4.4 Article

Responses of the pea (Pisum sativum L.) leaf metabolome to drought stress assessed by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Journal

METABOLOMICS
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 312-327

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11306-008-0128-0

Keywords

Pea leaf metabolome; Drought-stress; NMR spectroscopy

Funding

  1. Defra, United Kingdom [AR0105, AR0711]
  2. European Union [FOOD-CT-2004-506223]
  3. BBSRC [BBS/E/J/000CA329] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/J/000CA329] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While many compounds have been reported to change in laboratory based drought-stress experiments, little is known about how such compounds change, and are significant, under field conditions. The Pisum sativum L. (pea) leaf metabolome has been profiled, using 1D and 2D NMR spectroscopy, to monitor the changes induced by drought-stress, under both glasshouse and simulated field conditions. Significant changes in resonances were attributed to a range of compounds, identified as both primary and secondary metabolites, highlighting metabolic pathways that are stress-responsive. Importantly, these effects were largely consistent among different experiments with highly diverse conditions. The metabolites that were present at significantly higher concentrations in drought-stressed plants under all growth conditions included proline, valine, threonine, homoserine, myoinositol, gamma-aminobutyrate (GABA) and trigonelline (nicotinic acid betaine). Metabolites that were altered in relative amounts in different experiments, but not specifically associated with drought-stress, were also identified. These included glutamate, asparagine and malate, with the last being present at up to 5-fold higher concentrations in plants grown in field experiments. Such changes may be expected to impact both on plant performance and crop end-use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available