roots and leaves. NaCl treatment was linked to the accumulation of sucrose and galactose while, not surprisingly, the uptake and transport of mannitol and sorbitol were the dominant factors in mannitol- and sorbitol-treated plants, respectively.

Glucose and sucrose are the main products of the photosynthetic assimilates in leaves. Under stress conditions, CO2 assimilation generally decreases while respiration increases resulting in the accumulation of glucose and fructose at the expense of sucrose. However, in the present experiments the increase in glucose and fructose was accompanied by an increase in sucrose during PEG treatment. In addition, the decrease in CO2 assimilation was less intense in the PEG-treated plants than in the case of other osmolytes. These results suggest that the higher levels of glucose and fructose were not caused by increased in catabolic processes in PEG-treated plants.

In the case of salt treatment, sucrose accumulation was the most pronounced change in the sugar metabolism. Similarly, when Gill et al. [27] compared the sugar composition of sorghum exposed to salt or PEG treatment, higher sucrose content was detected in salt-treated plants while the glucose and fructose content was higher in PEG-treated plants. The present results are in agreement with Gavaghan et al. [6], who reported that salt treatment inhibited the conversion of sucrose to glucose and fructose in both the roots and leaves of maize seedlings.

It is worth mentioning that salt stress also induced galactose accumulation as previously observed in other barley and wheat plants [28]. It is documented that L-galactose plays an important role in the ascorbic acid pathway and may contribute to the elevated salt tolerance of transgenic rice genotypes [29]. The present results also confirmed the importance of galactose in the salt stress response.

As NaCl causes both ionic and osmotic stress, salt treatment is thought to have a more drastic effect on plants than PEG, which cannot penetrate the cells, or mannitol and sorbitol, which penetrate the cells but are non-ionic. Under iso-osmotic stress conditions, this was evident when the PEG and NaCl treatments were compared (as indicated by the greater chlorophyll degradation and the decrease in photosynthetic parameters and RWC), but the mannitol and sorbitol treatments resulted in a more intense decrease of chlorophylls and RWC than the other treatments. This was mainly due to the high accumulation of mannitol and sorbitol in both leaves and roots. The concentrations of these metabolites were so high that the contribution of other metabolites to the decrease in osmotic potential seems marginal. On the other hand, the PCA revealed that mannitol and sorbitol accumulation was related to the amount of maltose. An elevated maltose content was also detected in Arabidopsis plants exposed to osmotic stress induced by mannitol treatment due to the elevated activity of β- and α-amylase, which is regulated by the thioredoxin and ABA pathways [30,31].

Changes in the polyamine metabolism under iso-osmotic stress conditions induced by various osmolytes

Many papers have demonstrated that polyamines are involved in plant stress responses and tolerance (see review in Pál et al. [32]). The amounts of the main polyamines, PUT, SPD and SPN, are strongly dependent on their synthesis and catabolism. In addition, the PA metabolism is interconnected with other stress-related metabolic routes including proline metabolism and also influenced by various plant hormones and growth regulators [33]. In spite of the huge number of investigations, the role of PAs in plant stress processes are often contradictory [32].

In the present experiments, the amounts of PAs, especially PUT and SPD, increased significantly in the leaves of mannitol- or sorbitol-treated plants and in the roots of PEG-treated plants. Previous studies indicated that the ornithine, arginine and S-adenosyl-methionine (SAM) metabolic routes were found to be active in drought-treated plants [34]. Since the osmotic adjustment induced by mannitol and sorbitol is not forced by changes in the sugar metabolism or by the induction of proline accumulation, it is possible that these osmolytes (mannitol and sorbitol) stimulated the PA pathways by activating the synthesis of PUT from precursors such as ornithine, arginine and the amount of SPD from SAM [34]. However, further investigations are required to prove the activation of these metabolic routes after mannitol, sorbitol or PEG treatment.

During salt stress, the size of the PA pool (the amount of PUT, SPD and SPM) did not change but the PAs underwent rapid interconversion. The proportion of PUT and SPD decreased while the amount of SPN increased in both roots and leaves. SPN accumulation was also observed in the leaves of rice, barley and other wheat cultivars after salt treatment [4,28]. The present results show that the activation of PA metabolic pathways depends not only on the severity of stress and sensitivity of plants but also on the nature of osmolytes.

