Open Access

Proteomic analysis of shoot tissue during photoperiod induced growth cessation in V. riparia Michx. grapevines

Proteome Science20108:44

DOI: 10.1186/1477-5956-8-44

Received: 5 April 2010

Accepted: 12 August 2010

Published: 12 August 2010

Abstract

Background

Growth cessation, cold acclimation and dormancy induction in grapevines and other woody perennial plants native to temperate continental climates is frequently triggered by short photoperiods. The early induction of these processes by photoperiod promotes winter survival of grapevines in cold temperate zones. Examining the molecular processes, in particular the proteomic changes in the shoot, will provide greater insight into the signaling cascade that initiates growth cessation and dormancy induction. To begin understanding transduction of the photoperiod signal, Vitis riparia Michx. grapevines that had grown for 35 days in long photoperiod (long day, LD, 15 h) were subjected to either a continued LD or a short photoperiod (short day, SD, 13 h) treatment. Shoot tips (4-node shoot terminals) were collected from each treatment at 7 and 28 days of LD and SD for proteomic analysis via two-dimensional (2D) gel electrophoresis.

Results

Protein profiles were characterized in V. riparia shoot tips during active growth or SD induced growth cessation to examine physiological alterations in response to differential photoperiod treatments. A total of 1054 protein spots were present on the 2D gels. Among the 1054 proteins, 216 showed differential abundance between LD and SD (≥ two-fold ratio, p-value ≤ 0.05). After 7 days, 39 protein spots were more abundant in LD and 30 were more abundant in SD. After 28 days, 93 protein spots were more abundant in LD and 54 were more abundant in SD. MS/MS spectrometry was performed to determine the functions of the differentially abundant proteins.

Conclusions

The proteomics analysis uncovered a portion of the signal transduction involved in V. riparia grapevine growth cessation and dormancy induction. Different enzymes of the Calvin-Benson cycle and glutamate synthetase isoforms were more abundant either in LD or SD treatments. In LD tissues the significantly differentially more abundant proteins included flavonoid biosynthesis and polyphenol enzymes, cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase, and TCP-1 complexes. In the SD tissue photorespiratory proteins were more abundant than in the LD. The significantly differentially more abundant proteins in SD were involved in ascorbate biosynthesis, photosystem II and photosystem I subunits, light harvesting complexes, and carboxylation enzymes.

Background

Viticulture and enology have a rich history beginning over 7,000 years ago. With the growth of civilization grapevines became a prominent fruit crop and are now the most widely grown and economically important in the world. Even though the majority of wine production takes place in Mediterranean or oceanic climate areas, vineyards of continental regions contribute greatly to the diversity of viticulture. Grapevines grown in these temperate climates must be adapted to cold, dry winters in order to survive. Vitis riparia, the only grape species native to the upper Midwest region of the United States, is particularly adapted to colder climates [1, 2].

Like many perennial plants, grapevines survive subzero winter temperatures by ceasing growth and entering dormancy. In many temperate woody species, the transition from active growth to dormancy is promoted by decreasing daylength [3]. Photoperiodic response is a stable annual cue that provides plants with a reliable timing mechanism to signal winter's onset [4]. Daylength sensing takes place in the leaves and a signal is believed to be transported to the shoot apex [5]. In tree species with photoperiodically induced dormancy, such as birch (Betula), the perception of decreasing daylengths results in cessation of growth, development of a terminal bud, and progression to a dormant and more freezing-tolerant state [6, 7]. The decreased daylength also triggers other adaptive responses including nitrogen storage, stem growth cessation, and leaf senescence [8].

In contrast to tree species such as poplar (Populus) and birch, V. riparia does not set a terminal bud in response to decreasing daylength in the autumn. Upon reaching a critical daylength specific to a given V. riparia ecotype, shoot growth ceases and shoot tip abscission and latent bud dormancy are induced [911]. Shoot tip abscission coincides with bud dormancy induction in grapevines and occurs prior to leaf senescence. Full shoot tip abscission in V. riparia takes place after 28 days of short photoperiod (SD) [11]. The shoot tip begins to yellow from the 2nd node to the apex and eventually dries up and falls from the plant. Autumn senescence, or programmed cell death, stimulates many changes in gene expression which are accompanied by a remobilization of nutrients, carbohydrate accumulation, and shedding of plant parts [12]. This study examined protein abundance during the transition from active growth to initiation of shoot tip abscission to begin unraveling SD programmed induction of growth cessation and shoot tip senescence in grapevines. Quantitative and qualitative differences in protein abundance were identified by employing a phenol-based extraction and 2D gel analysis [13, 14].

Results

Photoperiod regulation of shoot growth

Measurements of V. riparia primary shoot length and node number were initiated at day zero of the differential photoperiod treatments and were repeated every seven days (0, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days). Figure 1 shows that shoot length and node number were similar for the first 7 days of LD and SD. At day 14, the shoot length and node number were statistically different (p-value ≤ 0.05 and ≤ 0.001 respectively) between LD and SD treatments. By 28 days growth had ceased in the SD vines and there was a decrease in node number as tip abscission occurred. The LD treated V. riparia grapevines continued to grow and had a greater total shoot length and node number.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1477-5956-8-44/MediaObjects/12953_2010_Article_196_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

LD vs. SD physiological data. Primary shoot length and node number were determined for LD (circle) and SD (square) treatments at various time points. Solid lines indicate primary shoot length; dashed lines represent node number.

Differential photoperiod influence on protein abundance

2D PAGE analysis was used to examine the response to photoperiod change and the physiological alterations as the shoot tip yellows and abscission is initiated. Proteins were extracted from four node shoots harvested after 7 and 28 days of differential photoperiod treatment (six replicates for each time point and photoperiod). There was no significant difference in the amount of recovered proteins that was observed between photoperiod treatments from the same harvest time point. Total protein recovery averaged 5.4 ± 1.4 mg per gram of tissue extracted.

In total, 1054 spots were detected among the four treatments sampled (two photoperiods × two time points). An average of 785 spots per gel with an intensity value greater than 0.01% of the total average spot intensity was observed. Faint spots were included in the gel analysis to maximize the number of proteins identified and to increase the potential of indentifying signaling-related proteins that are typically low in abundance. The inclusion of faint spots increased spot number per gel but also resulted in a comparatively high average coefficient of variation (CV) (7SD: 0.76; 7LD: 0.82; 28SD: 0.70; 28LD: 0.72). However, these CV values were within a range consistent with values previously reported for other plant proteomic analyses (0.26-0.31)[15] (0.47-0.75) [16] and (0.24) [17].

No significant difference in the number of spots with an intensity greater than 0.01% was observed at 7 days of differential photoperiod treatment. At 28 days, the LD treatment presented a significantly (p value = 0.0002) greater number of spots than the SD treatment (814 versus 742 spots). A few major proteins may have contributed to these differences as in 28LD where the top 10 most intense proteins accounted for 10.2% of the total spot intensity while in 28SD the top 10 most intense proteins accounted for 13.7% of the total spot intensity.

Proteome differences were analyzed at 7 days and 28 days of differential photoperiod treatment. At 7 days 69 spots displayed differential abundance (ANOVA, p-value ≤0.05) and ≥ two-fold ratio. Of these 69 spots, 39 were more abundant in LD (Figure 2) and 30 were more abundant in SD (Figure 3). At 28 days, 147 spots displayed differential abundance (ANOVA, p-value ≤0.05) and ≥ two-fold ratio. Of these 147 spots, 93 were more abundant in LD (Figure 4) and 54 were more abundant in SD (Figure 5).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1477-5956-8-44/MediaObjects/12953_2010_Article_196_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

2D PAGE analysis of V. riparia after 7 days of LD treatment. Proteins that exhibited a significant change (≥ two-fold ratio, p-value ≤ 0.05) between LD and SD are indicated by circles and standard spot numbers on a representative replicate gel. See Table 1 for a detailed listing of proteins.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1477-5956-8-44/MediaObjects/12953_2010_Article_196_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

2D PAGE analysis of V.riparia after 7 days of SD treatment. Proteins that exhibited a significant change (≥ two-fold ratio, p-value ≤ 0.05) between LD and SD are indicated by circles and standard spot numbers on a representative replicate gel. See Table 2 for a detailed listing of proteins.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1477-5956-8-44/MediaObjects/12953_2010_Article_196_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

2D PAGE analysis of V. riparia after 28 days of LD treatment. Proteins that exhibited a significant change (≥ two-fold ratio, p-value ≤ 0.05) between LD and SD are indicated by circles and standard spot numbers on a representative replicate gel. See Table 3 for a detailed listing of proteins.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1477-5956-8-44/MediaObjects/12953_2010_Article_196_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Figure 5

2D PAGE analysis of V. riparia after 28 days of SD treatment. Proteins that exhibited a significant change (≥ two-fold ratio, p-value ≤ 0.05) between LD and SD are indicated by circles and standard spot numbers on a representative replicate gel. See Table 4 for a detailed listing of proteins.

Identification of differentially abundant proteins between photoperiod treatments

Protein spots that displayed differential abundance (ANOVA, p-value ≤0.05) and ≥ two-fold ratio between the two photoperiods were excised and analyzed by MALDI TOF/TOF. At 7 days, 68 of the 69 differentially abundant protein spots were positively identified (Table 1 and 2). At 28 days, 137 of the 147 differentially abundant protein spots were positively identified (Table 3 and 4). The identity of the majority of the protein spots was determined using the putative proteins from the homozygote Pinot Noir (PN40024) genome sequence; only 4 were identified from different Vitis data sources (tentative contig, EST or the heterozygote genome). Supplementary spot data are available in Additional File 1; including IDs of corresponding predicted proteins from genome sequencing data, data for other proteins with positive IDs, and abundance of each spot on each replicate gel.
Table 1

Proteins whose abundance was significantly more in LD than SD at 7 days.

SSP

SD/LD

Pval

Th

Mr

Exp

Mr

Th

Pi

Exp

Pi

Pep

M

score

%

Cov

Function

SSP8731

0.34

0.00

85

83

6.1

6.1

22 (11)

592

35

5-Me-tetrahydropteroyltriglu-homocys S-Me-transferase

SSP8726

0.09

0.03

85

83

6.1

6.3

29 (12)

829

43

5-Me-tetrahydropteroyltriglu-homocys S-Me-transferase

SSP9702

0.10

0.03

85

83

6.1

6.4

25 (13)

783

39

5-Me-tetrahydropteroyltriglu-homocys S-Me-transferase

SSP8718

0.14

0.01

85

83

6.1

6.2

29 (13)

845

44

5-Me-tetrahydropteroyltriglu-homocys S-Me-transferase

SSP4320

0.13

0.02

37

44

5.4

5.5

12 (8)

365

46

Aspartate-semialdehyde dehydrogenase*

SSP8717

0.42

0.01

115

94

6.9

6.2

29 (15)

819

35

Glycine dehydrogenase

SSP6307

0.24

0.03

32

43

6.2

5.8

12 (2)

95

45

Cysteine synthase

SSP3311

0.18

0.04

39

42

5.4

5.3

14 (8)

572

54

Glutamine synthetase*

SSP4315

0.11

0.01

39

42

5.7

5.5

7 (5)

293

21

Glutamine synthetase cytosolic*

SSP7608

0.09

0.00

65

65

5.9

6.0

17 (9)

462

35

Pyruvate decarboxylase isozyme 2

SSP9108

0.08

0.05

27

28

6.3

6.3

11 (5)

416

64

Triosephosphate isomerase, cytosolic

SSP7601

0.43

0.01

67

77

6.0

5.8

20 (9)

316

47

Transketolase, chloroplast precursor

SSP1518

0.42

0.01

59

60

6.6

5.0

24 (11)

626

51

ATP synthase beta chain 2, mitochondrial

SSP2105

0.15

0.00

32

30

6.0

5.1

11 (8)

331

42

Inorganic pyrophosphatase*

SSP3611

0.07

0.04

69

72

5.2

5.3

29 (12)

448

52

V-type H+-transporting ATPase subunit A

SSP3618

0.13

0.02

69

71

5.2

5.3

35 (13)

668

60

V-type H+-transporting ATPase subunit A

SSP4709

0.18

0.03

102

88

6.1

5.4

22 (8)

290

25

Lipoxygenase (LOX2)*

SSP7313

0.46

0.01

37

41

5.8

5.9

12 (10)

517

28

Anthocyanidin reductase

SSP8417

0.29

0.01

43

46

6.1

6.1

19 (10)

515

47

Chalcone synthase (CHS)

SSP2221

0.13

0.01

31

35

5.0

5.1

11 (10)

468

43

Proteasome 20 S alpha subunit F2*

SSP4520

0.16

0.04

47

52

5.4

5.4

25 (14)

887

63

Proteasome 26 S AAA-ATPase subunit RPT3*

SSP1514

0.41

0.02

62

64

5.1

4.9

23 (18)

1330

53

60 kDa chaperonin alpha subunit

SSP0224

0.03

0.03

30

33

4.7

4.7

28 (10)

589

63

14-3-3 protein GF14 nu (GRF7)

SSP0216

0.09

0.01

29

30

4.8

4.7

23 (10)

554

51

14-3-3 protein GF14 omega (GRF2)

SSP0211

0.30

0.00

29

31

4.7

4.7

24 (10)

562

59

14-3-3 protein GF14 omega (GRF2)

SSP2709

0.26

0.00

90

86

5.1

5.1

38 (17)

1110

49

Cell division cycle protein 48

SSP3702

0.09

0.01

90

86

5.1

5.2

36 (17)

1060

47

Cell division cycle protein 48

SSP3712

0.16

0.00

90

86

5.1

5.2

36 (17)

1080

47

Cell division cycle protein 48

SSP5001

0.27

0.01

17

22

5.7

5.5

6 (3)

419

42

Abscisic stress ripening protein 2 (ASR2)

SSP6720

0.18

0.04

65

82

5.0

5.7

22 (6)

283

37

Heat shock protein 81-4

SSP8702

0.06

0.03

56

90

6.1

6.1

15 (8)

330

34

Elongation factor EF-2*

SSP2607

0.24

0.02

75

79

5.0

5.1

32 (14)

843

50

Elongation factor G, chloroplast precursor

SSP3408

0.29

0.02

47

53

5.4

5.3

33 (12)

534

61

Eukaryotic initiation factor 4A

SSP8712

0.18

0.00

83

83

6.4

6.2

29 (8)

443

45

EMB1138 (Embryo defective 1138)*

SSP3014

0.08

0.03

16

14

6.3

5.2

8 (7)

269

63

GRP7 (cold, circadian rhythm, and RNA binding 2) *

SSP5615

0.12

0.03

84

78

5.8

5.6

25 (4)

269

35

Protein transport protein Sec23A

SSP1215

0.06

0.01

40

36

5.0

5.0

15 (8)

430

60

Lipase GDSL

SSP0017

0.03

0.00

19

17

4.5

4.6

4 (3)

117

20

Translationally-controlled tumor protein

SSP3419

0.18

0.03

40

44

5.8

5.3

16 (8)

350

37

Unknown protein

SSP, standard spot number; SD/LD, normalized spot volume in SD divided by normalized spot volume in LD, from 6 different plants; Pval, p-value; Th M r, theoretical molecular mass; Exp M r, experimental molecular mass; Th p I, theoretical pI; Exp p I, experimental pI; Pep, number of peptides mass and in ( ) the number of MS/MS ions matching the query; M score, MOWSE score; % Cov, percentage of coverage; Function, description of protein identity (*spots with multiple positive identifications)

Table 2

Proteins whose abundance was significantly more abundant in SD than LD at 7 days.

SSP

SD/LD

Pval

Th

Mr

Exp

Mr

Th

Pi

Exp

Pi

Pep

M

score

%

Cov

Function

SSP3313

5.39

0.01

39

43

5.4

5.3

19 (9)

768

70

Glutamine synthetase

SSP8826

10.7

0.04

115

95

6.9

6.2

34 (13)

797

37

Glycine dehydrogenase

SSP6605

16.6

0.00

64

75

5.7

5.8

29 (15)

651

38

Lysyl-tRNA synthetase

SSP8301

2.90

0.02

41

41

6.3

6.1

31 (17)

921

68

Alpha-1,4-glucan-protein synthase 1

SSP4719

22.8

0.00

83

69

6.8

5.4

33 (13)

707

36

Beta-D-xylosidase

SSP2209

3.15

0.03

29

36

5.3

5.1

15 (9)

511

48

L-galactose 1-phosphate phosphatase

SSP5502

3.18

0.04

52

58

5.1

5.5

31 (14)

965

69

ATP synthase beta chain 2, mitochondrial*

SSP4309

15.3

0.03

37

40

6.3

5.4

8 (6)

250

26

ATP synthase gamma chain 1t

SSP0008

5.62

0.00

28

25

5.1

4.8

9 (8)

537

44

Light-harvesting complex II LHCB1

SSP2101

4.25

0.02

27

26

5.2

5.0

10 (5)

236

36

Light-harvesting complex II LHCB1

SSP1008

4.55

0.00

28

25

5.7

4.9

7 (6)

290

19

Light-harvesting complex II LHCB2

SSP1308

3.45

0.02

52

46

5.5

4.9

26 (3)

304

44

RUBISCO activase, chloroplast

SSP4814

3.54

0.02

102

87

6.1

5.5

20 (9)

545

22

Lipoxygenase (LOX2)*

SSP2505

6.08

0.01

64

63

5.8

5.0

10 (5)

194

23

Chaperonin*

SSP0707

5.13

0.04

92

90

5.0

4.8

21 (8)

249

25

Endoplasmin precursor (GRP94)

SSP1701

5.59

0.05

92

89

5.0

4.9

32 (19)

990

37

Endoplasmin precursor (GRP94)

SSP1618

5.01

0.03

68

66

5.7

5.0

21 (11)

507

40

60 kDa chaperonin beta subunit

SSP1102

19.0

0.01

32

29

7.8

4.8

9 (7)

421

43

HrBP1-1 PAP/fibrillin family

SSP2404

4.95

0.01

50

53

4.9

5.0

31 (17)

1150

73

Tubulin alpha-3 chain

SSP0227

5.06

0.01

19

34

5.6

4.8

12 (8)

255

49

14-3-3 protein GF14 iota (GRF12)*

SSP0109

5.40

0.00

29

30

4.8

4.7

23 (12)

662

68

14-3-3 protein GF14 omega (GRF2)

SSP2708

2.67

0.01

90

87

5.1

5.1

39 (18)

1170

55

Cell division cycle protein 48

SSP6608

4.43

0.04

82

78

5.8

5.8

35 (14)

398

47

N-ethylmaleimide sensitive factor*

SSP1319

9.87

0.00

4

43

4.8

4.8

11 (4)

186

29

Eukaryotic initiation factor 3H1 subunit

SSP4815

9.07

0.00

99

85

6.1

5.5

52 (17)

1110

45

ATP-dependent Clp protease ATP-binding sub (CD4B)

SSP4603

3.80

0.04

71

76

5.2

5.4

29 (10)

518

40

Heat shock cognate 70 kDa protein 1

SSP2604

3.47

0.00

71

72

5.2

5.1

39 (16)

1080

47

Heat shock cognate 70 kDa protein 1

SSP1617

4.02

0.02

53

63

5.0

5.0

17 (4)

258

37

RNA recognition motif (RRM)-containing protein

SSP0018

65.8

0.01

19

17

4.5

4.5

8 (5)

247

32

Translationally-controlled tumor protein

SSP4008

10.1

0.00

 

21

 

5.5

    

SSP, standard spot number; SD/LD, normalized spot volume in the SD divided by the normalized spot volume in the LD, from 6 different plants; Pval, p-value; Th M r, theoretical molecular mass; Exp M r, experimental molecular mass; Th p I, theoretical pI; Exp p I, experimental pI; Pep, number of peptides mass and in ( ) the number of MS/MS ions matching the query; M score, MOWSE score; % Cov, percentage of coverage; Function, description of protein identity (*spots with multiple positive identifications)

Table 3

Proteins whose abundance was significantly more abundant in LD than SD at 28 days.

SSP

SD/LD

Pval

Th

Mr

Exp

Mr

Th

Pi

Exp

Pi

Pep

M

score

%

Cov

Function

SSP7619

0.11

0.00

48

65

6.7

5.9

12 (3)

113

30

2-isopropylmalate synthase B

SSP7613

0.24

0.00

61

41

7.0

5.9

18 (6)

247

30

Dihydroxy-acid dehydratase*

SSP6614

0.19

0.04

63

63

6.4

5.7

14 (7)

366

21

Ketol-acid reductoisomerase*

SSP6517

0.35

0.00

63

61

6.4

5.8

17 (11)

770

33

Ketol-acid reductoisomerase

SSP6512

0.38

0.00

55

53

7.6

5.7

22 (8)

385

35

3-P-shikimate 1-carboxyvinyltransferase, chloroplast

SSP8723

0.41

0.00

85

79

6.1

6.3

38 (14)

908

52

5-Me-tetrahydropteroyltriglu-homocys S-Me-transferase

SSP8706

0.12

0.05

85

83

6.1

6.1

33 (12)

701

39

5-Me-tetrahydropteroyltriglu-homocys S-Me-transferase

SSP9702

0.38

0.01

85

83

6.1

6.4

25 (13)

783

39

5-Me-tetrahydropteroyltriglu-homocys S-Me-transferase

SSP5408

0.37

0.01

43

51

5.7

5.7

16 (8)

489

44

S-adenosylmethionine synthetase 1 (SAM1)

SSP6425

0.03

0.00

43

49

5.6

5.7

9 (7)

449

19

S-adenosylmethionine synthetase 1 (SAM1)

SSP5415

0.01

0.00

43

50

5.6

5.5

33 (9)

512

57

S-adenosylmethionine synthetase 1 (SAM1)

SSP5604

0.38

0.00

60

66

5.4

5.5

23 (14)

908

54

2,3-bis-P-glycerate-independent P-glycerate mutase

SSP5611

0.44

0.02

60

67

5.4

5.6

22 (12)

607

54

2,3-bis-P-glycerate-independent P-glycerate mutase

SSP7328

0.48

0.04

38

43

6.6

6.0

22 (9)

454

53

Glyceraldehyde-3-P dehydrogenase A, chloroplast*

SSP6405

0.11

0.01

42

45

6.3

5.7

13 (6)

346

42

Phosphoglycerate kinase, cytosolic*

SSP2307

0.33

0.02

36

41

5.0

5.1

11 (6)

175

32

Pyruvate dehydrogenase E1 sub beta*

SSP8414

0.25

0.02

46

51

6.0

6.3

28 (9)

480

54

Isocitrate dehydrogenase, chloroplast

SSP8316

0.36

0.01

35

40

6.2

6.1

21 (14)

865

65

Malate dehydrogenase, cytosolic

SSP5206

0.19

0.00

32

33

5.5

5.6

29 (3)

330

70

Phosphogluconate dehydrogenase

SSP4314

0.15

0.01

44

41

6.3

5.5

11 (6)

159

26

Transketolase

SSP8707

0.1

0.00

67

75

6.1

6.1

32 (16)

928

45

Transketolase, chloroplast

SSP8602

0.37

0.00

67

75

6.1

6.1

30 (12)

659

46

Transketolase, chloroplast

SSP7207

0.22

0.00

28

31

5.6

5.9

23 (4)

306

60

Phosphomannomutase

SSP3201

0.23

0.00

35

39

5.1

5.2

24 (7)

614

72

Fructokinase-1

SSP2205

0.46

0.03

35

39

5.1

5.1

20 (11)

656

61

Fructokinase-1*

SSP7401

0.09

0.00

43

47

5.9

5.8

20 (7)

349

51

GDP-mannose 3,5-epimerase 1

SSP7708

0.27

0.03

92

83

6.0

6.0

54 (16)

824

45

Sucrose synthase

SSP3502

0.17

0.00

59

56

6.6

5.2

21 (7)

355

45

ATP synthase beta chain 2, mitochondrial*

SSP4305

0.42

0.00

37

42

6.3

5.4

13 (3)

304

31

ATP synthase gamma chain 1t

SSP7114

0.14

0.02

25

26

5.8

5.9

8 (4)

203

32

Inorganic pyrophosphatase

SSP1519

0.42

0.01

54

60

5.0

5.0

18 (6)

247

43

V-type H+-transporting ATPase subunit B

SSP5708

0.45

0.00

92

84

5.5

5.6

35 (12)

844

46

Phospholipase D alpha 1*

SSP6423

0.05

0.02

54

49

7.0

5.8

18 (8)

343

32

Sulfate adenylyltransferase*

SSP7217

0.08

0.00

35

38

6.0

5.9

10 (6)

295

40

Thioredoxin reductase 2

SSP7313

0.25

0.00

37

41

5.8

5.9

12 (10)

517

28

Anthocyanidin reductase

SSP7325

0.11

0.00

26

42

7.6

5.9

7 (4)

156

35

Anthocyanidin reductase

SSP2120

0.28

0.00

25

27

5.3

5.2

9 (6)

428

59

Chalcone isomerase*

SSP6205

0.46

0.00

35

39

5.8

5.7

21 (14)

831

60

Cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase

SSP6413

0.11

0.00

40

48

5.6

5.8

17 (5)

447

46

Leucoanthocyanidin dioxgenase

SSP2406

0.3

0.02

50

53

5.0

5.1

23 (13)

705

53

Tubulin alpha chain

SSP2516

0.42

0.00

50

53

5.0

5.1

21 (13)

721

48

Tubulin alpha chain

SSP2404

0.15

0.01

50

53

4.9

5.0

31 (17)

1150

73

Tubulin alpha-3 chain

SSP1516

0.05

0.01

50

55

4.8

4.9

24 (5)

250

35

Tubulin beta-7 chain

SSP6104

0.25

0.00

27

25

8.8

5.7

8 (5)

281

44

Chaperonin 21, Chloroplast

SSP6609

0.27

0.01

57

65

5.6

5.7

24 (11)

361

54

Chaperonin containing TCP1, beta subunit

SSP5617

0.11

0.01

59

65

5.7

5.6

22 (5)

238

27

Chaperonin containing TCP1, epsilon subunit*

SSP8609

0.17

0.00

61

64

6.0

6.1

32 (9)

458

55

Chaperonin containing TCP1, eta subunit*

SSP6606

0.25

0.00

61

68

5.6

5.7

32 (13)

548

55

Chaperonin containing TCP1, gamma sb

SSP4517

0.31

0.00

59

64

5.5

5.5

20 (7)

275

46

Chaperonin containing TCP1, theta sb

SSP8605

0.48

0.00

59

63

6.0

6.1

42 (13)

566

59

Chaperonin containing TCP1, zeta subunit

SSP1702

0.15

0.00

92

89

5.0

4.9

26 (18)

517

30

Endoplasmin precursor GRP94

SSP3012

0.03

0.00

17

18

5.2

5.2

14 (7)

573

93

Peroxiredoxin-5

SSP8103

0.43

0.02

27

27

6.6

6.1

6 (3)

125

23

Proteasome 20 S alpha subunit C

SSP7108

0.11

0.00

27

26

6.1

6.0

26 (7)

407

61

Proteasome 20 S alpha subunit G

SSP2008

0.36

0.03

22

22

5.5

5.1

9 (5)

285

56

Proteasome 20 S beta subunit C1

SSP6014

0.35

0.00

22

22

5.9

5.8

21 (11)

623

74

Proteasome 20 S beta subunit D

SSP7520

0.09

0.01

47

53

5.9

5.9

10 (6)

141

25

Proteasome 26 S regulatory subunit RPN6

SSP0019

0.04

0.02

20

14

5.8

4.7

7 (3)

191

35

Ribosomal protein L12-1, chloroplast

SSP4212

0.17

0.00

37

37

5.6

5.5

3 (2)

82.5

12

Serine carboxypeptidase II

SSP2513

0.5

0.00

68

63

5.7

5.1

19 (12)

640

40

60 kDa chaperonin beta subunit

SSP2605

0.39

0.04

68

65

5.7

5.1

19 (10)

558

39

60 kDa chaperonin beta subunit

SSP0215

0.26

0.03

29

31

4.8

4.8

15 (7)

347

52

14-3-3 protein GF14 omega (GRF2)

SSP0216

0.12

0.01

29

30

4.8

4.7

23 (10)

554

51

14-3-3 protein GF14 omega (GRF2)

SSP0221

0.1

0.00

29

31

4.7

4.6

19 (8)

460

60

14-3-3 protein GF14 omega (GRF2)

SSP0211

0.13

0.00

29

31

4.7

4.7

24 (10)

562

59

14-3-3 protein GF14 omega (GRF2)

SSP3712

0.24

0.01

90

85

5.1

5.2

36 (17)

1080

47

Cell division cycle protein 48

SSP4514

0.35

0.00

50

54

5.4

5.5

22 (6)

324

42

RAB GDP dissociation inhibitor 1 ATGD1*

SSP1611

0.08

0.01

65

69

4.9

5.0

21 (7)

302

40

Ser/thr-prot phosphatase 2A 65 kDa reg sub A

SSP2701

0.29

0.00

65

81

5.0

5.0

28 (12)

793

42

heat shock protein 81-4

SSP6417

0.34

0.00

48

52

5.8

5.8

17 (8)

272

41

UVB-resistance protein UVR8*

SSP0204

0.31

0.02

28

35

4.5

4.5

12 (7)

426

45

elongation factor 1-beta

SSP1201

0.25

0.02

24

31

4.8

4.8

9 (5)

318

57

Elongation factor 1-beta 1

SSP7701

0.32

0.00

56

87

6.1

5.9

13 (7)

282

29

Elongation factor EF-2*

SSP4412

0.49

0.01

47

50

5.5

5.4

35 (15)

622

55

eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4A-1

SSP4408

0.38

0.00

47

52

5.5

5.4

32 (7)

215

50

eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4A-1

SSP4402

0.39

0.01

47

51

5.4

5.4

33 (9)

368

62

eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4A-2

SSP3603

0.32

0.03

71

72

5.2

5.2

29 (11)

464

42

Heat shock cognate 70 kDa

SSP1603

0.44

0.03

57

73

4.7

4.8

28 (14)

1240

52

Heat shock protein 70 kDa

SSP3122

0.06

0.01

27

28

5.1

5.3

13 (3)

199

65

Coatomer subunit epsilon

SSP6722

0.02

0.05

84

82

5.8

5.7

26 (9)

392

35

Protein transport protein Sec23A

SSP7204

0.19

0.00

33

31

5.8

5.9

14 (3)

229

42

Protein transport SEC13

SSP0101

0.3

0.00

31

27

5.4

4.6

7 (7)

206

23

RNA-binding protein cp29

SSP5221

0.11

0.02

33

37

5.6

5.6

7 (5)

135

31

Carboxyesterase 5 CXE5

SSP1707

0.06

0.02

90

84

4.9

4.8

41 (12)

822

46

Embryo defective 1956

SSP0304

0.45

0.00

35

42

4.7

4.6

11 (8)

485

39

Late embryogenesis abundant

SSP6116

0.16

0.04

27

29

5.5

5.7

11 (3)

219

41

Stem-specific protein TSJT1

SSP0017

0.03

0.04

19

17

4.5

4.6

4 (3)

117

20

Translationally-controlled tumor protein

SSP4317

0.08

0.00

40

43

5.8

5.4

20 (10)

419

47

Unknown protein*

SSP9604

0.21

0.00

 

50

 

6.4

    

SSP8425

0.12

0.00

 

49

 

6.3

    

SSP0120

0.07

0.00

 

27

 

4.7

    

SSP0132

0.46

0.03

 

27

 

4.6

    

SSP6711

0.23

0.03

 

88

 

5.7

    

SSP, standard spot number; SD/LD, normalized spot volume in the SD divided by the normalized spot volume in the LD, from 6 different plants; Pval, p-value; Th M r, theoretical molecular mass; Exp M r, experimental molecular mass; Th p I, theoretical pI; Exp p I, experimental pI; Pep, number of peptides mass and in ( ) the number of MS/MS ions matching the query; M score, MOWSE score; % Cov, percentage of coverage; Function, description of protein identity (*spots with multiple positive identifications)

Table 4

Proteins whose abundance was significantly more abundant in SD than LD at 28 days.

