Abstract
Developmental transitions and stress reactions in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes are tightly linked with fast and localized modifications in concentrations of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS and RNS). Fluorescent microscopic analyses are widely applied to detect localized production of ROS and RNS in vivo. In this mini-review we discuss the biological characteristics of studied material (cell wall, extracellular matrix, and tissue complexity) and its handling (concentration of probes, effect of pressure, and higher temperature) which influence results of histochemical staining with “classical” fluorochromes. Future perspectives of ROS and RNS imaging with newly designed probes are briefly outlined.
Past and presence of fluorescent probes for localization of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are generated and scavenged over the whole life span of all known types of aerobic organisms. In plants and fungi production of ROS, together with reactive nitrogen species (RNS), has been linked with almost all developmental processes from germination through reproduction until cell death (Asada, 2006; Blokhina and Fagerstedt, 2010). ROS and RNS represent two classes of highly reactive signaling compounds indispensable also for stress reactions to extreme environmental factors, pathogens, or injuries (Wojtaszek, 1997; Qiao et al., 2014; Del Río, 2015; Dietz et al., 2016; Sedlářová et al., 2016; Raja et al., 2017). In spite of extensive studies, metabolism of both ROS forms, i.e., molecular (H2O2, hydrogen peroxide; 1O2, singlet oxygen) and free radicals (, superoxide anion; OH•, hydroxyl radical; HO2•, perhydroxy radical; RO•, alkoxy radicals), and RNS (·NO, nitric oxide; ONOO−, peroxynitrite; and others) still has not been completely understood. Quite recently, peroxynitrite (formed upon NO reaction with superoxide anion) was shown as a positive regulator of plant cell signaling by tyrosine nitration in proteins (Vandelle and Delledonne, 2011) and tightly linked to necrotrophic phase of oomycete pathogenesis (Arasimowicz-Jelonek et al., 2016). ROS and NO-mediated signaling is tightly connected with molecules influencing normal ontogeny, acclimation, and pathophysiology, including multiple hormones, enzymes, and genes (Gill and Tuteja, 2010; León et al., 2014; Nie et al., 2015; Saxena et al., 2016; Raja et al., 2017). Timing of generation, degradation, and diffusion of ROS and RNS within different cellular compartments have therefore attracted attention in many model organisms (Del Río, 2015; Considine et al., 2017). Cross-talk of ROS and RNS has been pointed out also in peroxisomes (Corpas et al., 2017) and signal transduction to other organelles, e.g., mitochondria, Golgi, and endoplasmic reticulum, has been shown (Wanders et al., 2016).
Methods for ROS/RNS detection in plant material based on histochemical staining, e.g., with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) for hydrogen peroxide (Thordal-Christensen et al., 1997) or nitro blue tetrazolium chloride (NBT) for superoxide (Jabs et al., 1996), are still being applied for stereomicroscopy and light microscopy, esp. in Arabidopsis research. Cell-permeable fluorescence-based probes were subsequently introduced to detect tiny real-time changes in ROS and RNS levels within relevant cellular compartments, e.g., DCF DA and DHDCF DA for detection of ROS (Kehrer and Paraidathathu, 1992; Hempel et al., 1999), DAF-2 DA and DAF-FM DA for NO (Kojima et al., 1999; Lombardo et al., 2006), or SOSG for singlet oxygen (Flors et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2013). A wide range of ROS and NO targeted fluorescent probes has been marketed but some of the most commonly used ones were found to suffer from low selectivity and specificity toward the analyte (e.g., DHDCF DA) or from photosensitization during incubation and microscopy (e.g., SOSG). In order to minimize artifacts, a sample staining in dark and visualization by (multiphoton) confocal microscopy has been advised. Nevertheless, fluorochromes able to cross plasma membrane (e.g., in diacetate form) which can be loaded into cells just by placing the samples (cells, tissues) into a solution of the dye significantly simplified ROS and RNS in vivo monitoring and enabled expansion of these techniques within plant science community. Considering the use of proper controls (e.g., ROS/RNS donors for positive controls, and ROS/RNS scavengers for negative ones), proper sample washing, keeping constant time of staining/scanning within a set of experiments, using optimal pH and turgor pressure can contribute to obtaining of correct results. Still it should be emphasized that histochemical staining and subsequent microscopic detection cannot be used for accurate ROS/RNS quantification but the combinations of several different analytical methods can give more reliable estimation of their intracellular levels (Gupta and Igamberdiev, 2013).
Optimization of staining procedures for different photosynthetic and fungal organisms in our laboratory showed that results of ROS/RNS imaging in multicellular biological matrices are significantly influenced by the feasibility of material infiltration with the applied probes (Figure 1). Current studies unveiled cell wall (CW) as a dynamic structure able to adapt to various conditions of growth, development, and environmental stresses; together with plasma membrane and periplasmic space, it regulates the flow of molecules into and out of the cell (Lesage and Bussey, 2006). The relative composition of polysaccharides, phenolic compounds, and proteins in CW varies among species and cell types, and changes with their developmental stage (Popper et al., 2011, 2014; Ochoa-Villarreal et al., 2012). In addition, stress factors induce CW reinforcement, such as deposition of lignin or callose in plant-pathogen interactions (Prats et al., 2008; Sedlářová et al., 2011; Miedes et al., 2014). Similarly, materials deposited either intercellularly or in tissue exterior (e.g., cutin and suberin, polyesters which function as permeability barriers to the movement of water) influence the penetration rate of used fluorescence probes. Our extensive experience, based on optimizing incubation conditions for different materials, combined with literary data resulted in Table 1 which summarizes cell wall composition in photosynthetic and fungal organisms together with comparison of concentrations used for ROS/RNS imaging with three commonly used probes (DHDCF DA, DAF-FM DA, and SOSG). Optimal experimental conditions (incubation time, temperature, probe concentration) differ among various model phototrophic organisms (higher plants, algae, and cyanobacteria), fungi and “fungi-like” organisms (oomycetes; Table 1). Although, the unicellular structures [protoplasts (Figure 1CI), pollen (Figure 1CIV), green algae, and thin-walled spores (Figure 1CII)] can be stained easily in general the probe concentration must be increased and incubation time prolonged for cyanobacteria, which are characterized by higher cross-linking of polysaccharides in the cell wall and production of external mucoid sheath (Hoiczyk and Hansel, 2000). For unicellular cyanobacterium Synechocystis, widely used photosynthetic model, the concentration of SOSG was increased from commonly used 50 μM up to 250 μM together with incubation temperature increased from room temperature to 37°C (Sinha et al., 2012). Relatively easy staining and imaging can be achieved on agar media (Figure 1A) for germinating fungi (Figure 1CII) and some oomycetes but also for plant pollen (Figure 1CIV) and small seeds. Higher concentrations of probes are advisable for plant tissues (Table 1; Figures 1CIII,V,VI). Excised leaves uptake the probes by xylem transport but longer periods of such incubations are inappropriate for most fluorochromes (Figure 1B). Natural openings like stomata (which represent ~1% of leaf blade epidermal cells, 50–300/mm2), hydatodes (at leaf edge), or nectaria (in flowers) can enhance the introduction of fluorochromes into the living tissues of above-ground plant organs. The fluorochromes uptake in multicellular organs can thus be enhanced by increased external or decreased internal pressure, e.g., by syringe or vacuum infiltration, respectively (Figure 1B). Moreover, cutting tissue into pieces significantly increases penetration rates (Figures 1CV,VI) but several layers of mechanically injured cells on the cutting edge must be omitted from the evaluation (Prasad et al., 2017).
Figure 1
Histochemical detection of ROS and NO with fluorescent probes. (A) ROS and RNS in fungi and oomycetes grown on agar can be stained and visualized directly on the medium. (B) ROS and RNS in plant tissues and phytopathogenic oomycetes or fungi can be stained by up-loading the probes to excised leaves by xylem transport or to small pieces of tissue using syringe or vacuum infiltration. (C) ROS and RNS detection (green signal) by confocal microscopy in different samples: (I–III) ROS detection by DHDCF DA in (I) cucumber protoplast 4 h after release (10 μM, 10 min), (II) 8 h germinated conidia of Morchella conica (20 μM, 15 min), (III) in mesophyll cells of date palm leaf cross section during drought stress (20 μM, 10 min); (IV,V) NO production localized by DAF-FM DA in (IV) 2 h germinated cucumber pollen (10 μM, 30 min) and (V) haustoria of Plasmopara halstedii infecting sunflower stem mesophyll cells (20 μM, 30 min); (VI) singlet oxygen visualization with SOSG during mechanical injury of mesophyll cells of Arabidopsis thaliana cv. Columbia-0 (50 μM, 30 min) (M. Sedlářová).
Table 1
| Group of organisms | CW layout and thickness | CW chemical composition | External stratum/permeability barrier | References | Concentration of widely used fluorochromes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DHDCF DAa | DAF-FM DAb | SOSGc | |||||
| Higher plants | Up to three layers = primary, internally formed secondary CW, middle lamella (outermost); 0.1 to several μm | Polysaccharides (cellulose + hemicelluloses + pectin); Lignin; Proteins (enzymes, expansins); pollen—sporopollenin, rhamnogalacturonan II | Cuticle = cutin and wax (external to CW); suberin (Casparian strips in root endodermis and cork cells in bark); in grasses—microscopic Si crystals | Popper et al., 2011, 2014; Ochoa-Villarreal et al., 2012; Miedes et al., 2014; | Whole tissues (leaves, roots) 10–20 μM | 20–40 μM | 50–260 μM |
| Sections 10–20 μM | 10–20 μM | 50 μM | |||||
| Protoplasts, pollen 5–10 μM | 10 μM | 30–50 μM | |||||
| Algae | Multilayered, variable in different taxonomic groups; up to 0.5 μm | Polysaccharides (cellulose + others—depending on taxonomic group: mannans, xylans, alginic acid, or sulfonated polysaccharides (agarose, carrageenan, porphyran, furcelleran and funoran) or a variety of glycoproteins (Volvocales) or both); Sporopollenin; Phlorotannins in brown algae; Diatoms synthesize CW known as frustules or valves from orthosilicic acid | Extracellular matrix—sheath or envelope of mucilage outside the cell made of exopolysaccharides | Popper et al., 2011, 2014; Mine et al., 2016 | Single-celled species 10 μMFilamentous algae 20 μMDiatoms 10 μM | 10 μM10–20 μM10 μM | 50 μM50–100 μM260 μM |
| Oomycetes | Monolayer, up to 0.3 μm; oospore—multi-layered, up to 2 μm | Polysaccharides (cellulose and glucans); proteins; CW includes hydroxyproline, which is not found in fungal CW | Extracellular matrix in tissue-infecting species | Grenville-Briggs et al., 2013; Mélida et al., 2013 | Conidia 10 μMIntercellular mycelium 10–20 μM | 10 μM10–20 μM | 50 μM50–100 μM |
| Fungi | Bilayered—secondary CW is external to primary, width 0.05–0.4 μm; Spores—multi-layered, thick up to 10 μm; special morphology of septa in hyphae | Chitin (in Ascomycota and Basidiomycota), or chitosan (Zygomycota); Glucans; Proteins (enzymes, structural proteins esp. mannoproteins); in spores—melanin, sporopollenin | Outer layer or capsule with mannans and glucans (namely in pathogens); Many hyphal and spore surfaces covered with hydrophobins; Glomalin (glycoprotein abundantly secreted in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi) | Ruiz-Herrera, 1992; Lesage and Bussey, 2006; Latgé, 2007; Erwig and Gow, 2016 | Spores, mycelium 10–20 μM (to be increased if mycelium grown in agar) | 10–40 μM | 50–100 μM |
| Cyanobacteria | Multilayered, structure similar to G- bacteria; width 10 nm in unicellular species; 15–35 nm in filamentous (extremely thick in Oscillatoria princeps = 700 nm) | Peptidoglycan and outer membrane composed of fibrilar lipopolysaccharides, carotenoids, and porins | Slime coat, capsule, mucoid sheath | Hoiczyk and Hansel, 2000 | 20–40 μM (to be increased in filamentous species with thick CW) | 40–50 μM | 50–250 μM |
Comparison of cell wall (CW) properties in photosynthetic organisms, fungi, and oomycetes with regards to used concentrations of selected ROS and RNS fluorescent probes.
DHDCF DA = 2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate; max. λex = 498 nm/λex = 522 nm; oxidized by hydroperoxides, other ROS and peroxynitrite; standard incubation time 10–15 min (Hempel et al., 1999; Petřivalský et al., 2012);
Dawn of reliable ROS and RNS imaging?
Recognized drawbacks of commercially available fluorescence probes for ROS and RNS detection initiated a quest for improved tools to measure more accurately the differential in vivo patterns of ROS and RNS abundance within plant organs and meristems. Newly synthesized probes with increased specificity and improved photostability have been reported, such as Aarhus Sensor Green preferable to SOSG for singlet oxygen (Pedersen et al., 2014), but these are for various reasons of limited availability to users. Therefore, the need for further development of improved probes that can image individual endogenous ROS and RNS still continues. Recently, a new family of o-hydroxyamino-triarylpyrylium salts-based probes for NO detection was reported (Beltrán et al., 2014). A new fluorescent probe ContPY1 was prepared for investigations of hydrogen peroxide and tested in Arabidopsis, both on cultured cells and on leaves (Ledoux et al., 2013). Also, a single fluorescent probe, capable of simultaneous monitoring of both NO and H2O2 endogenously produced in living macrophages (Yuan et al., 2012) was synthesized. However, similarly to genetically encoded fluorescence proteins applicable for ROS monitoring (Schmitt et al., 2014) or immuno-spin traping (Mason, 2016), it has not yet been successfully applied to plant research.
Fluorescein derivatives have become replaced in animal ROS and RNS research by more specific molecular probes based on nanoparticles or redox-sensitive fluorescent proteins (for review see Guo et al., 2014; Peteu et al., 2014). As an example, the entirely new probe PAM-BN-PB (composed of three functional parts: phenanthroimidazole, benzonitrile, and phenyl boronate) was designed to detect H2O2 with good selectivity based on intramolecular charge transfer (Chen et al., 2017), and tested on human and animal cells and in vitro. However, the “classical fluorescent probes” based mainly on diaminofluorescein derivatives, still represent important tools to study ROS and RNS in plant science (Nie et al., 2015; Figure 1C). This can be partly attributed to more demanding protocols due to presence of CW and other extracellular matrices (Table 1) influencing the uptake of “new generation” probes. Encapsulating fluorescent probes into nanoparticles was reported to improve their stability, such as in peroxalate nanoprobe undergoing a three-component chemiluminescence reaction between H2O2, peroxalate esters, and fluorescent dyes as published for in vivo imaging of H2O2 in mouse model (Lee et al., 2007). Near-IR probes have been lately incorporated into polymeric micelles modified with animal cell-penetrating peptides, esp. for peroxynitrite imaging experiments (Tian et al., 2011). However, (nano)micelles uptake by fusion with the plasma membrane is hindered in plant and fungal cells and up-to-date protocols for the cell wall removal exert excessive oxidative stress to the plant cells (Petřivalský et al., 2012).
Although, a plethora of ROS and RNS sensing molecules have been designed, just a part of them has been confirmed experimentally to be suitable for ROS and RNS in vivo monitoring. The situation resembles a “population bottle-neck”; only a reduced number of protocols are applicable to ROS and RNS microscopy in plant and fungal models and thus these few remain fixed in routine practice for a substantial period. With increasing knowledge on the importance of localized and tiny intracellular redox fluctuations the quantitative and spatio-temporal analysis of ROS and RNS levels in plant and fungal cells is still highly challenging.
Statements
Author contributions
MS prepared manuscript based on long-lasting discussions and joint experiments with LL, it was approved and widely discussed by both authors.
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports (MSM 6198959215) and Palacký University in Olomouc (IGA UP PrF-2017-001 and PrF-2017-016) with former students M. Rajnohová, M. Smažák, T. Tichá, Z. Drábková Trojanová, Z. Tulpová, and T. Válová involved in the experiments. Microorganisms shown in Figure 1 come from the collection UPOC, a part of the Czech National Programme on Conservation and Utilization of Microbial Genetic Resources Important for Agriculture (kindly provided by P. Hašler, P. Havránek, A. Lebeda, and B. Mieslerová). Many thanks to A. Prasad, M. Rác, and P. Pospíšil from Department of Biophysics (CRH, UP) for valuable discussions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
- CW
cell wall
- DHDCF DA
2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate
- DAF-FM DA
4-amino-5-(N-methylamino)-2′,7′-difluorofluorescein diacetate
- RNS
reactive nitrogen species
- ROS
reactive oxygen species
- SOSG
Singlet Oxygen Sensor Green.
Abbreviations
References
1
Arasimowicz-JelonekM.Floryszak-WieczorekJ.IzbianskaK.GzylJ.JelonekT. (2016). Implication of peroxynitrite in defence responses of potato to Phytophthora infestans. Plant Pathol.65, 754–766. 10.1111/ppa.12471
2
AsadaK. (2006). Production and scavenging of reactive oxygen species in chloroplasts and their functions. Plant Physiol.141, 391–396. 10.1104/pp.106.082040
3
BeltránA.Isabel BurgueteM.AbanadesD. R.Perez-SalaD.LuisS. V.GalindoF. (2014). Turn-on fluorescent probes for nitric oxide sensing based on the ortho-hydroxyamino structure showing no interference with dehydroascorbic acid. Chem. Commun.50, 3579–3581. 10.1039/c3cc49555h
4
BlokhinaO.FagerstedtK. V. (2010). Reactive oxygen species and nitric oxide in plant mitochondria: origin and redundant regulatory systems. Physiol. Plant.138, 447–462. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2009.01340.x
5
ChenY.ShiX.LuZ.WangX.WangZ. (2017). Fluorescent probe for hydrogen peroxide in vivo based on the modulation of intramolecular charge transfer. Anal. Chem.89, 5278–5284. 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b04810
6
ConsidineM. J.Diaz-VivancosP.KerchevP.SignorelliS.Agudelo-RomeroP.GibbsD. J.et al. (2017). Learning to breathe: developmental phase transitions in oxygen status. Trends Plant Sci.22, 140–153. 10.1016/j.tplants.2016.11.013
7
CorpasF. J.BarrosoJ. B.PalmaJ. M.Rodriguez-RuizaM. (2017). Peroxisomes: a nitro-oxidative cocktail. Redox Biol.11, 535–542. 10.1016/j.redox.2016.12.033
8
Del RíoL. A. (2015). ROS and RNS in plant physiology: an overview. J. Exp. Bot.66, 2827–2837. 10.1093/jxb/erv099
9
DietzK.-J.MittlerR.NoctorG. (2016). Recent progress in understanding the role of reactive oxygen species in plant cell signaling. Plant Physiol.171, 1535–1539. 10.1104/pp.16.00938
10
ErwigL. P.GowN. A. (2016). Interactions of fungal pathogens with phagocytes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.14, 163–176. 10.1038/nrmicro.2015.21
11
FlorsC.FryerM. J.WaringJ.ReederB.BechtoldU.MullineauxP. M.et al. (2006). Imaging the production of singlet oxygen in vivo using a new fluorescent sensor, Singlet oxygen sensor green. J. Exp. Bot. 57, 1725–1734. 10.1093/jxb/erj181
12
GillS. S.TutejaN. (2010). Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem.48, 909–930. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016
13
Grenville-BriggsL. J.HornerN. R.PhillipsA. J.BeakesG. W.van WestP. (2013). A family of small tyrosine rich proteins is essential for oogonial and oospore cell wall development of the mycoparasitic oomycete. Fungal Biol.117, 163–172. 10.1016/j.funbio.2013.01.001
14
GuoH.AleyasinH.DickinsonB. C.Haskew-LaytonR. E.RatanR. R. (2014). Recent advances in hydrogen peroxide imaging for biological applications. Cell Biosci.4:64. 10.1186/2045-3701-4-64
15
GuptaK. J.IgamberdievA. U. (2013). Recommendations of using at least two different methods for measuring NO. Front. Plant Sci.4:58. 10.3389/fpls.2013.00058
16
HempelS. L.BuettnerG. R.O'MalleyY. Q.WesselsD. A.FlahertyD. M. (1999). Dihydrofluorescein diacetate is superior for detecting intracellular oxidants: comparison with 2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate, 5(and 6)-carboxy-2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate, and dihydrorhodamine 123. Free Radic. Biol. Med.27, 146–159. 10.1016/S0891-5849(99)00061-1
17
HoiczykE.HanselA. (2000). Cyanobacterial cell walls: news from an unusual prokaryotic envelope. J. Bacteriol.182, 1191–1199. 10.1128/JB.182.5.1191-1199.2000
18
JabsT.DietrichR. A.DanglJ. L. (1996). Initiation of runaway cell death in an Arabidopsis mutant by extracellular superoxide. Science273, 1853–1856. 10.1126/science.273.5283.1853
19
KehrerJ. P.ParaidathathuT. (1992). The use of fluorescent probes to assess oxidative processes in isolated-perfused rat heart tissue. Free Radic. Res. Commun.16, 217–225. 10.3109/10715769209049175
20
KimS.FujitsukaM.MajimaT. (2013). Photochemistry of singlet oxygen sensor green. J. Phys. Chem. B117, 13985–13992. 10.1021/jp406638g
21
KojimaH.UranoY.KikuchiK.HiguchiT.HirataY.NaganoT. (1999). Fluorescent indicators for imaging nitric oxide production. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.38, 3209–3212. 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19991102)38:21<3209::AID-ANIE3209>3.0.CO;2-6
22
LatgéJ. P. (2007). The cell wall: a carbohydrate armour for the fungal cell. Mol. Microbiol.66, 279–290. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05872.x
23
LedouxQ.VeysP.Van CutsemP.MauroS.LucaccioniF.MarkoI. E. (2013). Validation of the boronate sensor ContPY1 as a specific probe for fluorescent detection of hydrogen peroxide in plants. Plant Signal. Behav.8:e26827. 10.4161/psb.26827
24
LeeD.KhajaS.Velasquez-CastanoJ. C.DasariM.SunC.PetrosJ.et al. (2007). In vivo imaging of hydrogen peroxide with chemiluminescent nanoparticles. Nat. Mater.6, 765–769. 10.1038/nmat1983
25
LeónJ.CastilloM. C.CoegoA.Lozano-JusteJ.MirR. (2014). Diverse functional interactions between nitric oxide and abscisic acid in plant development and responses to stress. J. Exp. Bot.65, 907–921. 10.1093/jxb/ert454
26
LesageG.BusseyH. (2006). Cell wall assembly in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 70, 317–343. 10.1128/MMBR.00038-05
27
LombardoM. C.GrazianoM.PolaccoJ. C.LamattinaL. (2006). Nitric oxide functions as a positive regulator of root hair development. Plant Signal. Behav.1, 28–33. 10.4161/psb.1.1.2398
28
MasonR. P. (2016). Imaging free radicals in organelles, cells, tissue, and in vivo with immuno-spin trapping. Redox Biol.8, 422–429. 10.1016/j.redox.2016.04.003
29
MélidaH.Sandoval-SierraJ. V.Diéguez-UribeondoJ.BuloneV. (2013). Analyses of extracellular carbohydrates in oomycetes unveil the existence of three different cell wall types. Eukaryot. Cell12, 194–203. 10.1128/EC.00288-12
30
MiedesE.VanholmeR.BoerjanW.MolinaA. (2014). The role of the secondary cell wall in plant resistance to pathogens. Front. Plant Sci.5:358. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00358
31
MineI.YamasakiT.SekidaS.OkudaK. (2016). Measurement of cell wall thickness in the giant-celled xanthophycean alga Vaucheria frigida. Cytologia81, 225–230. 10.1508/cytologia.81.225
32
NieS.YueH.ZhouJ.XingD. (2015). Mitochondrial-derived reactive oxygen species play a vital role in the salicylic acid signaling pathway in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS ONE10:e0119853. 10.1371/journal.pone.0119853
33
Ochoa-VillarrealM.Aispuro-HernándezE.Vargas-ArispuroI.Martínez-TéllezM. Á. (2012). Plant cell wall polymers: function, structure and biological activity of their derivatives, in Polymerization, ed GomesA. D. S. (Rijeka: InTech), 63–86.
34
PedersenS. K.HolmehaveJ.BlaikieF. H.GollmerA.BreitenbachT.JensenH. H.et al. (2014). Aarhus sensor green: a fluorescent probe for singlet oxygen. J. Org. Chem.79, 3079–3087. 10.1021/jo500219y
35
PeteuS. F.BoukherroubR.SzuneritsS. (2014). Nitro-oxidative species biosensing: challenges and advances with focus on peroxynitrite quantification. Biosens. Bioelectron.58, 359–373. 10.1016/j.bios.2014.02.025
36
PetřivalskýM.VaníčkováP.RyzíM.NavrátilováB.PiterkováJ.SedlářováM.et al. (2012). The effects of reactive nitrogen and oxygen species on regeneration and growth of cucumber cells from isolated protoplasts. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.108, 237–249. 10.1007/s11240-011-0035-3
37
PopperZ. A.MichelG.HervéC.DomozychD. S.WillatsW. G.TuohyM. G.et al. (2011). Evolution and diversity of plant cell walls: from algae to flowering plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.62, 567–590. 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103809
38
PopperZ. A.RaletM. C.DomozychD. S. (2014). Plant and algal cell walls: diversity and functionality. Ann. Bot.114, 1043–1048. 10.1093/aob/mcu214
39
PrasadA.SedlářováM.KaleR.PospíšilP. (2017). Lipoxygenase in singlet oxygen generation as a response to wounding: in vivo imaging in Arabidopsis thaliana. Sci. Rep.7:9831. 10.1038/s41598-017-09758-1
40
PratsE.CarverT. L.MurL. A. (2008). Pathogen-derived nitric oxide influences formation of the appressorium infection structure in the phytopathogenic fungus Blumeria graminis. Res. Microbiol.159, 476–480. 10.1016/j.resmic.2008.04.001
41
QiaoW.LiC.FanL.-M. (2014). Cross-talk between nitric oxide and hydrogen peroxide in plant responses to abiotic stresses. Environ. Exp. Bot.100, 84–93. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2013.12.014
42
RajaV.MajeedU.KangH.AndrabiK. I.JohnR. (2017). Abiotic stress: interplay between ROS, hormones and MAPKs. Environ. Exp. Bot.137, 142–157. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.02.010
43
Ruiz-HerreraJ. (1992). Fungal Cell Wall: Structure, Synthesis and Assembly. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
44
SaxenaI.SrikanthS.ChenZ. (2016). Cross talk between H2O2 and interacting signal molecules under plant stress response. Front. Plant Sci.7:570. 10.3389/fpls.2016.00570
45
SchmittF.-J.RengerG.FriedrichT.KreslavskiV. D.ZharmukhamedovS. K.LosD. A.et al. (2014). Reactive oxygen species: re-evaluation of generation, monitoring and role in stress-signaling in phototrophic organisms. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1837, 835–848. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2014.02.005
46
SedlářováM.KubienováL.Drábková TrojanováZ.LuhováL.LebedaA.PetřivalskýM. (2016). The role of nitric oxide in development and pathogenesis of biotrophic phytopathogens – downy and powdery mildews. Adv. Bot. Res.77, 263–283. 10.1016/bs.abr.2015.10.002
47
SedlářováM.PetřivalskýM.PiterkováJ.LuhováL.KočírováJ.LebedaA. (2011). Influence of nitric oxide and reactive oxygen species on development of lettuce downy mildew in Lactuca spp. Eur. J. Plant Pathol.129, 267–280. 10.1007/s10658-010-9626-9
48
SinhaR. K.KomendaJ.KnoppováJ.SedlářováM.PospíšilP. (2012). Small CAB-like proteins prevent formation of singlet oxygen in the damaged Photosystem II complex of the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. Plant Cell Environ.35, 806–818. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02454.x
49
Thordal-ChristensenH.ZhangZ.WeiY.CollingeD. B. (1997). Subcellular localization of H2O2 in plants. H2O2 accumulation in papillae and hypersensitive response during the barley-powdery mildew interaction. Plant J. 11, 1187–1194. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1997.11061187.x
50
TianJ.ChenH.ZhuoL.XieY.LiN.TangB. (2011). A highly selective, cell-permeable fluorescent nanoprobe for ratiometric detection and imaging of peroxynitrite in living cells. Chem. Eur. J. 17, 6626–6634. 10.1002/chem.201100148
51
VandelleE.DelledonneM. (2011). Peroxynitrite formation and function in plants. Plant Sci.181, 534–539. 10.1016/j.plantsci.2011.05.002
52
WandersR. J.WaterhamH. R.FerdinandusseS. (2016). Metabolic interplay between peroxisomes and other subcellular organelles including mitochondria and the endoplasmic reticulum. Front. Cell Dev. Biol.3:83. 10.3389/fcell.2015.00083
53
WojtaszekP. (1997). Oxidative burst: an early plant response to pathogen infection. Biochem. J.322(Pt 3), 681–692. 10.1042/bj3220681
54
YuanL.LinW.XieY.ChenB.ZhuS. (2012). Single fluorescent probe responds to H2O2, NO, and H2O2/NO with three different sets of fluorescence signals. J. Am. Chem. Soc.134, 1305–1315. 10.1021/ja2100577
Summary
Keywords
confocal microscopy, fluorescent probes, reactive oxygen species, reactive nitrogen species, cell wall
Citation
Sedlářová M and Luhová L (2017) Re-Evaluation of Imaging Methods of Reactive Oxygen and Nitrogen Species in Plants and Fungi: Influence of Cell Wall Composition. Front. Physiol. 8:826. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00826
Received
31 July 2017
Accepted
06 October 2017
Published
24 October 2017
Volume
8 - 2017
Edited by
Mika Tada, Tohoku Institute of Technology, Japan
Reviewed by
Venkat R. Pannala, DoD, Biotechnology HPC Software Applications Institute, United States; Omar Borsani, University of the Republic, Uruguay
Updates
Copyright
© 2017 Sedlářová and Luhová.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Michaela Sedlářová michaela.sedlarova@upol.cz
This article was submitted to Oxidant Physiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Physiology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.