Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Dec 7;19(12):3921.
doi: 10.3390/ijms19123921.

LeNRT1.1 Improves Nitrate Uptake in Grafted Tomato Plants under High Nitrogen Demand

Affiliations

LeNRT1.1 Improves Nitrate Uptake in Grafted Tomato Plants under High Nitrogen Demand

Francisco Albornoz et al. Int J Mol Sci. .

Abstract

Grafting has become a common practice among tomato growers to obtain vigorous plants. These plants present a substantial increase in nitrogen (N) uptake from the root zone. However, the mechanisms involved in this higher uptake capacity have not been investigated. To elucidate whether the increase in N uptake in grafted tomato plants under high N demand conditions is related to the functioning of low- (high capacity) or high-affinity (low capacity) root plasma membrane transporters, a series of experiments were conducted. Plants grafted onto a vigorous rootstock, as well as ungrafted and homograft plants, were exposed to two radiation levels (400 and 800 µmol m-2 s-1). We assessed root plasma membrane nitrate transporters (LeNRT1.1, LeNRT1.2, LeNRT2.1, LeNRT2.2 and LeNRT2.3) expression, Michaelis‒Menten kinetics parameters (Vmax and Km), root and leaf nitrate reductase activity, and root respiration rates. The majority of nitrate uptake is mediated by LeNRT1.1 and LeNRT1.2 in grafted and ungrafted plants. Under high N demand conditions, vigorous rootstocks show similar levels of expression for LeNRT1.1 and LeNRT1.2, whereas ungrafted plants present a higher expression of LeNRT1.2. No differences in the uptake capacity (evaluated as Vmax), root respiration rates, or root nitrate assimilation capacity were found among treatments.

Keywords: growth rate; nitrate transporters expression; root membrane transporters; root respiration.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Shoot (top) and root (bottom) relative growth rate (RGR) in each treatment under medium (400 µmol m−2 s−1) or high (800 µmol m−2 s−1) light levels during a 30-day growth period. Bars represent mean ± SE of eight replicates. p-Values for treatment (T), light (L) and the interaction (TxL) effects are included in each case. Different letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) among treatments within each light level. Asterisks indicate the significance level (*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.0001) for the differences in the same treatment across light levels. AT: Non-grafted treatment; AT-AT: Homograft; and, AT-KA: Graft treatment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Total plant N uptake in each treatment under medium (400 µmol m−2 s−1) or high (800 µmol m−2 s−1) radiation during a 30-day period. Bars represent mean ± SE of eight replicates. p-Values for treatment (T), light (L) and the interaction (TxL) effects are included. Asterisks indicate the significance level (**: p < 0.01) for the differences in the same treatment across light levels. AT: Non-grafted treatment; AT-AT: Homograft; and, AT-KA: Graft treatment.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Relative expression of LeNRT1.1 (A), LeNRT1.2 (B), LeNRT2.1 (C), LeNRT2.2 (D), and LeNRT2.3 (E) in roots of plants from each grafting combination exposed to medium (400 µmol PAR m−2 s−1) or high light level (800 µmol PAR m−2 s−1). The reference gene corresponds to α-tubulin. Bars represent mean ± SE of four replicates. p-Values for treatment (T), light (L) and the interaction (TxL) effects are included in each case. Different letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) among treatments within each light level. Asterisks indicate the significance level (*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01) for the differences in the same treatment across light levels. AT: Non-grafted treatment; AT-AT: Homograft; and, AT-KA: Graft treatment.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Nitrate Reductase Activity (NRA) in leaves from plants exposed to medium (400 µmol PAR m−2 s−1) or high (800 µmol PAR m−2 s−1) light level. Bars represent mean ± SE of four replicates. p-Values for treatment (T), light (L) and the interaction (TxL) effects are included. Asterisks indicate the significance level (**: p < 0.01) for the differences in the same treatment across light levels. AT: Non-grafted treatment; AT-AT: Homograft; and, AT-KA: Graft treatment.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Daily time-course of root respiration in plants from each treatment growing under medium (A) or high (B) light intensity. Measurements started one hour before the lights turned on until one hour after the lights turned off. Symbols represent mean ± SE of eight replicates. AT: Non-grafted treatment; AT-AT: Homograft; and, AT-KA: Graft treatment.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Daily time-course of root respiration in plants from each treatment growing under medium (A) or high (B) light intensity. Measurements started one hour before the lights turned on until one hour after the lights turned off. Symbols represent mean ± SE of eight replicates. AT: Non-grafted treatment; AT-AT: Homograft; and, AT-KA: Graft treatment.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Diagram of the system used to measure root respiration rates.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Singh H., Kumar P., Chaudhari S., Edelstein M. Tomato grafting: A global perspective. HortScience. 2017;52:1328–1336. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI11996-17. - DOI
    1. Lee J., Kubota C., Tsao S.J., Bie Z., Hoyos Echevarria P., Morra L., Oda M. Current status of vegetable grafting: Diffusion, grafting techniques, automation. Sci. Hortic. 2010;127:93–105. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.08.003. - DOI
    1. Djidonou D., Zhao X., Simonne E.H., Koch K.E., Erickson J.E. Yield, water-, and nitrogen-use efficiency in field-grown, grafted tomatoes. HortScience. 2013;48:485–492.
    1. Magalhaes J.S., Wilcox G.E. Tomato growth and nutrient uptake patterns as influenced by nitrogen form and light intensity. J. Plant Nutr. 1983;6:941–956. doi: 10.1080/01904168309363157. - DOI
    1. Errebhi M., Wilcox G.E. Tomato growth and nutrient uptake pattern as influenced by nitrogen form ratio. J. Plant Nutr. 1990;18:1031–1043. doi: 10.1080/01904169009364133. - DOI

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources