Plant Response to Nitrate Starvation is Determined by N Storage Capacity Matched by Nitrate Uptake Capacity in Two Arabidopsis Genotypes
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
In a low-input agricultural context, plants facing temporal nutrient deficiencies need to be efficient. By comparing the effects of NO(3)(-)-starvation in two lines of Arabidopsis thaliana (RIL282 and 432 from the Bay-0xShahdara population), this study aimed to screen the physiological mechanisms allowing one genotype to withstand NO(3)(-)-deprivation better than another and to rate the relative importance of processes such as nitrate uptake, storage, and recycling. These two lines, chosen because of their contrasted shoot N contents for identical shoot biomass under N-replete conditions, underwent a 10 d nitrate starvation after 28 d of culture at 5 mM NO(3)(-). It was demonstrated that line 432 coped better with NO(3)(-)-starvation, producing higher shoot and root biomass and sustaining maximal growth for a longer time. However, both lines exhibited similar features under NO(3)(-)-starvation conditions. In particular, the nitrate pool underwent the same drastic and early depletion, whereas the protein pool was increased to a similar extent. Nitrate remobilization rate was identical too. It was proportional to nitrate content in both shoots and roots, but it was higher in roots. One difference emerged: line 432 had a higher nitrate content at the beginning of the starvation phase. This suggests that to overcome NO(3)(-)-starvation, line 432 did not directly rely on the N pool composition, nor on nitrate remobilization efficiency, but on higher nitrate storage capacities prior to NO(3)(-)-starvation. Moreover, the higher resistance of 432 corresponded to a higher nitrate uptake capacity and a 2-9-fold higher expression of AtNRT1.1, AtNRT2.1, and AtNRT2.4 genes, suggesting that the corresponding nitrate transporters may be preferentially involved under fluctuating N supply conditions.
Govta N, Govta L, Sela H, Peleg G, Distelfeld A, Fahima T Plant Cell Environ. 2025; 48(4):2835-2855.
PMID: 39887777 PMC: 11893928. DOI: 10.1111/pce.15416.
Cristofano F, El-Nakhel C, Colla G, Cardarelli M, Pii Y, Lucini L Antioxidants (Basel). 2023; 12(1).
PMID: 36670969 PMC: 9854572. DOI: 10.3390/antiox12010107.
Reimer J, Thiele B, Biermann R, Junker-Frohn L, Wiese-Klinkenberg A, Usadel B Plant Mol Biol. 2021; 107(3):177-206.
PMID: 34677706 PMC: 8553704. DOI: 10.1007/s11103-021-01194-0.
Vazquez-Carrasquer V, Laperche A, Bissuel-Belaygue C, Chelle M, Richard-Molard C Front Plant Sci. 2021; 12:641459.
PMID: 34054891 PMC: 8155714. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.641459.
Neeraja C, Barbadikar K, Krishnakanth T, Bej S, Rao I, Srikanth B 3 Biotech. 2021; 11(2):80.
PMID: 33505835 PMC: 7811496. DOI: 10.1007/s13205-020-02631-5.