Next Article in Journal
The Posttranscriptional Mechanism in Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge Leaves in Response to Drought Stress Using Phosphoproteomics
Next Article in Special Issue
Tissue-Specific Responses of Cereals to Two Fusarium Diseases and Effects of Plant Height and Drought Stress on Their Susceptibility
Previous Article in Journal
Simulation and Experiment of the Spiral Digging End-Effector for Hole Digging in Plug Tray Seedling Substrate
Previous Article in Special Issue
Aerenchyma Formation in Adventitious Roots of Tall Fescue and Cocksfoot under Waterlogged Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy12040780
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Waterlogging Stress Physiology in Barley

by
James De Castro
1,
Robert D. Hill
1,
Claudio Stasolla
1 and
Ana Badea
2,*
1
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
2
Brandon Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon, MB R7A 5Y3, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(4), 780; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040780
Submission received: 18 February 2022 / Revised: 15 March 2022 / Accepted: 21 March 2022 / Published: 24 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Crop Breeding for Stress Tolerance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is the most susceptible cereal species to excess moisture stress. Waterlogging-induced hypoxia causes major morphological, physiological, and metabolic changes, some of which are regulated by the action of plant growth regulators and signal molecules including nitric oxide. Recent studies have evidenced the participation of phytoglobins in attenuating hypoxic stress during conditions of excessive moisture through their ability to scavenge nitric oxide and influence the synthesis and response of growth regulators. This review will highlight major cellular changes linked to plant responses to waterlogging stress with emphasis on phytoglobins.

1. Introduction

In global cereal production, barley is the fourth most important following wheat, rice, and maize. In 2019, barley production totaled 159 million tonnes over 50 million hectares (M ha), giving a yield of over three tonnes per hectare (t/ha) and led by the Russian Federation, France, and Germany, with Canada ranking fourth [1]. Barley is a versatile cereal grain with varieties that have high protein and low starch grown for animal feed, as well as varieties with high starch and low protein used for malting [2]. Strict requirements on malting quality make it difficult for farmers worldwide to grow malting varieties that meet all those parameters. In 2019, the top worldwide exporters of malt were France ($474 M), Belgium ($426 M), Germany ($376 M), Australia ($343 M), and Canada ($339 M) [3]. It is assumed that barley was first used as human food but evolved into a feed, malting, and brewing grain, in part due to the rise in prominence of wheat and rice. However, recent research into barley’s low glycemic index, low cholesterol, and high antioxidant and vitamin contents [4,5] is slowly increasing the demand for the crop to be grown for human consumption as a health-forward product.
Barley production is often limited by unsuitable landscapes and the presence of diverse conditions of abiotic stress, including excess moisture. From the years 2006 to 2016, 65% of global crop loss due to abiotic stresses was caused by excess moisture [1]. An estimated 10% of total arable land is hindered by waterlogging [6]. In Canada, the Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan), where barley is primarily produced, are the most affected. The combination of factors, such as the flat topography, the impact of land management practices, the large accumulation of snowfall, and early spring rainfall among others, participate in making the prairies susceptible to flooding and excess moisture [7]. In Saskatchewan, heavy precipitation caused 49% of crop losses from 2006–2015 [8]. In Manitoba, excess moisture was the leading cause of crop loss at 38% from 1966–2015. Data from 2016–2017 showed that it remained to be the leading cause, yet at a much higher value of 71% [9]. Because of this, the need for different solutions in enhancing barley production and imparting excess moisture tolerance persist, especially in maintaining Canada’s economic position when it comes to barley.
With the advent of climate change, precipitation will also continue to be severe in the coming years [10]. An increase in both intensity and frequency is expected, along with unpredictable storm patterns. Simulation studies that use climate models predict large increases in flooding in the areas of Southeast Asia, India, and East Africa [11]. In Canada, Eastern Manitoba, Western and Southern Ontario, and the Atlantic provinces are expected to be affected the most [12]. To prepare for the worsening probabilities of excess moisture stress in the future, extra attention must be directed to understanding the physiological and molecular mechanisms contributing to hypoxia tolerance in barley, as its demand continues to grow.
Organized into five main sections: barley susceptibility to waterlogging; hypoxic stress; nitric oxide; reactive oxygen species; and phytoglobins (Pgbs). This review provides an overview of waterlogging stress in barley, highlighting the major cellular changes with an emphasis on Pgbs.

2. Barley Susceptibility to Waterlogging

In an agronomic perspective, tolerance to waterlogging is perceived as the capacity of the plant to maintain grain yield despite the conditions [13] and compared to other cereal crops, barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is the most susceptible to waterlogging stress [14]. A comparative study on wheat and barley under natural waterlogging resulted in 19–82% yield reduction in wheat, and 51–84% in barley [15]. The yield trait that waterlogging affects in barley is also different from wheat: a greater reduction in the number of spikes per plant is more prominent in barley, while wheat tends to show a greater reduction in the number of fertile florets per spike [16]. The growth stage of the crop is also crucial in determining susceptibility to waterlogging for barley, The range between leaf emergence and the booting has been identified as the most vulnerable [17]. In barley, excess moisture also causes a significant reduction (up to 50%) in chlorophyll a + b content and this decline was alleviated when phytoglobin (Pgb) was upregulated [18]. Another common symptom observed in waterlogged barley is a reduction in stomatal conductance. After a week of early-waterlogging, stomatal conductance was reduced to 38% of its control and even more so to 27% of control after a week of late-waterlogging [19]. Despite being very susceptible to excess moisture, when compared to other cereals, barley has a demonstrated capacity to recover. Most gas exchange parameters recover after a week following the removal of the stress [14,15]. Improving this characteristic is the focus of several current breeding programs.
Total crop losses due to waterlogging have historically averaged around $74 billion USD [20]. In Australia, $300 million AUD make up the total crop losses due to waterlogging, with its wheat and barley as the two most affected [21]. In two of Canada’s provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, excess moisture insurance claims were on par with those of drought and heat from 1966–2005 [22]. However, from 2005 to 2015, excess moisture claims surpassed drought claims by almost 30% [22]. With excess moisture as the new lead cause of yield loss in barley and the projected 30% increase in precipitation by 2030 [23], the need for new tolerance strategies is clearly becoming more urgent. Currently, most work that targets an improvement of waterlogging tolerance relies on quantitative trait loci (QTLs) [24]. Those identified in barley so far have involvements in root aerenchyma formation [25], root membrane potential [26], and reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation [27], yet these traits are not necessarily the primary genes responsible for the response to waterlogging [28]. Proteomic analyses conducted by Luan et al. [29] have also identified pyruvate decarboxylase (PDC), 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid-oxidase (ACO), and glutathione S-transferase (GST) as candidate genes after observing upregulation in a waterlogging-tolerant genotype. Based on genome-wide analysis of gene expression, Borrego-Benjumea et al. [30] also identified the GST, indicating that its activity under waterlogging could be an important mechanism in the overall barley resistance to waterlogging stress. The main waterlogging stress responses and metabolic adaptive traits for waterlogging tolerance in plants were recently reviewed by Tong et al. [31].

