Ultrastructure of plastids serves as reliable abiotic and biotic stress marker.

Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science

Plastids/*ultrastructure; Arabidopsis/metabolism ; Arabidopsis/microbiology ; Arabidopsis/ultrastructure ; Botrytis/pathogenicity ; Chloroplasts/metabolism ; Chloroplasts/ultrastructure ; Light ; Microscopy, Electron, Transmission ; Plant Diseases/microbiology ; Plant Leaves/metabolism ; Plant Leaves/ultrastructure ; Plastids/metabolism ; Starch/metabolism ; Stress, Physiological ; Thylakoids/metabolism ; Thylakoids/ultrastructure

Plastids perform many essential functions in plant metabolism including photosynthesis, synthesis of metabolites, and stress signaling. The most prominent type in green leaves is the chloroplast which contains thylakoids, plastoglobules, and starch. As these structures are closely linked to the metabolism of chloroplasts, changes during plant growth and development and during environmental stress situations are likely to occur. The aim of this study was to characterize changes in size and ultrastructure of chloroplast on cross-sections of leaves during high light stress, Botrytis infection, and dark induced senescence by quantitative transmission electron microscopy (TEM).The size of chloroplasts on cross sections of leaves decreased significantly when plants were subject to high light (49%), Botrytis infection (58%), and senescence (71%). The number of chloroplasts on cross sections of the palisade cell layer and spongy parenchyma, respectively, decreased significantly in plants exposed to high light conditions (48% and 29%), infected with Botrytis (48% and 46%), and during senescence (78% and 80%). Thylakoids on cross-sections of chloroplasts decreased significantly in plants exposed to high light (22%), inoculated with Botrytis cinerea (36%), and senescence (51%). This correlated with a massive increase in plastoglobules on cross-sections of chloroplasts of 88%, 2,306% and 19,617%, respectively. Starch contents on cross sections of chloroplasts were completely diminished in all three stress scenarios. These results demonstrate that the decrease in the number and size of chloroplasts is a reliable stress marker in plants during abiotic and biotic stress situations which can be easily detected with a light microscope. Further, lack of starch, the occurrence of large plastoglobules and decrease in thylakoids can also be regarded as reliable stress marker in plants which can be detected by TEM.
Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Plant Physiol. 2006 Jun;141(2):391-6. (PMID: 16760493)
Plants (Basel). 2015 Jul 08;4(3):393-411. (PMID: 27135335)
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015 Sep;1847(9):889-99. (PMID: 25667966)
Ann Bot. 2009 Feb;103(4):599-607. (PMID: 18492734)
J Exp Bot. 2006;57(2):391-9. (PMID: 16157653)
J Struct Biol. 2014 May;186(2):245-52. (PMID: 24631670)
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2015 Aug;93:44-55. (PMID: 25661975)
Funct Plant Biol. 2004 May;31(3):203-216. (PMID: 32688892)
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2016 Apr 29;67:25-53. (PMID: 26735063)
Plant Cell. 2006 Jul;18(7):1693-703. (PMID: 16731586)
Essays Biochem. 2018 Apr 13;62(1):13-20. (PMID: 29273583)
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Feb 26;19(3):. (PMID: 29495387)
Protoplasma. 2001;218(3-4):144-53. (PMID: 11770431)
Front Plant Sci. 2014 Oct 20;5:566. (PMID: 25368627)
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Sep 27;7:1299. (PMID: 27729914)
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2013;64:429-50. (PMID: 23451784)
Front Microbiol. 2016 Oct 04;7:1565. (PMID: 27757106)
Plant Signal Behav. 2015;10(2):e989752. (PMID: 25760871)
Planta. 1985 Feb;163(2):201-7. (PMID: 24249339)
Planta. 1985 Jan;163(1):91-6. (PMID: 24249273)
J Struct Biol. 2007 Jun;158(3):370-7. (PMID: 17270463)
Trends Plant Sci. 2018 Jul;23(7):613-622. (PMID: 29724660)
J Cell Sci. 1975 Aug;18(3):509-18. (PMID: 1158981)
J Exp Bot. 2014 May;65(8):1955-72. (PMID: 24622954)
Acta Physiol Plant. 2016;38:133. (PMID: 27217598)
Planta. 2006 Aug;224(3):556-68. (PMID: 16514542)
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012 Oct;69(19):3225-43. (PMID: 22885821)
New Phytol. 2017 May;214(3):943-951. (PMID: 28277621)
Photosynth Res. 2007 May;92(2):163-79. (PMID: 17634750)
Biophys Rev. 2014 Mar;6(1):47-61. (PMID: 28509959)
EMBO Rep. 2008 May;9(5):435-9. (PMID: 18451767)
Plant Physiol. 2006 Mar;140(3):984-97. (PMID: 16461379)
Plant Cell. 2005 Dec;17(12):3257-81. (PMID: 16299223)
J Exp Bot. 2018 Feb 12;69(4):741-750. (PMID: 28992297)
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 05;8(6):e65811. (PMID: 23755284)
Mol Plant. 2015 Sep;8(9):1304-20. (PMID: 25997389)
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2017 Apr 28;68:253-289. (PMID: 28125283)
Plant Physiol. 2009 Feb;149(2):885-93. (PMID: 19074627)
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Jan 19;8:23. (PMID: 28154576)
Plant Cell Environ. 2018 Aug;41(8):1727-1738. (PMID: 29749057)
New Phytol. 2013 Feb;197(3):696-711. (PMID: 23176101)
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2018 Mar;20(2):167-181. (PMID: 29178615)
Science. 2003 Apr 11;300(5617):332-6. (PMID: 12690200)
Protoplasma. 2004 Jun;223(2-4):221-7. (PMID: 15221528)
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 23;9(10):e111165. (PMID: 25340859)
Essays Biochem. 2018 Apr 13;62(1):95-107. (PMID: 29563221)
Plant J. 2017 Dec;92(5):761-773. (PMID: 28906064)
Arch Virol. 2003 Jun;148(6):1119-33. (PMID: 12756618)
Environ Exp Bot. 2018 Oct;154:134-142. (PMID: 30283160)
F1000Prime Rep. 2014 Jun 02;6:40. (PMID: 24991417)
Protoplasma. 2010 Jul;243(1-4):129-36. (PMID: 19544038)

9005-25-8 (Starch)

Date Created: 20190405 Date Completed: 20200102 Latest Revision: 20231006

20240104

PMC6448886

10.1371/journal.pone.0214811

30946768