SSP

SD/LD

Pval

Th

Mr

Exp

Mr

Th

Pi

Exp

Pi

Pep

M

score

%

Cov

Function

SSP6408

4.15

0.00

37

46

6.6

5.7

9 (6)

268

35

Fumarylacetoacetase*

SSP5407

17.8

0.00

48

46

7.1

5.7

7 (5)

193

15

Glutamine synthetase

SSP8713

2.69

0.01

115

92

6.9

6.2

35 (13)

723

36

Glycine dehydrogenase

SSP7412

3.21

0.00

48

49

5.9

6.0

25 (11)

523

48

Methylthioribose kinase

SSP6412

3.93

0.01

48

48

7.6

5.8

13 (6)

205

29

Glyceraldehyde-3-P dehydrogenase B, chloroplast*

SSP7317

3.4

0.00

43

41

8.1

6.0

18 (11)

781

45

Fructose-bisphosphate aldolase, chloroplast*

SSP5218

3.49

0.00

32

36

5.5

5.6

21 (9)

446

57

Phosphogluconate dehydrogenase

SSP7710

3.29

0.02

67

76

5.9

5.9

33 (10)

579

55

Transketolase, chloroplast

SSP5106

2.99

0.00

29

26

8.8

5.6

12 (4)

159

31

Dehydroascorbate reductase

SSP7406

4.28

0.00

47

47

6.3

5.9

24 (12)

829

59

Monodehydroascorbate reductase*

SSP4401

9.27

0.00

56

53

6.5

5.4

31 (10)

674

53

Glucose-1-P adenylyltransferase small sub, chloroplast

SSP5219

5.62

0.00

33

37

5.5

5.6

16 (7)

331

42

Lactoylglutathione lyase

SSP2202

2.96

0.00

40

33

6.2

5.0

10 (6)

203

24

phosphoglycolate phosphatase

SSP3111

6.23

0.00

35

30

8.7

5.2

6 (5)

136

21

phosphoglycolate phosphatase

SSP3501

8.93

0.00

55

62

5.3

5.2

22 (15)

752

39

ATP synthase CF1 alpha subunit

SSP2515

4.63

0.00

55

63

5.3

5.1

31 (16)

905

43

ATP synthase CF1 alpha subunit

SSP5314

5.84

0.00

33

41

5.7

5.6

20 (13)

677

79

Quinone oxidoreductase, chloroplast

SSP7321

8.32

0.00

33

40

5.7

5.9

10 (3)

173

49

Quinone oxidoreductase, chloroplast

SSP5009

3

0.01

21

16

6.9

5.6

3 (3)

220

19

Cyt B6-F complex iron-sulfur sub, PETC

SSP2206

2.82

0.01

35

31

6.1

5.1

11 (7)

268

27

Photosystem II PsbO protein

SSP1121

5

0.00

35

30

7.6

5.0

7 (3)

86

23

Photosystem II PsbO protein

SSP1116

3.02

0.02

35

31

7.6

5.0

8 (4)

100

28

Photosystem II PsbO protein

SSP3010

5.36

0.00

28

23

8.3

5.4

8 (6)

400

31

Photosystem II PsbP protein

SSP1006

12.1

0.00

26

22

5.8

5.0

5 (3)

125

18

Light-harvesting complex I LHCA1

SSP0008

9.59

0.00

28

25

5.1

4.9

9 (8)

537

44

Light-harvesting complex II LHCB1

SSP0006

4.45

0.01

29

24

5.1

4.8

5 (2)

107

12

Light-harvesting complex II LHCB3*

SSP1002

3.91

0.00

29

23

5.2

4.9

5 (2)

122

14

Light-harvesting complex II LHCB3

SSP1304

16.3

0.00

42

43

6.0

4.9

21 (14)

644

43

Sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatase, Chloroplast

SSP8619

21.4

0.00

50

71

6.7

6.2

16 (4)

310

34

RUBISCO large subunit

SSP1306

3.24

0.01

48

46

5.5

4.9

27 (11)

588

50

RUBISCO activase, chloroplast

SSP1416

4.01

0.00

52

50

5.7

5.0

24 (11)

485

41

RUBISCO activase, chloroplast

SSP1411

6.01

0.00

52

50

5.5

4.9

27 (7)

546

47

RUBISCO activase, chloroplast

SSP1308

7.35

0.00

52

45

5.5

4.9

26 (3)

304

44

RUBISCO activase, chloroplast

SSP3304

9.41

0.00

52

45

5.5

5.3

22 (7)

281

43

RUBISCO activase, chloroplast

SSP1404

5.21

0.00

52

51

5.5

4.8

23 (8)

342

44

RUBISCO activase, chloroplast

SSP4407

4.74

0.01

91

51

8.6

5.4

11 (5)

177

11

Triacylglycerol lipase

SSP4206

5.18

0.00

34

35

5.4

5.4

13 (6)

440

49

Isoflavone reductase protein 4

SSP3002

5.67

0.00

25

24

5.5

5.2

4 (2)

46

26

Proteasome 20 S beta subunit A

SSP5606

12.3

0.00

75

70

5.5

5.6

9 (3)

216

19

Subtilisin protease C1

SSP5217

3.57

0.00

33

31

6.4

5.6

18 (6)

333

53

Thioredoxin-like protein CDSP32

SSP0205

4.65

0.00

35

35

5.1

4.6

9 (7)

290

26

PAP/fibrillin family

SSP1102

11.6

0.00

32

29

7.8

4.8

9 (7)

421

43

PAP/fibrillin family

SSP7009

4.98

0.02

17

16

6.0

6.0

10 (5)

272

49

pathogenesis protein 1

SSP3604

4.64

0.00

74

71

5.8

5.2

11 (6)

172

16

FtsH protease (VAR2)*

SSP2616

10.4

0.00

74

68

5.8

5.2

31 (11)

699

48

FtsH protease (VAR2)

SSP2609

4.1

0.00

74

70

5.8

5.1

17 (9)

405

21

FtsH protease (VAR2)

SSP0703

6.22

0.00

90

85

4.9

4.8

17 (5)

279

29

Embryo defective 1956

SSP8214

5.24

0.00

43

40

7.1

6.1

25 (8)

463

57

mRNA-binding protein precursor

SSP5011

5.73

0.00

28

19

5.6

5.6

6 (6)

216

23

Thylakoid lumenal 19 kDa, chloroplast

SSP0202

43

0.00

 

35

 

4.5

    

SSP0402

2.88

0.00

 

47

 

4.6

    

SSP3507

2.94

0.02

 

59

 

5.2

    

SSP4511

3.09

0.00

 

62

 

5.5

    

SSP3714

3.61

0.00

 

94

 

5.2

    

SSP, standard spot number; SD/LD, normalized spot volume in the SD divided by the normalized spot volume in the LD, from 6 different plants; Pval, p-value Th M r, theoretical molecular mass; Exp M r, experimental molecular mass; Th p I, theoretical pI; Exp p I, experimental pI; Pep, number of peptides mass and in ( ) the number of MS/MS ions matching the query; M score, MOWSE score; % Cov, percentage of coverage; Function, description of protein identity (*Spots with multiple positive identifications)

Proteomic data was uploaded onto VitisNet as described by Grimplet et al. [18]. Supplementary material in Additional File 2 provides a subset of 15 VitisNet molecular networks, that can be opened in Cytoscape http://www.Cytoscape.org, showing proteins with outstanding expression between LD and SD. Fifteen networks revealed outstanding evolution of protein abundance in relation to photoperiod: 5 related to carbohydrate metabolism (vv10010 glycolysis, vv10053 ascorbate and aldarate metabolism, vv10500 starch and sucrose metabolism, vv10620 pyruvate metabolism, vv10770 pantothenate, and CoA biosynthesis), 3 linked to amino acid metabolism (vv10271 methionine metabolism, vv10290 valine, leucine, and isoleucine biosynthesis, vv10450 selenoamino acid metabolism), 4 correlated to energy metabolism (vv10190 oxidative phosphorylation, vv10195 photosynthesis, vv10196 photosynthesis antenna proteins, vv10710 carbon fixation (Figure 6)), 2 associated with secondary metabolism (vv10940 phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, vv10941 flavonoid biosynthesis), and 1 related to protein fate (vv23050 proteasome).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1477-5956-8-44/MediaObjects/12953_2010_Article_196_Fig6_HTML.jpg
Figure 6

Changes of V. riparia shoot tip protein abundance observed in the carbon fixation pathway in LD or SD treatment. Protein IDs significantly abundant in different treatments are represented by color: proteins more abundant in 7LD (light yellow), proteins more abundant in 28LD (dark yellow) and proteins more abundant in 28SD (magenta). Other shapes in the pathway diagram indicate: function (hexagon), protein (rectangle), metabolite (ellipse), reaction node (open triangle), catalysis (blue lines with circle at the tip), and metabolic reaction (black lines with triangle at the tip).