3. Hypoxic Stress

3.1. Waterlogging and Oxygen Deprivation

Plants exposed to excess moisture can experience diverse forms of oxygen deprivation conditions, which are referred to as hypoxia or anoxia. Hypoxia occurs when the partial pressure of O2 limits the adenosine 5′-triphosphate (ATP) production in mitochondria [32]. Anoxia, on the other hand, occurs when ATP production via oxidative phosphorylation is negligible compared to the output of glycolysis and fermentation [32]. Hypoxia tends to occur during waterlogging, which is when plant roots are fully submerged in water while the shoot is above the water level. In contrast, anoxia’s definition is more specific: true anoxia is only achievable if there is no capacity to perform photosynthesis and respiration. Therefore, the environment would need to be totally devoid of oxygen and sunlight which rarely occurs in nature [33]. For instance, research work that imposes anoxic conditions would not only require darkness, but also the substitution of atmosphere with an inert gas [34]. Waterlogging-induced hypoxia occurs when the pores or air pockets in poor-draining soil become saturated with water, leading to the slow movement of dissolved O2 into the roots [35], since O2 diffuses through water 104-fold slower than in air [36]. Hypoxic conditions can further develop if the oxygen level is further lowered by the aerobic activity of the soil microflora competing with the root for oxygen [37]. Waterlogging is often dependent on soil type and characteristics, with poor drainage enhancing the stress, but it can also occur because of cultivation practices, such as a rice-wheat rotation that leads to periodic soil compaction [30]. The negative effect of waterlogging in plants relies on several factors, such as the depth and duration of flooding, sensitivity of the crop and genotype, plant developmental stage, and temperature [30].

3.2. Effects of Waterlogging on Plants

The development and function of both shoot and root tissue are compromised during hypoxia, since the limited availability of O2 interferes with metabolic pathways [38]. A switch from aerobic respiration to fermentation contributes to the production of ATP in the roots, albeit at much lower levels than under normoxic conditions [38]. Accumulation of the products of fermentation, such as lactate and ethanol, can also contribute to root injury and death [36], although the disruption of metabolic processes because of ATP limitation are the major causes of cell and tissue damage. For example, the lack of ATP disrupts phosphorylation of aquaporins—proteins that facilitate water transport—in root cells, thus lowering the total soil-to-leaf hydraulic conductance that results in wilting, which is observed in waterlogged plants, including Arabidopsis, wheat, and maize [38]. In addition to having lowered access to O2, hypoxic roots exhibit symptoms of nutrient deficiency and senescence [39]. The access of roots to sugars from the shoot is also impeded as ATP is often required for active transport of sugars from the phloem to sink tissues [36]. Hypoxia also damages the root apical meristem (RAM) as reported in maize seedlings subjected to the stress, resulting in growth arrest and cell death [40].
In shoot tissue, chloroplasts are damaged through the deterioration of the membranes and grana lamellae, causing chlorosis and eventually tissue senescence [30]. Hypoxia also increases the production of ROS, such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and superoxide (O2−), which can cause extensive damage to the photosynthetic machinery, leading to decreased photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance [19,41]. These effects contribute to chlorosis-reduced growth and ultimately decreased seed production [42]. It is therefore apparent that waterlogging-induced hypoxic stress not only compromises the function of the root, the initial organ perceiving the stress, but also above-ground organs.

3.3. Plant Response to Waterlogging

To cope with waterlogging stress, plants have evolved effective mechanisms that allow survival in O2-deprived environments. They undergo metabolic changes to accommodate the energy deficit following the stress, as well as anatomical changes to grant access to more O2. Some of these mechanisms are avoidance-based, whereby tissues undergo morphological changes, such as selective cell death during aerenchyma formation or shoot elongation away from flooded soil, to gain more access to O2 [43]. Other mechanisms are tolerance-based, which ensure longer-term survival in prolonged waterlogged conditions by involving alternative pathways to return to an energy status typical of the new hypoxic environment [36].

3.4. Structural Changes

As a crop that requires a flooded environment for its cultivation, rice has been one of the preferred systems to study hypoxia. During submergence, rice coleoptiles and internodes increase elongation to maintain the above-water access to O2 [44]. This avoidance strategy was also documented in the petioles of the wetland species Rumex palustris [45]. Other aquatic species have cell walls reinforced with suberin and lignin around the root tip to further conserve and distribute O2 near the meristematic zone and prevent radial loss out into the soil pores [46]. Without this adaptation, the low redox potential of the hypoxic environment would have otherwise been a strong sink for O2, redirecting the minute amount of O2 available away from the meristematic zone of the root [35]. Other cereal species not adapted to flooded conditions, such as wheat and barley, do not tend to elongate during waterlogging, but rather undergo structural modifications in the root system to favor O2 acquisition. This includes one of the most documented and most studied avoidance mechanisms against hypoxia, which is the morphological adaptation of forming aerenchyma (Figure 1). These large intracellular spaces within the root (and most of the time, shoot tissue as well) allow low-resistance pathways for gas exchange from shoot to root [47]. Aerenchyma can form through cell separation (schizogenous formation) or the controlled death of cells to produce these air spaces (lysigenous formation) [38]. Like the adaptations mentioned previously, this mechanism is not present in all species. For instance, aerenchyma were found to occupy an area of 20–22% in wheat roots and 13–19% in barley roots, but other crop species, such as rapeseed and field pea, are devoid of aerenchyma [19].
Another commonly employed strategy to cope with hypoxia involves the formation of adventitious roots (ARs) that re-route water and nutrient uptake away from the site of the stress [29]. They exhibit negative geotropism and develop horizontally from the stem tissue, granting them more access to O2 and eventually replacing the damaged primary root system. A positive correlation exists between formation of ARs and aerenchyma and tolerance to waterlogging, as demonstrated in maize [48], cucumber [49], and barley [29]. In barley, aerenchyma formation also occurs in ARs to further facilitate the movement of oxygen [29].
Agronomy 12 00780 g001 550
Figure 1. Light micrographs of cross sections of adventitious roots of barley waterlogging tolerant genotype Deder 2 (A) and waterlogging sensitive genotype Naso Nijo (B); no waterlogging treatment (left half) and after 3 days of waterlogging treatment (right half). Images taken from De Castro [50].
Figure 1. Light micrographs of cross sections of adventitious roots of barley waterlogging tolerant genotype Deder 2 (A) and waterlogging sensitive genotype Naso Nijo (B); no waterlogging treatment (left half) and after 3 days of waterlogging treatment (right half). Images taken from De Castro [50].
Agronomy 12 00780 g001

3.5. Physiological Changes

The anatomical adaptations occurring during hypoxia-induced waterlogging are the results of changes in cell physiology triggered by O2 deprivation. During anaerobic conditions, plant cells rely on fermentation pathways, producing ethanol and lactic acid, to produce ATP, since regular mitochondrial respiration is impaired in O2 limiting environments [44]. An increase in starch and other soluble sugars also occurs in waterlogged plants and in the root tissue; this increase in starch is quickly utilized to maintain proper root functioning [51]. With the rest of the plant, the starch fuels the transition to anaerobic fermentation, causing the increase in the activity of fermentation enzymes, such as alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and PDC, often used as biochemical markers in hypoxic studies [29,45]. Other markers used in hypoxic stress tolerance studies include lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and ethylene-response transcription factors (ERFs) [52].
Under hypoxic stress, nitric oxide (NO) is generated through the reduction of nitrite [53]. While acting as an important signal molecule in many developmental and stress-related processes [54], as described in the next section, NO can cause severe cellular damage by favoring the production of ROS. Reactive oxygen species induce oxidative stress when present in excess [55], contributing to cell and tissue damage, especially in photosynthetic tissues [56].
Alterations in NO levels in hypoxic tissues also contribute to changes in hormone synthesis and response. For example, the levels of jasmonic acid (JA), indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), and ethylene are found to increase in hypoxic tissue (reviewed in [57]). In rice, besides inducing the expression of SNORKEL and ERF-VII which are involved in internode elongation responses [45], hypoxia induced by waterlogging or submergence increases the expression of ACO and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid-synthase (ACS), which participate in ethylene biosynthesis (reviewed in [58]). Ethylene is required for the formation of lysigenous aerenchyma in barley [53], as well as other species including rice (reviewed by [39]), wheat [59], and maize [60]. The ethylene-induced formation of aerenchyma is mediated by ROS signaling culminating in programmed cell death (PCD) in specific root domains [38]. Jasmonic acid can also alter NO homeostasis, which modulates the activity of several stress-related enzymes including GST, an attenuator of oxidative damage [61], as well as the expression of the pathogenesis-related protein TaBWPR-1.2 in root tissue [62].
An increase in gibberellic acid (GA) was also observed in hypoxic tissues; in waterlogged rice this increase promotes the internode elongation [52]. A similar response was observed in R. palustris where it induces petiole elongation [52]. When it comes to physiological changes in the shoot, abscisic acid (ABA) regulates systemic responses as demonstrated by the use of ABA-insensitive mutants [63]. A rise in ABA following waterlogging contributes to the closing of the stomata to reduce transpiratory processes minimizing oxygen escape [41].
The generation and development of ARs is mainly mediated by the interaction between auxin and ethylene [51]. This has been observed in maize, soybean, cucumber, tomato, and barley exposed to hypoxic stress (reviewed in [64]). Adventitious root formation allows the tolerant plants to obtain O2 from the atmosphere as, in most cases, they form above the water level. It has been proposed that because of the positive correlation between tolerance and AR formation, the presence of ARs represents a phenotypic indicator for hypoxic tolerance [29].

4. Nitric Oxide

4.1. Roles in Plant Development

Nitric oxide is a gaseous, water and lipid-soluble metabolite that has signaling functions in plants [65]. It is involved in pathways that pertain to development, including those that regulate seed germination and dormancy, flowering, and root development [66], but also in homeostatic pathways such as transpiration management and tissue senescence [67]. Higher NO concentrations (40–80 ppm) have been reported to impede the growth of tomato, lettuce, and pea, while lower concentrations stimulated their growth [68,69]. Nitric oxide acts as a signal molecule involved in the ABA driven stomatal closure by regulating K+ and Cl− channels [70]. As a radical, NO’s reactivity makes it unstable around O2 and ROS, and readily available to form reactive NO species (RNOS) that cause damage via oxidative reactions [71]. Because of these properties, extensive information on NO physiology relates to cell death.

4.2. Nitric Oxide Synthesis

The main enzymatic pathway proposed in the synthesis of NO during hypoxia has nitrate reductase (NR) as its main catalyst. During root hypoxia, NR itself is upregulated and it uses NAD(P)H to reduce NO2− into NO [72]. Other hemeproteins that synthesize NO during hypoxia include cytochrome c oxidase and the bc1 complex, both of which also reduce NO2− and belong to the mitochondrial electron transport chain [73]. However, some hemeproteins retain an oxygenated state for extended periods of time and have a very high affinity for O2, such as hemoglobins (in plants, termed phytoglobins [74]), and therefore cannot reduce NO2−. Instead, they operate the reverse reaction of scavenging NO to produce NO2 or NO2− [75].

4.3. Roles of Nitric Oxide in Biotic and Abiotic Stress

In biotic stresses, NO involvement in the hypersensitive response (HR) has been well documented, with NO being a messenger during the necrotic response around the site of infection following pathogen attack [65]. Soybean inoculated with Pseudomonas syringae accumulated NO, as well as exhibited high expression of defense-related genes such as phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL). In potatoes treated with NO donors, there was an accumulation of the phytoalexin rishitin, an antimicrobial terpenoid [65]. The increased NO production soon after infection and the results of its exogenous application suggest that NO acts upstream in defense signaling against biotic stress.
Abiotic stresses such as hypoxia, drought, ultraviolet radiation and ozone exposure induce plant responses that are also found to be moderated by NO and one such example is its signaling role in stomatal closure [65]. In Tradescantia spp. and Vicia faba, NO has been confirmed to be downstream of ABA in the signal transduction for stomatal closure [76]. Relative to normoxic conditions, NO is produced at the onset of hypoxia, as observed in maize and alfalfa cells [56]. The same authors suggested the rise in NO to be sufficient enough to contribute to the death program of the cortical cells and formation of aerenchyma [57].
Despite its roles in signal transductions during stress responses, the accumulation of NO could also lead to the formation of toxic reactive NO species (RNOS), such as peroxynitrite (ONOO−) and dinitrogen trioxide (N2O3), which would lead to nitrosative stress. Damages resulting from nitrosative stress include single strand breaks in DNA, inhibition of repair mechanisms, and interference with mitochondrial respiration [45,47].

5. Reactive Oxygen Species

5.1. Deleterious Effects of Reactive Oxygen Species

Reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as H2O2 and O2−, are produced due to homeostatic processes but also in response to stresses [77]. In peroxisomes and mitochondria, they are synthesized in various electron transport reactions and by membrane-bound NADPH oxidase, with O2− reacting with superoxide dismutase (SOD) to synthesize the more stable H2O2 [78]. In chloroplasts, the non-radical singlet oxygen (1O2) is a product of photodynamic reactions within the photosystem II [79]. Overproduction of ROS has been reported from plant exposure to pathogen infection [80], drought [81], pollutants [82], and waterlogging [83] stresses. As strong oxidants, they damage plant cells by causing oxidative damage on lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids [58]. A well-studied effect is the PCD-mediated aerenchyma formation induced by ROS as a mechanism to cope with hypoxic stress [84]. Depending on the response, plants can limit the amount of oxidative damage through the activation of antioxidant enzymatic reactions and production of antioxidants such as glutathione, ascorbic acid, and polyphenols [51].
In hypoxic maize roots, the rise in ROS is governed by the rapid increase in ethylene driven by an overproduction of NO [40]. The cell death caused by this rise in ROS was observed primarily in the quiescent center (QC) of the RAM, preventing root growth [40]. Therefore, a system that scavenges NO as one of the earlier players in the stress response would be an important factor in avoiding further ROS-oxidative damage and excess PCD.

5.2. Reactive Oxygen Species in Signaling and Stress Response

Reactive oxygen species have long been hypothesized to have a signaling function during homeostatic physiological processes including plant growth [85], PCD [86], and especially in response to environmental stimuli [59]. In response to stress and other stimuli, a burst of ROS is produced, and this is often followed by the activation of the antioxidant system [58]. It is this interplay between ROS production and their scavenging by the antioxidant system that regulates cellular ROS homeostasis modulating plant responses to stress conditions [60]. In particular, H2O2 has been linked to waterlogging stress signaling; it promotes aerenchyma formation in rice [87] and adventitious root formation in cucumber [48]. Suppression of RBOH in rice roots decreases ROS accumulation required to trigger aerenchyma formation during waterlogging stress [88].
As previously mentioned, ROS are synthesized typically as by-products by enzymes active in homeostatic processes including photorespiration [89]. The enzymes responsible for ROS synthesis are a family of NADPH oxidases comprising respiratory burst oxidase homologs (RBOHs) [90]. Environmental stimuli, such as drought, salinity, cold temperatures, wounding, and excess moisture [48], increase ROS through induced RBOH [62]. In Arabidopsis, two of these oxidases, AtrbohD and AtrbohF, work together to generate ROS responsible for the induction of hypoxia markers ADH, LDH, and PDC [59]. Other RBOHs are reported to mediate the establishment of crucial symbiotic nodules in Medicago, as well as having functions in the hypersensitive response against pathogens [91]. Because of their involvement in signal transduction, RBOHs are also commonly utilized as a marker for ROS production [48].
Reactive oxygen species and ethylene control of aerenchyma formation is also a heavily studied response following excess moisture induced hypoxia: H2O2 and ethylene together regulate the development of aerenchyma in deepwater rice, as well as the hypoxic response of Arabidopsis [63]. In maize roots, O2− and H2O2 levels increased due to sulfate starvation in cells that underwent PCD to form aerenchyma [38]. Given that NO is required to destabilize the ERFs that sense fluctuations in O2, it is the crosstalk between ROS and NO that is then believed to be the basis for anaerobic metabolism and stress acclimation [63].

6. Phytoglobins

Plant hemoglobins (Hgbs) are hemeproteins that were first discovered in soybean after finding high concentrations of the protein within the plant’s root nodules [92]. Like their counterparts in animals, they bind O2 as well as other ligands including NO, carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen sulfide (HS) [93]. The symbiotic leghemoglobins (LegHgbs), as they were later referred to, are involved in the regulation and provision of O2 for N2-fixing bacteria to use [67]. Eventually, two other types of Hgbs were discovered: nonsymbiotic Hgbs, recently and appropriately renamed as Pgbs [74], which are subdivided into class 1, found in both monocots and dicots, and class 2, which is exclusive to dicots [94] as well as the truncated Pgbs (class 3), termed as such due to its different protein structure [95]. Class 1 Pgbs have the strongest affinity for O2 [66], with class 3 having the least [96].

6.1. Classes of Phytoglobins

Leghemoglobins are like animal myoglobins in their relation to oxygen. They are expressed in root nodules of leguminous plants that established symbiotic relationships with N2-fixing soil bacteria such as Rhizobium [97] and function to buffer oxygen concentrations in the nodules [98]. Their pentacoordinate structure permits ligand binding with O2 as the most common ligand with which it reacts [43]. The mobility of its distal histidine sidechain allows O2 to not only bind rapidly to it, but also have O2 be readily released [99].
Given the high affinity of Pgbs for O2, it has been speculated that Pgbs are not involved in the transport of O2 (reviewed by [45]). Rice Pgb1’s O2 affinity, for instance, was calculated to be 78 times stronger than soybean LegHgb a [100], showing that once O2 binds with Pgb, it is stabilized and unlikely to be released. Instead, class 1 Pgbs scavenge NO and participate in the redox balance during the waterlogging-induced hypoxic stress (reviewed in [43]) and other abiotic stresses. Class 1 Pgbs also have roles in different plant organs at varying stages of development. Rice Pgbs were found expressed in the cytoplasm of differentiating tissues including the scutellum, root cap, and tracheary elements [63]. However, increased levels of transcripts and protein were better detected when plants were stressed. Focus on class 1 Pgb and its involvement in hypoxic responses will be discussed in later sections.
Class 2 Pgbs, studied extensively from A. thaliana and L. esculentum, are interestingly closer to symbiotic LegHgbs in structure and O2 binding characteristics, despite not having a symbiotic function, as well as having a lower O2-affinity relative to class 1 Pgbs [101]. Transgenic Arabidopsis overexpressing class 2 Pgb showed an increase in fatty acid content in seed tissue, leading to the assumption that it has roles in delivering O2 to developing tissues [102]. Although it shares a NO-scavenging function with class 1 Pgbs, a greater expression of class 2 Pgbs was observed following cytokinin and low temperature treatments [103], making it unlikely to have primary roles in hypoxic stress tolerance.
Class 3 or the truncated Pgbs (TruncPgbs) are the least studied with still unclear functions in plant development. There has been more attention paid to their roles in bacterial and unicellular eukaryotes [68]. In the algae Chlamydomonas eugamentos, TruncPgbs are induced during active photosynthesis in the thylakoid membranes and in cyanobacterium Nostoc commune, at the cytoplasmic side of the cell membrane during anaerobic conditions [65].

6.2. Class 1 Phytoglobin: Structure and Roles in Nitric Oxide Scavenging

The discovery of Pgbs in non-leguminous plant species that do not form mutualistic relationships with N2-fixing bacteria [94], including barley and other monocot species [104], broadened the physiological functions of Pgbs. The hexacoordinate structure of class 1 Pgb is what allows it to have a very strong affinity for O2 compared to the pentacoordinate LegHgbs and class 2 Pgbs; therefore allowing it to function even during low O2 availability [66]. In hypoxia-tolerant genotypes, a notable decrease in NO concentrations was reported when the gene Pgb1 is upregulated (reviewed in [45]). The strong affinity for O2 and its antagonistic relationship with NO is what contributes to Pgb’s NO-scavenging function, thus permitting the PCD-derived adaptations without the uncontrolled damage from excess NO and ROS.
Class 1 Pgbs in cereals are expressed in aleurone and embryo tissue during germination [69]. In roots, they are expressed during abiotic stresses, such as nutrient deprivation [105], drought [70], and hypoxia [69], but almost undetectable in normal conditions. Dordas et al. [67] have hypothesized that, since it is unlikely for them to function as O2 transporters, class 1 Pgbs would instead have regulatory functions on NO levels that increase during hypoxic stress. This was confirmed by hypoxic alfalfa roots down-regulating Pgb1 which exhibited NO levels 2.5-fold higher than that of Pgb-overexpressing roots [56].
The scavenging properties of Pgbs have been documented in the Pgb/NO cycle elaborated in transgenic maize and alfalfa root culture [71] (Figure 2). Class 1 Pgb’s strong affinity for O2 allows it to retain its oxygenated form (OxyPgb), which is the form responsible for scavenging NO [57]. In the cytoplasm where OxyPgb and NAD(P)H levels are high, OxyPgb oxidizes NO to produce nitrate (NO3−) and ferric Pgb (MetPgb). MetPgb is then reduced by MetPgb reductase with NAD(P)H. The high affinity of Pgb for O2 causes an almost immediate oxygenation back to its OxyPgb form, and the cycle repeats [67].

6.3. Class 1 Phytoglobin and Stress Response

Instances of class 1 Pgb expression following biotic stresses have been reported in some species, such as Lotus japonicus and cotton following fungal infection [44]. Alteration of Pgb expression even enhanced defense mechanisms, as in the case of Pgb1-overexpression in Arabidopsis conferring tolerance to Verticillium dahliae and Pseudomonas syringae [106]. The role of Pgb1 has been associated more with abiotic stress responses, and especially hypoxia where Pgb1 exercises a protective role [42,107]. In hypoxic maize cultures overexpression of the barley Pgb, maintained a high energy status needed to cope with the stress [108]. When the same gene was overexpressed in alfalfa root cultures subjected to oxygen deprivation, root growth persisted. This was in contrast to root suppressing Pgb1, which exhibited a 30–70% decline in growth [56]. The protective role of Pgbs was also demonstrated in whole plant systems: a strong positive correlation was observed between the expression of the maize Pgb1, ZmPgb1, and the ability to tolerate waterlogging stress [48]. In the same study, transgenic hypoxic lines over-expressing ZmPgb1 retained a high photosynthetic rate and this effect was linked to a reduced accumulation of the ROS. In contrast, transgenic lines downregulating ZmPgb1 had higher leaf injury, decreased photosynthetic rate, and increased ROS production [48]. The reduction in ROS and thus the reduction in oxidative damage in leaves, can therefore be attributed to the NO scavenging properties of Pgb upstream of ROS production. The deleterious effect of ROS during conditions of stress is most apparent at the root tip harboring the meristematic cells. In water stressed Arabidopsis roots, ROS accumulates within the (QC)—the undifferentiated organizing center of the RAM that maintains root growth and functioning, triggering the death program. These effects were mitigated by an elevation in Pgb1 and exacerbated by its suppression [70]. A similar effect was also documented in hypoxic maize root tips [74].
Other types of abiotic stress modulated by Pgb through ROS are cadmium toxicity [109] and iron deficiency [110]. Transgenic Arabidopsis plants over-expressing the tobacco Pgb1 (NtHb1) exhibited diminished ROS levels and better growth under cadmium toxicity [109].

6.4. Nonsymbiotic Class 1 Phytoglobin in Barley

Taylor et al. [104] were the first to characterize the barley Pgb1 and demonstrated its expression within the aleurone layers, and its induction at the onset of hypoxia. Barley class 1 Pgb has an O2 affinity two orders of magnitude higher (2–3 nM) than that of cytochrome c oxidase (COX), which is another enzyme that converts NO2− to NO [53]. It is also mobile and soluble, unlike COX which is membrane-bound, thus making Pgb a more efficient factor in the prevention of NO toxicity.
One of the earliest studies demonstrating the effect of the barley Pgb during excess moisture employed transgenic alfalfa root cultures. The hypoxic inhibition of root growth was attenuated by the over-expression of Pgb1, while augmented in roots suppressing the same gene. Suppression of the barley Pgb1 also resulted in the degradation of cortical cells, an observation that the authors interpreted as the formation of aerenchyma [52]. These effects were mediated by the ability of Pgb1 to scavenge NO.
Class 1 phytoglobin is also expressed in the seed’s aleurone layer and was hypothesized to have major influences in germination [69]. Germination requires a high amount of energy and, especially upon imbibition, O2 is consumed, thus creating an hypoxic environment. Zafari et al. [111] observed decreased germination rates in Pgb-knockdown barley lines compared to controls, while an enhanced germination rate and longer roots were observed in Pgb-overexpressing lines. These effects were ascribed to the ability of the barley Pgb1 to scavenge NO, which suppresses the activity of key enzymes essential for the maintenance of the redox balance.

7. Conclusions

Barley is the fourth most important cereal crop following wheat, rice, and maize, yet it is the most sensitive to waterlogging stress. Thus, the development of barley with improved tolerance to waterlogging is of high importance for breeding programs around the world. One key factor modulating the plant response to stress, and ultimately tolerance to excess moisture, is NO. Modulation of this signal molecule has been shown to be critical for determining how plants cope with the stress. Therefore, the regulation of cellular NO homeostasis by Pgbs is a valid strategy to regulate how plants cope with the stress. Future directions involve the assessment of Pgb expression’s potential as a marker for waterlogging tolerance in barley.

Author Contributions

Designed the manuscript, C.S. and A.B.; prepared the first draft, J.D.C.; reviewed and edited the manuscript, R.D.H., C.S. and A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Manitoba Crop Alliance and the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Ag Action Manitoba—Research & Innovation (CAP Ag Action MB) (MWBGA 1956); and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the National Barley Cluster led by the Barley Council of Canada through the CAP (J-002017).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, CAP Ag Action MB, Manitoba Crop Alliance, The National Barley Cluster, The University of Manitoba, and the anonymous reviewers for their contribution.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 31 January 2022).
  2. Giraldo, P.; Benavente, E.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F.; Gimenez, E. Worldwide Research Trends on Wheat and Barley: A Bibliometric Comparative Analysis. Agronomy 2019, 9, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Malt_OEC—The Observatory of Economic Complexity. Available online: https://oec.world/en/profile/hs92/malt (accessed on 31 January 2022).
  4. Chillo, S.; Ranawana, D.V.; Pratt, M.; Henry, C.J.K. Glycemic response and glycemic index of semolina spaghetti enriched with barley β-glucan. Nutrition 2011, 27, 653–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ames, N.; Storsley, J. Effects of barley on post-prandial glycemic response. Diabesity 2015, 1, 21–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Yaduvanshi, N.P.S.; Setter, T.L.; Sharma, S.K.; Singh, K.N.; Kulshreshtha, N. Influence of waterlogging on yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum), redox potentials, and concentrations of microelements in different soils in India and Australia. Soil Res. 2012, 50, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Allen, D.M.; Buttle, J.M.; Allen, D.M.; Caissie, D.; Davison, B.; Peters, D.L.; Pomeroy, J.W.; Simonovic, S.; St-Hilaire, A.; Whitfield, P.H. Flood processes in Canada: Regional and special aspects. Can. Water Resour. J. Rev. Can. Res. Hydriques 2016, 41, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation—SCIC. Available online: https://www.scic.ca/ (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  9. Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC). Available online: https://www.masc.mb.ca/masc.nsf/index.html?OpenPage (accessed on 31 January 2022).
  10. Westra, S.; Fowler, H.J.; Evans, J.P.; Alexander, L.V.; Berg, P.R.; Johnson, F.; Kendon, E.J.; Lenderink, G.; Roberts, N.M. Future changes to the intensity and frequency of short-duration extreme rainfall. Rev. Geophys. 2014, 52, 522–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hirabayashi, Y.; Mahendran, R.; Koirala, S.; Konoshima, L.; Yamazaki, D.; Watanabe, S.; Kim, H.; Kanae, S. Global flood risk under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 816–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Province of Manitoba|Climate Change. Available online: https://www.gov.mb.ca/climateandgreenplan/climatechange.html (accessed on 31 January 2022).
  13. De San Celedonio, R.P.; Abeledo, L.G.; Miralles, D.J. Identifying the critical period for waterlogging on yield and its components in wheat and barley. Plant Soil 2014, 378, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Setter, T.L.; Waters, I. Review of prospects for germplasm improvement for waterlogging tolerance in wheat, barley and oats. Plant Soil 2003, 253, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Setter, T.L.; Burguess, P.; Waters, I.; Kuo, J. Genetic Diversity of Barley and Wheat for Waterlogging Tolerance in Western Australia. In Proceedings of the Australian Barley Technical Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, 12–16 September 1999. [Google Scholar]
  16. De San Celedonio, R.P.; Abeledo, L.G.; Miralles, D.J. Physiological traits associated with reductions in grain number in wheat and barley under waterlogging. Plant Soil 2018, 429, 469–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Borrego-Benjumea, A.; Carter, A.; Glenn, A.J.; Badea, A. Impact of excess moisture due to precipitation on barley grain yield in the Canadian Prairies. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2019, 99, 93–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Andrzejczak, O.A.; Havelund, J.F.; Wang, W.-Q.; Kovalchuk, S.; Hagensen, C.E.; Hasler-Sheetal, H.; Jensen, O.N.; Rogowska-Wrzesinska, A.; Møller, I.M.; Hebelstrup, K.H. The Hypoxic Proteome and Metabolome of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) with and without Phytoglobin Priming. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ploschuk, R.A.; Miralles, D.J.; Colmer, T.D.; Ploschuk, E.L.; Striker, G.G. Waterlogging of Winter Crops at Early and Late Stages: Impacts on Leaf Physiology, Growth and Yield. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Voesenek, L.A.C.J.; Sasidharan, R. Ethylene—and oxygen signalling—drive plant survival during flooding. Plant Biol. 2013, 15, 426–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Manik, S.M.N.; Pengilley, G.; Dean, G.; Field, B.; Shabala, S.; Zhou, M. Soil and Crop Management Practices to Minimize the Impact of Waterlogging on Crop Productivity. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. MASC—AgriInsurance. Available online: https://www.masc.mb.ca/masc.nsf/program_agriinsurance.html (accessed on 31 January 2022).
  23. Rosenzweig, C.; Tubiello, F.N.; Goldberg, R.; Mills, E.; Bloomfield, J. Increased crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2002, 12, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Borrego-Benjumea, A.; Carter, A.; Zhu, M.; Tucker, J.R.; Zhou, M.; Badea, A. Genome-Wide Association Study of Waterlogging Tolerance in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Under Controlled Field Conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, X.; Zhou, G.; Shabala, S.; Koutoulis, A.; Shabala, L.; Johnson, P.; Li, C.; Zhou, M. Identification of aerenchyma formation-related QTL in barley that can be effective in breeding for waterlogging tolerance. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2016, 129, 1167–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gill, M.B.; Zeng, F.; Shabala, L.; Zhang, G.; Fan, Y.; Shabala, S.; Zhou, M. Cell-Based Phenotyping Reveals QTL for Membrane Potential Maintenance Associated with Hypoxia and Salinity Stress Tolerance in Barley. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Gill, M.B.; Zeng, F.; Shabala, L.; Zhang, G.; Yu, M.; Demidchik, V.; Shabala, S.; Zhou, M. Identification of QTL Related to ROS Formation under Hypoxia and Their Association with Waterlogging and Salt Tolerance in Barley. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Zhang, X.; Shabala, S.; Koutoulis, A.; Shabala, L.; Zhou, M. Meta-analysis of major QTL for abiotic stress tolerance in barley and implications for barley breeding. Planta 2017, 245, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Luan, H.; Shen, H.; Pan, Y.; Guo, B.; Lv, C.; Xu, R. Elucidating the hypoxic stress response in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) during waterlogging: A proteomics approach. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Borrego-Benjumea, A.; Carter, A.; Tucker, J.R.; Yao, Z.; Xu, W.; Badea, A. Genome-wide analysis of gene expression provides new insights into waterlogging responses in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Plants 2020, 9, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Tong, C.; Hill, C.B.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, X.-Q.; Jia, Y.; Li, C. Opportunities for Improving Waterlogging Tolerance in Cereal Crops—Physiological Traits and Genetic Mechanisms. Plants 2021, 10, 1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pradet, A.; Bomsel, J. Energy Metabolism in Plants under Hypoxia and Anoxia. In Plant Life in Anaerobic Environments; Hook, D.D., Crawford, R., Eds.; Ann. Arbor Science: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1978; pp. 89–118. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sasidharan, R.; Bailey-Serres, J.; Ashikari, M.; Atwell, B.J.; Colmer, T.D.; Fagerstedt, K.; Fukao, T.; Geigenberger, P.; Hebelstrup, K.H.; Hill, R.D.; et al. Community recommendations on terminology and procedures used in flooding and low oxygen stress research. New Phytol. 2017, 214, 1403–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Loreti, E.; Poggi, A.; Novi, G.; Alpi, A.; Perata, P. A Genome-Wide Analysis of the Effects of Sucrose on Gene Expression in Arabidopsis Seedlings under Anoxia. Plant Physiol. 2005, 137, 1130–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Drew, M.C. Oxygen deficiency and root metabolism: Injury and acclimation under hypoxia and anoxia. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 1997, 48, 223–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Armstrong, W.; Drew, M. Root Growth and Metabolism under Oxygen Deficiency. In Plant Roots; Waisel, Y., Eshel, A., Beeckman, T., Kafkafi, U., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  37. Barrett-Lennard, E.G. The Interaction between Waterlogging and Salinity in Higher Plants: Causes, Consequences and Implications the Interaction between Waterlogging and Salinity in Higher Plants: Causes, Consequences and Implications. Plant Soil 2003, 253, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Evans, D.E. Aerenchyma formation. New Phytol. 2004, 161, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tan, X.; Xu, H.; Khan, S.; Equiza, M.A.; Lee, S.H.; Vaziriyeganeh, M.; Zwiazek, J.J. Plant water transport and aquaporins in oxygen-deprived environments. J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 227, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mira, M.M.; Hill, R.D.; Stasolla, C. Phytoglobins Improve Hypoxic Root Growth by Alleviating Apical Meristem Cell Death. Plant Physiol. 2016, 172, 2044–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Bai, T.; Li, C.; Li, C.; Liang, D.; Ma, F. Contrasting hypoxia tolerance and adaptation inMalusspecies is linked to differences in stomatal behavior and photosynthesis. Physiol. Plant. 2013, 147, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Huang, B.; Johnson, J.W.; Nesmith, S.; Bridges, D.C. Growth, physiological and anatomical responses of two wheat genotypes to waterlogging and nutrient supply. J. Exp. Bot. 1994, 45, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Justin, S.H.F.W.; Armstrong, W. The Anatomical Characteristics of Roots and Plant Response to Soil Flooding. New Phytol. 1987, 106, 465–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gibbs, J.; Greenway, H. Review: Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. I. Growth, survival and anaerobic catabolism. Funct. Plant Biol. 2003, 30, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bailey-Serres, J.; Colmer, T.D. Plant tolerance of flooding stress—recent advances. Plant Cell Environ. 2014, 37, 2211–2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Clark, L.H.; Harris, W.H. Observations on the Root Anatomy of Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Am. J. Bot. 1981, 68, 154–161. [Google Scholar]
  47. Armstrong, W. Aeration in Higher Plants. Adv. Bot. Res. 1980, 7, 226–332. [Google Scholar]
  48. Yu, F.; Han, X.; Geng, C.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Qiu, F. Comparative proteomic analysis revealing the complex network associated with waterlogging stress in maize (Zea mays L.) seedling root cells. Proteomics 2015, 15, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Qi, X.; Li, Q.; Ma, X.; Qian, C.; Wang, H.; Ren, N.; Shen, C.; Huang, S.; Xu, X.; Xu, Q.; et al. Waterlogging-induced adventitious root formation in cucumber is regulated by ethylene and auxin through reactive oxygen species signalling. Plant Cell Environ. 2017, 42, 1458–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De Castro, J. Role of Phytoglobin1 in Waterlogging Stress Response in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Master’s Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2022. (In preparation). [Google Scholar]
  51. Sauter, M. Root responses to flooding. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2013, 16, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Voesenek, L.A.C.J.; Bailey-Serres, J. Flood adaptive traits and processes: An overview. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cochrane, D.W.; Shah, J.K.; Hebelstrup, K.H.; Igamberdiev, A.U. Expression of phytoglobin affects nitric oxide metabolism and energy state of barley plants exposed to anoxia. Plant Sci. 2017, 265, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Groß, F.; Durner, J.; Gaupels, F. Nitric oxide, antioxidants and prooxidants in plant defence responses. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Youssef, M.S.; Mira, M.M.; Renault, S.; Hill, R.D.; Stasolla, C. Phytoglobin expression influences soil flooding response of corn plants. Ann. Bot. 2016, 118, 919–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Yordanova, R.Y.; Christov, K.N.; Popova, L.P. Antioxidative enzymes in barley plants subjected to soil flooding. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2004, 51, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hill, R.D. Non-symbiotic haemoglobins—What’s happening beyond nitric oxide scavenging? AoB PLANTS 2012, 12, pls004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Sasidharan, R.; Voesenek, L.A.C.J. Ethylene-Mediated Acclimations to Flooding Stress. Plant Physiol. 2015, 169, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. McDonald, M.P.; Galwey, N.W.; Colmer, T.D. Waterlogging tolerance in the tribe Triticeae: The adventitious roots of Critesion marinum have a relatively high porosity and a barrier to radial oxygen loss. Plant Cell Environ. 2001, 24, 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mano, Y.; Omori, F. Relationship between constitutive root aerenchyma formation and flooding tolerance in Zea nicaraguensis. Plant Soil 2013, 370, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kamal, A.H.M.; Komatsu, S. Jasmonic acid induced protein response to biophoton emissions and flooding stress in soybean. J. Proteom. 2016, 133, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Haque, E.H.; Abe, F.; Mori, M.; Oyanagi, A.; Komatsu, S.; Kawaguchi, K. Characterization of a wheat pathogenesis-related protein, TaBWPR-1.2, in seminal roots in response to waterlogging stress. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 171, 602–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Hsu, F.-C.; Chou, M.-Y.; Peng, H.-P.; Chou, S.-J.; Shih, M.-C. Insights into Hypoxic Systemic Responses Based on Analyses of Transcriptional Regulation in Arabidopsis. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e28888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Luan, H.; Guo, B.; Pan, Y.; Lv, C.; Shen, H.; Xu, R. Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses to waterlogging stress in different barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes. Plant Growth Regul. 2018, 85, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Neill, S.J.; Desikan, R.; Hancock, J.T. Nitric oxide signalling in plants. New Phytol. 2003, 159, 11–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Gupta, K.J.; Hebelstrup, K.H.; Mur, L.A.; Igamberdiev, A.U.J. Plant hemoglobins: Important players at the crossroads between oxygen and nitric oxide. FEBS Lett. 2011, 585, 3843–3849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dordas, C. Nonsymbiotic hemoglobins and stress tolerance in plants. Plant Sci. 2009, 176, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hufton, C.A.; Besford, R.T.; Wellburn, A.R. Effects of NO (+NO2) pollution on growth, nitrate reductase activities and associated protein contents in glasshouse lettuce grown hydroponically in winter with CO2 enrichment. New Phytol. 1996, 133, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Leshem, Y.Y.; Haramaty, E. The Characterization and Contrasting Effects of the Nitric Oxide Free Radical in Vegetative Stress and Senescence of Pisum sativum Linn. Foliage. J. Plant Physiol. 1996, 148, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Guo, F.-Q.; Okamoto, M.; Crawford, N.M. Identification of a Plant Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Involved in Hormonal Signaling. Science 2003, 302, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kim, P.K.M.; Zamora, R.; Petrosko, P.; Billiar, T.R. The regulatory role of nitric oxide in apoptosis. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2001, 1, 1421–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Igamberdiev, A.U.; Hill, R.D. Nitrate, NO and Haemoglobin in Plant Adaptation to Hypoxia: An Alternative to Classic Fermentation Pathways. J. Exp. Bot. 2004, 55, 2473–2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Stoimenova, M.; Igamberdiev, A.U.; Gupta, K.J.; Hill, R.D. Nitrite-driven anaerobic ATP synthesis in barley and rice root mitochondria. Planta 2007, 226, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Hill, R.; Hargrove, M.; Arredondo-Peter, R. Phytoglobin: A novel nomenclature for plant globins accepted by the globin community at the 2014 XVIII conference on Oxygen-Binding and Sensing Proteins. F1000Research 2016, 5, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Igamberdiev, A.U.; Bykova, N.V.; Shah, J.K.; Hill, R.D. Anoxic nitric oxide cycling in plants: Participating reactions and possible mechanisms. Physiol. Plant. 2010, 138, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. García-Mata, C.; LaMattina, L. Nitric Oxide Induces Stomatal Closure and Enhances the Adaptive Plant Responses against Drought Stress. Plant Physiol. 2001, 126, 1196–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Miller, G.; Suzuki, N.; Ciftci-Yilmaz, S.; Mittler, R. Reactive oxygen species homeostasis and signalling during drought and salinity stresses. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mhamdi, A.; Van Breusegem, F. Reactive oxygen species in plant development. Development 2018, 145, dev164376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Triantaphylidès, C.; Havaux, M. Singlet oxygen in plants: Production, detoxification and signaling. Trends Plant Sci. 2009, 14, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yang, C.; Li, W.; Cao, J.; Meng, F.; Yu, Y.; Huang, J.; Jiang, L.; Liu, M.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, X.; et al. Activation of ethylene signaling pathways enhances disease resistance by regulating ROS and phytoalexin production in rice. Plant J. 2017, 89, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Lee, S.; Seo, P.J.; Lee, H.-J.; Park, C.-M. A NAC transcription factor NTL4 promotes reactive oxygen species production during drought-induced leaf senescence in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2012, 70, 831–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ahammed, G.J.; He, B.-B.; Qian, X.-J.; Zhou, Y.-H.; Shi, K.; Zhou, J.; Yu, J.-Q.; Xia, X.-J. 24-Epibrassinolide alleviates organic pollutants-retarded root elongation by promoting redox homeostasis and secondary metabolism in Cucumis sativus L. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 229, 922–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Yamauchi, T.; Rajhi, I.; Nakazono, M. Lysigenous aerenchyma formation in maize root is confined to cortical cells by regulation of genes related to generation and scavenging of reactive oxygen species. Plant Signal. Behav. 2011, 6, 759–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Shiono, K.; Ejiri, M.; Shimizu, K.; Yamada, S. Improved waterlogging tolerance of barley (Hordeum vulgare) by pretreatment with ethephon. Plant Prod. Sci. 2019, 22, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Apel, K.; Hirt, H. Reactive oxygen species: Metabolism, oxidative stress, and signal transduction. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2004, 55, 373–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Levine, A.; Tenhaken, R.; Dixon, R.; Lamb, C. H2O2 from the oxidative burst orchestrates the plant hypersensitive disease resistance response. Cell 1994, 79, 583–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Steffens, B.; Geske, T.; Sauter, M. Aerenchyma formation in the rice stem and its promotion by H2O2. New Phytol. 2011, 190, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yamauchi, T.; Yoshioka, M.; Fukazawa, A.; Mori, H.; Nishizawa, N.K.; Tsutsumi, N.; Yoshioka, H.; Nakazono, M. An NADPH Oxidase RBOH Functions in Rice Roots during Lysigenous Aerenchyma Formation under Oxygen-Deficient Conditions. Plant Cell 2017, 29, 775–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Mittler, R. Oxidative stress, antioxidants and stress tolerance. Trends Plant Sci. 2002, 7, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Torres, M.A.; Dangl, J.L. Functions of the respiratory burst oxidase in biotic interactions, abiotic stress and development. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2005, 8, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Suzuki, N.; Miller, G.; Morales, J.; Shulaev, V.; Torres, M.A.; Mittler, R. Respiratory burst oxidases: The engines of ROS signaling. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2011, 14, 691–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Kubo, H. Hemeprotein from the Root Nodules of Legumes. Acta Phytochim. 1939, 11, 195–200. [Google Scholar]
  93. Jackson, M.B.; Drew, M.C. Effects of Flooding on Growth and Metabolism of Herbaceous Plants. Flooding Plant Growth 1984, 47–128. [Google Scholar]
  94. Landsmann, J.; Dennis, E.S.; Higgins, T.J.V.; Appleby, C.A.; Kortt, A.A.; Peacock, W.J. Common evolutionary origin of legume and non-legume plant haemoglobins. Nature 1986, 324, 166–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wittenberg, J.B.; Bolognesi, M.; Wittenberg, B.A.; Guertin, M. Truncated Hemoglobins: A New Family of Hemoglobins Widely Distributed in Bacteria, Unicellular Eukaryotes, and Plants. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 871–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Watts, R.A.; Hunt, P.W.; Hvitved, A.N.; Hargrove, M.S.; Peacock, W.J.; Dennis, E.S. A hemoglobin from plants homologous to truncated hemoglobins of microorganisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 10119–10124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Duff, S.M.G.; Wittenberg, J.B.; Hill, R.D. Expression, Purification, and Properties of Recombinant Barley (Hordeum sp.) Hemoglobin: Optical spectra and reactions with gaseous ligands. J. Biol. Chem. 1997, 272, 16746–16752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Appleby, C.A. Leghemoglobin and Rhizobium Respiration. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1984, 35, 443–478. [Google Scholar]
  99. Appleby, C.A. The Origin and Functions of Haemoglobin in Plants. Sci. Prog. 1992, 76, 365–398. [Google Scholar]
  100. Arredondo-Peter, A.R.; Hargrove, M.S.; Sarath, G.; Moran, J.F.; Olson, J.S.; Klucas, R.; Physiology, S.P.; Nov, N.; Arredondo-peter, R.; Hargrove, M.S.; et al. Rice Hemoglobins: Gene Cloning, Analysis, and O2;-Binding Kinetics of a Recombinant Protein Synthesized in Escherichia coli. Plant Physiol. 1997, 115, 1259–1266. [Google Scholar]
  101. Smagghe, B.J.; Hoy, J.A.; Percifield, R.; Kundu, S.; Hargrove, M.S.; Sarath, G.; Hilbert, J.-L.; Watts, R.A.; Dennis, E.S.; Peacock, W.J.; et al. Review: Correlations between oxygen affinity and sequence classifications of plant hemoglobins. Biopolymers 2009, 91, 1083–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Vigeolas, H.; Hühn, D.H.; Geigenberger, P. Nonsymbiotic Hemoglobin-2 Leads to an Elevated Energy State and to a Combined Increase in Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Total Oil Content When Overexpressed in Developing Seeds of Transgenic Arabidopsis Plants. Plant Physiol. 2011, 155, 1435–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Hunt, P.W.; Klok, E.J.; Trevaskis, B.; Watts, R.A.; Ellis, M.H.; Peacock, W.J.; Dennis, E.S. Increased level of hemoglobin 1 enhances survival of hypoxic stress and promotes early growth in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 17197–17202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Taylor, E.R.; Nie, X.Z.; MacGregor, A.W.; Hill, R.D. A cereal haemoglobin gene is expressed in seed and root tissues under anaerobic conditions. Plant Mol. Biol. 1994, 24, 853–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Garrocho-Villegas, V.; Gopalasubramaniam, S.K.; Arredondo-Peter, R. Plant hemoglobins: What we know six decades after their discovery. Gene 2007, 398, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Qu, Z.-L.; Zhong, N.-Q.; Wang, H.-Y.; Chen, A.-P.; Jian, G.-L.; Xia, G.-X. Ectopic Expression of the Cotton Non-symbiotic Hemoglobin Gene GhHbd1 Triggers Defense Responses and Increases Disease Tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Physiol. 2006, 47, 1058–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Igamberdiev, A.U.; Serege’lyes, C.; Manac’H, N.; Hill, R.D. NADH-dependent metabolism of nitric oxide in alfalfa root cultures expressing barley hemoglobin. Planta 2004, 219, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sowa, A.W.; Duff, S.M.G.; Guy, P.A.; Hill, R.D. Altering hemoglobin levels changes energy status in maize cells under hypoxia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 10317–10321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Bahmani, R.; Kim, D.G.; Na, J.D.; Hwang, S. Expression of the Tobacco Non-symbiotic Class 1 Hemoglobin Gene Hb1 Reduces Cadmium Levels by Modulating Cd Transporter Expression Through Decreasing Nitric Oxide and ROS Level in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Mira, M.M.; Asmundson, B.; Renault, S.; Hill, R.D.; Stasolla, C. Suppression of the soybean (Glycine max) Phytoglobin GmPgb1 improves tolerance to iron stress. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2021, 43, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zafari, S.; Hebelstrup, K.H.; Igamberdiev, A.U. Transcriptional and Metabolic Changes Associated with Phytoglobin Expression during Germination of Barley Seeds. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Agronomy 12 00780 g002 550
Figure 2. Pgb1-NO cycle (Adapted from Gupta et al. [66], permission obtained); Diagram generated using BioRender.com; NO, nitric oxide; NR, nitrate reductase; NiNOR, NO reductase; MetPgbR, metphytoglobin reductase.
Figure 2. Pgb1-NO cycle (Adapted from Gupta et al. [66], permission obtained); Diagram generated using BioRender.com; NO, nitric oxide; NR, nitrate reductase; NiNOR, NO reductase; MetPgbR, metphytoglobin reductase.
Agronomy 12 00780 g002
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

De Castro, J.; Hill, R.D.; Stasolla, C.; Badea, A. Waterlogging Stress Physiology in Barley. Agronomy 2022, 12, 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040780

AMA Style

De Castro J, Hill RD, Stasolla C, Badea A. Waterlogging Stress Physiology in Barley. Agronomy. 2022; 12(4):780. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040780

Chicago/Turabian Style

De Castro, James, Robert D. Hill, Claudio Stasolla, and Ana Badea. 2022. "Waterlogging Stress Physiology in Barley" Agronomy 12, no. 4: 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040780

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop