Display options
Share it on

Plant Physiol. 2021 Sep 04;187(1):378-395. doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiab262.

Downsizing in plants-UV light induces pronounced morphological changes in the absence of stress.

Plant physiology

Minjie Qian, Eva Rosenqvist, Els Prinsen, Frauke Pescheck, Ann-Marie Flygare, Irina Kalbina, Marcel A K Jansen, Åke Strid

Affiliations

  1. Örebro Life Science Center, School of Science and Technology, Örebro University, SE-70182 Örebro, Sweden.
  2. College of Horticulture, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China.
  3. Section of Crop Sciences, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegård Allé 9, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark.
  4. Integrated Molecular Plant Physiology Research, Department of Biology, University of Antwerpen, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium.
  5. Botanical Institute, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany.
  6. Statistics Unit, School of Business, Örebro University, SE-70182 Örebro, Sweden.
  7. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, North Mall, T23 TK30 Cork, Ireland.

PMID: 34618138 PMCID: PMC8418406 DOI: 10.1093/plphys/kiab262

Abstract

Ultraviolet (UV) light induces a stocky phenotype in many plant species. In this study, we investigate this effect with regard to specific UV wavebands (UV-A or UV-B) and the cause for this dwarfing. UV-A- or UV-B-enrichment of growth light both resulted in a smaller cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) phenotype, exhibiting decreased stem and petiole lengths and leaf area (LA). Effects were larger in plants grown in UV-B- than in UV-A-enriched light. In plants grown in UV-A-enriched light, decreases in stem and petiole lengths were similar independent of tissue age. In the presence of UV-B radiation, stems and petioles were progressively shorter the younger the tissue. Also, plants grown under UV-A-enriched light significantly reallocated photosynthates from shoot to root and also had thicker leaves with decreased specific LA. Our data therefore imply different morphological plant regulatory mechanisms under UV-A and UV-B radiation. There was no evidence of stress in the UV-exposed plants, neither in photosynthetic parameters, total chlorophyll content, or in accumulation of damaged DNA (cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers). The abscisic acid content of the plants also was consistent with non-stress conditions. Parameters such as total leaf antioxidant activity, leaf adaxial epidermal flavonol content and foliar total UV-absorbing pigment levels revealed successful UV acclimation of the plants. Thus, the UV-induced dwarfing, which displayed different phenotypes depending on UV wavelengths, occurred in healthy cucumber plants, implying a regulatory adjustment as part of the UV acclimation processes involving UV-A and/or UV-B photoreceptors.

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Society of Plant Biologists.

References

  1. J Exp Bot. 2019 Sep 24;70(18):4975-4990 - PubMed
  2. Dev Cell. 2018 Feb 26;44(4):512-523.e5 - PubMed
  3. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2019 Jan;134:94-102 - PubMed
  4. J Exp Bot. 2007;58(7):1753-60 - PubMed
  5. Physiol Plant. 2012 Aug;145(4):594-603 - PubMed
  6. New Phytol. 2009;183(2):315-326 - PubMed
  7. Plant Cell Environ. 2015 May;38(5):856-66 - PubMed
  8. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Aug 12;111(32):11894-9 - PubMed
  9. Plant Cell Environ. 2009 Oct;32(10):1377-89 - PubMed
  10. J Exp Bot. 2016 Aug;67(15):4469-82 - PubMed
  11. Sci Rep. 2020 Aug 28;10(1):14241 - PubMed
  12. J Plant Res. 2008 Mar;121(2):179-89 - PubMed
  13. Plant Physiol. 2013 Feb;161(2):744-59 - PubMed
  14. Physiol Plant. 2010 Jan;138(1):113-21 - PubMed
  15. Nat Commun. 2019 Sep 27;10(1):4417 - PubMed
  16. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2019 Mar 1;18(3):681-716 - PubMed
  17. Molecules. 2016 Feb 09;21(2): - PubMed
  18. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2014 Mar 5;132:85-93 - PubMed
  19. EMBO J. 2011 Jan 19;30(2):355-63 - PubMed
  20. Plant Cell Environ. 2020 Jun;43(6):1513-1527 - PubMed
  21. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2020 May 20;19(5):542-584 - PubMed
  22. J Radiat Res. 2010;51(2):187-96 - PubMed
  23. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2019 Aug;92:114-121 - PubMed
  24. Plant Physiol. 2013 Mar;161(3):1570-83 - PubMed
  25. Plant Sci. 2012 Nov;196:67-76 - PubMed
  26. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2004 Sep;42(9):687-94 - PubMed
  27. J Exp Bot. 2013 Oct;64(13):3983-98 - PubMed
  28. Trends Plant Sci. 2013 Feb;18(2):107-15 - PubMed
  29. Plant Physiol. 2014 Apr;164(4):2220-30 - PubMed
  30. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2019 Jan;134:1-8 - PubMed
  31. Trends Plant Sci. 2007 Mar;12(3):98-105 - PubMed
  32. Physiol Plant. 2012 Aug;145(4):501-4 - PubMed
  33. Plant Physiol. 2021 Jul 6;186(3):1382-1396 - PubMed
  34. Phytochemistry. 2007 Mar;68(6):875-85 - PubMed
  35. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2012 Jan;50(1):15-23 - PubMed
  36. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2019 Feb 13;18(2):424-433 - PubMed
  37. Plant Sci. 2013 Dec;213:114-22 - PubMed
  38. Plant Cell Environ. 2015 May;38(5):953-67 - PubMed
  39. Planta. 2011 Apr;233(4):831-41 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support