Conclusions

A comparative study on the metabolic changes under controlled conditions, independently of environmental factors, could contribute to a better understanding of the plant responses to osmotic stress. Fig 9 shows the metabolic pathways associated with the identified metabolites together with the dominant osmolytes affecting them (Fig 9).

Fig 9. Metabolic pathway indicating the metabolites associated with the metabolism of various identified sugars, amino acids and polyamines in wheat during iso-osmotic stress induced by various osmolytes.

Fig 9

Metabolites in black was detected. The dominant effects induced by PEG (grey), NaCl (orange) mannitol (yellow) or sorbitol (blue) are indicated above the metabolites. Green color shows the control values.

PEG treatment resulted in the accumulation of glucose and fructose in both roots and leaves and that of GB in the root. Mannitol and sorbitol treatments mainly decreased the osmotic potential through the uptake, transport and accumulation of mannitol and sorbitol treatments, respectively and to a certain extent through that of maltose leading to most intense decrease in the RWC, chlorophyll and photosynthetic activity of the leaves. Salt treatment mainly caused the accumulation of proline, sucrose and galactose. The various osmolytes affected the polyamine metabolisms in different ways: mannitol and sorbitol treatments activated the polyamine metabolism in the leaves resulting in an elevated amount of PUT and SPD while all PAs increased in the roots of PEG-treated plants. The amount of PUT and SPD decreased while SPN increased after salt treatment both in the roots and leaves. These results show that the various osmolytes activated different metabolic processes even under iso-osmotic stress conditions and these changes also differed in the leaves and roots.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Crystal formation in leaves when the plants were exposed to mannitol treatment.

(JPG)

S1 Table. Results of statistical analysis for the changes of sugar metabolites presented in Fig 6.

Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test. The results are based on five biological replicates for each treatment and day.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Results of statistical analysis for free polyamines, putrescine (PUT), spermidine (SPD) and spermine (SPN) determined from the leaves and root, as presented in Fig 8.

Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test. The results are based on three biological replicates for each treatment and day.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Analysis variance of various physiological parameters for shoot.

Data were analysed by using STATISTICA 13.4 software package.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Analysis variance of various physiological parameters for root.

Data were analysed by using STATISTICA 13.4 software package.

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Factor loadings of sugars, proline, GB and osmotic potential.

Principle component analysis (PCA) was applied for evaluation of response of shoots under control and osmotic stresses. Data were analysed by using STATISTICA 13.4 software package.

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Factor loadings of sugars, proline, GB and osmotic potential.

