Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Aquaporins in Coffea arabica L.: identification, expression, and impacts on plant water
relations and hydraulics
Matilda Miniussi, Lorenzo Del Terra, Tadeja Savi, Alberto Pallavicini, Andrea Nardini
PII:
S0981-9428(15)30070-X
DOI:
10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.07.024
Reference:
PLAPHY 4242
To appear in:
Please cite this article as: M. Miniussi, L. Del Terra, T. Savi, A. Pallavicini, A. Nardini, Aquaporins in
Coffea arabica L.: identification, expression, and impacts on plant water relations and hydraulics, Plant
Physiology et Biochemistry (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.07.024.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
3
4
Matilda MINIUSSI1, Lorenzo DEL TERRA2, Tadeja SAVI1, Alberto PALLAVICINI1*, Andrea
NARDINI1*
RI
PT
6
1. Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita, Universit di Trieste, Via L. Giorgieri 10, 34127 Trieste, Italy
9
10
* Corresponding authors:
11
12
13
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
AC
C
14
SC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15
Abstract
16
Plant aquaporins (AQPs) are involved in the transport of water and other small solutes across cell
18
membranes, and thus play major roles in the regulation of plant water balance and transport, as well as
19
in growth regulation and response to abiotic stress factors. Limited information is currently available
20
about the presence and role of AQPs in Coffea arabica L., despite the economic importance of the
21
species and its vulnerability to drought stress. We identified candidate AQP genes by screening a
22
23
24
thaliana and Solanum tuberosum allowed to assign the putative coffee AQP sequences to the Tonoplast
25
(TIP) and Plasma membrane (PIP) subfamilies. The possible functional role of coffee AQPs was
26
explored by measuring hydraulic conductance and aquaporin gene expression on leaf and root tissues
27
of two-year-old plants (C. arabica cv. Pacamara) subjected to different experimental conditions. In a
28
first experiment, we tested plants for root and leaf hydraulic conductance both before dawn and at
29
mid-day, to check the eventual impact of light on AQP activity and plant hydraulics. In a second
30
experiment, we measured plant hydraulic responses to different water stress levels as eventually
31
affected by changes in AQPs expression levels. Our results shed light on the possible roles of AQPs in
32
the regulation of C. arabica hydraulics and water balance, opening promising research lines to
33
improve the sustainability of coffee cultivation under global climate change scenarios.
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
17
EP
AC
C
35
TE
D
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
36
1. Introduction
37
Coffee is one of the worlds most valuable agricultural export commodities (Talbot 2004). About 60%
39
of global coffee production is represented by Coffea arabica L., the remaining being largely accounted
40
for by C. canephora Pierre (DaMatta 2004). Global agriculture has been suffering from increasing air
41
temperatures and anomalous drought episodes over the last decades. In particular, coffee yield is
42
considered at risk due to negative effects of increasing temperatures and decreasing rainfall, further
43
complicated by additional negative factors such as the low genetic diversity of cultivated plants, and
44
the increasing deforestation rates of the areas of greater natural diversity of wild coffee species
45
(Labouisse et al. 2008). In a recent study, Davis et al. (2012) modelled the present and future predicted
46
distribution of C. arabica in Ethiopia. The most favourable outcome of this modelling effort was a
47
predicted 38% reduction of suitable bioclimatic areas for coffee growth and persistence by 2080, with
48
the worst scenario suggesting a dramatic 90% reduction. On this basis, it has been suggested that C.
49
arabica is a species facing a serious risk of local decline in a global climate change scenario.
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
38
The impact of climate change on coffee production portends economical and social effects that
51
cannot be underestimated. Rising temperatures and unpredictable weather events played a major role
52
in the recent dynamics of the coffee market. For example, between 2008 and 2009 the Colombian
53
harvest dramatically fell from about 12 million 60-kg bags to around 8 millions bags, an abrupt
54
decrease of about 35% from the worlds second-largest C. arabica producing country (www.ico.org).
55
Moreover, in 2014 Brazil - the world's largest coffee producer - has experienced an unprecedented
56
TE
D
50
Drought stress is one of the most important limiting factors for coffee productivity, in that it
58
directly impacts plant growth and has important effects on flower and seed production (DaMatta and
59
Ramalho 2006). Stomatal closure is one of the first physiological responses to drought stress (Da
60
Matta 2004), leading to transient limitations of photosynthesis and productivity (Da Matta et al. 1997),
61
but intense or prolonged drought can severely impair water and carbon metabolism of plants up to
62
death (Sevanto et al. 2014). Several studies have addressed possible morphological features and
63
64
These include changes in plant hydraulic efficiency and safety (Tausend et al. 2000; Pinheiro et al.
65
2005; Nardini et al. 2014), osmoregulation processes (DaMatta et al. 2003; Dias et al. 2007),
66
hormones production and accumulation (Marraccini et al. 2012), and protection against oxidative
67
AC
C
EP
57
68
Several plant physiological responses to water stress are controlled at the molecular level by a
69
specific family of membrane channel proteins known as aquaporins (Johanson et al. 2001;
70
Alexandersson et al. 2005; Maurel et al. 2008; Ayadi et al. 2011). These proteins facilitate the transport
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of water and other small solutes, including CO2, across cell membranes (Li et al. 2014). Data gathered
72
over the last two decades suggest that plant aquaporins play a central role in several physiological
73
processes, including regulation of plant water balance (Kaldenhoff et al. 2008), stomatal movements
74
(Heinen et al. 2009), modulation of root and leaf hydraulic conductance (Lovisolo et al. 2007;
75
McElrone et al. 2007; Hachez et al. 2008; Heinen et al. 2009), xylem embolism repair (Secchi and
76
Zwieniecki 2014), cell elongation (Besse et al. 2011) and maintenance of cell turgor (Martre et al.
77
2002). In turn, all these physiological processes and responses are affected by environmental factors,
78
among which light is one of the most important. In fact, close relationships between light and
79
aquaporin expression levels have been shown to underlie diurnal changes in some physiological
80
parameters like leaf and root hydraulic conductance (Henzler et al. 1999; Nardini et al. 2005b; Lopez
81
SC
RI
PT
71
Aquaporins are members of a large superfamily of conserved proteins called major intrinsic
83
proteins (MIPs). Their distribution and diversity greatly varies among different organisms (Venkatesh
84
et al. 2013), and in plants the number of known aquaporins is apparently larger than in other taxa (e.g.
85
at least three times more abundant than in mammals). For example, 35 aquaporin isoforms have been
86
identified in Arabidopsis thaliana (Johanson et al. 2001), while 31 are known in Zea mays (Chaumont
87
et al. 2001) and 41 in Solanum tuberosum (Venkatesh et al. 2013). Based on the sequence homology
88
and subcellular localization, aquaporins are classified into five subfamilies i.e. plasma membrane
89
intrinsic protein (PIP), tonoplast intrinsic protein (TIP), NOD26-like intrinsic protein (NIP), small
90
intrinsic protein (SIP) and X-intrinsic protein (XIP) (Kaldenhoff and Fischer 2006; Sade et al. 2009).
91
All MIPs have a highly conserved structure, consisting of tandem repeats of three membrane-spanning
92
93
alanine (NPA) motif. The overlap of the NPA motifs inside the lipid bilayer forms one of the two
94
channel constrictions sites involved in proton exclusion and channel transport activity, with a second
95
stage being provided by conserved aromatic/arginine (ar/R) regions that operate as a proton filter.
96
Variability at this site is thought to form the basis of the broad spectrum of solute transport specificity
97
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
82
98
Despite their predictable importance in regulating the water balance of coffee plants, there is
99
presently very limited information about the aquaporin gene superfamily in the genus Coffea (Santos
100
and Mazzafera 2013), and no information at all about relationships between aquaporin expression and
101
plant hydraulics in this genus. This knowledge gap is remarkable, taking into account the importance
102
of these proteins in plant physiological processes which are expected to influence coffee production,
103
including drought stress tolerance and responses to climate changes (Martnez-Ballesta et al. 2009).
104
The present study is thus aimed at gathering new data on the presence, abundance and possible
105
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
106
We specifically aimed at testing the following hypotheses: 1) different aquaporin isoforms can
107
be identified in C. arabica, and their expression levels are a function of physiological and
108
environmental conditions; 2) circadian rhythms and/or changes in light levels induce up-regulation of
109
aquaporins, resulting in increased plant hydraulic conductance; 3) drought stress induces changes in
110
the expression levels of different aquaporins, with consequent impacts on leaf and root hydraulics.
112
113
RI
PT
111
114
115
Full length aquaporin sequences from several Nicotiana species were isolated from Swissprot and
116
117
118
(QIAGEN Company) to identify a common conserved region, corresponding to the pore region. This
119
region was used to design a probe (ISGGHINPAVTFGL) for the identification of putative aquaporin
120
sequences in the C. arabica transcriptome (De Nardi et al. 2006; Viera and Andrade 2006) using
121
protein
sequences
were
aligned
with
Muscle
software
M
AN
U
SC
50
122
2.2 Phylogenetic analysis
124
125
tuberosum (Venkatesh et al. 2013), and the putative C. arabica aquaporin sequences were aligned with
126
Muscle algorithm and a phylogenetic tree was inferred by using the Maximum Likelihood method and
127
the LG model. Maximum Likelihood fits of 48 different amino acid substitution models was initially
128
performed. Initial tree for the heuristic search were obtained by applying the Neighbor-Joining method
129
to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using a JTT model. A discrete Gamma distribution was
130
used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (5 categories). All positions with less than
131
95% site coverage were eliminated for a total of 202 positions. The tree was supported by 1000
132
Bootstrap resampling cycles. All the above analysis was conducted with MEGA software version 6.05.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
123
133
134
135
The plants used in this study were two-year-old specimens of Coffea arabica L. cv Pacamara, grown
136
in 1.75 liters pots filled with a professional substrate (GEOTEC BRILL, Bolzano, Italy). Plants were
137
grown in the tropical greenhouse at the Dept. of Life Sciences of the University of Trieste, Italy. The
138
plants were irrigated daily to field capacity, except during the drought experiment when irrigation was
139
partially reduced for some experimental groups (see below). During the experiments, midday air
140
temperature in the greenhouse was 23.4 4.6C, relative humidity was 67 13% and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
141
photosynthetically active radiation ranged between 420 and 530 mol m-2 s-1. Vapour pressure deficit
142
143
2.4 Experimental treatments
145
In May 2013, 60 plants with an height of 20 3 cm were randomly selected and assigned to two
146
groups for different experimental treatments. A group of 15 plants was maintained under optimal water
147
availability by daily irrigating the pots to field capacity. These plants were used to investigate the
148
influence of daily changes in light intensity on aquaporin expression and physiological parameters
149
related to hydraulic efficiency (see below). Measurements of physiological parameters and the
150
extraction of total RNA from leaf and root tissue were made either before dawn (between 05.30 and
151
06.30) and at midday (between 11.00 and 13.00) during 5 consecutive days in June 2013.
SC
RI
PT
144
The remaining 45 plants were subjected to a water stress experiment in July-August 2013.
153
These plants were further divided into three groups of 15 plants each. Daily plant transpiration was
154
initially measured by weighing all irrigated plants (under well watered conditions) before and after a
155
24 h time interval (without adding water). Average daily water loss was 50 6 ml per plant. The plants
156
were then subjected to different treatments for the following two weeks. The control group was
157
irrigated daily with 100 ml of tap water (about two times the value of daily water transpiration) to
158
assure maintenance of saturated soil water content. The second plant group was subjected to a mild
159
water stress by irrigating plants with 25 ml of water every day, i.e. with an amount of water
160
corresponding to 50% of the daily transpiration of controls. The last group was subjected to a severe
161
water stress by irrigating plants with only 12.5 ml per day, i.e. 25% of the daily transpiration of
162
controls. These irrigation regimes were maintained for 21 days. At the end of the treatment,
163
physiological parameters and RNA extraction were conducted between 11.00 and 13.00 during five
164
consecutive days.
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
152
165
167
In the 'light' experiment performed in June 2013, leaf (KL) and root (KR) hydraulic conductance were
168
measured at pre-dawn and midday, in order to highlight eventual plant hydraulic responses to changes
169
in light intensity. In the 'water stress' experiment, the same physiological parameters were recorded
170
only at midday. Leaf conductance to water vapor (gL, mmol m-2 s-1) and leaf water potential (
171
were also measured during the 'water stress' experiment in a subset of five plants per treatments (two
172
leaves per plant). In particular, gL was measured using a steady-state porometer (SC-1 Leaf Porometer,
173
174
moisture mod. 3005, Soilmoisture Equipment Corp., Santa Barbara, CA,USA). Photosynthetically
175
active radiation at the time of measurements was also recorded using a quantum sensor (HD 9021,
AC
C
166
L,
MPa)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
176
Delta Ohm).
All hydraulic measurements were performed using a High Pressure Flow Meter (Tyree et al.
178
1995). Plants were transported to the laboratory and the pot was enclosed in a plastic bag secured with
179
tape to the base of the plant. The plant was then immersed in water and the shoot was detached 3-4 cm
180
above the soil. The shoot was kept with the cut end immersed in water, while the root system was
181
immediately connected to the HPFM using chromatography fittings. Root hydraulic conductance was
182
measured in the transient mode by rapidly increasing water pressure (P, from 0.01 to 0.4 MPa in 30 s)
183
and measuring the resulting flow rates (F) at 3 s intervals. KR was calculated on the basis of the slope
184
of the F to P relationship. Immediately after K measurement, roots were carefully excavated and
185
cleaned from soil particles under a gentle jet of water, and 1 g of non-suberized roots with diameter <
186
1 mm was collected for total RNA extraction (see below). At the same time, the shoot was connected
187
to the HPFM, and fully rehydrated by applying a P = 0.2 MPa for 5 min. Then, whole shoot hydraulic
188
conductance (Kshoot) was measured in the transient mode as described above. Finally, all leaves were
189
removed and stem hydraulic conductance (Kstem) was measured again in the transient mode. Leaf
190
hydraulic conductance (KL) was calculated as 1/KL = (1/Kshoot) (1/Kstem) (Tsuda and Tyree 2000).
191
Total leaf surface area (Aleaf) was measured by scanning the leaves and analyzing images using ImageJ
192
software. Moreover, 1 g of leaf tissue from the two most apical mature leaves was collected for RNA
193
194
HPFM) to take into account changes in water viscosity. All K values were normalized by Aleaf and
195
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
177
196
198
Total RNA was extracted from leaf and root samples using an adaptation of the CTAB protocol by
199
Chang et al. (1993). All extraction steps were the same as the reference method, except for the use of 8
200
M LiCl instead of 10 M LiCl, and the suspension of the pellet in 100 L of DEPC-treated H2O instead
201
of 500 L of SSTE. Total RNA was quantified with a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (Thermo
202
Scientific) and its quality and integrity were evaluated by two techniques: denaturing agarose gel
203
electrophoresis and 2100 Bioanalyzer Instrument (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Complementary
204
DNA was synthesized starting from 500 ng of total RNA in a volume of 20 l, using GoScript Reverse
205
Transcription System (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) plus random hexamers and oligo (dT) primers.
206
Before the quantitative gene expression analysis, primers specificity was tested through conventional
207
PCR on the leaf and root tissues. Successful amplification products were sent to BMR Genomics
208
(Padova, Italy) for Sanger sequencing. The resulting sequences were aligned with the original contigs
209
derived from the bioinformatic analysis, to verify the specificity of the primers. Quantitative PCR was
210
performed on a C1000 Thermal Cycler associated with a CFX 96 Real Time System (BioRad,
AC
C
EP
197
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hercules, CA, USA), using SsoAdvancedTM universal SYBR Green supermix (BioRad, Hercules, CA,
212
213
LinReg software (Ruijter et al. 2009, v. 11.0). Possible reference genes were evaluated with Bio-Rad
214
CFX Manager software version 3.1. Five possible reference genes were considered (GAPDH, S24,
215
UBQ10, 14-3-3 and Rpl7), and the best two were used simultaneously, to improve the reliability of the
216
analysis. Reference gene stability was evaluated by means of the CFX Manager software and
217
RefFinder online application (www.leonixie.com). GAPDH and S24 were selected as the best pair. In
218
addition, this pair was chosen because the two genes belong to two different metabolic pathways.
219
220
ribosomal protein.
RI
PT
211
SC
221
2.7 Statistical analysis
223
Data were analysed for statistical significance using SigmaStat 2.03. Statistically significant
224
differences were highlighted by ANOVA, whereas the significance of correlations was inferred
225
M
AN
U
222
226
227
3. Results
228
230
On the basis of the available databases of expressed sequences of C. arabica, the bioinformatic
231
analysis allowed us to identify five full-length and four partial cDNAs encoding putative aquaporins.
232
The predicted amino acid sequence of the coffee aquaporins and the known aquaporins sequences of
233
Arabidopsis thaliana and Solanum tuberosum were used to perform a phylogenetic analysis (Fig. 1).
234
Overall, the coffee aquaporins followed the phylogenetic pattern in a similar manner to their
235
Arabidopsis and Solanum counterparts, belonging to the same MIP superfamily. On the basis of the
236
phylogenetic analysis and amino acid sequence similarities, the coffee sequences were clustered into
237
two distinct families, PIP (comprising 4 transcripts) and TIP (5 sequences). The coffee PIP family was
238
further divided into two subfamilies, PIP1 (2 transcripts) and PIP2 (2 transcripts), while TIPs were
239
divided into three subfamilies i.e. TIP1 (3 transcripts), TIP2 (1 transcript), and TIP4 (1 transcript). A
240
systematic nomenclature was proposed for coffee aquaporins, and the proposed gene names, accession
241
numbers and subfamily classifications are summarized in Table 1. All selected sequences were aligned
242
and for each one, specific PCR primers were designed on the most conserved and represented areas
243
(Tab. 2).
AC
C
EP
TE
D
229
244
The end-point PCR analysis revealed a single band indicating successful and specific
245
amplification of the target sequence (data not shown). Only the PCR of the Ca-TIP1;3 gene did not
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
246
show any band, so this primer pair was discarded. Furthermore, CaTIP1;2 showed a single band in the
247
root sample, while no amplification was apparent in the leaf sample, indicating a possible tissue
248
specificity for the root. As a further control, the resulting sequences from Sanger sequencing of the
249
PCR amplification products were aligned with the original sequences, confirming that all primer
250
251
3.2 Physiological responses and aquaporin expression to light
253
In a first experiment, leaf and root hydraulic conductance values were measured at pre-dawn and
254
midday to highlight eventual daily and/or irradiance-induced changes in plant hydraulic properties. At
255
pre-dawn, photosynthetically active radiation in the greenhouse was less than 5 mol m-2 s-1, and
256
peaked to about 450 mol m-2 s-1 at midday. The KR and KL values recorded at the two daytimes are
257
reported in Fig. 2. Data analysis did not reveal any statistically significant differences between pre-
258
SC
RI
PT
252
Total RNA was extracted from root and leaf samples collected from the same plants used for
260
hydraulic measurements, and aquaporin expression was quantified. In a RT-qPCR assay using the
261
Cq method, it was possible to compare the expression levels of aquaporins at pre-dawn and midday.
262
The results are reported in Fig. 3. In root tissue (Fig. 3a), the expression levels of CaPIP1;1, CaPIP1;2,
263
CaTIP2;1, CaTIP1;2 were significantly higher at midday than at pre-dawn. At the leaf level (Fig. 3b),
264
the main differences in expression between pre-dawn and midday were observed for CaPIP2;1 that
265
decreased at midday compared to pre-dawn, and CaTIP4;1 that showed an opposite pattern.
TE
D
M
AN
U
259
266
3.3 Physiological responses and changes in aquaporin expression under water stress
268
In the water stress experiment, KL and KR (Fig. 4) were measured in three different plant groups i.e.
269
well-irrigated controls (100) and two drought stress levels (50 and 25). The root hydraulic conductance
270
significantly decreased at the most severe stress level (25) compared to controls, while mild water
271
stress (50) had apparently no impact on KR. On the contrary, leaf hydraulic conductance appeared to
272
progressively decline from control to stressed groups, although differences were not statistically
273
AC
C
EP
267
In the drought stress experiment, leaf conductance to water vapour (gL, mmol m-2 s-1) (Fig. 5a)
274
275
and leaf water potential (L, MPa) were also measured, and related data are presented in Fig. 5b. Data
276
analysis of gL showed statistically significant differences between the control group and severely
277
stressed plants, as well as between the two drought stress groups. Data analysis of L showed
278
statistically significant differences between control group and the drought stress groups, while there
279
280
Total RNA was extracted from leaf and root tissue sampled from both controls and water
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
281
stressed plants previously measured for their hydraulic traits, and aquaporin expression was quantified.
282
The results are shown in Fig. 6, where the control group (100) has an expression value = 1, and the
283
values of the drought stress groups are expressed as relative to the control. For each specific
284
aquaporin, different letters denote statistically significant differences in expression level among the
285
287
Only CaTIP1;2 showed a different trend, in that expression of this aquaporin in the mild drought
288
treatment was higher than in both control and severe drought stress groups. In the leaf, the expression
289
of CaPIP1;2, CaPIP2;1, CaPIP2;2 showed a decrease at increasing water stress. The expression of
290
CaTIP1;2 did not show significant changes between the three groups. The values of CaPIP1;1,
291
CaTIP1;1, and CaTIP4;1 decreased in the mild drought stress group, but increased in the severe
292
293
SC
RI
PT
286
3.4 Correlations
295
Relative changes in water status and hydraulics experienced by plants under water stress conditions
296
were plotted versus the corresponding aquaporins' expression levels, in order to highlight eventual
297
correlations. All values were expressed as relative to the controls. Significant correlations are reported
298
in Figs. 7 and 8. Positive correlations were found between relative leaf hydraulic conductance and
299
relative expression level of CaPIP2;1, CaPIP2;2 and CaPIP1;2, while negative correlations emerged
300
between relative leaf water potential (L) and relative expression of CaPIP2;1, CaPIP2;2 and
301
CaPIP1;2. No significant correlation was observed between changes in root hydraulic properties and
302
4. Discussion
EP
304
TE
D
303
M
AN
U
294
305
We identified nine putative aquaporins in C. arabica, and some of them showed significant changes in
307
their expression levels according to environmental factors to which plants were exposed, thus
308
confirming our first hypothesis. Our second hypothesis found only partial support, in that plant
309
hydraulic conductance apparently did not change from pre-dawn to midday, despite significant
310
changes in the expression level of some aquaporin isoforms. Finally, in partial support to out third
311
hypothesis, root hydraulic conductance was reduced by drought stress, in correlation with down-
312
regulation of the expression of some aquaporin isoforms. These findings are in line with the major
313
roles played by aquaporins in the regulation of plant water balance and specifically in drought stress
314
responses (Moshelion et al. 2014). Taking into account the economical importance of C. arabica and
315
its predicted vulnerability to ongoing climate changes (Davis et al. 2012), information gathered in this
AC
C
306
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
316
study might represent an important basis for selection of coffee genotypes with enhanced resistance to
317
environmental stresses.
Due to the absence of a complete C. arabica trascriptome, it was possible to identify only nine
319
aquaporin sequences. This is a step forward with respect to the four sequences identified in the same
320
species by Santos and Mazzafera (2013), but remains a surprisingly low number when compared to
321
model species such as Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. (35 aquaporins; Johanson et al. 2001), Zea
322
mays L. (31; Chaumont et al. 2001), Oryza sativa L. (33; Sakurai et al. 2005), Solanum tuberosum L.
323
(41; Venkatesh et al. 2013). Hence, it is very likely that several other aquaporin sequences remain to
324
be identified in coffee, and the recent release of the C. canephora genome (Denoeud et al. 2014)
325
represents a promising starting point. The identified CaAQP genes were assigned to two families, PIPs
326
and TIPs, on the basis of phylogenetic analysis (Fig. 1). Besides confirming the presence of
327
aquaporins in coffee, the present study showed that one of these (CaTIP2;1) is probably specifically or
328
predominantly expressed in the root tissues. The predominant expression of some aquaporin isoforms
329
in the root was already reported for other plant species such as AtPIP1;1 and AtPIP2;2 in A. thaliana,
330
(Alexandersson et al. 2005) and TIP1;1, TIP2;3, TIP3;1, TIP3;2 and TIP5;1 in S. tuberosum
331
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
318
333
status and hydraulic efficiency of coffee plants with the relative expression levels of different genes
334
encoding for aquaporins. To this aim, we focused our attention on the two major environmental factors
335
influencing both plant water status and aquaporin expression i.e. light (Lopez et al. 2013) and water
336
availability (Almeida-Rodriguez et al. 2010). In the light experiment, both KL and KR were found to
337
be similar when measured either at pre-dawn or at midday, suggesting that no diurnal up-regulation of
338
plant hydraulic efficiency occurs in coffee, in contrast with previous reports on different species
339
(Lopez et al. 2003; Nardini et al. 2005b). The quantitative gene expression (RT-qPCR) data revealed
340
that most of the aquaporin genes had similar expression levels at pre-dawn and midday in leaf tissues,
341
while some aquaporins increased in abundance during the day in root tissue. In particular, the
342
expression of CaPIP2;1, CaPIP2;2, CaTIP4;1 and CaTIP1;1 in the root tissue was not statistically
343
different between pre-dawn and midday (t-test, p<0,05). However, the relative expression levels of
344
CaPIP1;1, CaPIP1;2, CaTIP2;1 and CaTIP1;2 significantly increased during the day. These changes at
345
the molecular level may suggest that indeed some aquaporin genes respond to changes in light
346
intensity or are regulated by the circadian clock, but these changes are apparently not related to KR.
347
This result is somehow unexpected on the basis of recent literature, where short-term changes in root
348
hydraulics are often reported to be induced by changes in aquaporins expression (Laur and Hacke
349
2013). In fact, root hydraulic conductance is known to change diurnally with a peak value when
350
transpiration is maximal, and these variations are generally correlated with PIP transcript and protein
AC
C
EP
TE
D
332
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
abundance (Lopez et al. 2003). Maggio and Joly (1995) showed that application of mercury chloride
352
(an aquaporin inhibitor) reduced the hydraulic conductivity of tomato roots by about 60%,
353
demonstrating a correlation between aquaporins' functionality and water transport at the root level. In
354
tobacco, antisense-mediated reduction of NtAQP1 abundance reduced the root hydraulic conductivity
355
by 55% compared with controls (Siefritz et al. 2002). In A. thaliana, the silencing of AtPIP2;2
356
expression reduced the root hydraulic conductivity by 14% (Javot et al. 2003). The finding that some
357
coffee aquaporins change their expression level during the day, while the root hydraulic conductance
358
remains unchanged, suggests that their function is not strictly related to water transport, and the
359
RI
PT
351
In different crop species, Tsuda and Tyree (2000) showed that leaf hydraulic conductance (KL)
361
increases during the day in response to the increased water demand due to stomatal opening, and
362
similar results were obtained in woody plants (unapuu and Sellin 2013). Successive studies
363
demonstrated that the variations in KL may be caused by changes in aquaporins activity (Lopez et al.
364
2013). This suggests that aquaporins act to promote water transport into leaf tissues when transpiration
365
is maximal (Johnson et al. 2014), although direct evidence for this phenomenon is scarce, as diurnal
366
changes in KL and aquaporin expression have been measured in only a few species. In addition to the
367
studies by Tyree et al. (2005), Cochard et al. (2007), and Lopez et al. (2013), Nardini et al. (2005b)
368
showed that sunflower KL changes according to day/night cycles, with values about 30-40% higher
369
during the day than at night. Evidence for a direct role of PIP2 in variable leaf hydraulic conductance
370
in response to light in walnut was suggested by Cochard et al. (2007), while Secchi and Zwieniecki
371
(2013) reported decreased leaf hydraulic conductance in poplar leaves upon down-regulation of PIP1.
372
However, Kaldenhoff et al. (2008) showed that leaf hydraulic conductance did not differ between
373
controls and NtAQP1 or NtPIP2 antisense plants. Martre et al. (2002) found no differences in leaf
374
hydraulic conductance between wild-type A. thaliana and double antisense plants with reduced
375
expression of PIP1 and PIP2. In our case, the expression of CaTIP4;1 increased during the day in the
376
leaves, with no apparent effect on KL, again suggesting a functional role different from water transport
377
for this aquaporin. Clearly, more physiological studies using aquaporin knockouts are needed to
378
establish the role that aquaporins play in the regulation of leaf hydraulic conductance in different
379
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
360
380
The lack of hydraulic responses to light intensity recorded in coffee might not be surprising
381
from an adaptive point of view, considering that the species is original from shaded habitats where
382
light-driven modulation of plant hydraulics would probably confer no competitive advantage (Araujo
383
et al. 2008). Indeed, KL values recorded in our plants as well as in other studies on coffee (Gasc et al.
384
2004; Martins et al. 2014; Nardini et al. 2014) were low when compared with several other woody
385
species (Nardini and Luglio 2014) and close to values typically recorded in shade-adapted plants
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(Nardini et al. 2005a). However, coffee can be exposed to drought stress even in its native habitat. In
387
other plant species, such as A. thaliana, S. tuberosum, and Malus sp, some of the plant responses to
388
drought stress are controlled at the molecular level by aquaporins (Johanson et al. 2001;
389
Alexandersson et al. 2005; Venkatesh et al. 2013; Laur and Hacke 2014). In our study, the values of L
390
progressively decreased from controls to severely water stressed plants, confirming that irrigation
391
volumes supplied were effective in exposing the three groups to different water stress levels. The
392
decrease of L is known to affect stomatal aperture, as a first plant response to water stress. Stomatal
393
closure reduces leaf conductance to water vapour and transpiration, thus helping plants to prevent or
394
delay cellular dehydration. In our experiment, gL significantly decreased only in severely drought
395
stressed plants with respect to controls, suggesting that coffee plants did not reduce leaf conductance
396
to water vapour under mild water stress condition. This suggests that the species has a moderate
397
tolerance to drought stress, as also suggested by observed changes of leaf and root hydraulic
398
conductance values.
SC
RI
PT
386
Water stress is known to impact both stomatal aperture and plant hydraulic properties
400
(Cochard et al. 2002). Mechanisms underlying modulation of plant hydraulic conductance under
401
drought stress are still not well understood (Javot et al. 2002; Nardini et al. 2011), but likely involve
402
several modifications of both xylem efficiency and membrane permeability. In the case of coffee
403
plants analysed in this study, root hydraulic conductance slightly increased under mild drought stress,
404
and then drastically declined under severe drought. Leaf hydraulic conductance decreased as well from
405
controls to severely water stressed plants, although differences recorded were not statistically
406
significant. Tyerman et al. (2002) and Galmes et al. (2007) showed that drought-induced changes in
407
hydraulic conductance might be influenced by aquaporins, which can help plants to maintain
408
homeostasis of water balance under water limitation. Using antisense techniques, it was shown that
409
PIPs can play an important role during the early phase of water stress, by acting on root water
410
transport, or during recovery from water stress, by favouring water mobilization in dehydrated leaves
411
(Siefritz et al. 2002) and/or refilling of embolized conduits (Laur and Hacke 2014). In coffee root
412
tissues, the aquaporin gene expression steadily decreased under water stress, except for CaTIP1;2. The
413
expression level of this aquaporin paralleled the trend of root hydraulic conductance, i.e. an increase in
414
the mild water stress group compared to the other groups. This might suggest an early compensation
415
416
conductance.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
399
417
At the leaf level, different trends of expression were observed for the different putative
418
aquaporins. In particular, CaPIP2;1, CaPIP2;2 and CaPIP1;2 showed a significant decrease of the
419
expression values from the control group to 25 drought stress group. The opposite trend was observed
420
in CaPIP1;1, CaTIP4;1 and CaTIP1;1, showing a statistically significant increase under severe water
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
stress with respect to the other groups. In particular, there was a decrease from control group to 50
422
group, like for the other aquaporins, but under severe drought the gene expression value was higher
423
than in both control and 50 groups. Finally, in the case of CaTIP1;2, the aquaporin most expressed in
424
leaves, expression values showed no differences between the three treatments. The CaPIP2;1,
425
CaPIP2;2, CaPIP1;2 and CaTIP1;2 showed the same trend in the root and leaf tissue, indicating that
426
they probably have the same role in different tissues. Instead, CaPIP1;1, CaTIP4;1 and CaTIP1;1
427
showed different trends indicating that these isoforms were differentially regulated on the basis of the
428
specific tissue localization. The increase of these aquaporins during severe drought stress may be
429
related to processes of leaf hydraulic recovery (Laur and Hacke 2014), and might explain why leaf
430
hydraulic conductance showed no statistically significant differences between the three groups.
RI
PT
421
The expression level of the aquaporins constantly decreasing in the three different groups was
432
correlated with the values of KR, KL and L. This might suggest that CaPIP2;1, CaPIP2;2 and
433
CaPIP1;2 have an influence on these physiological parameters. Our data would be in accordance with
434
the fact that different tissue-specific expression of AQPs in response to drought have been reported in
435
other plant species, like A. thaliana, S, tuberosum, Malus sp and Camellia sinensis (Venkatesh et al.
436
2013; Alexandersson et al. 2005; Liu et al. 2013; Yue et al. 2014). Liu et al. (2013) compared the
437
aquaporins gene expression in two species of Malus, i.e. the drought-sensitive M. hupehensis and the
438
drought-tolerant M. prunifolia, suggesting that differences in expression levels may be related to the
439
M
AN
U
SC
431
In a recent review Moshelion et al. (2014) highlighted the links between aquaporin activity
441
and crop water-use efficiency and yield under drought conditions. Apparently, differential regulation
442
of different aquaporins might allow some plants to switch from an anisohydric strategy maximizing
443
net assimilation and growth under mild drought, to a marked isohydric strategy favoring water saving
444
at the expense of productivity under severe water stress (Zhang et al. 2011). The transient increase and
445
the subsequent drop of KR in coffee plants subjected to mild and severe drought, respectively,
446
paralleled by similar changes in expression levels of some aquaporins isoform, might suggest that this
447
strategy can be achieved also by coffee plants, and selecting for genotypes where this functional trait is
448
maximized might turn out to be an interesting strategy to assure coffee productivity/survival under
449
AC
C
EP
TE
D
440
450
In conclusion, our study showed that some of the identified putative coffee aquaporins might
451
play important roles in the response of this species to water stress. However, it has to be noted that
452
correlations between aquaporins expression and root/leaf hydraulics does not allow to conclude about
453
the underlying mechanistic relationships, and the role of these proteins in regulating coffee plant
454
hydraulics deserves further studies. In particular, future work is needed to identify other aquaporin
455
isoforms in C. arabica, confirm their water-channel nature, and highlight their possible roles in
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
456
modulating plant drought tolerance. These studies are urgently needed in order to identify possible
457
molecular targets for selection of coffee genotypes better adapted to future global-change drought
458
459
460
5. Acknowledgements
461
M. Miniussi was supported by EU and Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia (Fondo Sociale Europeo,
463
Programma Operativo Regionale 2007-2013) in the frame of the project S.H.A.R.M. (Supporting
464
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
462
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
465
6. References
466
467
Kjellbom P (2005) Whole gene family expression and drought stress regulation of aquaporins.
468
470
471
RI
PT
469
472
Araujo WL, Dias PC, Moraes GABK, Celin EF, Cunha RL, Barros RS, DaMatta FM (2008)
473
Limitation to photosynthesis in coffee leaves from different canopy positions. Plant Physiology and
474
Biochemistry 46:884-890
476
two plasma membrane aquaporins in durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum) and their
477
SC
475
Besse M, Knipfer T, Miller AJ, Verdeil JL, Jahn TP, Fricke W (2011) Developmental pattern of
479
aquaporin expression in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany
480
62:4127-4142
481
Chang S, Puryear J, Cairney J (1993) A simple and efficient method for isolating RNA from pine trees.
482
483
Chaumont F, Barrieu F, Wojcik E, Chrispeels MJ, Jung R (2001) Aquaporins constitute a large and
484
TE
D
485
M
AN
U
478
Cochard H, Coll L, Le R, Ameglio T (2002) Unraveling the effects of plant hydraulics on stomatal
486
488
Putative role of aquaporins in variable hydraulic conductance of leaves in response to light. Plant
489
Physiology 143:122-133
490
EP
487
Da Matta FM, Maestri M, Barros RS (1997) Photosynthetic performance of two coffee species under
491
AC
C
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
Davis AP, Gole TW, Baena S, Moat J (2012) The impact of the climate change on indigenous arabica
499
coffee (Coffea arabica): predicting future trends and identifying priorities. PLoS ONE 7:e47981
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
500
501
502
503
504
Anthony F, Aprea G et al. (2014) The coffee genome provides insight into the convergent evolution
505
507
physiological responses of two coffee progenies to soil water availability. Journal of Plant
508
Physiology 164:1639-1647
RI
PT
506
Galmes J, Pou A, Alsina MM, Tomas M, Medrano H, Flexas J (2007) Aquaporin expression in
510
response to different water stress intensities and recovery in Richter-110 (Vitis sp.): relationship
511
Gasc A, Nardini A, Salleo S (2004) Resistance to water flow through leaves of Coffea arabica is
513
514
Hachez C, Heinen RB, Draye X, Chaumont F (2008) The expression of plasma membrane aquaporins
515
516
M
AN
U
512
SC
509
in maize leaf highlights their role in hydraulic regulation. Plant Molecular Biology 68:337-353
Heinen RH, Ye Q, Chaumont F (2009) Role of aquaporins in leaf physiology. Journal of Experimental
517
Botany 11:2971-2985
Henzler T, Waterhouse RN, Smyth AJ, Carvajal M, Cooke DT, Schffner AR, Steudle E, Clarkson DT
519
(1999) Diurnal variations in hydraulic conductivity and root pressure can be correlated with the
520
TE
D
518
522
(2001) The complete set of genes encoding major intrinsic proteins in Arabidopsis provides a
523
framework for a new nomenclature for major intrinsic proteins in plants. Plant Physiology
524
126:1358-1369
525
EP
521
Johnson DM, Sherrard ME, Domec JC, Jackson RB (2014) Role of aquaporin activity in regulating
526
AC
C
deep and shallow root hydraulic conductance during extreme drought. Trees 28:1323-1331
527
Javot H, Maurel C (2002) The role of aquaporins in root water uptake. Annals of Botany 90:301-313
528
Javot H, Lauvergeat V, Santoni V (2003) Role of a single aquaporin isoform in root water uptake.
529
530
531
532
533
534
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
535
genetic resources in Ethiopia: implications for conservation. Genetic Resource and Crop Evolution
536
55:1079-1093
Laur J, Hacke UG (2013) Transpirational demand affects aquaporin expression in poplar roots. Journal
538
539
540
541
542
RI
PT
537
Pathology 15:737-746
544
deficit stress in two Malus species: relationship with physiological status and drought tolerance.
545
SC
543
Lopez D, Venisse JS, Fumanal B, Chaumont F, Guillot E, Daniels MJ, Cochard H, Julien JL, Gousset-
547
Dupont A (2013) Aquaporins and leaf hydraulics: poplar sheds new light. Plant and Cell
548
Physiology 54:1963-1975
M
AN
U
546
549
Lopez M, Bousser AS, Sissoeff I, Gaspar M, Lachaise B, Hoarau J, Mahe A (2003) Diurnal regulation
550
of water transport and aquaporin gene expression in maize roots: contribution of PIP2 proteins.
551
Lovisolo C, Secchi F, Nardini A, Salleo S, Buffa R, Schubert A (2007) Expression of PIP1 and PIP2
553
aquaporins is enhanced in olive dwarf genotypes and is related to root and leaf hydraulic
554
555
TE
D
552
Maggio A, Joly RJ (1995) Effects of mercuric chloride on the hydraulic conductivity of tomato root
556
558
Alekcevetch JC, Da Matta FM et al. (2012) Differentially expressed genes and proteins upon
559
560
EP
557
562
change and plant water balance: the role of aquaporins A review. In: Lichtfouse E (ed) Climate
563
564
AC
C
561
565
Martins SCV, Galms J, Cavatte PC, Pereira PF, Ventrella MC, DaMatta FM (2014) Understanding the
566
low photosynthetic rates of sun and shade coffee leaves: bridging the gap on the relative roles of
567
568
Martre P, Morillon R, Barrieu F, North GB, Nobel PS, Chrispeels MJ (2002) Plasma membrane
569
aquaporins play a significant role during recovery from water deficit. Plant Physiology 130:2101-
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
570
571
2110
Maurel C, Verdoucq L, Luu DT, Santoni V (2008) Plant aquaporins: membrane channels with multiple
572
573
McElrone AJ, Bichler J, Pockman WT, Addington RN, Linder CR, Jackson RB (2007) Aquaporin-
574
mediated changes in hydraulic conductivity of deep tree roots accessed via caves. Plant, Cell and
575
Environment 30:1411-1421
Moshelion M, Halperin O, Wallach R, Oren R, Way DA (2014) Role of aquaporins in determining
577
transpiration and photosynthesis in water-stressed plants: crop water-use efficiency, growth and
578
579
Nardini A, Gortan E, Salleo S (2005) Hydraulic efficiency of the leaf venation system in sun- and
580
SC
581
RI
PT
576
Nardini A, Luglio J (2014) Leaf hydraulic capacity and drought vulnerability: possible trade-offs and
582
correlations with climate across three major biomes. Functional Ecology 28:810-818
Nardini A, unapuu-Pikas E, Savi T (2014) When smaller is better: leaf hydraulic conductance and
584
drought vulnerability correlate to leaf size and venation density across four Coffea arabica
585
586
M
AN
U
583
Nardini A, Salleo S, Andri S (2005) Circadian regulation of leaf hydraulic conductance in sunflower
587
589
light of ion-mediated regulation of plant water transport. Journal of Experimental Botany 62:4701-
590
4718
591
TE
D
588
unapuu E, Sellin A (2013) Daily dynamics of leaf and soil-to-branch hydraulic conductance in silver
592
birch (Betula pendula) measured in situ. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 68:104-110
Pinheiro HA, DaMatta FM, Chaves ARM, Fontes EPB, Loureiro ME (2004) Drought tolerance in
594
relation to protection against oxidative stress in clones of Coffea canephora subjected to long-term
595
EP
593
Pinheiro HA, DaMatta FM, Chaves ARM, Loureiro ME, Ducatti C (2005) Drought tolerance is
597
associated with rooting depth and stomatal control of water use in clones of Coffea canephora.
598
AC
C
596
599
Rodrguez-Lpez NF, Cavatte PC, Silva PEM, Martins SCV, Morais LE, Medina EF, Da Matta FM
600
(2013) Physiological and biochemical abilities of robusta coffee leaves for acclimation to cope with
601
602
Ruijter JM, Ramakers C, Hoogaars WMH, Karlen Y, Bakker O, van den Hoff MJB, Moorman AFM
603
(2009) Amplification efficiency: linking baseline and bias in the analysis of quantitative PCR data.
604
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
605
Sade N, Vinocur BJ, Diber A, Shatil A, Ronen G, Nissan H, Wallach R, Karchi H, Moshelion M,
606
(2009) Improving plant stress tolerance and yield production: is the tonoplast aquaporin SlTIP2;2 a
607
608
609
aquaporin genes and analysis of their expression and function. Plant and Cell Physiology 46:1568-
610
1577
Santos AB, Mazzafera P (2013) Aquaporins and the control of the water status in coffee plants.
612
RI
PT
611
Secchi F, Zwieniecki MA (2013) The physiological response of Populus tremula x alba leaves to the
614
down-regulation of PIP1 aquaporin gene expression under no water stress. Frontiers in Plant
615
Science 4:507
617
618
619
620
hydraulic failure and carbon starvation hypotheses. Plant, Cell and Environment 37:153-161
Siefritz F, Tyree MT, Lovisolo C, Schubert A, Kaldenhoff R (2002) PIP1 plasma membrane
621
622
M
AN
U
616
SC
613
aquaporins in tobacco: from cellular effects to function in plants. Plant Cell 14:869-876
Talbot JM (2004) The political economy of the coffee commodity chain. Rowman & Littlefield
623
Tausend PC, Goldstein G, Meinzer FC (2000) Water utilization, plant hydraulic properties and xylem
625
vulnerability in three contrasting coffee (Coffea arabica) cultivars. Tree Physiology 20:159-168
626
Tsuda M, Tyree MT (2000) Plant hydraulic conductance measured by the high pressure flow meter in
TE
D
624
627
Tyerman SD, Niemietz CM, Bramley H (2002) Plant aquaporins: multifunctional water and solute
EP
628
629
631
conductance using a high-pressure flowmeter in the laboratory and field. Journal of Experimental
632
Botany 46:83-94
AC
C
630
633
Tyree MT, Nardini A, Salleo S, Sack L, El Omari B (2005) The dependence of leaf hydraulic
634
conductance on irradiance during HPFM measurements: any role for stomatal response? Journal of
635
636
Vieira LGE, Andrade AC (2006) Brazilian coffee genome project: an EST-based genomic resource.
637
638
639
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
640
Yue C, Cao H, Wang L, Zhou Y, Hao X, Zeng J, Wang X, Yang Y (2014) Molecular cloning and
641
expression analysis of tea plant aquaporin (AQP) gene family. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry
642
83:65-76
Zhang Y, Oren R, Kang S (2011) Spatiotemporal variation of crown-scale stomatal conductance in an
644
arid Vitis vinifera L. cv. Merlot vineyard: direct effects of hydraulic properties and indirect effects
645
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
643
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Gene
Ca-PIP2;1
Ca-PIP2;2
Ca-PIP1;1
Ca-PIP1;2
Ca-TIP4;1
Ca-TIP2;1
Ca-TIP1;1
Ca-TIP1;2
Ca-TIP1;3
Nucleotide database
accession number*
LM654169
LM654170/GAJT01000002
LM654171/GAJT01000001
LM654172
LM654173
LM654174
LM654175
LM654176/GAJT01000004
LM654177
647
Subfamily
classification
PIP2
PIP2
PIP1
PIP1
TIP4
TIP2
TIP1
TIP1
TIP1
RI
PT
646
Table 1: Proposed nomenclature for identified coffee aquaporin genes and related accession numbers
649
and subfamily classification. *The second accession code points to related sequences described by
650
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
648
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
651
FORWARD PRIMER
ATGTCACATACGGCGGAG
TTCTACAACAGGTACGGT
AAGGGATTTGAGAAGGGA
GGTGCTGAAATTGTTGGT
AAGGCGTGATAATGGAGA
ACACATAACGTTGCCTCA
AGCATTTTCCCTTTCATCC
GTGTGGGATGCGTTTATT
CTTCTCAAACTCGCTACC
REVERSE PRIMER
TTGGGATCAGTGGCAGAG
TCTGGCATTTCTCTTGGG
GAAGAGGAGCCAAAATAG
AAAAACACAGCGAACCCA
TTGCACCAACAACTAGCC
CTCCAACAATGAACCCAA
AGCACCTACAATGAAACC
CGCCACAATCAAACCAAT
CCCTTCTTGGGATCAACT
652
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
AC
C
653
RI
PT
GENE
Ca-PIP2;1
Ca-PIP2;2
Ca-PIP1;1
Ca-PIP1;2
Ca-TIP4;1
Ca-TIP2;1
Ca-TIP1;1
Ca-TIP1;2
Ca-TIP1;3
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure legends
655
Fig. 1: Phylogenetic analysis of aquaporin sequences of C. arabica and all the known aquaporin of
656
Arabidopsis thaliana and Solanum tuberosum. Peptide sequences were aligned using Muscle sequence
657
alignment program and the phylogenetic tree was constructed using Maximum Likelihood method as
658
detailed in Material and methods. The Uniprot accession name is indicated for each protein. The name
659
of each subfamily is indicated next to the corresponding subfamilies. Families without an analyzed C.
660
661
Fig. 2: Means values ( SD) of root and leaf hydraulic conductance scaled by total leaf surface area as
662
measured in coffee plants at pre-dawn (black column) or at midday (grey column). n.s.: not significant.
663
Fig. 3: Relative expression levels of genes encoding putative aquaporins as measured in roots (a) and
664
leaves (b) of coffee plants sampled at pre-dawn (black) or midday (grey), as obtained by Real Time
665
analysis ((Ct) method). Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference (t-test, p<0.05).
666
Fig. 4: Mean values ( SD) of root and leaf hydraulic conductance scaled by leaf surface area, as
667
measured in coffee plants either well irrigated (100) or subjected to progressively more intense
668
drought stress (50 and 25, see text for details about experimental treatments). Different letters indicate
669
670
Fig. 5: Mean values ( SD) of leaf conductance to water vapor (a) and leaf water potential (b), as
671
measured in coffee plants either well irrigated (100) or subjected to progressively more intense
672
drought stress (50 and 25, see text for details about experimental treatments). Different letters indicate
673
674
Fig. 6: Relative expression levels of genes encoding putative aquaporins, as measured in roots (a) and
675
leaves (b) of coffee plants either well irrigated (100) or subjected to progressively more intense
676
drought stress (50 and 25, see text for details about experimental treatments). Different letters indicate
677
678
Fig. 7: Relationships between relative leaf hydraulic conductance values and relative expression levels
679
of three genes encoding putative aquaporins, as measured in leaves of coffee plants either well
680
irrigated (100) or subjected to progressively more intense drought stress (50 and 25, see text for details
681
about experimental treatments). Correlation coefficients (r) and P values are also reported.
682
Fig. 8: Relationships between relative leaf water potential and relative expression levels of three genes
683
encoding putative aquaporins, as measured in leaves of coffee plants either well irrigated (100) or
684
subjected to progressively more intense drought stress (50 and 25, see text for details about
685
experimental treatments). Correlation coefficients (r) and P values are also reported.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
654
686
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 1
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
687
AC
C
EP
688
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
689
Figure 2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
3.5
TE
D
EP
AC
C
691
26
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
690
n.s.
SC
1.0
(a)
n.s.
M
AN
U
1.2
RI
PT
pre-dawn
midday
(b)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
692
Figure 3
(a)
*
*
SC
TE
D
AC
C
PIP
Ca
27
(b)
EP
leaf pre-dawn
leaf midday
694
RI
PT
0
5
693
M
AN
U
root pre-dawn
root midday
1;1
PIP
Ca
1;2
PIP
Ca
2;1
PIP
Ca
2;2
1;1
TIP
a
C
1;2
TIP
a
C
4;1
TIP
a
C
696
697
EP
TE
D
28
1.0
0.5
0.0
100
100
50
50
Treatment
25
25
RI
PT
1.5
SC
2.0
M
AN
U
695
AC
C
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 4
2.5
ab
b
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 5
(a)
a
250
200
150
100
50
100
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
TE
D
-0.2
-1.2
-1.4
AC
C
700
29
b
b
(b)
EP
-1.6
699
25
M
AN
U
0.0
50
100
RI
PT
300
SC
698
50
Treatment
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
701
Figure 6
1.6
(a)
b
a
a
1.0
a
b
b
c
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1;1
PIP
Ca
1.8
1;2
PIP
Ca
2;1
PIP
Ca
1.4
a
a
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1;1
AC
C
PIP
Ca
703
30
PIP
Ca
1;2
PIP
Ca
TE
D
1.0
(b)
1.2
1;1
1;2
2;1
4;1
TIP
TIP
TIP
TIP
a
a
a
a
C
C
C
C
EP
1.6
2;2
M
AN
U
PIP
Ca
702
RI
PT
1.2
SC
1.4
100_R
50_R
25_R
c
b
b
bb
2;1
PIP
Ca
2;2
1;1
1;2
4;1
TIP
TIP
TIP
a
a
a
C
C
C
100_L
50_L
25_L
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
704
Figure 7
705
1.1
100
r= 0.99
P=0.11
1.0
0.9
RI
PT
0.8
0.7
0.6
50
0.5
0.4 25
0.2
0.4
0.6
SC
0.3
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
100
M
AN
U
r= 0.99
P=0.03
1.0
50
0.5
25
0.4
TE
D
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.1
r= 0.99
P=0.04
100
EP
1.0
0.9
0.8
AC
C
0.7
0.6
50
0.5
0.4
25
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
706
707
31
1.0
1.2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
708
Figure 8
2.2
r= -0.97
P= 0.17
25
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.0
100
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
SC
r= -0.99
P= 0.03
25
2.0
50
1.8
M
AN
U
2.2
1.6
1.4
1.2
100
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
TE
D
2.2
25
2.0
1.8
r= -0.99
P= 0.09
50
EP
1.6
1.4
1.2
100
AC
C
1.0
0.8
0.0
709
710
32
RI
PT
50
1.6
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AN and AP conceived and designed the research. All authors contributed to conduct experiments and to
analyse data. MM and LDT wrote the first draft of the manuscript. AN and AP revised and finalized the
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT