SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • maize;
  • nitrate;
  • nitrogen;
  • nitrogen use efficiency (NUE);
  • uptake

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
  • An understanding of nitrate (inline image) uptake throughout the lifecycle of plants, and how this process responds to nitrogen (N) availability, is an important step towards the development of plants with improved nitrogen use efficiency (NUE).
  • inline image uptake capacity and transcript levels of putative high- and low-affinity inline image transporters (NRTs) were profiled across the lifecycle of dwarf maize (Zea mays) plants grown at reduced and adequate inline image.
  • Plants showed major changes in high-affinity inline image uptake capacity across the lifecycle, which varied with changing relative growth rates of roots and shoots. Transcript abundances of putative high-affinity NRTs (predominantly ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2) were correlated with two distinct peaks in high-affinity root inline image uptake capacity and also N availability. The reduction in inline image supply during the lifecycle led to a dramatic increase in inline image uptake capacity, which preceded changes in transcript levels of NRTs, suggesting a model with short-term post-translational regulation and longer term transcriptional regulation of inline image uptake capacity.
  • These observations offer new insight into the control of inline image uptake by both plant developmental processes and N availability, and identify key control points that may be targeted by future plant improvement programmes to enhance N uptake relative to availability and/or demand.

Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

A vast amount (> 100 million tonnes) of nitrogen (N) fertilizer is applied to crops annually to maximize yield (FAO, 2006). However, in cereal production, only 40–50% of the applied N is actually taken up by the intended crop (Peoples et al., 1995; Sylvester-Bradley & Kindred, 2009). Given this low N uptake efficiency, we believe a better understanding of the N uptake process in cereals would help to identify the limiting factors contributing to poor N uptake efficiency and overall cereal nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). NUE, in this case, refers to grain yield per unit of available N in the soil (Moll et al., 1982; Dhugga & Waines, 1989; Good et al., 2004).

This study is focused on the uptake and use of nitrate (inline image), as it is the predominant form of N in most high-input agricultural soils (Wolt, 1994; Miller et al., 2007). Plant inline image uptake generally involves two types of transport system, one involving high-affinity (HATS) and the other low-affinity (LATS) transporters (Glass, 2003). In Arabidopsis, four inline image transporters (NRTs) have been linked to inline image uptake from the soil: NRT1.1 and NRT1.2 from the LATS class, and NRT2.1 and NRT2.2 from the HATS class (Tsay et al., 2007). NRT1.1 (Chl1) is unique among these in that it displays dual affinity towards inline image depending on its phosphorylation status (Liu et al., 1999). Although we now have some fundamental knowledge about the functionality of these transporters, our understanding of their roles and of the regulation of inline image uptake remains limited.

Certain aspects of the regulation of the Arabidopsis uptake system have been examined extensively. For example, the inline image uptake capacity of HATS shows strong induction when plants are exposed to inline image after a period of N starvation, and the uptake capacity is repressed following a period of sufficient inline image (Minotti et al., 1969; Jackson et al., 1973; Goyal & Huffaker, 1986; Aslam et al., 1993; Henriksen & Spanswick, 1993; Zhuo et al., 1999). This strong induction and repression are reflected in the transcript levels of AtNRT2.1 and AtNRT2.2, which follow the induction and repression of the uptake capacity (Zhuo et al., 1999; Okamoto et al., 2003). Redinbaugh & Campbell (1993) referred to this pattern of induction and repression as the primary inline image response. Whether this N response is relevant to longer time scales and to soil N characteristics of typical cropping soils has yet to be shown.

The relative roles of NRTs in the uptake of inline image from the soil remain unclear, but circumstantial evidence has been used to postulate their activities. First, the inline image concentration in agricultural soils is generally in the millimolar range (Wolt, 1994; Miller et al., 2007), well above the point at which the inline image HATS system would be saturated (c. 250 μM) (Siddiqi et al., 1990; Kronzucker et al., 1995; Garnett et al., 2003). Second, the location of the transporters within a root suggests variable roles in inline image uptake. AtNRT1.1 expression is localized in the tips of young roots (Huang et al., 1999; Guo et al., 2001), where roots first come into contact with the higher inline image concentrations of unexplored soil, whereas AtNRT2.1 is localized in the cortex of older parts of the root, where external inline image concentrations may be reduced following uptake at the root tip (Nazoa et al., 2003; Remans et al., 2006). Third, the pattern of NRT2 repression observed in roots exposed to sufficient N would seem to limit their relative importance to steady-state inline image uptake in N-rich soils. Given this evidence, it has been proposed that the LATS system is most probably responsible for the majority of inline image uptake from the soil (Glass, 2003).

Little is known about how inline image uptake is actually managed over the lifecycle of the plant, with many studies on inline image uptake focused on responses to perturbations, where external inline image availability is varied in order to explore inline image-dependent uptake responses. In one of the few published studies, Malagoli et al. (2004) measured the uptake capacity of the inline image HATS and LATS in oilseed rape over time, and their response to various factors, and used this information, together with the modelling of field data, to suggest that inline image HATS could supply most of the plants N requirements, even with high N availability. This work suggests that HATS are important in net inline image uptake, necessitating a re-examination of the respective roles of these two transport systems. A detailed analysis of inline image uptake capacity across the entire lifecycle is an important step towards the development of plants with enhanced N uptake capacity and efficiency, and may help to improve N fertilization practice where supply can be better matched to demand.

In this study, we have profiled the changes in inline image uptake capacity in maize plants across a broad developmental time period in response to either reduced or adequate inline image provision. During the lifecycle, the plants were changed between inline image treatments to help distinguish between developmental changes. Given the problems inherent in using a full-sized maize plant for such experiments, we used the dwarf maize ‘Gaspe Flint’, which has a lifecycle of just 60 d, allowing profiling across both vegetative and reproductive stages in a contained environment (Hourcade et al., 1986).

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Plant growth

Seeds of dwarf maize (Zea mays L. var. Gaspe Flint) were germinated on moist filter paper for 4 d at 28°C. Seedlings were transferred to one of two 700-l ebb and flow hydroponic systems with the fill/drain cycles completed in 13 min. Initially, 150 plants were planted in each system. Plants were grown on mesh collars within tubes (300 mm × 50 mm), which kept the roots of adjacent plants separate, but allowed free access to solution. The hydroponic system was situated in a controlled environment room with a day : night cycle of 14 h : 10 h, 25°C : 20°C, at a flux density at canopy level of c. 500 μmol m−2 s−1. The nutrient solution was a modified Johnson's solution (Johnson et al., 1957) containing (in mM) 0.5 inline imageN, 0.8 K, 0.1 Ca, 0.5 Mg, 1 S and 0.5 P for the 0.5-mM inline image treatment, and 2.5 inline imageN, 1.8 K, 0.6 Ca, 0.5 Mg, 0.5 S and 0.5 P for the 2.5-mM inline image treatment. The choice of concentration was based on preliminary experiments, which suggested that the threshold inline image concentration eliciting a major N response was c. 0.5 mM and this appeared to be the case (Supporting Information Fig. S1). Both treatment solutions contained (in μM): 2 Mn, 2 Zn, 25 B, 0.5 Cu, 0.5 Mo and 100 Fe (as FeEDTA and ethylenediamine-N,N ′-bis(2-hydroxyphenylacetic acid (FeEDDHA)). Iron was supplemented twice weekly with the addition of Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2.6H2O (8 mg l−1). The solution pH was maintained between 5.9 and 6.1. inline image was monitored using an inline image electrode (TPS, Springwood, Qld, Australia) and maintained at the target concentration ± 10%. Other nutrients were monitored using an inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer (ICP-OES: ARL 3580 B, ARL, Lausanne, Switzerland) and showed limited depletion between solution changes. Nutrient solutions were changed every 20 d.

Flux measurement

On sampling days, between 11:00 and 13:00 h, plants were transferred to a controlled environment room with conditions matching growth conditions (light, temperature and relative humidity) and into solutions matching growth solutions. The roots were then given a 5-min rinse with the same nutrient solution, but with either 50 or 250 μM inline image, followed by 10 min of exposure to the same solution, but with 15N-labelled inline image (15N 10%). In preliminary experiments, the flux measured at 50 and 250 μM inline image was found to be before (50 μM) and at the point of (250 μM) saturation of the HATS uptake system. At the end of the flux period, roots were rinsed for 2 min in matching, but unlabelled, solution. Two identical solutions were used for this rinse to allow an initial 5-s rinse to remove labelled solution adhering to the root surface. The flux timing was based on that used by Kronzucker et al. (1995) and chosen to minimize any possible efflux or transport to the shoot.

Roots were blotted, and the roots and separated shoots were weighed and dried at 65°C for 7 d, after which the roots were ground to a fine powder (Clarkson et al., 1996). Total N and 15N in the plant samples were determined with an isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Sercon, Crewe, Cheshire, UK). Unidirectional inline image influx was calculated on the basis of the 15N content of the root. The unidirectional inline image influx measured in this study is described as the uptake capacity of the plant at that point in the lifecycle.

Real-time quantitative PCR (Q-PCR)

On sampling days, root material was harvested between 5 and 7 h after the start of the light period. The whole root was excised and snap frozen in liquid N2 and stored at −80°C. RNA was extracted using the RNeasy Plant Mini Kit with on-column DNase treatment (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), according to the manufacturer's instructions, before the RNA integrity was checked on a 1.2% (w/v) agarose gel. cDNA synthesis was performed on 1 μg of total RNA with oligo(dT)19 using SuperScript III reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Q-PCR was carried out as outlined in Burton et al. (2008). In this method, the amount of each amplicon in each cDNA is quantified with respect to a standard curve of the expected amplicon (typically, PCR efficiencies ranged between 0.85 and 1.05). Four control genes (ZmGaPDh, ZmActin, ZmTubulin and ZmElF1) were utilized for the calculation of the normalization factor. Q-PCR normalization was carried out as detailed in Vandesompele et al. (2002) and Burton et al. (2004). Q-PCR primers were designed for the closest maize homologues of the Arabidopsis NRTs (Plett et al., 2010). Q-PCR products were verified by sequencing, agarose gel electrophoresis and melt-curve analysis to confirm that a single PCR product was being amplified. All primer sequences and Q-PCR product information for control genes and NRT genes can be found in Table S1.

inline image determination

Tissue inline image content was determined via a previous method (Braun-SysteMatic, Methodenblatt N 60; Rayment & Higginson, 1992) scaled appropriately for assay in 96-well optical plates. Frozen and ground tissue (100 mg) was measured into 1.1-ml strip tubes in a 96-well format. Six-hundred microlitres of extraction buffer were added to each tube and the rack of tubes was shaken vigorously for 15 min in a cold room at 4°C. Extraction buffer comprised 50 mM Hepes (pH 7.5), 20% (v/v) glycerol, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM ethylene glycol tetraacetic acid (EGTA), 0.1% (v/v) Triton X-100, 1 mM benzamidine and 1 mM 6-aminohexanoic acid. Racks were centrifuged at 3400 g at 4°C for 45 min and the supernatant was transferred to fresh tubes. Racks were centrifuged at 3400 g for an additional 45 min at 4°C and the supernatant was transferred to 96-well PCR plates. A clarified soluble extract (15 μl + 10 μl distilled H2O) was added to optical plates and 15 μl of freshly prepared 2 mM CuSO4 and 10 μl of 0.2 M hydrazine sulfate were added to each well. The plates were incubated for 5 min at 37°C and 15 μl of 1 M NaOH was added to each well. The plates were shaken and incubated for 10 min at 37°C. A solution (100 μl) containing equal parts 2.5% (w/v) sulfanilamide in 3.75 M HCl and 0.5% (w/v) N-ethylenediamine was added to each well and the plates were incubated at room temperature for 10 min. The absorbance was measured at 540 nm. KNO3 standards (15 μl) (0–75 nmol/15 μM) were run on each plate and were processed in the same manner as the samples above. The inline image content was expressed as nmoles of inline image per milligram of tissue fresh weight (FW).

Amino acid determination

Tissue amino acid concentration was determined using liquid chromatography electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry, as described by Boughton et al. (2011), once the samples had been derivatized following the method of Cohen & Michaud (1993).

Statistical analyses

Statistical analysis of biomass, flux and metabolite data was carried out using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data followed a normal distribution. Means of grain yield were tested for significance using a two-tailed t-test. The time course was repeated twice (flux analysis and transcript levels) with similar results.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Biomass

As expected, under our steady-state hydroponic conditions, we observed no difference in either total root or shoot biomass when plants were grown in nutrient solution containing either reduced (0.5 mM) or adequate (2.5 mM) concentrations of inline image (Fig. 1a,b). With both inline image treatments, there was a considerable drop in the root to shoot ratio over the first 18 d after emergence (DAE), highlighting the rapid shoot growth of the plants in the early vegetative period (Fig. 1c). However, our treatments impacted upon the N content between 0.5- and 2.5-mM-grown plants (Fig. 1d). Shoot N concentration was significantly greater (< 0.001) in the whole shoots of plants grown at 2.5 mM inline image than in those of plants grown at 0.5 mM, but, in both treatments, the N concentration was above the critical concentration in the youngest fully expanded blade, which is around 2 mmol g−1 dry weight (DW) N (Reuter & Robinson, 1997). Based on in-season monitoring, these concentrations reflect agronomically realistic inline image concentrations (Miller et al., 2007) and, for the 0.5-mM treatment, represent reduced but not growth-impacting inline image levels, which is important in the context of this study. Irrespective of the inline image concentration supplied; there was a continual drop in tissue N across the lifecycle (Fig. 1d). There was no significant difference in final grain yields (grain DW (g), mean ± SEM: 0.5 mM, 1.85 ± 0.38 (= 12); 2.5 mM, 1.80 ± 0.24 (= 8)). The plants at each of the growth stages can be seen in Fig. S2.

image

Figure 1. Growth parameters across the dwarf maize (Zea mays) Gaspe Flint lifecycle of plants grown at either 0.5 mM (open squares) or 2.5 mM (closed squares) inline image. (a) Shoot dry weight (DW), (b) root DW, (c) DW root : shoot ratio and (d) shoot nitrogen (N) concentration (mmol g−1 DW). Fitted curves are as described in the text. There was no significant difference between treatments for shoot biomass, root biomass or root : shoot ratio, and so there is just one fit to the pooled data. Values are means ± SEM (= 8, except for (d) where = 4). *Points significantly different between the two growth conditions (P < 0.05).

Download figure to PowerPoint

inline image flux capacity

Unidirectional inline image HATS flux (e.g. high-affinity inline image uptake capacity) into the root at external concentrations of 50 and 250 μM was determined across various stages of the lifecycle of both 0.5- and 2.5-mM-grown plants (Siddiqi et al., 1990; Kronzucker et al., 1995; Garnett et al., 2003). We observed large, but parallel, fluctuations in HATS inline image uptake capacity over time at both inline image concentrations (Fig. 2a,b), where inline image uptake capacity peaked twice, one coinciding with early vegetative growth (15 DAE) and the other just before flowering (26 DAE). The reduction in uptake capacity between these two peaks (22 DAE) was considerable when measured at 50 μM (c. 20% of the peak value). Apart from the two peaks and the intervening drop, inline image uptake capacity decreased continually from 15 DAE.

image

Figure 2. Unidirectional inline image influx into the roots of dwarf maize (Zea mays) Gaspe Flint throughout the lifecycle of plants grown at either 0.5 mM (open squares) or 2.5 mM (closed squares) inline image. Nitrate influx was measured using 15N-labelled inline image over a 10-min influx period with either (a) 50 μM inline image or (b) 250 μM inline image. Values are means ± SEM, = 4. *Points significantly different between the two growth conditions (< 0.05).

Download figure to PowerPoint

HATS uptake capacity of the 0.5-mM-grown plants across most of the lifecycle was generally higher than that of the 2.5-mM-grown plants (c. 50% at 50 μM and c. 40% at 250 μM). This was particularly evident during the early vegetative period of growth (up to 18 DAE), where the inline image uptake capacity measured in 50 μM was enhanced significantly in the plants grown at low external inline image concentrations (Fig. 2a). However, when averaged across the lifecycle, the inline image fluxes measured at 250 μM were c. 20% higher than those measured at 50 μM.

N uptake

To better understand the relationship between growth and N uptake, shoot and root growth, together with tissue N, was used to calculate N uptake over the lifecycle. As there was no difference between treatments for root or shoot biomass, the data were pooled for model fitting irrespective of the treatments. The initial shoot growth rate was much higher than the root growth rate, and a modified exponential function was required to describe the apparent change in the shoot growth rate early after germination, whereas the root data were accurately fitted with an exponential function (Figs 1, S3). Both functions accurately fitted the data, with coefficients of determination (R2) of 0.988 and 0.992 for root and shoot, respectively (Table S2). To model the N content, an allometric relation between N content and shoot biomass (Lemaire & Salette, 1984) was fitted (Fig. S3, inset). To avoid division by zero, N = α/(γ + DWSβ) was used as a fitting function, rather than the usual power law. Here, N denotes shoot N, DWS is the shoot dry weight and α, β and γ are fitting parameters, listed in Table S2. As a result, an improvement was seen in the goodness of fit from R2 = 0.996 to R2 = 0.999. Root N concentration was constant throughout the lifecycle.

Shoot and root dry weight (DW(t)) and N content (N(DW)) were used to calculate the net N uptake of the plants (Ntot(t) = NS·DWS(t) + NR·DWR(t)). The N uptake per g DWR as a function of time (t) is illustrated in Fig. 3 (lines without symbols) and is compared with the experimentally determined inline image uptake capacity for both treatments (open and filled squares). All four datasets showed a comparable peak around day 15. The experimentally measured second peak around day 26 was less pronounced in the calculated values, where a plateau rather than a peak structure was visible. Both features can be understood in terms of the initial mismatch between the root and shoot growth rate.

image

Figure 3. Dwarf maize (Zea mays) Gaspe Flint whole-plant net nitrogen (N) uptake per gram root dry weight (DW) as a function of time. Net uptake was calculated from the fitted curves for shoot DW, root DW and shoot N, as shown in Fig. 1 and detailed in the text. Net N uptake is compared with the experimentally determined nitrate flux capacity at 50 μM for different nitrogen treatments (0.5 mM, open squares; 2.5 mM, closed squares; values are means ± SEM, = 4).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Up until 12 DAE, shoots grew almost six times faster than roots (Figs 1a,b, S3). During this time, the N concentration in the shoots remained approximately constant at 3.9 mmol g−1 DW. It would appear that the elevation in N uptake capacity observed by the roots (Figs 2, 3) is a response to meet plant demand for N. Between 10 and 20 DAE, the overall shoot growth rate dropped by > 75%, reaching a final value of 0.0032 h−1. The reduction in shoot growth reduced overall plant demand for N, which was correlated with the observed decrease in the measured inline image uptake capacity beginning from 13 DAE. Similarly, for the second peak (Fig. 2), the exponential phase of shoot growth during this period was roughly 1.3 times faster than that of root growth. Again, it would appear that there is a mismatch in growth-dependent N demand relative to N availability, requiring an up-regulation of N import mechanisms (Fig. 3, see also Fig. S3). However, up-regulation was reduced relative to that of the first peak (Fig. 3). During this period, N concentrations in the shoot decreased from 3.9 mmol g−1 DW at 15 DAE to 2.5 mmol g−1 DW at 40 DAE.

The inline image HATS uptake capacity in the 0.5-mM-grown plants was remarkably similar to the net N uptake rate as calculated from the plant N content (Fig. 3), suggesting that there was little overall LATS input. However, in the 2.5-mM treatment, the uptake capacity of HATS was c. 50% of the actual uptake rate and, given the inline image concentration of this treatment, suggests that there is significant LATS contribution to the net inline image uptake under these conditions. This was supported by our data from experiments in which the LATS capacity was measured at 1 and 4 mM, and was found to be 30% and 100% of the HATS uptake capacity (0–20 DAE), respectively (Fig. S4). This indicates that the LATS uptake capacity measured at 2.5 mM would be close to our estimation of 50%.

To further distinguish between developmental and N responses, a subset of plants was subjected to a change in inline image concentration. At day 15, plants were moved from 0.5 to 2.5 mM inline image (N-inc) and, likewise, plants were moved from 2.5 to 0.5 mM (N-red), a process also repeated at day 22. When the inline image flux capacity was first measured, 3 d after changing inline image concentrations, at both day 15 and day 22, N-red treatments led to a substantial increase in inline image flux capacity (Fig. 4). In N-red treatments at day 15, the initial doubling in uptake capacity relative to plants maintained at 2.5 mM inline image was, nonetheless, followed by a reduction in uptake capacity at day 22 observed in plants with constant inline image concentration. Following the day 22 dip, the uptake capacity returned to a level higher than that of plants kept at 2.5 mM inline image. N-red treatments at day 22 showed a dramatic increase in uptake capacity at day 25. N-inc treatments (plants moved from 0.5 to 2.5 mM inline image) had approximately half the uptake capacity of plants kept at 0.5 mM, and this was maintained until day 40 (Fig. 4).

image

Figure 4. Unidirectional inline image influx into the roots of dwarf maize (Zea mays) Gaspe Flint plants grown at either 0.5 mM or 2.5 mM inline image and moved to (a) higher or (b) lower inline imageconcentration at either day 15 or day 22 post-emergence. Nitrate influx was measured using 15N-labelled inline image over a 10-min influx period with 50 μM inline image. Values are means ± SEM, = 4. Dashed lines without symbols are the fluxes presented in Fig. 2(a).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Developmental and nutritional changes to NRT transcript levels

The recent completion of the maize genome sequence provided the opportunity to complete a rigorous survey of cereal homologues to the Arabidopsis NRT genes (Plett et al., 2010), and the naming conventions put forward in that paper are used here. There are currently four NRT genes thought to be involved in root inline image uptake in Arabidopsis (Tsay et al., 2007). However, given the dichotomy between the Arabidopsis NRTs and the cereal NRTs identified by Plett et al. (2010), it was decided to quantify the developmental expression pattern for the relevant maize NRT1, NRT2 and NRT3(NAR2) orthologues of all the known Arabidopsis NRTs on plants grown at either 0.5 or 2.5 mM inline image.

At the whole-root level, transcript levels of the putative HATS genes ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 were significantly more represented in the total RNA pool than those of the other NRT2 or NRT1 genes examined (Figs 5, S5). This may represent simple differences in RNA and/or protein stability between the classes of transport proteins, or may reflect defined roles with respect to inline image transport (Fig. 4). This latter point is suggested by the expression pattern of ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 across the lifecycle, where transcript responses showed remarkable similarity to the patterns observed in the uptake measurements (Fig. 5, see also Figs 2 and 3). Interestingly, both ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 transcript levels were found to be higher in the roots of plants grown at 0.5 mM inline image than in the roots of those grown at 2.5 mM, indicating an N-dependent response; this contrasts with most other NRT genes, where differences in N availability had less of an impact. Notwithstanding the variation in transcript levels of ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 across the lifecycle and the N treatments, the baseline transcript levels from which they varied were also very high, being 200–300-fold higher than the other transporters NRT2 or NRT1 (ZmNRT1.1B) (Fig. 5). Across the lifecycle, this baseline showed a reduction for both transporters, but was far more pronounced for ZmNRT2.1. With regard to the other NRT2s, ZmNRT2.3 showed much lower transcript levels and, although there were similar fluctuations across the lifecycle, there were no clear differences between N treatments. ZmNRT2.5 expression was only detectable in the plants grown in the reduced inline image treatment, with significant variation across the lifecycle.

image

Figure 5. Root transcript levels of various putative high- and low-affinity (NRT1, NRT2 and NRT3) inline image transporters throughout the lifecycle of dwarf maize (Zea mays) Gaspe Flint. Plants were grown in nutrient solution containing either 0.5 mM (open squares) or 2.5 mM (closed squares) inline image. The broken lines correspond to maximum inline image uptake capacity as shown by the 15N unidirectional flux analysis (see Fig. 2). Each data point is normalized against control genes, as described in the text. Values are means ± SEM (= 4). *Points significantly different between the two growth conditions (P < 0.05).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Transcript levels of ZmNRT1.1A, ZmNRT1.1B and ZmNRT1.2 were 1000-fold less than those of ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2, and did not show the same pattern of variation over the lifecycle as the ZmNRT2s (Fig. 5). Both ZmNRT1.1A and ZmNRT1.1B showed a peak commencing at 13 DAE, coinciding with the ZmNRT2 peak. ZmNRT1.2 showed very low transcript levels until 34 DAE, from where they increased 10-fold. Apart from ZmNRT1.5A, there were no consistent differences in transcript levels of the NRT1s that corresponded to treatment differences in either growth or uptake capacity. ZmNRT1.5A transcript levels were higher in 0.5-mM inline image plants and had a profile matching that of ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2. Transcript levels of ZmNRT1.1D, ZmNRT1.3, ZmNRT1.4A, ZmNRT1.4B and ZmNRT1.5B were all very low (Fig. S5), whereas ZmNRT1.1C was undetectable.

The transcript levels of ZmNRT3.1A were 20–100-fold lower than those of ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2, but showed the same increase in transcript abundance at 18 and 28 DAE (Fig. 5e). ZmNRT3.1A differs in that it also has a third large peak just before 40 DAE. This third peak showed little difference between the two inline image treatments. The profile of ZmNRT3.2 was more similar to those of ZmNRT2.1/2.2, but the levels were much lower and there were no treatment differences. Transcript levels of ZmNRT3.1B were very low (Fig. S5).

As was seen with plants maintained at constant concentrations, when plants were swapped between inline image treatments at days 15 and 22, the genes that showed the greatest response to N were ZmNRT2.1, ZmNRT2.2, ZmNRT2.5 and ZmNRT1.5a (Figs 6, S6). The patterns of response for ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 were very similar, with plants with increased inline image (N-inc) having lower transcript levels than plants with decreased inline image concentration (N-red).

image

Figure 6. Transcript levels of various putative high- and low-affinity (NRT1, NRT2 and NRT3) inline image transporters in roots of dwarf maize (Zea mays) Gaspe Flint plants grown at either 0.5 or 2.5 mM inline image and moved to increased (upper panel) or decreased (lower panel) inline imageconcentration at either day 15 or day 22 post-emergence. Each data point is normalized against control genes, as described in the text. Values are means ± SEM, = 4. Dashed lines without symbols are the transcript values of plants maintained with constant nitrate, as presented in Fig. 4.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The transcript profiles of these N-responsive genes were interesting in that, immediately after transfer to reduced inline image, transcript levels continued with the same trend as before the change in inline image, i.e. they kept decreasing, whereas, at the same time, there was a doubling in uptake capacity (Figs 4b, 6). By contrast, ZmNRT2.1, ZmNRT2.2, ZmNRT2.5 and ZmNRT1.5A all showed a peak in transcript level at day 25, a peak only previously seen in ZmNRT2.5. The transcript levels for ZmNRT2.5 were the most N responsive, with plants moved to higher inline image (N-inc) having no measurable transcripts, whereas those with decreased inline image (N-red) having similar peaks to those maintained at 0.5 mM inline image. ZmNRT1.5A, the only N-responsive ZmNRT1, again showed a major peak in transcript levels at day 25, but none at day 29.

Tissue inline image

Leaf inline image concentrations differed between inline image treatments (< 0.01). In general, leaves of 2.5-mM-treated plants had higher concentrations of inline image. At most time points, the trend in inline image concentration was mirrored between the two treatments, with the exception that leaf inline image in the 0.5-mM treatment was higher than that in the 2.5-mM treatment at 29 and 34 DAE. For both treatments, leaf inline image concentrations before anthesis remained high, but then dropped dramatically after 28 DAE (Fig. 7). There was a more consistent trend in root inline image, with 2.5-mM-treated roots often having higher levels than those exposed to 0.5 mM inline image. Over time, the root trend was similar between treatments in that, at 20 DAE, there was a doubling of root inline image in both treatments and, by 29 DAE, both treatments showed a major drop in root inline image. In the 0.5-mM-grown plants, there was a major spike in root inline image at day 39, a peak also seen in leaf inline image (Fig. 7).

image

Figure 7. Nitrate concentration in youngest collared leaf (a) and root (b) tissue of dwarf maize (Zea mays) Gaspe Flint plants grown at either 0.5 mM (open squares) or 2.5 mM (closed squares) inline image. The broken lines correspond to the maximum inline image uptake capacity as shown by the 15N unidirectional flux analysis (see Fig. 2). Values are means ± SEM, = 4. *Points significantly different between the two growth conditions (P < 0.05).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Amino acids

The free amino acid levels showed similar trends in the two inline image treatments (Fig. 8). Apart from the first measurement, where free amino acids in the shoots were very low, root amino acid levels were consistently lower than shoot levels, and this difference increased after day 30, when the shoot level increased but the root level remained the same. For the roots, there was an initial decrease, followed by a peak at 20 DAE, which was common to both treatments. In the shoots, the patterns were less consistent between treatments, with fluctuations showing little correlation.

image

Figure 8. Total free amino acid (AA) concentration in root (a) and youngest collared leaf (b) tissue of dwarf maize (Zea mays) Gaspe Flint plants grown at either 0.5 mM (open squares) or 2.5 mM (closed squares) inline image. The broken lines correspond to the maximum inline image uptake capacity, as shown by the 15N unidirectional flux analysis (see Fig. 2). Values are means ± SEM, = 4. *Points significantly different between the two growth conditions (P < 0.05).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Across the lifecycle of Gaspe Flint, inline image uptake capacity changed c. 10-fold irrespective of external N availability. This change was characterized by distinct peaks and troughs in inline image uptake capacity, with a general trend towards decreased inline image uptake capacity as plants grew to maturity, but correlation with plant N demand (Figs 2, 3). There was also clear evidence that inline image uptake responded positively to reduced N supply, with increased inline image uptake capacity in the lower N treatment (Fig. 2). The transcript profiles of the NRTs suggested that changes in uptake capacity, in response to inline image supply and demand, were linked to changes in expression of the putative high-affinity NRTs ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2. Their expression profiles, in response to N supply and time, provided strong correlative evidence of their in planta roles in inline image uptake. When N supply was varied (N-inc or N-red), the commonality in change to ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 transcript levels and associated change in inline image flux capacity further supported this role. We believe that the highly dynamic nature of N acquisition displayed here and the strong relationship to N provision provide new insights into the regulation of inline image uptake which may lead to the manipulation of N uptake efficiency and, ultimately, NUE in plants.

inline image uptake capacity responding to demand

The inline image uptake capacity was extremely variable across the lifecycle. It has long been suggested that the growth rate determines the N uptake rate (Clement et al., 1978; Lemaire & Salette, 1984; Clarkson et al., 1986). The data presented here support this hypothesis, with the relative differences in growth rate between shoots and roots leading to variability in N demand and changes in inline image uptake capacity (Figs 1, 3). In both treatments, we showed that inline image uptake capacity increased with peaks in shoot growth and, consequently, N demand, but also decreased rapidly when shoot growth decreased, creating a characteristic trough in inline image uptake capacity (Figs 1, 3). We propose that, during this period, the plants grown in 0.5 mM inline image were responding to N limitation and it was plasticity in inline image uptake capacity (HATS) that allowed sufficient N uptake to match the growth rate of the plants grown in 2.5 mM inline image. This plasticity is highlighted by the rapid changes in inline image uptake capacity observed in plants that were changed between inline image treatments.

The manner in which inline image uptake capacity changes in plants with a sustained reduction in the availability of N remains unclear. Most of the literature presents responses in uptake capacity when N is resupplied to plants after a period of reduced N availability, normally resulting in a transient increase in measured inline image uptake capacity (Lee, 1982; Lee & Drew, 1986; Lee & Rudge, 1986; Morgan & Jackson, 1988; Siddiqi et al., 1989). Indeed, there are few results in the literature with which to compare these lifecycle variations in uptake capacity. The work of Malagoli et al. (2004) with oilseed rape is closest in terms of measuring the uptake capacity over the lifecycle. Similar to this study, a spike in inline image uptake capacity was observed corresponding to the time of flowering; however, earlier changes in inline image flux capacity (as observed in the study) were not measured.

Transcript levels of ZmNRTs

The measurement of unidirectional inline image influx at 50 and 250 μM was chosen to describe the uptake capacity of the inline image HATS. Based on reliable estimates from the literature, the inline image HATS for most plants are saturated at c. 250 μM (Siddiqi et al., 1990; Kronzucker et al., 1995; Garnett et al., 2003). Given the relatively high inline image concentrations, at least in the 2.5-mM treatment, which were well above the point at which HATS would be saturated, it was anticipated that LATS would be responsible for much of the uptake. We also expected that there would be little variability in HATS activity based on the steady-state conditions in which we grew the plants, where constitutive HATS (cHATS) activity would be predicted to dominate, and induced HATS (iHATS) would be repressed after continued exposure to inline image. However, this was not the case in either treatment, as evidenced by the influx analysis described above, and in the expression patterns of the NRT gene families, where the inline image HATS responded intimately to inline image supply and demand.

Previous evidence has suggested that HATS transcript levels are generally negatively regulated when N levels are high (e.g. 0.5–2.5 mM inline image) (Filleur et al., 2001; Okamoto et al., 2003, 2006; Santi et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2009). However, in this study, we found the opposite, where the baseline transcript levels of ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 were generally much higher than for any of the other transporters, regardless of the external N supply. Following the paradigm suggested by Glass (2003), the role of the HATS system is to acquire inline image only when soil solution concentrations are low, well below the consistent levels of 0.5 or 2.5 mM used here. However, the high abundance of ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 transcripts, independent of the external N supply, suggests alternative roles for these gene products.

The high level of transcripts of the two putative HATS (ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2) contrasts with the low transcript levels observed for the putative LATS, the ZmNRT1s, across the lifecycle. Despite differences in the abundance of LATS and HATS transcripts, there were some parallels in the expression patterns, particularly during the initial peak in inline image uptake capacity (Figs 5, S5). These data support previous reports (Ho et al., 2009) of a possible link between NRT1 and NRT2 transport systems, although, in maize, the relationship may only extend to the early vegetative stage in which inline image uptake capacity is at its maximum. Although the transcript levels of ZmNRT2.5 were very low, the observation that transcripts were only detected in the reduced inline image treatment suggests that this putative transporter may play an important role in low N responses.

The delivery of inline image into the xylem in Arabidopsis has been suggested to involve the NRT AtNRT1.5 (Lin et al. 2008). Unlike other ZmNRT1 genes, ZmNRT1.5A showed a similar transcript profile to ZmNRT2.1/2.2 and was responsive to the 0.5-mM treatment, this being consistent with a possible role in loading inline image into the xylem in maize.

The transcript levels of ZmNRT3.1A were closest in terms of absolute levels to ZmNRT2.1/2.2. There is good evidence that AtNRT3.1 is essential to the function of the AtNRT2s (Okamoto et al., 2006; Orsel et al., 2006; Wirth et al., 2007). Based on transcript levels and the similarity in pattern across the lifecycle, this would also seem to be true for the maize homologues.

The regulation of inline image uptake capacity

There is a correlation between the inline image uptake capacity of HATS and the transcript levels of both ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2. This has been found in plants other than maize, and has been proposed as evidence of the involvement of NRT2s in inline image uptake (Forde & Clarkson, 1999; Lejay et al., 1999; Zhuo et al., 1999; Okamoto et al., 2003). Combined with the impairment of inline image uptake associated with reduced transcript levels in Arabidopsis AtNRT2.1 and AtNRT2.2 knockout mutants (Filleur et al., 2001), this led to the proposal that uptake via AtNRT2.1 and AtNRT2.2 is regulated at the transcriptional level. However, transcript levels may not equate to levels of functional protein. Wirth et al. (2007) suggested that the NRT2s in Arabidopsis are long-lived proteins, and showed that the level of AtNRT2.1 protein was independent of transcript level or changes in uptake capacity, suggesting that there is considerable post-translational control of NRT2-mediated inline image uptake.

The results presented here are compatible with a model that combines both transcriptional and post-translational control of inline image uptake capacity (Fig. 9). In this model, the total concentration of ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 protein is predicted to be proportional to the sum of the ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 transcript levels at any given day plus, based on an estimated protein lifespan of NRT2 proteins of c. 5 d (Wirth et al., 2007), the sum of the transcript levels for the previous 4 d. This 5-d lifespan is based on Wirth et al. (2007), but estimates with a range of lifespans are shown in Fig. S7. This estimated protein concentration represents the maximal uptake capacity of NRT2.1 and 2.2 at a given day, the actual uptake capacity being dependent on the amount of post-translational inhibition, which could be through allosteric inhibition, phosphorylation or, given the results of Yong et al. (2010), perhaps a result of NRT2/NRT3(NAR2) complexes being removed from the plasma membrane.

image

Figure 9. Predicted ZmNRT2.1/2.2 protein levels based on a protein lifespan of 5 d, and estimated as the sum of ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 transcripts at day x and those of the four previous days, in dwarf maize (Zea mays) Gaspe Flint plants grown at either (a) 0.5 mM or (b) 2.5 mM inline image. Transcript levels are the summed ZmNRT2.1 and ZmNRT2.2 transcripts that were present individually in Fig. 4(a), and the flux capacity is as presented in Fig. 2(a). (b) includes the flux capacity for plants grown at 0.5 mM inline image, but then moved to 2.5 mM inline image at day 15, as presented in Fig. 4(b).

Download figure to PowerPoint

As presented in Fig. 9, this model predicts that, up to day 15, the inline image uptake capacity is equal to the potential uptake capacity, after which the actual uptake capacity measured is then reduced and becomes less than the potential uptake capacity. At day 22, the measured uptake capacity increases through the utilization of the potential uptake capacity without a transcriptional response. This changes at day 27 where, based on our model, the NRT2 protein levels are insufficient to provide the required uptake capacity, this leading to the transcriptional peak observed at day 29. In terms of the plants moved from 2.5 to 0.5 mM inline image at day 15, the initial increase in uptake capacity seen at day 18 in Figs 4(b), 9(b) would be the result of a release of post-translational inhibition, and hence increased uptake capacity without a comparable increase in transcript levels (Fig. 6). The peak in NRT2.1 transcript levels at day 25 would be caused by the number of NRT2.1 proteins in these plants previously exposed to a much higher inline image concentration not providing sufficient uptake capacity, even with no post-translational inhibition. This model predicts that transcription will provide the long-term regulation of inline image uptake capacity, with short-term uptake capacity regulated via the post-translational regulation of the existing transport capacity, this short-term regulation being important for N homeostasis.

The current model of the regulation of inline image uptake by the plant N status (tissue concentration of inline image itself or a downstream assimilate, such as amino acids) has been described in numerous reviews (Cooper & Clarkson, 1989; Imsande & Touraine, 1994; Forde, 2002; Miller et al., 2008; Gojon et al., 2009). The two-component model of inline image uptake capacity regulation described above requires two triggers in its regulation, one a transcriptional trigger and another that determines the extent of post-translational inhibition. Given the major drop in transcript levels beginning at day 18 until day 22, it may be that the trigger for the transcriptional response is the root amino acid/inline image level, which increases and reaches a peak at day 22 (Figs 7, 8). The decrease in uptake capacity beginning at day 15, which we propose is caused by an increase in post-translational inhibition, could be triggered by shoot amino acid/inline image levels which peak at this point.

NUE increases through increased uptake capacity with reduced N availability

The results provide clear evidence that inline image uptake capacity in maize changes dynamically across the developmental growth cycle in response to changes in demand. As suggested previously (Filleur et al., 2001; Okamoto et al., 2003, 2006; Santi et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2009), inline image uptake capacity is highly responsive to N availability and NRT2.1 and NRT2.2 transcription is most likely linked to this response. The focus of future work will be to analyse NRT protein levels, global gene expression and metabolite concentrations at key points of the lifecycle with the aim of gaining a better understanding of how inline image transport is regulated. Such knowledge may benefit programmes directed at increasing NUE and, more specifically, N uptake efficiency in maize.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance of Stephanie Feakin and Jaskaranbir Kaur, and Steve Tyerman for critical reading of the manuscript. This project was funded by the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, DuPont Pioneer, Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (LP0776635) to B.N.K., M.T. (University of Adelaide) A.R. and K.D. (DuPont Pioneer).

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
  • Aslam M, Travis RL, Huffaker RC. 1993. Comparative induction of nitrate and nitrite uptake and reduction systems by ambient nitrate and nitrite in intact roots of barley (Hordeum vulgare L) seedlings. Plant Physiology 102: 811819.
  • Boughton BA, Callahan DL, Silva C, Bowne J, Nahid A, Rupasinghe T, Tull DL, McConville MJ, Bacic A, Roessner U. 2011. Comprehensive profiling and quantitation of amine group containing metabolites. Analytical Chemistry 83: 75237530.
  • Burton RA, Jobling SA, Harvey AJ, Shirley NJ, Mather DE, Bacic A, Fincher GB. 2008. The genetics and transcriptional profiles of the cellulose synthase-like HvCslF gene family in barley. Plant Physiology 146: 18211833.
  • Burton RA, Shirley NJ, King BJ, Harvey AJ, Fincher GB. 2004. The CesA gene family of barley. Quantitative analysis of transcripts reveals two groups of co-expressed genes. Plant Physiology 134: 224236.
  • Clarkson DT, Gojon A, Saker LR, Wiersema PK, Purves JV, Tillard P, Arnold GM, Paans AJM, Vaalburg W, Stulen I. 1996. Nitrate and ammonium influxes in soybean (Glycine max) roots –direct comparison of N-13 and N-15 tracing. Plant, Cell & Environment 19: 859868.
  • Clarkson DT, Hopper MJ, Jones LHP. 1986. The effect of root temperature on the uptake of nitrogen and the relative size of the root system in Lolium perenne. I. Solutions containing both NH4+ and NO3. Plant, Cell & Environment 9: 535545.
  • Clement CR, Hopper MJ, Jones LHP. 1978. The uptake of nitrate by Lolium perenne from flowing culture solution. I. Effect of NO3 concentration. Journal of Experimental Botany 29: 453464.
  • Cohen SA, Michaud DP. 1993. Synthesis of a fluorescent derivatizing reagent, 6-aminoquinolyl-n-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate, and its application for the analysis of hydrolysate amino acids via high-performance liquid chromatography. Analytical Biochemistry 211: 279287.
  • Cooper HD, Clarkson DT. 1989. Cycling of amino-nitrogen and other nutrients between shoots and roots in cereals – a possible mechanism for integrating shoot and root in the regulation of nutrient uptake. Journal of Experimental Botany 40: 753762.
  • Dhugga KS, Waines JG. 1989. Analysis of nitrogen accumulation and use in bread and durum-wheat. Crop Science 29: 12321239.
  • FAO. 2006. Fertilizer use by crop. FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
  • Filleur S, Dorbe MF, Cerezo M, Orsel M, Granier F, Gojon A, Daniel-Vedele F. 2001. An Arabidopsis T-DNA mutant affected in Nrt2 genes is impaired in nitrate uptake. FEBS Letters 489: 220224.
  • Forde BG. 2002. Local and long-range signalling pathways regulating plant responses to nitrate. Annual Reviews of Plant Biology 53: 203224.
  • Forde BG, Clarkson DT. 1999. Nitrate and ammonium nutrition of plants: physiological and molecular perspectives. Advances in Botanical Research, 30: 190.
  • Garnett TP, Shabala SN, Smethurst PJ, Newman IA. 2003. Kinetics of ammonium and nitrate uptake by eucalypt roots and associated proton fluxes measured using ion selective microelectrodes. Functional Plant Biology 30: 11651176.
  • Glass ADM. 2003. Nitrogen use efficiency of crop plants: physiological constraints upon nitrogen absorption. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 22: 453470.
  • Gojon A, Nacry P, Davidian JC. 2009. Root uptake regulation: a central process for NPS homeostasis in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 12: 328338.
  • Good AG, Shrawat AK, Muench DG. 2004. Can less yield more? Is reducing nutrient input into the environment compatible with maintaining crop production? Trends In Plant Science 9: 597605.
  • Goyal SS, Huffaker RC. 1986. The uptake of NO3, NO2, and NH4+ by intact wheat (Triticum aestivum) seedlings. I. Induction and kinetics of transport systems. Plant Physiology 82: 10511056.
  • Guo FQ, Wang R, Chen M, Crawford NM. 2001. The Arabidopsis dual-affinity nitrate transporter gene AtNRT1.1 (CHL1) is activated and functions in nascent organ development during vegetative and reproductive growth. Plant Cell 13: 17611777.
  • Henriksen GH, Spanswick RM. 1993. Investigation of the apparent Induction of nitrate uptake in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) using NO3 selective microelectrodes – modulation of coarse regulation of NO3 uptake by exogenous application of downstream metabolites in the NO3 assimilatory pathway. Plant Physiology 103: 885892.
  • Ho CH, Lin SH, Hu HC, Tsay YF. 2009. CHL1 functions as a nitrate sensor in plants. Cell 138: 11841194.
  • Hourcade DE, Bugg M, Loussaert DF 1986. The use of Gaspe variety for the study of pollen and anther development of maize (Zea mays). In: Mulcahy DL, Mulcahy GB, Ottaviano E, eds. Biotechnology and ecology of pollen. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag, 319324.
  • Huang NC, Liu KH, Lo HJ, Tsay YF. 1999. Cloning and functional characterization of an Arabidopsis nitrate transporter gene that encodes a constitutive component of low-affinity uptake. Plant Cell 11: 13811392.
  • Imsande J, Touraine B. 1994. N demand and the regulation of nitrate uptake. Plant Physiology 105: 37.
  • Jackson WA, Flesher D, Hageman RH. 1973. Nitrate uptake by dark-grown corn seedlings. Some characteristics of the apparent induction. Plant Physiology 51: 120127.
  • Johnson CM, Stout PR, Brewer TC, Carlton AB. 1957. Comparative chlorine requirements of different plant species. Plant and Soil 8: 337353.
  • Kronzucker HJ, Siddiqi MY, Glass ADM. 1995. Kinetics of NO3 influx in spruce. Plant Physiology 109: 319326.
  • Lee RB. 1982. Selectivity and kinetics of ion uptake by barley plants following nutrient deficiency. Annals of Botany 50: 429449.
  • Lee RB, Drew MC. 1986. Nitrogen-13 studies of nitrate fluxes in barley roots. II. Effect of plant N-status on the kinetic parameters of nitrate influx. Journal of Experimental Botany 37: 17681779.
  • Lee RB, Rudge KA. 1986. Effects of nitrogen deficiency on the absorption of nitrate and ammonium by barley plants. Annals of Botany 57: 471486.
  • Lejay L, Tillard P, Lepetit M, Olive F, Filleur S, Daniel-Vedele F, Gojon A. 1999. Molecular and functional regulation of two NO3 uptake systems by N- and C-status of Arabidopsis plants. Plant Journal 18: 509519.
  • Lemaire G, Salette J. 1984. Relationship between growth and nitrogen uptake in a pure grass stand. 1. Environmental-effects. Agronomie 4: 423430.
  • Lin SH, Kuo HF, Canivenc G, Lin CS, Lepetit M, Hsu PK, Tillard P, Lin HL, Wang YY, Tsai CB, Gojon A, Tsay YF. 2008. Mutation of the Arabidopsis NRT1.5 nitrate transporter causes defective root-to-shoot nitrate transport. Plant Cell 20: 25142528.
  • Liu JX, Chen FJ, Olokhnuud C, Glass ADM, Tong YP, Zhang FS, Mi GH. 2009. Root size and nitrogen-uptake activity in two maize (Zea mays) inbred lines differing in nitrogen-use efficiency. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science-Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenernahrung und Bodenkunde 172: 230236.
  • Liu KH, Huang CY, Tsay YF. 1999. CHL1 is a dual-affinity nitrate transporter of Arabidopsis involved in multiple phases of nitrate uptake. Plant Cell 11: 865874.
  • Malagoli P, Laine P, Le Deunff E, Rossato L, Ney B, Ourry A. 2004. Modeling nitrogen uptake in oilseed rape cv Capitol during a growth cycle using influx kinetics of root nitrate transport systems and field experimental data. Plant Physiology 134: 388400.
  • Miller AJ, Fan XR, Orsel M, Smith SJ, Wells DM. 2007. Nitrate transport and signalling. Journal of Experimental Botany 58: 22972306.
  • Miller AJ, Fan XR, Shen QR, Smith SJ. 2008. Amino acids and nitrate as signals for the regulation of nitrogen acquisition. Journal of Experimental Botany 59: 111119.
  • Minotti PL, Williams DC, Jackson WA. 1969. Nitrate uptake by wheat as influenced by ammonium and other cations. Crop Science 9: 914.
  • Moll RH, Kamprath EJ, Jackson WA. 1982. Analysis and interpretation of factors which contribute to efficiency of nitrogen-utilization. Agronomy Journal 74: 562564.
  • Morgan MA, Jackson WA. 1988. Inward and outward movement of ammonium in root systems: transient responses during recovery from nitrogen deprivation in presence of ammonium. Journal of Experimental Botany 39: 179191.
  • Nazoa P, Vidmar JJ, Tranbarger TJ, Mouline K, Damiani I, Tillard P, Zhuo DG, Glass ADM, Touraine B. 2003. Regulation of the nitrate transporter gene AtNRT2.1 in Arabidopsis thaliana: responses to nitrate, amino acids and developmental stage. Plant Molecular Biology 52: 689703.
  • Okamoto M, Kumar A, Li W, Wang Y, Siddiqi MY, Crawford NM, Glass ADM. 2006. High-affinity nitrate transport in roots of Arabidopsis depends on expression of the NAR2-like gene AtNRT3.1. Plant Physiology 140: 10361046.
  • Okamoto M, Vidmar JJ, Glass ADM. 2003. Regulation of NRT1 and NRT2 gene families of Arabidopsis thaliana: responses to nitrate provision. Plant and Cell Physiology 44: 304317.
  • Orsel M, Chopin F, Leleu O, Smith SJ, Krapp A, Daniel-Vedele F, Miller AJ. 2006. Characterization of a two-component high-affinity nitrate uptake system in Arabidopsis. Physiology and protein–protein interaction. Plant Physiology 142: 13041317.
  • Peoples MB, Mosier AR, Freney JR. 1995. Minimizing gaseous losses of nitrogen. In: Bacon PE, ed. Nitrogen fertilization in the environment. New York, NY, USA: Marcel Dekker, 505602.
  • Plett D, Toubia J, Garnett T, Tester M, Kaiser BN, Baumann U. 2010. Dichotomy in the NRT gene families of dicots and grass species. PLoS ONE 5: e15289.
  • Rayment GE, Higginson FR. 1992. Australian laboratory handbook of soil and water chemical methods. Melbourne, Vic., Australia: Inkata.
  • Redinbaugh MG, Campbell WH. 1993. Glutamine synthetase and ferredoxin-dependent glutamate synthase expression in the maize (Zea mays) root primary response to nitrate (evidence for an organ-specific response). Plant Physiology 101: 12491255.
  • Remans T, Nacry P, Pervent M, Girin T, Tillard P, Lepetit M, Gojon A. 2006. A central role for the nitrate transporter NRT2.1 in the integrated morphological and physiological responses of the root system to nitrogen limitation in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 140: 909921.
  • Reuter DJ, Robinson JB. 1997. Plant analysis: an interpretation manual. Melbourne, Vic., Australia: CSIRO.
  • Santi S, Locci G, Monte R, Pinton R, Varanini Z. 2003. Induction of nitrate uptake in maize roots: expression of a putative high-affinity nitrate transporter and plasma membrane H+-ATPase isoforms. Journal of Experimental Botany 54: 18511864.
  • Siddiqi MY, Glass ADM, Ruth TJ, Fernando M. 1989. Studies of the regulation of nitrate influx by barley seedlings using 13NO3. Plant Physiology 90: 806813.
  • Siddiqi MY, Glass ADM, Ruth TJ, Rufty TW. 1990. Studies on the uptake of nitrate in barley. 1. Kinetics of 13NO3 influx. Plant Physiology 93: 14261432.
  • Sylvester-Bradley R, Kindred DR. 2009. Analysing nitrogen responses of cereals to prioritize routes to the improvement of nitrogen use efficiency. Journal of Experimental Botany 60: 19391951.
  • Tsay Y-F, Chiu C-C, Tsai C-B, Ho C-H, Hsu P-K. 2007. Nitrate transporters and peptide transporters. FEBS Letters 581: 22902300.
  • Vandesompele J, De Preter K, Pattyn F, Poppe B, Van Roy N, De Paepe A, Speleman F. 2002. Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biology 3: RESEARCH0034.
  • Wirth J, Chopin F, Santoni V, Viennois G, Tillard P, Krapp A, Lejay L, Daniel-Vedele F, Gojon A. 2007. Regulation of root nitrate uptake at the NRT2.1 protein level in Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Biological Chemistry 282: 2354123552.
  • Wolt JD. 1994. Soil solution chemistry: applications to environmental science and agriculture. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
  • Yong ZH, Kotur Z, Glass ADM. 2010. Characterization of an intact two-component high-affinity nitrate transporter from Arabidopsis roots. Plant Journal 63: 739748.
  • Zhuo DG, Okamoto M, Vidmar JJ, Glass ADM. 1999. Regulation of a putative high-affinity nitrate transporter (Nrt2;1At) in roots of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Journal 17: 563568.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the New Phytologist Central Office.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
nph12166-sup-0001-TableS1-S2-FigS1-S7.pdfapplication/PDF2478K

Fig. S1 Root and shoot dry weights of Gaspe Flint plants grown in hydroponics for 3 wk at a range of inline image concentrations.

Fig. S2 Growth of Gaspe Flint plants across the lifecycle.

Fig. S3 Functions used to fit biomass data.

Fig. S4 Unidirectional inline image flux of low-affinity (LATS) and high-affinity (HATS) transporters measured on Gaspe Flint maize plants.

Fig. S5 Root transcript levels of various putative low-affinity (NRT1 and NRT3) inline image transporters throughout the lifecycle of Gaspe Flint plants.

Fig. S6 Transcript levels of various putative high- and low-affinity inline image transporters in the roots of Gaspe Flint plants exposed to changing N levels.

Fig. S7 Predicted ZmNRT2.1 protein levels.

Table S1 Real-time quantitative PCR (Q-PCR) primers for the assay of maize gene expression, together with the Q-PCR product size (bp)

Table S2 Collection of fitting functions and associated parameters used in the modelling of shoot and root growth and shoot nitrogen content