Kinetics and Localization of Wound-induced DNA Biosynthesis in Potato Tuber
Overview
Affiliations
Tuber wounding induces a cascade of biological responses that are involved in processes required to heal and protect surviving plant tissues. Little is known about the coordination of these processes, including essential wound-induced DNA synthesis, yet they play critical roles in maintaining marketability of the harvested crop and tubers cut for seed. A sensitive "Click-iT EdU Assay" employing incorporation of the thymidine analog, 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU), in conjunction with 4',6-diamindino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) counter labeling, was employed to objectively identify and determine the time course and spatial distribution of tuber nuclei that were wound-induced to enter S-phase of the cell cycle. Both labeling procedures are rapid and sensitive in situ. Following wounding, EdU incorporation (indicating DNA synthesis) was not detectable until after 12h, rapidly reached a maximum at about 18h and then declined to near zero at 48h. About 28% of the nuclei were EdU labeled at 18h reflecting the proportion of cells in S-phase of the cell cycle. During the ∼30h in which induced cells were progressing through S-phase, de novo DNA synthesis extended 7-8 cell layers below the wound surface. Cessation of nuclear DNA synthesis occurred about 4 d prior to completion of wound closing layer formation. Initiation of wound periderm development followed at 7 d, i.e. about 5 d after cessation of nuclear DNA biosynthesis; at this time the phellogen developed and meristematic activity was detected via the production of new phellem cells. Collectively, these results provide new insight into the coordination of wound-induced nucleic acid synthesis with associated tuber wound-healing processes.
Vulavala V, Fogelman E, Faigenboim A, Shoseyov O, Ginzberg I Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):10216.
PMID: 31308437 PMC: 6629697. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46681-z.
Biological differences that distinguish the 2 major stages of wound healing in potato tubers.
Lulai E, Campbell L, Fugate K, McCue K Plant Signal Behav. 2016; 11(12):e1256531.
PMID: 27831001 PMC: 5225934. DOI: 10.1080/15592324.2016.1256531.
Dos Santos Nascimento L, Moreira N, Leal-Costa M, Costa S, Tavares E Ann Bot. 2015; 116(5):763-9.
PMID: 26346722 PMC: 4590332. DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcv129.