Principle component analysis (PCA) was applied for evaluation of response of roots under control and osmotic stresses. Data were analysed by using STATISTICA 13.4 software package.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office, grant No. K112226.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office K112226. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Wang W, Vinocur B, Altman A. Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures: Towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Planta. 2003;218: 1–14. 10.1007/s00425-003-1105-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bowne JB, Erwin TA, Juttner J, Schnurbusch T, Langridge P, Bacic A, et al. Drought responses of leaf tissues from wheat cultivars of differing drought tolerance at the metabolite level. Mol Plant. © The Authors. All rights reserved.; 2012;5: 418–429. 10.1093/mp/ssr114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marček T, Hamow KÁ, Végh B, Janda T, Darko E. Metabolic response to drought in six winter wheat genotypes. PLoS One. 2019;14: 1–23. 10.1371/journal.pone.0212411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Do P, Drechsel O, Heyer AG, Hincha DK, Zuther E. Changes in free polyamine levels, expression of polyamine biosynthesis genes, and performance of rice cultivars under salt stress: a comparison with responses to drought. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5: 1–16. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Do PT, Degenkolbe T, Erban A, Heyer AG, Kopka J, Köhl KI, et al. Dissecting rice polyamine metabolism under controlled long-term drought stress. PLoS One. 2013;8 10.1371/journal.pone.0060325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gavaghan CL, Li J V., Hadfield ST, Hole S, Nicholson JK, Wilson ID, et al. Application of NMR-based metabolomics to the investigation of salt stress in maize (Zea mays). Phytochem Anal. 2010;22: 214–224. 10.1002/pca.1268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Molnar I, Gaspar L, Sarvari E, Dulai S, Hoffmann B, Molnar-Lang M, et al. Physiological and morphological responses to water stress in Aegilops biuncialis and Triticum aestivum genotypes. Funct Plant Biol. 2004;31: 1149–1159. 10.1071/fp03143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Slama I, Ghnaya T, Hessini K, Messedi D, Savouré A, Abdelly C. Comparative study of the effects of mannitol and PEG osmotic stress on growth and solute accumulation in Sesuvium portulacastrum. Environ Exp Bot. 2007;61: 10–17. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.02.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Darko E, Janda T, Majláth I, Szopkó D, Dulai S, Molnár I, et al. Salt stress response of wheat–barley addition lines carrying chromosomes from the winter barley “Manas.” Euphytica. 2015;203: 491–504. 10.1007/s10681-014-1245-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Patade VY, Bhargava S, Suprasanna P. Salt and drought tolerance of sugarcane under iso-osmotic salt and water stress: Growth, osmolytes accumulation, and antioxidant defense. J Plant Interact. 2011;6: 275–282. 10.1080/17429145.2011.557513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rakhmankulova ZF, Voronin PY, Shuyskaya E V., Kuznetsova NA, Zhukovskaya N V., Toderich KN. Effect of NaCl and isoosmotic polyethylene glycol stress on gas exchange in shoots of the C4 xerohalophyte Haloxylon aphyllum (Chenopodiaceae). Photosynthetica. 2014;52: 437–443. 10.1007/s11099-014-0048-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ghuge S, Rai A, Suprasanna P. Comparative effects of NaCl, PEG and mannitol Iso-osmotic stress on solute accumulation and antioxidant enzyme system in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). In: Plant Stress [Internet]. 2010. [cited 20 Sep 2007] pp. 50–55. Available: http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/Online/GSBOnline/images/2010/PS_4(1)/PS_4(1)50-55o.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pál M, Horváth E, Janda T, Páldi E, Szalai G. Cadmium stimulates the accumulation of salicylic acid and its putative precursors in maize (Zea mays) plants. Physiol Plant. 2005;125: 356–364. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00545.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lokhande VH, Nikam TD, Penna S. Differential osmotic adjustment to iso-osmotic NaCl and PEG stress in the in vitro cultures of Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L. J Crop Sci Biotechnol. 2010;13: 251–256. 10.1007/s12892-010-0008-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bajji M, Lutts S, Kinet JM. Water deficit effects on solute contribution to osmotic adjustment as a function of leaf ageing in three durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) cultivars performing differently in arid conditions. Plant Sci. 2001;160: 669–681. 10.1016/s0168-9452(00)00443-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID. Rapid determination of free proline for water—stress studies. Plant Soil. 1973;207: 205–207. Available: 10.1007/bf00018060 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Grieve CM, Grattan SR. Rapid assay for determination of water soluble quaternary ammonium compounds. Plant Soil. 1983;70: 303–307. 10.1007/BF02374789 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gondor OK, Szalai G, Kovács V, Janda T, Pál M. Relationship between polyamines and other cold-induced response mechanisms in different cereal species. J Agron Crop Sci. 2016;202: 217–230. 10.1111/jac.12144 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Smith MA, Davies PJ. Separation and quantitation of polyamines in plant tissue by high performance liquid chromatography of their dansyl derivatives. 1985;78: 89–91. 10.1104/pp.78.1.89 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chen H, Jiang J-G. Osmotic adjustment and plant adaptation to environmental changes related to drought and salinity. Environ Rev. 2010;18: 309–319. 10.1139/a10-014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yang ZB, Eticha D, Rao IM, Horst WJ. Alteration of cell-wall porosity is involved in osmotic stress-induced enhancement of aluminium resistance in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J Exp Bot. 2010;61: 3245–3258. 10.1093/jxb/erq146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chen THH, Murata N. Glycinebetaine protects plants against abiotic stress: Mechanisms and biotechnological applications. Plant, Cell Environ. 2011;34: 1–20. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02232.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Meloni DA, Oliva MA, Ruiz HA, Martinez CA. Contribution of proline and inorganic solutes to osmotic adjustment in cotton under salt stress. J Plant Nutr. 2001;24: 599–612. 10.1081/PLN-100104983 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wu GQ, Feng RJ, Shui QZ. Effect of osmotic stress on growth and osmolytes accumulation in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) plants. Plant, Soil Environ. 2016;62: 189–194. 10.17221/101/2016-PSE [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sami F, Yusuf M, Faizan M, Faraz A, Hayat S. Role of sugars under abiotic stress. Plant Physiol Biochem. Elsevier Ltd; 2016;109: 54–61. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yasseen B, Al-Thani R, Alhady F, Abbas R. Soluble sugars in plants under stress at the arabian gulf Region: possible roles of microorganisms. J Plant Biochem Physiol. 2018;6: 1–17. 10.4172/2329-9029.1000224 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gill PK, Sharma AD, Singh P, Bhullar SS. Effect of various abiotic stresses on the growth, soluble sugars and water relations of sorghum seedlings grown in light and darkness. Bulg J Plant Physiol. 2001;27: 72–84. 10.1111/j.1438-8677.1964.tb00169.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Darko E, Gierczik K, Hudák O, Forgó P, Pál M, Türkösi E, et al. Differing metabolic responses to salt stress in wheat-barley addition lines containing different 7H chromosomal fragments. PLoS One. 2017;12: 1–20. 10.1371/journal.pone.0174170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhang GY, Liu RR, Zhang CQ, Tang KX, Sun MF, Yan GH, et al. Manipulation of the rice L-galactose pathway: Evaluation of the effects of transgene overexpression on ascorbate accumulation and abiotic stress tolerance. PLoS One. 2015;10: 1–14. 10.1371/journal.pone.0125870 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Valerio C, Costa A, Marri L, Issakidis-Bourguet E, Pupillo P, Trost P, et al. Thioredoxin-regulated β-amylase (BAM1) triggers diurnal starch degradation in guard cells, and in mesophyll cells under osmotic stress. J Exp Bot. 2011;62: 545–555. 10.1093/jxb/erq288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Thalmann M, Pazmino D, Seung D, Horrer D, Nigro A, Meier T, et al. Regulation of leaf starch degradation by abscisic acid is important for osmotic stress tolerance in plants. Plant Cell. 2016;28: 1860–1878. 10.1105/tpc.16.00143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pál M, Szalai G, Janda T. Speculation: Polyamines are important in abiotic stress signaling. Plant Sci. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2015;237: 16–23. 10.1016/j.plantsci.2015.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pál M, Tajti J, Szalai G, Peeva V, Végh B, Janda T. Interaction of polyamines, abscisic acid and proline under osmotic stress in the leaves of wheat plants. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 1–12. 10.1038/s41598-017-17765-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chen D, Shao Q, Yin L, Younis A, Zheng B. Polyamine function in plants: metabolism, regulation on development, and roles in abiotic stress responses. Front Plant Sci. 2019;9: 1–13. 10.3389/fpls.2018.01945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mayank Gururani

28 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-24786

Metabolic responses of wheat seedlings to osmotic stress induced by various osmolytes under iso-osmotic conditions

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Eva Darko,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 09/11/2019. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mayank Gururani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Author

The work submitted to PLOSone requires the following

1. please provide the the number of sample analysed for each trait in the manuscript as n=...., because it is so confusing. HTe experiment was repeated thrice and it has 5-10 biological samples and after that there are 5 biological replicates. Also indicate exact number in some places, 5 or 15 samples were analysed in some places 5 or 10..

2. The method for GB (spectrophotometer) has its own limitation becasue lugol can also forms colour with other metabolite, and hence it can be removed

3. please provide information on design of experiment and how the treatments were arranged. The graphs presented are interaction graphs (treatment and time), then please provide the anova to show whether there is any day effect.

4. Please explain the statistical procedure followed in PCA, also the need for cosine transformation, and rotation of axis.

5. Figure quality may be improved.

6. Figure 9 needs to be modified by showing the % increase instead of trend line.

7. Procedure of PA analysis may be provided in detail, along with efficiency of extraction. Whether internal standards are included during extraction, authenticity of standard (purity).

8. Discussion may be reduced significantly by removing the speculations

Reviewer #2: The following points should be addressed before accepting the paper

1. The aim of the experiment is not very convincing that why such type of study is required and what the benefit the readers have and how this will benefited to the agriculture community

2. The quality of the figures are very bad and hazy. It should be revised

3. It has 57 reference and some of them are not relevant. Try to reduce the reference to a level of 40. Cite the new reference.

4. Abstract should be rewritten. A concluding remark that how this study will be helpful is to be added.

5. The experiment is under stress therefore the antioxidative enzymes such as peroxidase, catalase, superoxide dismutase etc should be done to strengthen the data and conclusion

In my opinion it can not be accepted in the present form

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: SHAMSUL HAYAT

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2019 Dec 19;14(12):e0226151. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226151.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Nov 2019

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

First of all, we would like to thank you and the referees for thoroughly revision of the manuscript and for their critical comments. We strived to correct all mistakes and we hope that according to the instruction of reviewers, the manuscript has improved considerably. Thank you very much.

Answers to reviewers:

Reviewer #1: Dear Author

The work submitted to PLOSone requires the following

1. please provide the the number of sample analysed for each trait in the manuscript as n=...., because it is so confusing. HTe experiment was repeated thrice and it has 5-10 biological samples and after that there are 5 biological replicates. Also indicate exact number in some places, 5 or 15 samples were analysed in some places 5 or 10..

Thank you very much for the comments The Materials and method section is modified according to the request. The number of repetitions was indicated separately for each measurement. In addition, the figure legends were also amended. We hope that the number of repetitions will not be confusing in this way. Thank you very much.

2. The method for GB (spectrophotometer) has its own limitation becasue lugol can also forms colour with other metabolite, and hence it can be removed

Yes, the reviewer is right that lugol can give reaction with several molecules. Starch forms blue colour with lugol but in our case, the supernatants of tissue saps were used for the investigations, which containts only small and water soluble metabolites. It is also true that the KI-I2 reagent produces crystals with several quaternary ammonium compounds, including the major compound GB. The manuscript has been corrected according to this. As in many papers (e.g. Valadez-Bustos et al. (2016) Analitical Biochemistry, 498, 47-; Habib et al. (2012, South African Journal of Botany 83, 151-), we also used this method (method of Grieve and Grattan (Rapid assay for determination of water soluble quaternary ammonium compounds. Plant Soil. 1983;70: 303–307. doi:10.1007/BF02374789) for the determination of GB from plant tissues because it is simpler than other chromatographic methods. However, in the future, we will use other method, e.g. chromatographic method, which separates the quaternary ammonium compounds.

3. please provide information on design of experiment and how the treatments were arranged. The graphs presented are interaction graphs (treatment and time), then please provide the anova to show whether there is any day effect.

As requested by the reviewer, we prepared a figure explaining our experimental design (please find it in the attachment). In addition, we also performed the ANOVA to make sure that the results and our conclusions are valid. We present these information as supplementary data.

4. Please explain the statistical procedure followed in PCA, also the need for cosine transformation, and rotation of axis.

After normalization of data, PCA was performed. Measurement variables fit a normal distribution. PCA analysis was based on correlation matrix. The data set used for PCA consisted of 10 variables. PCA was applied to the standardized data set and the factor loadings were done in order to estimate the proportion of total variance with different principal components. The loadings showed correlations among different principal components (PC) and measurable variables whereby high loadings represented strong correlation (>0.75). Dropping factors whose eigenvalues were less than 1, were not included in analysis. Moreover, we used the criterion for PCA usage if the total variance of the first two factors was higher than 50%.

Factor loadings with variable contribution and eigenvalues was presented in Supplementary Tables 5 and 6.

For shoot, the PCA yielded the total variation of four principal components showing 91.2% of data variation under control and osmotic stress treatments (STable 5). The most important were two components explaining 58.76% of data variance. The first component (PC1) was largely determined by high negative loadings on osmotic potential while proline and sucrose had high positive loadings. The second component (PC2) was largely determined by high positive loadings related to maltose and sorbitol, respectively. GB had high positive loadings in the third component (PC3) and fourth component (PC4) reveals negative loadings on mannitol.

For root, the PCA yielded the total variation of three principal components showing 76.8% of data variation under control and osmotic stress treatments (STable 6).The total variation of the two most important principal components (PC1 and PC2) was 63.68% of data variation. PC1 was determined by high positive loadings on osmotic potential and negative loadings on proline, sucrose, galactose, maltose, mannose and sorbitol, respectively. Fructose, glucose and GB had positive loadings in PC2 while positive loadings of sorbitol and negative loadings of mannitol contributed in PC3.

With cosine transformation, we can orthogonalize a certain vector and decrease its dimensionality. PCA transformation is useful because the first few signal components highly correlate and contain the same content of the data energy. Rotation of axis makes components decorrelated and information is concentrated in small number of components.

5. Figure quality may be improved.

We also noticed that the quality of the figures changed during the PDF conversion, in spite of the fact that the figures have been prepared in TIFF at 600 dpi. We reconstructed the figures and they are re-uploaded. If they are still in bad quality, please download the new files.

6. Figure 9 needs to be modified by showing the % increase instead of trend line.

As requested by the reviewer, the data are recalculated and a new figure 9 was prepared showing the % increase instead of trend line. (Please find the new figure attached.) In these cases, the control values are always 1 and show linear line (green) in the figures. In most of the cases, the tendencies remained the same however, this type of presentation resulted in discrepancies in some cases. For example, in the roots, the sucrose content increased slightly during the time in the control plants (from 0.07 to 0.6), which is reasonable. In salt–treated plants the sucrose content is always higher than those of control and shows an increasing tendency as sucrose content changed from 0.7 to3.7 during the time. However, when we calculated the changes in % the results showed opposite tendencies (the salt-induced change was decreased in time). It was only due to the mathematic calculation (as for example 1.0/0.1 =10; while 3.7/0.6 = 6 ), but it is not a biological reason. The other problem occurred during the calculation, when the amount of a special compound was under or close to the detectable limit in control plants. For example the amount of mannitol and sorbitol remained below the detectable threshold in the healthy (control) plants but, of course, their amount increased significantly when the plants were treated with them, and these metabolites transported to the root and shoot. In those cases when the level of metabolites were close to the threshold, we gave 0 values for these metabolites. But mathematically, any number cannot be divided by zero.

Since we discussed only those results, which presented significant changes and clear tendencies, in our opinion, it would be better to leave the original figure in the manuscript instead of a new one. Of course, if the reviewer insists, the old figure will be replaced with the new one.

7. Procedure of PA analysis may be provided in detail, along with efficiency of extraction. Whether internal standards are included during extraction, authenticity of standard (purity).

In these experiments, we did not use internal standard for the determination of the amount of polyamines. Determination of polyamines by HPLC is a routine procedure in our laboratory therefore, we check regularly the injector precision and the detector accuracy/stability with the use of external standards purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany). External standards of PUT, SPD and SPN were also used for the quantification. However, the information was missed from the materials and methods. Thank you very much for drawing our attention to it. The manuscript is completed with this description.

Several years ago, we checked the efficiency of extraction method by the use of internal standard, norvaline and we found our method appropriate. Same tendency was obtained by the use of internal or external standards. In the present experiments, the same isolation process was used during the whole experiments and it is likely that the extraction rate of each polyamine and the sensitivity of the detector and the precision of the injector did not change during this short period of investigation. Therefore, we suppose that our method using external quantification is suitable for the determination of polyamine contents of leaves and root. Of course, we agree that the utilization of an internal standard is useful (although it is not always applied). We will use it in the future again.

8. Discussion may be reduced significantly by removing the speculations

We reduced the text by removing the speculation.

Finally, we would like to thank you again for the evaluation of the manuscript, for valuable recommendations and suggestions. We were about to correct all the critical remarks and we hope that according to the instruction of reviewer, the manuscript has imrpoved considerably. Thank you very much.

Reviewer #2: The following points should be addressed before accepting the paper

1. The aim of the experiment is not very convincing that why such type of study is required and what the benefit the readers have and how this will benefited to the agriculture community

First of all, we wish to thank you and the referees for the evaluation of the manuscript, We appreciate for the valuable recommendations and suggestions.

Studying the abiotic stress processes affecting the yield production is really important for us. Plant responses to drought and salt stress have been widely investigated in the world and also at our department too. Many articles have been published on this topic, and we realized that the results strongly depend on conditions applied (e.g. on the type of treatment, plant sensitivity, and other environmental factors). Beasides, as we presented in the introduction, the results (not only ours but also others’) are often contradictory. The explanation is difficult due to the completely different circumstances (e.g. growth conditions, species or genotypes).

In the present experiments, we aimed to identify the common and specific metabolic responses to osmotic stress induced by different osmolytes including salt or PEG, mannitol or sorbitol, which are often used to stimulate drought stress in plants. We kept as many conditions at the same level as possible meanwhile we were studying several physiological and metabolic parameters. Yes, the reviewer is right that this is a simplified (model) system in comparison to natural environmental conditions. However, our results identified several different metabolic responses (eg proline - NaCl; Peg - GB, or PAs). We believe, that these information can be useful for all scientists who study those processes which trigger osmotic stress.

2. The quality of the figures are very bad and hazy. It should be revised

We also noticed that the quality of the figures changed during the PDF conversion, in spite of the fact that the figures had been prepared in TIFF at 600 dpi. We reconstructed the figures and they are re-uploaded. If they are still in bad quality, please download the new files.

3. It has 57 reference and some of them are not relevant. Try to reduce the reference to a level of 40. Cite the new reference.

According to the comments of both reviewers, the text modified significantly and we also checked and reduced the number of references. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

4. Abstract should be rewritten. A concluding remark that how this study will be helpful is to be added.

The abstract is rewritten and placed in a bigger context to emphasize its importance.

5. The experiment is under stress therefore the antioxidative enzymes such as peroxidase, catalase, superoxide dismutase etc should be done to strengthen the data and conclusion

In general, many stresses including salt or drought induce osmotic stress in plants. These stresses cause oxidative damage (as secondary stress) in plants, especially if they are severe. In many cases, the oxidative stress is only a consequence of the primary stress. In many of our previous investigations, we also studied the antioxidant systems under different environmental conditions (salt, drought, cold, heat or metal toxicity), and we found that in some cases, such as cold or heavy metal toxicity, the antioxidant system plays an important role in the protection against the primary stress. However, in other cases, including salt or drought their role in the plant responses is less pronounced compared to the changes of other metabolites (Darko et al. 2004, Darko et al, 2009 Crop Sci, ; Darko et al. PlosOne, 2017, Janda et al. ). Therefore, in the present investigations we did not compare the changes of the antioxidant systems. Instead, we focused on following the metabolic changes under osmotic stress induced by salt or other compounds generally used to simulate drought stress. However, we eliminated those explanation from the manuscript which were related to the antioxidant systems, since as you are right, they would be only speculations without supporting investigations behind them.

Finally we would like to thank you again your work. Your thorough revision and critical comments have been valuable for us. We were about to correct all the critical remarks and we hope that according to the instruction of reviewer, the manuscript has improved considerably. Thank you very much.

Attachment

Submitted filename: resp to revs.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mayank Gururani

21 Nov 2019

Metabolic responses of wheat seedlings to osmotic stress induced by various osmolytes under iso-osmotic conditions

PONE-D-19-24786R1

Dear Dr. Eva Darko,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Mayank Gururani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: No comments - All the queries has been addressed

In future, highlight the changes in the revised manuscript for easy understanding.

Reviewer #2: Authors have thoroughly address all the comments. The suggestion has been incorporated as required. Therefore. I have no hesitation in recommending the paper for publication in this journal.

Accepted for publication

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Mayank Gururani

6 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-24786R1

Metabolic responses of wheat seedlings to osmotic stress induced by various osmolytes under iso-osmotic conditions

Dear Dr. Darko:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mayank Gururani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Crystal formation in leaves when the plants were exposed to mannitol treatment.

    (JPG)

    S1 Table. Results of statistical analysis for the changes of sugar metabolites presented in Fig 6.

    Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test. The results are based on five biological replicates for each treatment and day.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Results of statistical analysis for free polyamines, putrescine (PUT), spermidine (SPD) and spermine (SPN) determined from the leaves and root, as presented in Fig 8.

    Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 level using Tukey’s post hoc test. The results are based on three biological replicates for each treatment and day.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Analysis variance of various physiological parameters for shoot.

    Data were analysed by using STATISTICA 13.4 software package.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Analysis variance of various physiological parameters for root.

    Data were analysed by using STATISTICA 13.4 software package.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Factor loadings of sugars, proline, GB and osmotic potential.

    Principle component analysis (PCA) was applied for evaluation of response of shoots under control and osmotic stresses. Data were analysed by using STATISTICA 13.4 software package.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. Factor loadings of sugars, proline, GB and osmotic potential.

    Principle component analysis (PCA) was applied for evaluation of response of roots under control and osmotic stresses. Data were analysed by using STATISTICA 13.4 software package.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: resp to revs.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES