|
Fig. 1. Leaf regions analysed in the present study. Leaf samples were taken from up to three developmental zones along the elongating leaf three of barley, the elongation zone (EZ), the non-elongation zone (NEZ) and the emerged blade (EmBL). In addition, a leaf sample was taken from the mature blade and from midway along the sheath of leaf two. Leaf samples consisted of 2-cm-long segments which were taken from the centre region of the respective zone. For qPCR analyses of the elongation zone of leaf three, the younger leaf four which was wrapped within this region was removed.
|
|
Fig. 2. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of barley major intrinsic proteins (MIPs). Barley MIP protein sequences were aligned with MIPs of Arabidopsis, maize, and rice using ClustalW. Barley MIPs analysed are highlighted. Annotations and protein sequences are given in Supplementary File S2 at JXB online. Concerning HvNIP2;1, Fig. 2 refers to the gene annotated first (accession number BA166444) and not to the gene referred to by Schnurbusch et al. (2010) as a boron transporter (HvNIP2;1). The latter gene is identical in sequence to the silicon transporter (HvLsi1, shown) reported by Chiba et al. (2009). HvSIP2;1 is not annotated; only a partial sequence is known, which shows the highest homology to AtSIP2;1 among Arabidopsis SIPs. The distance scale represents the evolutionary distance, expressed as the number of substitutions per amino acid. The figures displayed on the main nodes reflect the posterior probability.
|
|
Fig. 3. Real-time (qPCR) expression analyses of major intrinsic proteins in leaf regions of barley. The elongation zone (EZ), adjacent non-elongation zone (NEZ), and emerged-blade portion (EmBL) of the growing leaf three were analysed, together with the blade and sheath of the mature leaf two (L2 and Sh, respectively). (A, B, C, D) Values of relative expression show how many times higher or lower the expression of a candidate gene was compared with that of the reference genes (ubiquitin, H+-ATPase, HvSIP2;1), using the 2â(ÎCt) method. (E) Total expression of the PIP1 and PIP2 subfamily, together with (F) ratio of expression. Results are averages ±SD (error bars) of three experiments. Statistical significance of difference in expression between leaf regions is summarised in Supplementary File S4 at JXB online.
|
|
Fig. 4. The percentage contribution of individual family members to total expression of PIP1s, PIP2s, and TIPs in leaf regions of barley. Data were calculated from the expression values shown in Fig. 3. The TIPs analysed should represent the bulk of expression of TIPs (Alexandersson et al., 2005; Sakurai et al., 2005). HvTIP2;1, HvTIP2;2, HvTIP3;1, and HvTIP5;1 together accounted for less than 1% of the expression of TIPs and are not included in the pie charts. Numbers give the mean percentage contribution calculated from three experiments. Standard deviations are given in Supplementary File S4 at JXB online.
|
|
Fig. 5. Test of water channel function of selected barley MIPs through expression in yeast and subsequent swelling assays of isolated spheroplasts. (A) Swelling kinetics of a representative batch of spheroplasts. Each curve is the average of 10â20 swelling kinetics, fitted with two-exponential equations. Control spheroplasts were isolated from yeast which had been transformed with the empty vector used for transformation (pYeDP60u, negative control) or with an Arabidopsis MIP (AtTIP1;2) known to show water channel activity (positive control). (B) Rate constants of water flow in spheroplasts. Results are averages ±SD (error bars) of the analysis of (n) kinetics as shown in (A): HvPIP2;5, (4); HvTIP1;1, (8); HvTIP2;3, (8), HvPIP2;2, (8); HvPIP2;7, (2, no error bar shown, values of 4.5 and 3.6 sâ1); HvPIP1;2, (3); HvTIP1;2 (4); negative control, (3); and positive control (4). Rate constants of swelling of barley-MIP expressing spheroplasts were significantly higher (P <0.001) than that of (negative) control spheroplasts containing the empty vector used for transformation.
|
|
Fig. 6. Test of water channel function of HvPIP2;2 and HvPIP2;7 through transient (3 d) expression in Xenopus laevis oocytes. Results are means ±SD (error bars) of six (control) and eight (HvPIP2;2, HvPIP2;7) oocytes, analysed from one representative batch. Osmotic water permeability of oocytes expressing HvPIP2;2 or HvPIP2;7 was significantly higher (P <0.001) than that of water-injected (control) oocytes, as was the difference in water permeability between HvPIP2;2 and HvPIP2;7-expressing oocytes (P <0.001).
|
|
Fig. 7. Tissue-specific expression of barley MIPs in leaf regions. (A) Scheme and micrograph of a cross-section of a mature blade, identifying tissues. (B) In situ hybridization data. Expression is shown as blue colour, and was detected using antisense probes of genes of interest. An antisense designed against 18S ribosomal RNA was used as positive control. A sense probe was tested for all genes as negative control and is shown representatively for ribosomal RNA. PBS, parenchymatous bundle sheath; L3, leaf three; Sh L2, sheath of leaf two; scale bar=50 μm.
|
|
Fig. 8. Subcellular localization of barley MIPs as studied through transient (2 d) expression in onion epidermis. Expression was viewed in epidermal peels using an Olympus FV1000 confocal laser scanning microscope. (A) Candidates genes fused to the enhanced yellow fluorescent protein (EYFP); (B) Cytoplasm marker pSAT6-DsRed2-N1 (DsRED, red fluorescence) and pBIN20-plasma membrane-mCherry marker (pm mCherry, red fluorescence); (C) overlay of (A) and (B); (D) magnified parts of cells shown in (C); (E) transmitted light micrographs of cells shown in (A) to (D). Scale bar (A, B, C, E)=50 μm, Scale bar (D)=25 μm.
|
|
Fig. 9. Casparian bands in the mestome sheath in different developmental regions of barley leaves. Cross-sections were stained with berberin-hemisulphate/toluidine blue and viewed under UV-light (Brundrett et al., 1988). Occurrence of Casparian bands (yellow fluorescence) is indicated by arrows. Xylem vessels showed autofluorescence. MX, metaxylem; PX, protoxylem; MSH, mestome sheath; PH, phloem. Scale bar (A, C, E, G)=50 μm, scale bar (B, D, F, H)=25 μm.
|