Discussion

Decreasing daylength is the environmental signal utilized by many perennial plant systems to initiate growth cessation and to prepare for adverse environmental conditions associated with winter in temperate zones. In this study, V. riparia vines showed no difference in the rate of shoot growth in LD and SD during the first seven days of differential photoperiod treatments; thereafter, growth ceased in the SD treatment and the shoot apices senesced upon prolonged SD exposure. This data is in accordance with previous studies that found shoot length and node number were greater under long days [9, 11, 1922].

Several proteins identified in this V. riparia study are in common with proteins identified in shoot or leaf proteome profiles of several V. vinifera and V. rotundifolia cultivars [23, 24]. However, those studies indicated that genotype was the most significant factor determining differences in protein abundance [23]. Therefore, this study presents only the differentially abundant proteins in response to LD growth maintenance and SD induced growth cessation in V. riparia. In contrast to photoperiod studies in peach bark (Prunus persica) [25], which showed a small number (66) of proteins differentially abundant in response to SD, V. riparia had 216 proteins (≥ two-fold ratio, p-value ≤ 0.05) that showed differential abundance in response to SD. There were very few differentially abundant proteins in common between peach bark (a storage tissue) and grape shoot tip (predominately photosynthetic tissue) in response to photoperiod treatment. A comparison of the proteomes of the V. riparia shoot tissue exposed to LD and SD indicated a greater number of proteins in LD than in SD. Since an individual spot intensity is relative to the total intensity, this difference could be related to a higher abundance of a few major proteins in SD treatments, thus reducing the share of lower abundant proteins. In addition to differences in the number of abundant proteins, a comparison of the proteomes identified several molecular parameters that could play significant roles in plant adaptation to decreasing photoperiod.

Carbon fixation and carbohydrate metabolism

Major changes were observed in the abundance of proteins involved in the carbon assimilation process and carbohydrate metabolism in relation to photoperiod treatment. Several enzymes involved in the Calvin-Benson cycle were more abundant in LD shoot tips (Table 1 and 3): phosphoglycerate kinase (SSP6405), chloroplastic glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase A (SSP7328), triose phosphate isomerase (SSP9108), and four transketolase proteins (SSP7601; SSP4314; SSP8707; SSP8602). In contrast, Rubisco (SSP8619), seven Rubisco activases (SSP1308 (Table 1 and 4); SSP1306; SSP1416; SSP1411; SSP3304; SSP1404), fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase (SSP7317), another transketolase (SSP7710), and sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatase (SSP1304) were more abundant in SD shoot tips (Table 2 and 4; Figure 6).

In barley shoot apices it was noted that the rate of carbohydrate production was considerably slower in 8 h than in 16 h photoperiods [26]. Similarly, in this study, enzymes involved in the reduction phases of the Calvin-Benson cycle are more abundant in LD shoot tips while enzymes involved in the carboxylation and regeneration phase are more abundant in SD shoot tips. In contrast, the greater recovery potential of ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate exhibited in SD treatments may be related to an overall decrease in available carbon in comparison to the LD treatments.

Potentially higher carbohydrate availability in LD shoot tips may be responsible for the higher protein abundance of enzymes involved in glycolysis. These proteins include triose-phosphate isomerase (SSP9108), phosphoglycerate kinase (SSP6405), two phosphoglycerate mutases (SSP5604; SSP5611, both matching GSVIVP00033522001), pyruvate dehydrogenase (SSP2307), and pyruvate decarboxylase (SSP7608). In addition, the enzymes 2-isopropylmalate synthase (SSP7619) and malate dehydrogenase (SSP8316) (Table 1 and 3), which function in the pathway following glycolysis, were also more abundant in LD shoot tips.

Under LD conditions it appears that the carbon surplus promotes tissue growth by increasing the pyruvate pool. Roeske and Chollet [27] found that pyruvate accumulation was light dependent. The LD treated tissue had a greater abundance of sucrose synthase (SSP7708) enzymes. Similarly, an increase of sucrose synthase activity was observed in LD in soybean leaves [28], and a higher abundance of sucrose was observed in LD in tobacco leaves [29]. In Arabidopsis, enzymes in the glycolysis pathway showed a decrease in activity in conjunction with decreasing photoperiods, while activity of photosynthesis and starch synthesis remained high [30].

A greater abundance of enzymes leading to the accumulation of starch has been observed in SD shoot tips. Analysis identified these storage enzymes as fructose bisphosphate aldolase (SSP7317), a second glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (SSP6412), and glucose-1-phosphate adenylyltransferase (SSP4401). Previous reports illustrated that plants grown in shorter photoperiods or lower light intensities usually synthesize proportionally more starch [29, 31, 32]. The present study reveals a clear contrast in carbon utilization through its enzymatic steps. While more carbon is probably accumulated and used for the plant growth in LD, under SD plants appear to store the carbon as starch.

Amino acid metabolism

Most minor amino acid abundance in plants has shown poor correlation with short term photoperiod changes [29, 33]. These insignificant associations suggested that the variation in minor amino acids cannot be traced to short-term changes in primary carbon and nitrogen assimilation [33]. However, glutamate, glutamine, glycine, asparagine, alanine, threonine, and serine present daily variation in abundance in tobacco [29]. These authors also reported that all amino acids assayed were more abundant in LD than SD unless they could not be detected.

Glutamate acts at the center of nitrogen flow by incorporating ammonia into the plant [34]. Glutamine synthetases are especially important in the transport of nitrogen in aerial parts of the plant, and play different roles according to their cellular localization. Two glutamine synthetases have been detected as differentially abundant. One, presumably cytosolic (SSP4315), was more abundant in 7LD (Table 1), and the second, likely chloroplastic (SSP5407), was more abundant in 28SD. A third glutamine synthetase (GSVIVP00030210001) has been identified on two proximal spots (SSP3311; SSP3313); SSP3311 was more abundant in 7LD and SSP3313 was more abundant in 7SD. The differentiation between these glutamine synthetase spots is not likely caused by phosphorylation because SSP3313 has a slightly higher molecular weight (Mw) and the impact of phosphorylation on Mw is not generally noticeable in 2D gels. Over abundance of the cytosolic isoform in 7LD could be related to a greater nitrogen uptake in LD [35]. The major role of the chloroplastic isoform of glutamine synthetase in leaves is thought to be re-assimilation of the NH3 generated in photorespiration [36]. Glutamine synthetases are known to interact with 14-3-3 proteins [37]. Seven 14-3-3 proteins have been identified as differentially abundant in the present study, but only three correlate strictly with glutamine synthetase abundance. One 14-3-3 protein in LD (SSP0224) (Table 1) and two in SD (SSP0227; SSP0109) (Table 2) could also be involved in glutamine synthetase regulation during photoperiod.

In addition to chloroplastic glutamine synthetase, other enzymes involved in photorespiration [38] have been seen as more abundant in SD shoot tips. Decarboxylating glycine dehydrogenase (SSP8713) and two phosphoglycolate phosphatases (SSP2202; SSP3111) (Table 4) were differentially abundant in the 28 day treatments. Increased photorespiration in plants has been observed in the dark [39, 40]. Photorespiration commonly produces reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) [41], which can be toxic to plants at certain concentrations [42]. SD plants are known to cope better with H2O2 toxicity than LD plants [43]. Overabundance of enzymes in SD tissue related to ascorbate metabolism, which is involved in the detoxification of reactive oxygen species [41], also supports the hypothesis that the grapevine leaves have a higher level of peroxides under SD treatments. Monodehydroascorbate reductase (NADH) (SSP7406), dehydroascorbate reductase (SSP5106), and L-galactose 1-phosphate phosphatase (SSP2209) (Table 4), enzymes related to ascorbate biosynthesis, were all found in greater abundance in SD shoot tips. ROS such as H2O2 often elicit various physiological processes as signal molecules. H2O2 is produced during photosynthesis and photorespiration, and interacts with thiol-containing proteins. H2O2 directly activates numerous signaling pathways and transcription factors that regulate gene expression. Most research discusses the role of hydrogen peroxide in photorespiration and stress signaling, but it was not until recently that H2O2 was linked with cell growth and other cellular processes [41, 44]. Hydroxyl radicals may have an active role in cell wall loosening [45]. Fry and colleagues suggest that ascorbate, H2O2, and copper ions (Cu+2) could interact to form OH radicals that actively loosen cell walls [4648].

Additional enzymes involved in the metabolism of amino acids have been identified as more abundant in LD shoot tips (Table 1 and 3), possibly linked to a greater requirement of metabolites during growth. Aspartate semialdehyde dehydrogenase (SSP4320) forms an early branch point in the metabolic pathway forming lysine, methionine, leucine, and isoleucine from aspartate [49]. Enzymes involved downstream in the amino acids biosynthetic pathways have also been identified, including two ketol-acid reductoisomerase spots (SSP6614 and SSP6517, both matching GSVIVP00018719001) and dihydroxy-acid dehydratase (SSP7613), which are involved in the biosynthesis of isoleucine and valine. Furthermore, the 5-me-tetrahydropteroyltriglu-homocys S-Me-transferase (SSP8731;, SSP8726; SSP9702; SSP8718; SSP8723; SSP8706, all matching GSVIVP00003836001) and S-adenosylmethionine synthetase (SSP5408 matching GSVIVP00019707001; SSP6425; SSP5415 matching GSVIVP00028192001) are involved in methionine metabolism. Additionally, a cysteine synthase (SSP6307) has also been identified as more abundant in LD shoot tips.

Secondary metabolism

Phenylpropanoid biosynthetic pathways provide anthocyanins for pigmentation, which are important compounds for protection against UV photo-damage in plants [50]. Effects of light treatment on phenylpropanoids have been widely studied in grape berries because of their important organoleptic properties. UV is known to increase phenolic composition in grape berries [51], and photoperiod has been identified as directly affecting the flavonoid composition. Flavonoid compounds decreased in SD versus LD in Xanthium, including anthocyanidin (quercitin), caffeoyl quinic acid, and bulk phenols [52]. In this study, three enzymes involved in the flavonoid biosynthesis were more abundant in LD shoot tips (Table 1 and 3): chalcone synthase (SSP8417), chalcone isomerase (SSP2120), and leucoanthocyanidin dioxgenase (SSP6413). Polyphenols, which also play an important role in protection against oxidation, and anthocyanidin reductase (SSP7313; SSP7325) were more abundant in LD shoot tips. Cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase (SSP6205), an enzyme that catalyzes the final step for production of lignin monomers, was also more abundant in LD shoot tips. Both cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase and lignin content have been shown to be enhanced by light in Pinus radiata callus cultures [53] and Arabidopsis roots [54].

Energy metabolism

Surprisingly, a large number of proteins involved in photosystem II (PSII) (SSP2206; SSP1121; SSP1116; SSP3010), light harvest complex (LHC) subunit (SSP2101; SSP1008; SSP0008; SSP0006; SSP1002), and one involved in photosystem I (SSP1006) were more abundant in SD shoot tips (Table 2 and 4). These observations were unexpected since photoassimilate incorporation related proteins are more abundant in LD shoot tips (see previous carbon fixation section). However, several explanations are possible for these observations. Light stress-related oxidative damage causes protein degradation in PSII [55] and it could potentially be more dramatic under LD, leading to fewer PSII proteins. It is also noted that the leaves in the SD shoot tip are older than those in LD, since shoot growth ceases in the SD treatment and the LD shoot continues to grow and initiate new leaves. Thus the SD leaves may simply contain a greater number of photosystem complexes. Fewer photosystems does not necessarily reflect a decreased efficiency of the photosynthetic system, but rather an indication of leaf maturity and the fact that the photoassimilates are exported from the older mature leaves to the shoot tips. Mor and Halevy [56] and Lepistö et al. [57] observed a similar pattern in LHC proteins in rose (Rosa) shoots and Arabidopsis leaves respectively and showed that the photochemical efficiency of PSII was not affected by day length.

Protein fate

The chaperonin TCP-1 is involved in cytoskeleton organization and keeps cytoskeletal proteins folded. Six of the eight subunits of the chaperonin TCP-1 complex were more abundant in 28LD shoot tips (SSP6609; SSP5617; SSP8609; SSP6606; SSP4517; SSP8605), (Table 3). Actin and tubulin monomers both interact with TCP-1 in order to reach their native states. Brackley and Grantham [58] and Himmelspach et al. [59] observed that abundance of TCP-1 subunits is age dependent but not growth dependent. This suggests that the greater abundance of TCP-1 subunits in the LD shoot tips was more related to the fact that the tissues are younger in the actively growing LD shoot tips than in the SD shoot tips. Consistently, tubulin proteins (SSP2406; SSP2516; SSP2404; SSP1516) (Table 1 and 3) were more abundant in LD shoot tips. Also, seven proteasome subunits were more abundant in LD (SSP2221; SSP4520; SSP8103; SSP7108; SSP2008; SSP6014; SSP7520). Proteasome plays an important role in plant life cycle processes; among them, cell division, growth and light signaling, which would all be higher in the actively growing LD shoot tip [60].

Conclusions

Previous woody plant studies on photoperiod influence of protein abundance have focused predominately on specific bark storage and dehydrin proteins [61, 62]. Studies of photoperiod induced changes in proteins during the induction of poplar bud dormancy showed many changes in protein profiles; however they did not identify the metabolic pathways involved in response to SD [63]. The proteome of V. riparia shoot tip tissue changes dramatically upon exposure to shorter photoperiod, although effects were more visible at 28 days than at 7 days. V. riparia g rapevines seem to shift the direction of carbon flux from metabolites for shoot growth in LD to starch accumulation when shoot growth ceases in SD. Both cytoskeletal proteins and protein fate enzymes were more abundant in LD shoot tips, suggesting turnover and production related to cell development. In addition, under LD there was a greater abundance of phenylpropanoids which may contribute to increased cell wall synthesis as a result of active growth. In contrast, photosystem proteins were more abundant in SD shoot tips which may be a factor of difference in leaf age as growth ceases in the SD treatment while the LD shoots continue to grow and produce new leaves. Abundance of photorespiratory enzymes was higher in SD shoot tips suggesting that reactive oxygen species were more abundant. This suggestion is also supported by an abundance of ascorbate metabolite enzymes which are involved processes for detoxifying reactive oxygen species.

Methods

Plant material and growth conditions

Potted, spur-pruned two to six-year-old V. riparia grapevines were removed from cold storage on 3/26/2007 and 3/24/2008. The plants were repotted and grown under a long photoperiod (LD, 15 h) with 25/20°C + 3°C day/night temperatures and 600 to 1400 μmolm-2s-1 photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) in a climate-controlled, un-shaded glass greenhouse (En Tech Control Systems Inc., Montrose, MN) in Brookings, SD, USA (44.3°N). After 30 days, when grapevines reached 12-15 nodes, pots were randomized into two replicated treatment groups. Five days after randomization, differential photoperiod treatments began with one treatment group continuing in LD and the other receiving a short photoperiod (SD, 13 h). The SD was imposed using an automated, white covered black-out system (Van Rijn Enterprises LTD, Grassie, Ontario, Canada). At 7 and 28 days of differential photoperiod treatment, four-node shoot tips were collected between 8:30 and 10:30 AM, immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen, and placed at -80°C for future protein extraction. Three replications (5 vines/replication) were harvested in two consecutive years (2007 and 2008) resulting in a total of six replications analyzed by 2-D gel electrophoresis.

Growth measurement

Shoot growth was measured weekly in both photoperiod treatments. Primary shoot length (in centimeters) and node number were recorded on a random sample of 11 LD and 11 SD V. riparia grapevines.

Protein extraction

Protein extractions were performed in sets of four random samples. To reduce the effect of systematic variation in the extraction, only one randomly selected replicate of each condition was extracted at a time. These precautions reduced the occurrence of false positives but may have increased the variability between replicates. One gram of shoot tissue was ground to a fine powder in liquid nitrogen with a mortar and pestle. Extraction was adapted from the phenol-extraction protocol as described by Vincent et al. [14]. Ten mL of Hurkman extraction buffer [64] was added to each sample (0.7 M sucrose, 0.5 M Tris-HCl pH = 7.5, 50 mM EDTA, 0.1 mM potassium chloride, 2% 2-mercaptoethanol, 2 mM PMSF, 1 antiprotease tablet (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA)), homogenized for 30 sec, and incubated for 10 min at 4°C. After incubation an equal volume of 1 M Tris-saturated phenol (pH = 7.5) was added to each sample. The mixture was homogenized and incubated at 4°C for 30 min. The phases were separated by centrifugation (30 min, -4°C, 3,650 × g). The upper phenol phase was collected and re-extracted with an equal volume of Hurkman extraction buffer. The sample was vortexed, incubated at 4°C for 30 min, and centrifuged (30 min, -4°C, 3,650 × g). The upper phenol phase was collected, and five volumes of 0.1 M ammonium acetate in cold methanol (MeOH) were added to precipitate proteins. The samples were incubated overnight at -20°C and then centrifuged (30 min, -4°C, 3,650 × g). The pellet was washed twice with 5 mL of cold 0.1 M ammonium acetate/MeOH, twice with 10 mL of cold acetone, and once with 1.5 mL of cold acetone. The pellet was then vacuum-dried for 2 min and resolubilized in 1.5 ml of Rehydration Buffer (7 M urea, 2 M thiourea, 4% CHAPS, 20 mM DTT, 1% IPG buffer pH 4-7). Each sample was vortexed, allowed to stand at 4°C for 2 h to resolubilize proteins, and subsequently stored at -80°C.

Protein assays

Protein concentrations were determined using an EZQ™ Protein Quantitation Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), with ovalbumin as a standard according to manufacturer's instructions. Protein concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 5.9 mg/ml.

2D and gel staining

The 2D SDS-PAGE protocol was adapted from O'Farrell [65]. Iso-electric focusing (IEF) was carried out using immobilized pH gradient (IPG) strips (24 cm, pH 4-7, Immobiline™ DryStrip, GE Healthcare, Piscataway, NJ, USA). Samples were thawed on ice and centrifuged (15 min, 4°C, 10,000 × g) prior to loading on IPG strips. A loading volume of 450 μL of protein extract, corresponding to a protein amount of 1.0 mg, was added to each strip. Three mL of mineral oil was added to each well before IEF. Protein IEF was performed at 20°C using a Protean® IEF Cell (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) as follows: active rehydration at 50 volts (V) for 12 h, 200 V for 30 min with a linear increase in voltage, 500 V for 30 min with a linear increase in voltage, 1000 V for 1 h with a linear increase in voltage, and 10,000 V with a rapid increase in voltage until a total of 95,000 Volt-hours (Vh) was reached. Strips were then stored at -20°C until further use. Once thawed, the strips were washed for 20 min in an Equilibration Buffer (6 M urea, 30% v/v glycerol, 2 M Tris-HCl pH 8.8, 2% w/v SDS) containing 1% w/v DTT, followed by washing for 20 min with an Equilibration Buffer containing 2.5% w/v iodoacetamide. SDS-PAGE was performed using non-commercial 12% polyacrylamide gels (25 cm × 20 cm × 1 mm) and run at 40 V for 2 h and 120 V for 13 h in a Bio-Rad Protean® II XL 2D Multi-Cell. A coomassie brilliant blue (CBB) G-250 procedure was used to stain the 2D gels. The gels were washed twice in 50% ethanol (EtOH)/2% phosphoric acid/de-ionized water (diH2O) v/v/v for 1 h, transferred to 2% phosphoric acid for 60 min, then washed in 17% ethanol/2% phosphoric acid/15% ammonium sulfate v/v/w for 1 h, and finally agitated for 3 days in 17% EtOH/15% ammonium sulfate/2% phosphoric acid/0.02% CBB G-250/diH2O v/w/v/w/v. The 2D gels were imaged using a ScanMaker 9800XL with TMA scanner (Microtek, Hsinchu, Taiwan).

Protein analysis and statistical analysis

Gels from 7LD, 7SD, 28LD and 28SD treatments were compared using PDQuest™ Gel Analysis SW (Bio-Rad) with six replicates (three from each year of harvested plant material). Spots were matched within gels. If no spot was detected, a background value was used for the corresponding area in order to limit the rate of false positives. Average CV was calculated for each experiment. Differences in spot abundance were statistically evaluated using the ANOVA method with GeneANOVA software [66]. The number of detected spots showing differences with a p-value of ≤0.05 was determined. The spots were conserved only if their normalized intensity was higher than 0.01% of the total spot intensity. Differentially abundant spots were manually curated with respect to spot quality (e.g., sharpness, resolution) and the quality of spot matching to reduce false positives. Only spots with ≥ two-fold ratio between photoperiod conditions were conserved.

Protein identification

Spot excision was performed manually, and then trypsin digested according to Rosenfeld et al. [67] using the Investigator™ ProPrep™ (Genomic Solutions, Ann Arbor, MI, USA). The tryptic fragments were analyzed using an ABI 4700 Proteomics Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) MALDI TOF/TOF™ mass spectrometer (MS). A 0.5 mL aliquot of a matrix solution containing 10 mg/mL alpha-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid (Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA) and 10 mM ammonium phosphate (Sigma-Aldrich) in 70% acetonitrile was co-spotted with 0.5 mL of sample. Data were acquired in reflector mode from a mass range of 700 to 4,000 Da, and 2,500 laser shots were averaged for each mass spectrum. Each sample was internally calibrated if both the 842.51 and 2211.10 ions from trypsin autolysis were present. When both ions were not found the instrument used the default calibration. The twenty most intense ions from the MS analysis, not present on the exclusion list, were subjected to MS/MS analysis. The mass range was 70 to precursor ion with a precursor window of 21-3 Da and an average of 5,000 laser shots for each spectrum. The resulting file was then searched by using automated MASCOT software http://www.matrixscience.com/ through the IDQuest (Bio-Rad) interface to search the putative proteins obtained from the grapevine PN40024 homozygote genome [68], the Pinot Noir heterozygote genome [69], and the tentative contigs from the DFCI gene index ver. 5.0 http://compbio.dfci.harvard.edu/tgi/; ver. 18_9_2006, 23,871 sequences). Peptide tolerance was 20 ppm; 1 missed cleavage was allowed; MS/MS tolerance was 0.8 Da.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funds from the National Science Foundation Plant Genome Program (DBI0604755) to AYF. The South Dakota State University Functional Genomics Core Facility, supported in part by the National Science Foundation EPSCoR Program (EPSCoR0091948), was used to conduct 2D SDS PAGE analysis. The authors thank Rebekah Woolsey of the Nevada Proteomics Center for performing MS analyses and Kathy Mathiason for plant material collection and for proof reading the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Horticulture, Forestry, Landscape, & Parks, South Dakota State University
(2)
Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (CSIC, Universidad de La Rioja, Gobierno de La Rioja)

References

  1. Fennell A: Freezing tolerance and injury in grapevines. J Crop Improv 2004,10(1,2):201–235. 10.1300/J411v10n01_09View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Pierquet P, Stushnoff C: Variation and breeding potential of some northern clones of Vitis riparia Michx. Fruit Var J 1978,32(4):74–84.Google Scholar
  3. Li C, Viherä-Aarnio A, Puhakainen T, Junttila O, Heino P, Palva ET: Ecotype-dependent control of growth, dormancy and freezing tolerance under seasonal changes in Betula pendula Roth. Trees-Struct Funct 2003,17(2):127–132.Google Scholar
  4. Jackson SD: Plant responses to photoperiod. New Phytol 2008,181(3):517–531. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02681.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Vince-Prue D: The duration of light and photoperiodic responses. In Photomorphogenesis in Plants. 2nd edition. Edited by: Kendrick RE, Kronenberg GHM. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994:447–490.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Rinne PL, Kaikuranta PM, van der Schoot C: The shoot apical meristem restores its symplasmic organization during chilling-induced release from dormancy. Plant J 2001,26(3):249–264. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01022.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Ruonala R, Rinne PL, Baghour M, Moritz T, Tuominen H, Kangasjärvi J: Transitions in the functioning of the shoot apical meristem in birch ( Betula pendula ) involve ethylene. Plant J 2006,46(4):628–640. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02722.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Zhu B, Coleman GD: Phytochrome-mediated photoperiod perception, shoot growth, glutamine, calcium, and protein phosphorylation influence the activity of the poplar bark storage protein gene promoter (bspA). Plant Physiol 2001,126(1):342–351. 10.1104/pp.126.1.342PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Fennell A, Hoover E: Photoperiod influences growth, bud dormancy, and cold acclimation in Vitis labruscana and V. riparia . J Am Soc Hortic Sci 1991, 116: 270–273.Google Scholar
  10. Fennell A, Wake CMF, Molitor P: Use of H-NMR to determine grape bud water state during the photoperiodic induction of dormancy. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 1996, 121: 1112–1116.Google Scholar
  11. Wake CMF, Fennell A: Morphological, physiological and dormancy responses of three Vitis genotypes to short photoperiod. Physiol Plant 2000,109(2):203–210. 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2000.100213.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Keskitalo J, Bergquist G, Gardeström P, Jansson S: A cellular timetable of autumn senescence. Plant Physiol 2005,139(4):1635–1648. 10.1104/pp.105.066845PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimplet J, Wheatley MD, Jouira HB, Deluc LG, Cramer GR, Cushman JC: Proteomic and selected metabolite analysis of grape berry tissues under well-watered and water-deficit stress conditions. Proteomics 2009,9(9):2503–2528. 10.1002/pmic.200800158PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Vincent D, Wheatley MD, Cramer GR: Optimization of protein extraction and solubilization for mature grape berry clusters. Electrophoresis 2006,27(9):1853–1865. 10.1002/elps.200500698PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Parker R, Flowers TJ, Moore AL, Harpham NV: An accurate and reproducible method for proteome profiling of the effects of salt stress in the rice leaf lamina. J Exp Bot 2006, 57: 1109–1118. 10.1093/jxb/erj134PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Hajduch M, Casteel JE, Hurrelmeyer KE, Song Z, Agrawal GK, Thelen JJ: Proteomic analysis of seed filling in Brassica napus. Developmental characterization of metabolic isozymes using high-resolution two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Plant Physiol 2006, 141: 32–46. 10.1104/pp.105.075390PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Asirvatham VS, Watson BS, Sumner LW: Analytical and biological variances associated with proteomic studies of Medicago truncatula by two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Proteomics 2002, 2: 960–968. 10.1002/1615-9861(200208)2:8<960::AID-PROT960>3.0.CO;2-2PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Grimplet J, Cramer GR, Dickerson JA, Mathiason K, Van Hemert J, Fennell AY: VitisNet: "Omics" integration through grapevine molecular networks. PLoS ONE 2009,4(12):e8365. 10.1371/journal.pone.0008365PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans MR: Photoperiod affects meristem development of Liatris spicata 'Callilepsis'. Proc Fla State Hort Soc 1993, 106: 288–290.Google Scholar
  20. Fukui K: Modeling the interactive effect of the photoperiod and temperature on shoot elongation of mulberry. Plant Prod Sci 2004,7(2):224–229. 10.1626/pps.7.224View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Gang Z, Luoranen J, Smolander H: Short-day treatment during the growing period limits shoot growth and increases frost hardiness of hybrid aspen plants in the nursery. For Stud China 2007,9(4):262–266. 10.1007/s11632-007-0041-zView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Masuda J-I, Urakawa T, Ozaki Y, Okubo H: Short photoperiod induces dormancy in lotus ( Nelumbo nucifera ). Ann Bot 2006,97(1):39–45. 10.1093/aob/mcj008PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Vincent D, Ergu A, Bohlman MC, Tattersall EAR, Tillet RL, Wheatley MD, Woolsey R, Quilici DR, Joets J, Schlauch K, Schooley DA, Cushman JC, Cramer GR: Proteomic analysis reveals differences between Vitis vinifera L. cv. Chardonnay and cv. Cabernet Sauvignon and there responses to water deficit and salinity. J Expt Bot 2007,58(7):1873–1892. 10.1093/jxb/erm012View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Basha SM, Katam R, Vasanthaiah H, Matta F: Proteome analysis of muscadine grape leaves. Intl J Wine Research 2009, 1: 161–173.Google Scholar
  25. Renaut J, Hausman J-F, Bassett C, Artlip T, Cauchie H-M, Witters E, Wisniewski M: Quantitative proteomic analysis of short photoperiod and low-temperature responses in bark tissues of peach ( Prunus persica L. Batsch). Tree Genet Genomes 2008,4(4):589–600. 10.1007/s11295-008-0134-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Cottrell JE, Dale JE: The effects of photoperiod and treatment with gibberellic acid on the concentration of soluble carbohydrates in the shoot apex of spring barley. New Phytol 1986,102(3):365–373. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1986.tb00814.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Roeske CA, Chollet R: Role of metabolites in the reversible light activation of pyruvate, orthophosphate dikinase in Zea mays mesophyll cells in vivo. Plant Physiol 1989,90(1):330–337. 10.1104/pp.90.1.330PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber SC, Israel DW: Biochemical basis for partitioning of photosynthetically fixed carbon between starch and sucrose in soybean ( Glycine max Merr.) leaves. Plant Physiol 1982,69(3):691–696. 10.1104/pp.69.3.691PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Matt P, Schurr U, Klein D, Krapp A, Stitt M: Growth of tobacco in short-day conditions leads to high starch, low sugars, altered diurnal changes in the Nia transcript and low nitrate reductase activity, and inhibition of amino acid synthesis. Planta 1998,207(1):27–41. 10.1007/s004250050452PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibon Y, Pyl E-T, Sulpice R, Lunn JE, Höhne M, Günther M, Stitt M: Adjustment of growth, starch turnover, protein content and central metabolism to a decrease of the carbon supply when Arabidopsis is grown in very short photoperiods. Plant Cell Environ 2009,32(7):859–874. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01965.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Baysdorfer C, Robinson JM: Sucrose and starch synthesis in spinach plants grown under long and short photosynthetic periods. Plant Physiol 1985,79(3):838–842. 10.1104/pp.79.3.838PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibon Y, Bläsing OE, Palacios-Rojas N, Pankovic D, Hendriks JHM, Fisahn J, Höhne M, Günther M, Stitt M: Adjustment of diurnal starch turnover to short days: depletion of sugar during the night leads to a temporary inhibition of carbohydrate utilization, accumulation of sugars and post-translational activation of ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase in the following light period. Plant J 2004,39(6):847–862. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2004.02173.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Noctor G, Novitskaya L, Lea PJ, Foyer CH: Co-ordination of leaf minor amino acid contents in crop species: significance and interpretation. J Exp Bot 2002,53(370):939–945. 10.1093/jexbot/53.370.939PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Miflin BJ, Habash DZ: The role of glutamine synthetase and glutamate dehydrogenase in nitrogen assimilation and possibilities for improvement in the nitrogen utilization of crops. J Exp Bot 2002,53(370):979–987. 10.1093/jexbot/53.370.979PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Noquet C, Meuriot F, Caillot S, Avice J-C, Ourry A, Cunningham SM, Volenec JJ: Short-day photoperiod induces changes in N uptake, N partitioning and accumulation of vegetative storage proteins in two Medicago sativa cultivars. Funct Plant Biol 2003,30(8):853–863. 10.1071/FP03099View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Avila C, Suárez MF, Gómez-Maldonado J, Cánovas FM: Spatial and temporal expression of two cytosolic glutamine synthetase genes in Scots pine: functional implications on nitrogen metabolism during early stages of conifer development. Plant J 2001,25(1):93–102. 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2001.00938.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Moorhead G, Douglas P, Cotelle V, Harthill J, Morrice N, Meek S, Deiting U, Stitt M, Scarabel M, Aitken A, MacKintosh C: Phosphorylation-dependent interactions between enzymes of plant metabolism and 14–3-3 proteins. Plant J 1999,18(1):1–12. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1999.00417.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Wingler A, Lea PJ, Quick WP, Leegood RC: Photorespiration: metabolic pathways and their role in stress protection. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2000,355(1402):1517–1529. 10.1098/rstb.2000.0712PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Hurry V, Igamberdiev AU, Keerberg O, Pärnik T, Atkin OK, Zaragoza-Castells J, Gardeström P: Respiration in photosynthetic cells: gas exchange components, interactions with photorespiration and the operation of mitochondria in the light. In Plant Respiration: From Cell to Ecosystem. Volume 18. Edited by: Lambers H, Ribas-Carbó M. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005:43–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Pärnik T, Ivanova H, Keerberg O: Photorespiratory and respiratory decarboxylations in leaves of C3 plants under different CO2 concentrations and irradiances. Plant Cell Environ 2007,30(12):1535–1544. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01725.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Ślesak I, Libik M, Karpinska B, Karpinski S, Miszalski Z: The role of hydrogen peroxide in regulation of plant metabolism and cellular signaling in response to environmental stresses. Acta Biochim Pol 2007,54(1):39–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Bestwick CS, Brown IR, Bennett MH, Mansfield JW: Localization of hydrogen peroxide accumulation during the hypersensitive reaction of lettuce cells to Pseudomonas syringae pv phaseolicola. Plant Cell 1997,9(2):209–221. 10.1105/tpc.9.2.209PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Queval G, Issakidis-Bourguet E, Hoeberichts FA, Vandorpe M, Gakière B, Vanacker H, Miginiac-Maslow M, Van Breusegem F, Noctor G: Conditional oxidative stress responses in the Arabidopsis photorespiratory mutant cat2 demonstrate that redox state is a key modulator of daylength-dependent gene expression, and define photoperiod as a crucial factor in the regulation of H 2 O 2 -induced cell death. Plant J 2007,52(4):640–657. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03263.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Potikha TS, Collins CC, Johnson DI, Delmer DP, Levine A: The involvement of hydrogen peroxide in the differentiation of secondary walls in cotton fibers. Plant Physiol 1999,119(3):849–858. 10.1104/pp.119.3.849PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Cosgrove DJ: Enzymes and other agents that enhance cell wall extensibility. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 1999, 50: 391–417. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.50.1.391PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Fry SC, Smith RC, Renwick KF, Martin DJ, Hodge SK, Matthews KJ: Xyloglucan endotransglycosylase, a new wall-loosening enzyme activity from plants. Biochem J 1992,282(Pt 3):821–828.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Fry SC: Oxidative scission of plant cell wall polysaccharides by ascorbate-induced hydroxyl radicals. Biochem J 1998,332(Pt 2):507–515.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Fry SC, Miller JG, Dumville JC: Possible functions of copper ions in cell wall loosening. In Plant nutrition: Food security and sustainability of agro-ecosystems. Volume 92. Edited by: Horst WJ. Dordrecht: Springer; 2001:100–101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Viola RE: The central enzymes of the aspartate family of amino acid biosynthesis. Acc Chem Res 2001,34(5):339–349. 10.1021/ar000057qPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Ferrer JL, Austin MB, Stewart C Jr, Noel JP: Structure and function of enzymes involved in the biosynthesis of phenylpropanoids. Plant Physiol Biochem 2007,46(3):356–370. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2007.12.009PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Berli F, D'Angelo J, Cavagnaro B, Bottini R, Wuilloud R, Silva MF: Phenolic composition in grape ( Vitis vinifera L. cv. Malbec) ripened with different solar UV-B radiation levels by capillary zone electrophoresis. J Agric Food Chem 2008,56(9):2892–2898. 10.1021/jf073421+PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor AO: Some effects of photoperiod on the biosynthesis of phenylpropane derivatives in Xanthium . Plant Physiol 1965,40(2):273–280. 10.1104/pp.40.2.273PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Möller R, Ball RD, Henderson AR, Modzel G, Find J: Effect of light and activated charcoal on tracheary element differentiation in callus cultures of Pinus radiata D. Don. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 2006,85(2):161–171. 10.1007/s11240-005-9065-zView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Hemm MR, Rider SD, Ogas J, Murry DJ, Chapple C: Light induces phenylpropanoid metabolism in Arabidopsis roots. Plant J 2004,38(5):765–778. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2004.02089.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Aro EM, Suorsa M, Rokka A, Allahverdiyeva Y, Paakkarinen V, Saleem A, Battchikova N, Rintamäki E: Dynamics of photosystem II: a proteomic approach to thylakoid protein complexes. J Exp Bot 2005,56(411):347–356. 10.1093/jxb/eri041PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Mor Y, Halevy AH: Promotion of sink activity of developing rose shoots by light. Plant Physiol 1980,66(5):990–995. 10.1104/pp.66.5.990PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Lepistö A, Kangasjärvi S, Luomala E-M, Brader G, Sipari N, Keränen M, Keinänen M, Rintamäki E: Chloroplast NADPH-thioredoxin reductase interacts with photoperiodic development in Arabidopsis . Plant Physiol 2009,149(3):1261–1276. 10.1104/pp.108.133777PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Brackley KI, Grantham J: Activities of the chaperonin containing TCP-1 (CCT): implications for cell cycle progression and cytoskeletal organisation. Cell Stress Chaperones 2009,14(1):23–31. 10.1007/s12192-008-0057-xPubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Himmelspach R, Nick P, Schäfer E, Ehmann B: Developmental and light-dependent changes of the cytosolic chaperonin containing TCP-1 (CCT) subunits in maize seedlings, and the localization in coleoptiles. Plant J 1997,12(6):1299–1310. 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1997.12061299.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Smalle J, Vierstra RD: The ubiquitin 26 S proteasome proteolytic pathway. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2004, 55: 555–590. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141801PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Coleman GD: Physiology and regulation of seasonal nitrogen cycling in woody plants. J Crop Improv 2004,10(1,2):237–259. 10.1300/J411v10n01_10View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Welling A, Rinne P, Viherä-Aarnio A, Kontunen-Soppela S, Heino P, Palva ET: Photoperiod and temperature differentially regulate the expression of two dehydrin genes during overwintering of birch ( Betula pubescens Ehrh .). J Exp Bot 2004,55(396):507–516. 10.1093/jxb/erh045PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Jeknić Z, Chen THH: Changes in protein profiles of poplar tissues during the induction of bud dormancy by short-day photoperiods. Plant Cell Physiol 1999,40(1):25–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Hurkman WJ, Tanaka CK: Solubilization of plant membrane proteins for analysis by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Plant Physiol 1986,81(3):802–806. 10.1104/pp.81.3.802PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. O'Farrell PH: High resolution two-dimensional electrophoresis of proteins. J Biol Chem 1975,250(10):4007–4021.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Didier G, Brézellec P, Remy E, Hénaut A: GeneANOVA--gene expression analysis of variance. Bioinformatics 2002,18(3):490–491. 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.490PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenfeld J, Capdevielle J, Guillemot JC, Ferrara P: In-gel digestion of proteins for internal sequence analysis after one- or two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Anal Biochem 1992,203(1):173–179. 10.1016/0003-2697(92)90061-BPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Jaillon O, Aury J-M, Noel B, Policriti A, Clepet C, Casagrande A, Choisne N, Aubourg S, Vitulo N, Jubin C, Vezzi A, Legeai F, Hugueney P, Dasilva C, Horner D, Mica E, Jublot D, Poulain J, Bruyère C, Billault A, Segurens B, Gouyvenoux M, Ugarte E, Cattonaro F, Anthouard V, Vico V, Del Fabbro C, Alaux M, Di Gaspero G, Dumas V, Felice N, Paillard S, Juman I, Moroldo M, Scalabrin S, Canaguier A, Le Clainche I, Malacrida G, Durand E, Pesole G, Laucou V, Chatelet P, Merdinoglu D, Delledonne M, Pezzotti M, Lecharny A, Scarpelli C, Artiguenave F, Pè ME, Valle G, Morgante M, Caboche M, Adam-Blondon AF, Weissenbach J, Quétier F, Wincker P: The grapevine genome sequence suggests ancestral hexaploidization in major angiosperm phyla. Nature 2007,449(7161):463–467. 10.1038/nature06148PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Velasco R, Zharkikh A, Troggio M, Cartwright DA, Cestaro A, Pruss D, Pindo M, Fitzgerald LM, Vezzulli S, Reid J, Malacarne G, Iliev D, Coppola G, Wardell B, Micheletti D, Macalma T, Facci M, Mitchell JT, Perazzolli M, Eldredge G, Gatto P, Oyzerski R, Moretto M, Gutin N, Stefanini M, Chen Y, Segala C, Davenport C, Demattè L, Mraz A, Battilana J, Stormo K, Costa F, Tao Q, Si-Ammour A, Harkins T, Lackey A, Perbost C, Taillon B, Stella A, Solovyev V, Fawcett JA, Sterck L, Vandepoele K, Grando SM, Toppo S, Moser C, Lanchbury J, Bogden R, Skolnick M, Sgaramella V, Bhatnagar SK, Fontana P, Gutin A, Van de Peer Y, Salamini F, Viola R: A high quality draft consensus sequence of the genome of a heterozygous grapevine variety. PLoS ONE 2007,2(12):e1326. 10.1371/journal.pone.0001326PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Victor et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement