Lighting Scientific proof COBs are better than blurple

Groff

Geekazoid
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Messages
1,985
Reputation
0
Reaction score
1,743
Points
0
Howdy folk :toke:

Just came across this little gem. Remember that "the NASA spectrum" is a couple dozen years old by now.

This, as with all science papers, should be taken with a big grain of salt. But it's always been my gut instinct that we still have a long way to go to fully understand and better make use of light spectrum. I was never sold on the idea that the green spectrum did nothing. Sure, maybe not chlorophyl/photosynthesis, but surely an aggregate physiology. Seems my gut was on to something… I mean, plants were here way before us, and natural selection surely should have found a use for all that irradiated power, right?

Well, of course! Plants sure do use all the spectrum. Hell, HPS is all yellow and it produces kiss ass bud.

I myself am convinced that for the ultra-pro conscientious grower… white natural light, leaning towards the warm-white is the way to go to better reproduce nature indoors.

This paper is quite bold in stating that green spectrum actually ends up being more efficient that reds. Go figure. It's all explained in there, but any questions let me know, Ill do my best

Green Light Drives Leaf Photosynthesis More Efficiently than Red Light in Strong White Light: Revisiting the Enigmatic Question of Why Leaves are Green
 
Last edited:
Hi Groff great to see you found this paper.

I PM'd a copy of this to Tom from Platinum Leds , back last August after we interviewed him.
In the interview he was asked what his thoughts on COB was and he came back saying he had tested a number of COB with a Quantum Light meter and found that, the COBs he tested cointained too much green light for his liking.
So I sent him this paper for his perusal, hoping he might change his view point.
I hope he did read it as it could be a possible game changer.
The paper goes back to 2009 I think, so that's eight years ago, I would hope that there has been further research carried out and more discoveries have been made about the effectiveness of green light in bright white light aiding Photosynthesis.
I first became aware of the quantum effect of green light in a LED spectrum from reading an article from Hydrogrow Led back in 2011/2012.
Hydro grow LED used green diodes in their X2 LED grow lights.
I have had some really nice results under COB and they are so easy to work with and to build a light with, after all who wants to solder loads of single diodes?

arty
 
Hi Groff great to see you found this paper.

I PM'd a copy of this to Tom from Platinum Leds , back last August after we interviewed him.
In the interview he was asked what his thoughts on COB was and he came back saying he had tested a number of COB with a Quantum Light meter and found that, the COBs he tested cointained too much green light for his liking.
So I sent him this paper for his perusal, hoping he might change his view point.
I hope he did read it as it could be a possible game changer.
The paper goes back to 2009 I think, so that's eight years ago, I would hope that there has been further research carried out and more discoveries have been made about the effectiveness of green light in bright white light aiding Photosynthesis.
I first became aware of the quantum effect of green light in a LED spectrum from reading an article from Hydrogrow Led back in 2011/2012.
Hydro grow LED used green diodes in their X2 LED grow lights.
I have had some really nice results under COB and they are so easy to work with and to build a light with, after all who wants to solder loads of single diodes?

arty

I'd love to hear a comment :cool1:
 
Me too!
I'll send Tom another PM and see what he says.
To be honest and I told him as much at the time , There are parts of the paper, I can follow but there are also parts that are beyond my understanding.
There are plenty of formulas that I look at , that are beyond me, Scientific scholarly articles aren't my strong point!
Still it is good to know such research is being done and that it could help benefit us COB users.
I'd also like to see some more up to date work and follow ups,8 years can be a long time in the scientific community, especially as LED tech is moving forwards at such a pace.

Here are some articles for the not so scientifically mind, such as myself lol!


Green light: Is it important for plant growth?
Green light is considered the least efficient wavelength in the visible spectrum for photosynthesis, but it is still useful in photosynthesis and regulates plant architecture.
Posted on February 6, 2014 by Heidi Wollaeger, Michigan State University Extension, and Erik Runkle, Michigan State University Extension, Department of Horticulture.

Sometimes one may hear that plants don’t use green light for photosynthesis, they reflect it. However, this is only partly true. While most plants reflect more green than any other in the visible spectrum, a relatively small percentage of green light is transmitted through or reflected by the leaves. The majority of green light is useful in photosynthesis. The relative quantum efficiency curve (Photo 1) shows how efficiently plants use wavelengths between 300 and 800 nm. Green light is the least efficiently used color of light in the visible spectrum.

2-6RelativeQuantumEfficHEIDI.jpg

Photo 1. Relative quantum efficiency curve. (Adapted by Erik Runkle from McCree, 1972. Agric. Meteorology 9:191-216.)

As a part of a series of experiments performed in enclosed environments, Michigan State University Extension investigated how different wavebands of light (blue, green and red) from LEDs influenced growth of seedlings. We grew tomato ‘Early Girl,’ salvia ‘Vista Red,’ petunia ‘Wave Pink,’ and impatiens ‘SuperElfin XP Red’ in growth chambers for four to five weeks at 68 degrees Fahrenheit under 160 µmol∙m-2∙s-1 of LED or fluorescent light. The percentages from each LED color were: B25+G25+R50 (25 percent of light from blue and green LEDs and 50 percent from red LEDs); B50+G50; B50+R50; G50+R50; R100; and B100.

Plants grown with 50 percent green and 50 percent red light were approximately 25 percent shorter than those grown under only red light, but approximately 50 percent taller than all plants grown under more than 25 percent blue light (Photo 2). Therefore, blue light suppressed extension growth more than green light in an enclosed environment. Twenty-five percent green light could substitute for the same percentage of blue light without affecting fresh weight. However, the electrical efficiency of the green LEDs was much lower than that of blue LEDs. To read more about this experiment, please read “Growing Plants under LEDs: Part Two” in Greenhouse Grower.

2-6SalviaHEIDI.jpg

Photo 2. Salvia grown for four weeks under the same intensity of blue (B), green (G) and red (R) LEDs or fluorescent lamps (FL). The number after each color represents the percentage of that color, e.g., B50+R50 means that plants were grown under 50 percent blue light and 50 percent red light.

One potential advantage of including green in a light spectrum is to reduce eye strain of employees. Under monochromatic, or sometimes two colors of light such as blue and red, plants may not appear their typical color, which could make noticing nutritional, disease or insect pest issues difficult. Another potential advantage of green light is that it can penetrate a canopy better than other wavebands of light. It’s possible that with better canopy penetration, lower leaves will continue to photosynthesize, leading to less loss of the lower leaves.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. For more information, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu. To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu/newsletters. To contact an expert in your area, visit http://expert.msue.msu.edu, or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).

Light Wavebands & Their Effects on Plants
With the advancement of lightemitting diodes (LEDs), we are able to purchase — or even customize — LED arrays that emit different spectrums of light for plant growth applications.
That’s one of the exciting features of LEDs, to provide a specific light environment to produce crops with specific growth characteristics.
This is especially possible when LEDs are the only light source; when lighting supplements sunlight, generally light quality has less dramatic effects.
This article discusses how the four primary wavebands of light influence plant growth and development.
Because of the diversity of plants though, there are always exceptions to these generalizations.
Light wavebands also interact with each other, but only a few are mentioned here.
Blue light (400 to 500 nm). Chlorophyll in plants highly absorbs blue light that is used for photosynthesis.
It also helps regulate the opening of stomata, which are tiny openings in the leaves that regulate the uptake of carbon dioxide (required for photosynthesis) and water loss.
Blue light also generally acts to inhibit extension growth, so plants grown under light that contains blue typically have smaller leaves and shorter stems.
For these reasons, many LEDs for plant applications emit at least a small amount (such as 10-20 percent) of blue light. In an indoor environment, plants grown without any blue light typically have an elongated appearance.
With respect to flowering, generally a low intensity has no effect, but a higher intensity (such as 30 µmol∙m-2∙s-1) can influence flowering of photoperiodic crops. We’re continuing to learn how blue light influences flowering.
Green light (500 to 600 nm). When light strikes a leaf, it can be absorbed by, reflected from or transmitted through the leaf.
Plants appear green because they reflect and transmit slightly more green light than they do blue or red light.
Chlorophyll also absorbs green light poorly.
For these reasons, green light is sometimes stated as not being useful to plants for photosynthesis.
However, green light is still moderately effective since other pigments absorb the light and make it useful for photosynthesis.

A more correct statement is that, generally, green light is less efficient at stimulating photosynthesis than blue or red light.
In some situations, the greater reflection and transmittance of green light by leaves can be desirable.
Green light can better penetrate a plant canopy and thus reach lower leaves.
This can, in theory at least, reduce lowerleaf loss. However, few LED arrays contain green LEDs because they are less efficient than blue and red LEDs from both an electrical and plant response perspective.

Red light (600 to 700 nm). Most LED arrays emit a high percentage (often 75-90 percent) of red light because it is absorbed well by chlorophyll, and the electrical efficiency of red LEDs is high.
Red light is considered the most efficient waveband for photosynthesis, but as mentioned previously, plants can be elongated in the absence of other light wavelengths.
In short-day plants, delivery of red light during the night can prevent flowering.
In longday plants, red and far-red light combined is the most effective at promoting flowering of a wide range of crops.
Therefore, red is usually the dominant color for photosynthetic and photoperiodic lighting.
Far-red light (700 to 800 nm). This waveband is not considered photosynthetically active, but far-red light does influence growth.
The ratio of red to far-red light influences leaf and stem elongation and so plants grown under light that includes some far red will typically have larger leaves and taller stems.
Depending on the application, this may or may not be desirable. Also as previously mentioned, far-red light plays a role in flowering of some long-day plants; so some LEDs developed specifically for flowering applications emit both red and far-red light.
Researchers are still learning about how light quality influences plant growth and development. In addition, lighting can influence other responses including flower and leaf color and the biosynthesis of compounds in food crops, such as antioxidants and vitamins.
It’s an exciting time for both controlled-environment agriculture and lighting industries because as the technology of LEDs advances, our ability to exploit that lighting increases.

g Erik Runkle is professor and floriculture extension specialist in Michigan State University’s department of horticulture. He can be reached at runkleer@msu.edu.

upload_2017-2-9_9-32-26.png

upload_2017-2-9_9-33-8.png

upload_2017-2-9_9-33-48.png

upload_2017-2-9_9-34-49.png

upload_2017-2-9_9-35-36.png

upload_2017-2-9_9-36-51.png

upload_2017-2-9_9-37-24.png

upload_2017-2-9_9-39-10.png

upload_2017-2-9_9-38-23.png

upload_2017-2-9_9-40-37.png
 
Contributions of green light to plant growth and development1
Refferences can be found here - http://www.amjbot.org/content/100/1/70.full

  1. Yihai Wang2 and
  2. Kevin M. Folta2–4
+Author Affiliations

Next Section

ABSTRACT
Light passing through or reflected from adjacent foliage provides a developing plant with information that is used to guide specific genetic and physiological processes. Changes in gene expression underlie adaptation to, or avoidance of, the light-compromised environment. These changes have been well described and are mostly attributed to a decrease in the red light to far-red light ratio and/or a reduction in blue light fluence rate. In most cases, these changes rely on the integration of red/far-red/blue light signals, leading to changes in phytohormone levels. Studies over the last decade have described distinct responses to green light and/or a shift of the blue-green, or red-green ratio. Responses to green light are typically low-light responses, suggesting that they may contribute to the adaptation to growth under foliage or within close proximity to other plants. This review summarizes the growth responses in artificially manipulated light environments with an emphasis on the roles of green wavebands. The information may be extended to understanding the influence of green light in shade avoidance responses as well as other plant developmental and physiological processes.

Key words:
  • 1 This work was performed as part of National Science Foundation Grant # IOS-0746756.

  • 4 Author for correspondence (e-mail: kfolta@ufl.edu)
A seedling emerges from the darkness of soil into the shadow of a neighboring plant. Plants dotting the understory find their light filtered by a lengthening shadow thrown by the foliage above. A set of densely planted seedlings reaches upward under full sun, only to find themselves tightly packed into a single stand that light cannot easily penetrate.

These scenarios unfold every day in natural environments, pitting one plant against another in a drive to attain illumination for photosynthetic growth. Oftentimes a plant cannot possibly compete by outgrowing or overreaching a neighbor, and it must adopt a new program of acclimation. Gene expression and plant form are adjusted to best intercept available energy, while invoking strategies to grow and ensure reproduction. These physiological and morphological plant responses to shaded environments have been well described. The goal of this review is to examine the literature that describes the light-driven mechanisms that promote this adaptive response, with a focus on new findings from green-enriched environments. Additional aspects of green-light contributions to low-light environments will be discussed.

Unfiltered sunlight delivers wavelengths ranging from UV-A to far-red light, wavelengths representing human visible light and its flanking energies invisible to the human eye. The wavebands longer than those sensed by humans (far-red light, ∼700–780 nm) are meaningful to the plant. The spectrum shifts as overhanging foliage strips incident sunlight of red and blue wavelengths. Far-red and to a lesser extent green light continue through the leaf and are transmitted to the area beneath. The plants above absorb illumination that contains blue, green, red, and far-red present in roughly equal fluence rates. Plants below are suffused in a skewed spectrum depleted of red and blue light, placing plant matter in an environment dominated by far-red light, along with a disproportionate amount of green wavebands. Additionally, the photon fluence rate drops.

  • The plants in a light-limited environment recognize the altered spectrum and respond in multiple ways to meet its challenges. The shaded plant, whether seedling or mature, rapidly adopts new growth strategies as the environment around it changes. A program lies within the plant genome that guides the changes necessary to survive, and perhaps thrive, in a shaded environment. The most conspicuous changes are brought about by far-red light, the dominant wavelength in the understory. A change in the ratio of red to far-red light is sensed by the phytochromes, red and far-red receptors that signal the presence of overhanging leaves or neighboring foliage. This is the principal mechanism that senses shade and has been well described.

Other effects of the plant-shaded environment are less understood. A shaded environment is enriched with green wavebands (500–580 nm) in the understory light milieu (Klein, 1992). These wavelengths, generally considered to be inconsequential to plants, affect the way that plants grow and adapt to the light environment. Leading up to the current millennium, the specific effects of green wavebands were occasionally reported in plants (Klein, 1992). Fungi, algae, and bacteria clearly exhibited green light responses, suggesting that analogous systems would be found in plants. A series of reports in the last decade have shown not only that green specific responses do exist, but also that they are oftentimes mediated by well-described light sensing systems (Banerjee et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012). Genetic and/or photophysiological experiments have shown that some green light responses are not easily attributed to the currently known suite of light receptors (Folta and Maruhnich, 2007; Goggin and Steadman, 2012).

Several reviews have discussed green light responses (Klein, 1992; Folta and Maruhnich, 2007). In this review, we compile the findings that outline plant adaptive responses to enriched green environments, such as those found in the shade of leaves. In the laboratory, precise control of light environments allows isolation of green light effects by removing far-red light and balancing red and blue against green. Genetic controls remove the influence of far-red sensing and permit analysis of green-light-driven phenomena in various photoreceptor backgrounds. Through manipulation of environmental and genetic parameters, it is possible to identify the effects of green wavebands on plant stature and physiology.

Previous SectionNext Section
PLANT PHOTORECEPTORS AND LOW-LIGHT ENVIRONMENTS
Plant photoreceptors share the common structural arrangement of a photon-absorbing chromophore bound to an apoprotein (Moglich et al., 2010). Among the photoreceptors identified in Arabidopsis thaliana (hereafter Arabidopsis), cryptochromes (cry1 and cry2) and phototropins (phot1 and phot2) are the sensors that mainly absorb UV-A and blue light. The phytochrome family (phyA-phyE) has a broader absorption spectrum than the blue light receptors, but absorbs red and far-red light most efficiently. UVR8 is the receptor that is activated by UV-B light and initiates physiological events to protect plants from damage (Rizzini et al., 2011). In addition to the photoreceptors mentioned, plants also possess another set of receptors known as the LOV (Light-Oxygen-Voltage) domain receptors. Like the aforementioned phototropins, the other LOV domain receptors, including ZTL (ZEITLUPE), LKP2 (LOV KELCH REPEAT PROTEIN 2), and FKF1 (FLAVIN-BINDING, KELCH REPEAT F-BOX), mediate responses specific to blue light. Their functions seem to be related to circadian clock maintenance and flowering time regulation (Chen et al., 2004; Demarsy and Fankhauser, 2009; Takase et al., 2011; Song et al., 2012).

It is not surprising that known photoreceptors can respond to green wavebands due to their broad absorption spectrum that tails into the green portion of the spectrum. Phytochrome can be converted to the far-red absorbing, biologically active form by green light. Green light establishes a phytochrome equilibrium favoring the active Pfr form (Hartmann, 1967), and green light is sufficient to activate phy responses like seed germination in Arabidopsis (Shinomura et al., 1996). Other receptors change their absorption properties when activated by blue light, producing a green-absorbing state. Cryptochromes exist in a blue-absorbing native state. Upon excitation by blue light, the flavin chromophore is reduced to a semiquinone that now can absorb light from the green and yellow portions of the spectrum (Banerjee et al., 2007). Illumination with green-yellow light (563 ± 10 nm) results in the inactivation of cryptochromes (Bouly et al., 2007). Green inactivation of blue-light mediated cry response has been reported (Sellaro et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2012). The phot receptors, while unlikely receptors for pure green light (Kennis et al., 2003), are profoundly sensitive, and minor blue light remnants of a green-enriched canopy are also likely highly informative (Wang et al., 2012). There are green responses that cannot be accounted for genetically (Folta, 2004; Dhingra et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2011). They persist in multiple null photoreceptor backgrounds and typically operate in the opposite direction to normal light responses. The identification of receptorless, antithetical responses leads to the hypothesis that a yet-to-be-defined green light sensor may mediate these responses.

The photoreceptors start many processes that culminate in changes in plant form and/or function, accompanied by a supporting set of gene expression changes (Tepperman et al., 2001; Folta et al., 2003; Tepperman et al., 2004). Long before genetic mutants set the stage for the discovery of light-transduction mechanisms, scientists understood the effects of specific light qualities on plant biology. Clearly, the effects of blue and red light were much stronger in inducing visible changes than other wavebands, especially in developing seedlings. However, the far-red portion of the spectrum was affecting phytochrome-driven processes, including plant movement and reorientation. The phy-mediated responses to far-red light have been well described. Less described are the green light responses and those that are blue-green reversible. These responses share the commonality of being conspicuous under low light conditions consistent with shade.

Previous SectionNext Section
SHADE RESPONSES TO DEVIATIONS IN RED/FAR-RED RATIO AND TO LOW FLUENCE RATE BLUE LIGHT
Phytochromes represent the principal mechanism that plants use to adjust growth to fit a shaded environment. Plants display extreme morphological plasticity in response to shade to escape from adverse light environments, such as dense canopy or shaded by upper leaves (Franklin, 2008). Descriptions of shade responses go back to the 1960s. Scientists tested the hypothesis that far-red-enriched environments might inhibit germination so that seedlings would only emerge after covering vegetation died back or moved (Cumming, 1963). Early studies on the abundant far-red wavelengths of canopy shade were shown to affect plant architecture by controlling stem elongation (Morgan and Smith, 1976), leaf expansion, leaf hyponasty (leading to a more vertical orientation), petiole elongation, and apical dominance (Ballare, 1999).

The responses to a low red/far-red environment have been well described at the molecular-genetic level over the last decade. Plants that belong to shade-avoiding species, like Arabidopsis, develop elongated internodes and petioles, leaf hyponasty, as well as early-flowering behaviors. These responses are known collectively as shade avoidance syndrome (SAS) (Smith and Whitelam, 1997). Genetic examinations of SAS induced by low red/far-red in cucumber and Arabidopsis plants indicate that phyB is the major photoreceptor mediating this response (López-Juez et al., 1990, 1992; Nagatani et al., 1991; Somers et al., 1991). In addition, phyD and phyE were also reported to work redundantly with phyB to regulate shade avoidance responses (Aukerman et al., 1997; Devlin et al., 1998). The phyA receptor attenuates the shade avoidance response, as phyA mutant plants display enhanced symptoms in response to low red/far-red (Johnson et al., 1994; Yanovsky et al., 1995; Salter et al., 2003; Franklin, 2008).

Downstream of the low red/far-red-induced shade avoidance pathway, plants also employ a negative regulatory gene, HFR1, to monitor and constrain the amplitude of shade avoidance responses. HFR1 acts to prevent overexaggeration of morphological changes when escaping from the shade is not successful (Sessa et al., 2005). Plants grown in a dense canopy environment not only experience the decrease in the red/far-red. They also encounter a reduction in blue light fluence rate. The depletion of blue light by canopy or neighboring plants can induce SAS-like responses (Ballaré et al., 1991a; Ballaré et al., 1991b; Pierik et al., 2004b; Keuskamp et al., 2011). The responses to low blue light are dependent upon ethylene and mediated by cryptochromes (Pierik et al., 2009).

Previous SectionNext Section
 
Contributions of green light to plant growth and development1 - PART 2
Refferences can be found here - http://www.amjbot.org/content/100/1/70.full



ADD GREEN LIGHT, PLANTS SENSE SHADE

Arabidopsis seedlings growing under some fluorescent light bulbs exhibit shade-like symptoms. These conditions contained sufficient blue light and a high ratio of red to far-red light, so they were not typical shade-inducing conditions. The phenomenon was examined further under the artificial shade of an electronic LED canopy. The relative amounts of blue, red, and green light were individually mixed and induced shaded symptoms that were green light dependent (Zhang et al., 2011). Here, addition of green light to the background of red and blue light caused an increase in the petiole length at the expense of total leaf length (the leaf blade was smaller) along with conspicuous leaf hyponasty. The assay was performed again keeping total photosynthetically active radiation the same by reducing red light fluence rate to add green, and similar results were obtained. This finding was curious because here is a case where visible light is being added to a baseline treatment of blue and red, yet inducing shade response.

Genetic tests showed that the green-light-mediated shade avoidance responses persisted in phyA, phyB, cry1, and cry2 mutant backgrounds. The phototropin mutants were not tested because phot photoreceptors have a limited absorption in the green portion of the spectrum (Kennis et al., 2004), and active phototropins promote leaf expansion in low light environments (Takemiya et al., 2005). The observation that green light induced petiole elongation but decreased leaf expansion is exactly the opposite of phot’s function. The physiological and genetic evidence suggest that an alternative means of sensing green light may be responsible for this response. The report also found that induction of traditionally induced shade avoidance marker genes (such as HAT4 and PIL1) are not induced as they are in far-red-mediated shade avoidance responses in wild-type plants. The light-induced symptoms are consistent with the far-red response, yet the accompanying gene expression differences are not in concordance.

To better separate the green from far-red light responses, shade-related gene expression was tested in photomorphogenic mutants. It was shown that the shade-induced increases in HAT4 and PIL1 transcripts, which were absent in a green-enriched environment, responded normally in the cry1, cry2, or cry1cry2 mutant backgrounds (Zhanget al., 2011). These results indicate that cry receptors are actively repressing the gene expression changes that are associated with the shade avoidance induced by green light, uncoupling the morphological and molecular changes. The results also suggest that cryptochromes are responding to green light by repressing shade-response-associated gene expression.

Genetic studies also tested the downstream signaling events in the green light response. Green-induced shade avoidance was examined in hat4 and pil1 mutant backgrounds with no detectable differences under the same experimental lighting treatments. This result suggests that HAT4 and PIL1 might be serving as the integration point for multiple shade-avoiding systems.

Previous SectionNext Section
 
Contributions of green light to plant growth and development1 - PART 3
Refferences can be found here - http://www.amjbot.org/content/100/1/70.full




GREEN AND FAR-RED LIGHT INTERACTIONS IN SHADE

Plants grown in enriched green conditions or under low red/far-red environments exhibit shade characters, yet with different patterns of gene expression. So how does a plant respond to a combination of green and far-red light? Are the treatments additive or synergistic, implying that broader spectral sensitivity generates a more robust response? Unpublished results from T. Zhang and K. Folta (University of Florida) have shown that green and far-red light together augment the shade-induced characters more than either green or far-red light alone. Differences were seen in plant morphology as well as gene expression. Genetic analyses showed that pif4 and pif5 mutants were both deficient in the response to green and/or far-red. This finding indicates that PIF4 and PIF5 are together a convergence point for far-red and green signals and that they are limiting signal transduction toward the induction of shade symptoms.

Previous SectionNext Section
HORMONAL CONTROL OF GROWTH IN SHADE
Studies in Arabidopsis have defined how plant growth regulators evoke the morphological changes associated with a shade environment. Currently, nothing is known about the hormones that contribute to the green-light-driven shade response. However, the influence of phytochrome-mediated alterations of hormone flux is remarkably well understood. It is likely that the responses are being generated through a common set of regulatory intermediates that culminate in adjustment of similar hormone activities to reshape growth and development. The following section details how red and far-red signals influence hormone levels. The discussion sets the stage for testing the same set of mutants to define genetic elements that participate in the green light responses as well.

It has been demonstrated that the low red/far-red-induced stem and petiole elongation are partly mediated by increased levels of bioactive gibberellin (GA) as well as GA responsiveness (Weller et al., 1994; López-Juez et al., 1995; Beall et al., 1996). It has been suggested that the GA-response-suppressing DELLA proteins play an important role in some shade avoidance responses (Djakovic-Petrovic et al., 2007). Recent studies have demonstrated an elegant example of light and GA crosstalk in the regulation of stem elongation. The DELLA proteins can directly bind to a group of phytochrome signaling components, including PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR 4 (PIF4), facilitating its degradation (de Lucas et al., 2008; Feng et al., 2008). PIF4 and PIF5 are negative regulators of phyB signaling and have been suggested to promote shade avoidance responses (Lorrain et al., 2008). Mutations in PIF4 and PIF5 can partially suppress the constitutive shade avoidance responses in phyB mutant.

Ethylene has been implicated in mediating shade avoidance responses. A low red to far-red ratio can dramatically stimulate ethylene biosynthesis in both tobacco and Arabidopsis plants (Pierik et al., 2004a, 2009). Increased levels of gaseous ethylene promote stem and petiole elongation, but have little effect on leaf hyponastic growth. The stimulated stem and petiole growth by ethylene is attenuated in ethylene-insensitive tobacco plants (Pierik et al., 2003, 2004a). Ethylene is also one of the phytohormones that mediate shade avoidance responses to low blue light. The reduction of blue light photon fluence rate in dense canopies can induce stem elongation and leaf hyponasty in wild-type tobacco plants, but not in ethylene-insensitive plants (Pierik et al., 2004b), indicating that ethylene signaling pathway is critical for the shade responses induced by low blue light. Exogenous application of ethylene can induce the SAS, suggesting that ethylene might serve as a plant–plant communication signal under shaded environment (Pierik et al., 2003, 2004b).

Recent studies have unveiled the fundamental role of auxin in the regulation of shade avoidance responses. Plants with mutations in an aminotransferase coding gene, TAA1, have lost part of the shade avoidance responses to simulated shade (Tao et al., 2008). Characterization of this gene indicates that it catalyzes the formation of indole-3-pyruvic acid (IPA, a precursor of auxin) from l-tryptophan (Tao et al., 2008). In wild-type plants, free IAA levels increase dramatically after 1 h of shade treatment, but not in sav3/taa1 mutant plants (Tao et al., 2008). Mutant plants with auxin signaling defects, such as tir1-1, axr1-12, and axr2-1, showed reduced or no low red/far-red-induced petiole or hypocotyl elongation (Pierik et al., 2009; Keuskamp et al., 2010). In addition, the transportation of auxin to the proper organs, cells, and subcellular locations is also important for red/far-red-induced shade avoidance. Mutations in a key auxin efflux factor gene PIN3 abolished the accumulation of auxin in the hypocotyl as well as its elongation growth (Keuskamp et al., 2010). The low red/far-red ratio can induce the expression of a subset of auxin biosynthesis and signaling genes, and these transcriptome changes are mediated by the PIF4 and PIF5 transcription factors (Nozue et al. 2011; Hornitschek et al., 2012).

A microarray study of leaf blades and petioles in response to end-of-day far-red light treatment has demonstrated a role of brassinosteroids (BR) in the mediation of shade avoidance responses (Kozuka et al., 2010). Mutation in one of the BR biosynthesis genes, ROT3/CYP90C1, led to reduced petiole elongation in rot3 mutant plants. Similarly, plants with mutation in the BR biosynthesis gene DET2 did not exhibit shade avoidance responses when treated with attenuated blue light, probably due to the severe impact to plant growth by this strong allele (Keller et al., 2011). However, mutant plants with a weak allele in the BR signaling pathway, bri1-301 (BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE 1), maintained a leaf hyponastic response to low-fluence-rate blue light, but were impaired in the petiole elongation growth (Keller et al., 2011; Keuskamp et al., 2011).

As mentioned previously, ethylene can induce shade avoidance responses, such as leaf hyponastic growth, under low blue light conditions (Pierik et al., 2004b). Genetic and pharmacological evidences suggest that abscisic acid (ABA) can attenuate ethylene-induced leaf hyponastic growth (Benschop et al., 2007). Mutants that are impaired in ABA biosynthesis, such as aba1-1, aba2-1, and aba3-1, showed higher initial petiole angles than in wild-type Arabidopsis plants in the absence of exogenous ethylene. In contrast, the ABA-hypersensitive mutant, era1-2, displayed reduced initial petiole angles compared to wild-type plants. Exogenous application of ethylene to aba2-1 and aba3-1 mutants significantly enhanced its leaf hyponastic growth compared to wild-type plants. Similarly, the ABA-hypersensitive era1-2 showed complete elimination of ethylene-induced leaf hyponasty (Benschop et al., 2007).

The crosstalk between ABA and GA signaling pathways also implies that ABA may be involved in shade responses. Harberd’s group demonstrated that ABA could stabilize DELLA proteins in an ABI1-dependent manner under salt stress (Achard et al., 2006). Additionally, PIL5/PIF1 can directly bind to the promoters of RGA and GAI genes to induce their expression. Meanwhile, the ABA biosynthesis genes or catabolic genes can be indirectly induced or repressed by PIL5/PIF1, respectively (Oh et al., 2007). Another interesting observation from Hangarter’s group suggested that green light alone could lead to significantly lower inclination angles of Arabidopsis rosette leaves than those positioned in darkness. This phenomenon was not observed in npq2/aba1 mutant plants, indicating that the green-light-induced leaf inclination changes might be partially mediated by the regulation of ABA biosynthesis (Mullen et al., 2006).

In addition to the shade-response negative regulator ABA, a plant also employs another strategy to balance resource allocation under shaded environment. Jasmonate (JA) has been well recognized as a plant defense hormone, and it also inhibits cell growth and division. Upon shade perception, the plant desensitizes JA signaling, reallocates resources for shade responses, and releases the inhibition of cell growth and division (Ballaré, 2009). This strategy enables plant to escape from the adverse shade environment at the expense of being more vulnerable to insect and pathogen attacks (Moreno et al., 2009). The study from Turner’s group provides another excellent example of the involvement of JA in shade avoidance responses (Robson et al., 2010). In their study, they demonstrated that mutants deficient in JA biosynthesis and/or responsiveness displayed exaggerated shade avoidance responses only in a low red to far-red ratio environment. Further examination of this phenomenon uncovered the integration of phyA- and JA-signaling in the regulation of shade and defense responses (Robson et al., 2010).

The complexity of hormone interactions in development of shade responses presents many potential nodes where green light signals may be integrated. Further study of hormone mutants will help define where and how green light signals are propagated in planta, as well as define how they interact with the well-established phytochrome-mediated shade-avoidance system.

Previous SectionNext Section

  • c curvature (both in rate and ultimate degree) due to less differential growth across the seedling.

    Previous SectionNext Section
    VEGETATIVE GROWTH
    In the 1960s, Klein and coworkers performed a series of studies on the effects of near ultraviolet and green light on plant growth. A common theme emerged from these works in that the green wavebands (510–585 nm) repressed the growth of a wide range of organisms, including algae, fungus, higher plants, and even plant cell cultures (Klein, 1964; Klein et al., 1965). These findings are consistent with Went’s (1957) result that tomato seedlings reached higher dry mass under reduced green light conditions compared with white light controls (Folta and Maruhnich, 2007). Data from Dougher and Bugbee (2001) indicate that yellow light (580–600 nm) reduces the dry mass of lettuce.

    Other reports provide different views regarding the green light effect on plant growth. In the aim of assisting future space missions, NASA scientists have conducted experiments on plant growth to design appropriate lighting systems for space. One result identified that when photosynthetic photon flux was kept constant, lettuce grown in a combination of red, blue, and green LED light had larger leaf area and higher fresh and dry shoot mass than those grown exclusively under red or blue alone (Kim et al., 2004a, 2004b). Their interpretation of this result is that although red and blue light are more effective for promoting photosynthesis, green light might penetrate plant leaves more efficiently and increase carbon fixation (Sun et al., 1998; Nishio, 2000; Kim et al., 2004b; Terashima et al., 2009). Dry mass of lettuce grown in red-blue (0% yellow light) light was also found to be indistinguishable from that grown in light from white fluorescent lamps (17% yellow light), a result that differs from Dougher and Bugbee’s (2001). Kim et al. (2004a) suggested that this discrepancy might result from the different lettuce cultivars used, as well as the differences in the quality and quantity of lights used.

    Previous SectionNext Section
    FLOWERING
    The transition from vegetative growth to floral development is strongly influenced by light (Guo et al., 1998; Mouradov et al., 2002). Different wavebands of light exhibit distinct roles in the regulation of floral initiation. Red light slows down floral induction via the phyB receptor, while blue light accelerates the induction mainly through the cry2 receptor (Guo et al., 1998; Valverde et al., 2004). As mentioned previously, green light can reverse blue-light-mediated stem growth inhibition by inactivating cry1. If a similar mechanism is functioning later in development, the cry2 receptor may be inactivated by green light following blue light treatments. The report from Banerjee et al. (2007) tested this hypothesis. It was shown that the time needed for blue-light-treated Arabidopsis plants to flower was significantly delayed by addition of green light (563 ± 12 nm) to the ambient conditions. Consistent with this outcome, the cry2-mediated induction of FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) transcript levels was also abolished by co-irradiation with green light, and green effects were not observed in the cry2 mutant background (Banerjee et al., 2007). These results indicate that flowering is inactivated by alteration of the cry2 signaling state.

    Other plant species are affected differently by green light, sometimes by promoting flowering. The heading time of wheat does not seem to be affected by blue light (400–500 nm), but plants grown in high-fluence-rate green-yellow light (500–600 nm) require fewer days to reach 50% heading (Kasajima et al., 2007) Analysis of inductive wavebands showed that 540 nm imposed the strongest flowering stimulation effect (Kasajima et al., 2008, 2009).

    Previous SectionNext Section
    ANTHOCYANIN ACCUMULATION
    Blue light has long been know to induce gene expression that leads to anthocyanin synthesis, and the response is mediated by cry1 (Ahmad et al., 1995). The accumulation of anthocyanin under blue light is fluence-rate dependent (Lin et al., 1996). Blue-light-regulated anthocyanin biosynthesis is also found in many other plant species, such as lettuce, tomato, and rapeseed (Giliberto et al., 2005; Chatterjee et al., 2006; Zhang and Folta, 2012). However, when green light is simultaneously delivered with blue light, the level of anthocyanin is lower than blue light treatment alone (Bouly et al., 2007; Zhang and Folta, 2012). The extent of anthocyanin reduction depends on the fluence rate of green light delivered in concert with blue light (Zhang and Folta, 2012). Close examination of this response in Arabidopsis cry1 mutant indicates that it is a cry-dependent green light response (Bouly et al., 2007). This finding also points to the green light paradox—as visible light increases, the magnitude of the light-driven response decreases.

    Previous SectionNext Section
    STOMATAL OPENING
    Blue light stimulates the opening of stomata. This response is mediated by phot1 and phot2 blue light receptors in a redundant manner and has a typical action spectrum that peaks at 450 nm with two additional shoulders at 420 nm and 470 nm (Karlsson, 1986; Kinoshita et al., 2001). Several reports indicate that green light can reverse blue-light-dependent stomatal opening responses or reduce stomatal conductance in many plant species, such as Vicia faba, Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana tabacum, Pisum sativum, and Lactuca sativa. (Frechilla et al., 2000; Talbott et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2004a). The action spectrum for the green light reversal matches well with that of blue light activation but with a 90 nm shift toward red (Frechilla et al., 2000). The extent of this green light reversal is dose-dependent, with full reversal achieved when the green light fluence rate is twice of that of blue light in both pulse and continuous illumination assays (Frechilla et al., 2000).

    Previous SectionNext Section
    GENE EXPRESSION
    Light profoundly impacts the transcription profiles during plant growth and development. During the transition from dark growth to light growth, the phyA receptor transduces environmental light information to the downstream regulated genes, of which almost half are transcription factors (Tepperman et al., 2001, 2004). Green light also induces transcriptional profile changes. Microarray analyses based on the early stem kinetics reported by Folta (2004) show that many of the transcripts upregulated by green light are identical to those induced by phyA (Dhingra et al., 2006). This observation is not surprising since phyA is extremely sensitive and abundant in the dark-grown seedling. The curious finding was that a set of light-induced plastid genes, including psaA, psbD, and rbcL were downregulated by a green light pulse relative to dark levels. The green-light-mediated downregulation of plastid gene transcripts accumulation is obvious within the fluence range of 100 to 104µmol/m2, and it is apparent as early as 15 min after a green light pulse. This response is green-light specific since it was not observed under pulses of red, far-red, blue, or red plus blue light. The time course and fluence response of this green-light-mediated plastid response is similar to the green light stimulated hypocotyl growth response. The downregulation of plastid transcripts is normal in phyA, phyB, cry1, cry2, phot1, and phot2 mutants seedlings, indicating that they are controlled by redundant photoreceptor function or possibly a novel receptor (Dhingra et al., 2006).

    Previous SectionNext Section
    CONCLUDING REMARKS
    The light qualities associated with leaf cover represent the solar spectrum minus a significant fraction of UV, blue, and red wavelengths. The shade environment is rich in far-red, and the effects of far-red are well understood. There also is a marked shift in the ratio of blue and red to green and a decrease in total fluence rate. The growing body of documented responses to these green wavelengths shows that they are most conspicuous in low-light conditions. They are mediated by cryptochromes as well as by a hypothetical sensory system. The phot1 receptor also is active in low light conditions. Understanding and separating the physiological changes induced by green light from known photosensory systems and unraveling the transduction mechanism of green light signaling will help us deepen and expand our knowledge about how different portions of the light spectrum independently or cooperatively regulate plant morphogenesis. Ultimately, this information may serve agricultural production by helping to produce better-yielding crop plants by optimizing light energy utilization.
    Powered by TrendMD


    Articles citing this articleSEEDLING
  • s mainly mediated by cry receptors and maintained as long as the blue light is present. Red and far-red light decrease hypocotyl elongation by acting principally through phyB and phyA, respectively. Computer-aided image capture and analysis has revealed the precise timing of early changes in elongation rate, showing that blue, red, and far-red effects are observed within minutes of illumination and are mediated by phot, cry, and phy receptors (reviewed by Parks et al. [2001]). The general rule is that light causes the developing seedling to cease rapid elongation and adopt a strategy of vegetative aerial growth appropriate for the light environment.
 
Influence of Green, Red and Blue Light Emitting Diodes on Multiprotein Complex Proteins and Photosynthetic Activity under Different Light Intensities in Lettuce Leaves (Lactuca sativa L.)
Sowbiya Muneer, Eun Jeong Kim, Jeong Suk Park, and Jeong Hyun Lee*
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Go to:
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the response of light emitting diodes (LEDs) at different light intensities (70 and 80 for green LEDs, 88 and 238 for red LEDs and 80 and 238 μmol m−2 s−1 for blue LEDs) at three wavelengths in lettuce leaves. Lettuce leaves were exposed to (522 nm), red (639 nm) and blue (470 nm) LEDs of different light intensities. Thylakoid multiprotein complex proteins and photosynthetic metabolism were then investigated. Biomass and photosynthetic parameters increased with an increasing light intensity under blue LED illumination and decreased when illuminated with red and green LEDs with decreased light intensity. The expression of multiprotein complex proteins including PSII-core dimer and PSII-core monomer using blue LEDs illumination was higher at higher light intensity (238 μmol m−2 s−1) and was lowered with decreased light intensity (70–80 μmol m−2 s−1). The responses of chloroplast sub-compartment proteins, including those active in stomatal opening and closing, and leaf physiological responses at different light intensities, indicated induced growth enhancement upon illumination with blue LEDs. High intensity blue LEDs promote plant growth by controlling the integrity of chloroplast proteins that optimize photosynthetic performance in the natural environment.

Keywords: lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), light emitting diodes, photosynthesis, stomata, BN-PAGE
Go to:
1. Introduction
Plants use light as an energy source for photosynthesis and as an environmental signal, and respond to its intensity, wavelength, and direction. Light is perceived by plant photoreceptors that include phytochromes, cryptochromes and phototropins and plants generate a wide range of specific physiological responses through these receptors. A major challenge to plants is controlled by supplying sufficient quantity and quality of light intensities [1,2]. Light emitting diodes (LEDs) has been proposed as a light source for controlled environment agriculture facilities and space based plant growth chambers because they exhibit desirable characteristics such as small mass, safety and durability [35].

Plant development and physiology are strongly influenced by the light spectrum of the growth environment among which blue light is involved in a wide range of plant processes such as phototropism, photo-morphogenesis, stomatal opening, and leaf photosynthetic functioning [6]. Most studies assessing the effects of blue light (blue LEDs) on the leaf or whole plant have either compared the response to a broadband light source with response to blue deficient light [7] or compared plants grown under red light alone [5,8]. On the other hand, red LEDs emit a narrow spectrum of light (660 nm) that is close to the maximum absorbance for both chlorophyll and phytochromes. Although red light components have a great potential for use as a light source to drive photosynthesis, plants are adapted to utilize a wide-spectrum of light to control photosynthesis [9]. The green LEDs have reduced photosynthesis [10]. Several reports have assessed the efficiency and deficiency of green light on growth and development of plants. Frechilla et al. [11] demonstrated that a brief pulse of green light could oppose stomatal opening, while stomates open if green light is followed by blue light.

The absorption of blue and red light (LEDs) by plants has been measured as 90% [12] which indicates that plant development and physiology is strongly influenced by blue or red light [13]. In contrast, green light has been reported to be negative on physiological and developmental incomes [14]. Many studies have been reported on several crops grown under deficiency/efficiency or using a combination of red and blue light at different wavelengths [15,16] on growth and development of plants. Plants grown under blue light exhibit photosynthesis more similar to those grown under red light, such as chlorophyll a and b ratio [17,18], a greater site f content [18] and a greater ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO) content [19].

However, little is known on the integrity of combined effect of green, red and blue LEDs, with no experimental evidence available concerning the expression of multiprotein complexes for promotion of induction of photosynthesis. Presently, we grew lettuce plants (Lactuca sativa L.) under different light intensities at three wavelengths (given in Table 1) of green, red and blue LEDs and analyzed the expression of thylakoid multiprotein complex proteins (MCPs), opening and closing of stomata and major photosynthetic parameters. Photosynthetic-mediated proteins in sub-compartments of chloroplasts including stomatal opening and closing and photosynthetic activity responded most to blue LEDs of high light intensity. The response of photosynthesis was more sensitive in blue LEDs than red and green LEDs.


Table 1.

Stomatal densities at respective different LEDs with different light intensities.
Go to:
2. Results
2.1. Growth Analysis and Leaf Water Potential
We analyzed fresh and dry biomass of roots and leaves and it was observed that the biomass of plants grown under blue LEDs at high light intensity (238 μmol m−2 s−1) was significantly higher than low light intensity (80 μmol m−2 s−1). The biomass was observed to be low in plants grown under red and lowest under green LEDs with a decrease in light intensity (Figure 1A–D).


Figure 1.

Growth parameters (A) Leaf fresh weight; (B) Root fresh weight; (C) Leaf dry weight; (D) Root dry weight and (E) Leaf water potential as affected by green, red and blue LEDs at different light intensities—green (70 and 180 μmol m−1 ...
ΨW (water potential) reached a maximium of −2.3 Mpa in plants grown under blue LEDs at 238 μmol m−2s−1 (Figure 1E) and a minimum of −0.23 MPa in leaves of plants grown under green LEDs at 91 μmol m−2s−1.

2.2. Photosynthetic Activity, Stomatal Conductance, Fv/Fm Ratio, and Transpiration
The plants grown at 238 μmol m−2 s−1 showed a significantly higher rate of photosynthesis (Figure 2A) than plants grown at 80 μmol m−2 s−1 under blue LEDs. However, the plants grown under red LEDs showed lower rates of photosynthesis with a decrease in light intensity. The lowest rate of photosynthesis was observed for the plants grown under green LEDs with a decrease in light intensity.


Figure 2.

Changes in photosynthetic parameters (A) Net photosynthesis; (B) Stomatal conductance; (C) Fv/Fm; and (D) Transpiration rate as affected by green, red and blue LEDs at different light intensities—green (70 and 180 μmol m−1 s−1 ...
The observations of plants grown under blue LEDs at 238 μmol m−2 s−1 positively showed that induction of stomatal conductance, Fv/Fm and transpiration rate (Figure 2B–D) occurred moreso than for the plants grown under red LEDs. Under green LEDs, the stomatal conductance, Fv/Fm and transpiration rate was reduced compared to red and blue LEDs.

2.3. Stomatal Observations
We observed stomata at different LEDs and different light intensities (Figure 3A–C). The plants grown under blue LEDs at 80 and 238 μmol m−2 s−1 showed well organized guard cells with open stomata and the number of stomata was also observed to be higher (see normalized expression). However, although the plants grown under green and red LEDs at different light intensities showed well organized guard cells, the stomata was observed to be closed and a reduction in the number of stomata was also observed. We also detected stomatal density (Table 1), and observed that under blue LEDs at 80 and 238 μmol m−2 s−1, stomatal density was higher compared to green and red LEDs at their respcteive light intensities.


Figure 3.

(A,B) Representative images; and (C) Normalized expression of stomata as affected by green, red and blue LEDs at different light intensities green (70 and 180 μmol m−1 s−1), red (88 and 238 μmol m−1 s−1 ...
2.4. Thylakoid Membrane Proteins
First dimensional electrophoresis run under native conditions on BN-PAGE were used to separate intact multiprotein complexes from thylakoids isolated from mature leaves as affected by different light intensities and different LEDs (Figure 4). Gel portions between 1000 and 669 kDa contained PSII PSII-core dimer super complex bands (band 1). The intensity of these bands was observed highest at 238 μmol m−2 s−1 and lowest at 80 μmol m−2 s−1 in plants grown under blue LEDs (also see normalized expression). Band 1 at 238 was higher and lower, respectively, at 88 μmol m−2 s−1 in plants grown under red LEDs. These bands were very faint at 70 μmol m−2 s−1 in plants grown under green LEDs. In contrast, the intensity of this band was highest in plants grown under blue LEDs than red and green LEDs at different light intensities. The blue band at 440–232 kDa (band 2 and 3) contained the PSII monomer/ATP synthase and PSI monomer/Cytb6f. Reduction of this band was marked in green LEDs at 70 μmol m−1 s−1 and was observed to be highly expressed at blue LEDs at 238 μmol m−1 s−1. Analogously strong variation was observed at 140 kDa (band 4), which contained LHCII (light harvesting complex) assembly trimer. This band was expressed in almost all conditions. However, the intensity was marginally higher in plants grown under blue LEDs at 238 μmol m−1 s−1 and lower in plants grown under red and green LEDs at different light intensities. A LHCII (light harvesting complex) monomer was identified at 67 kDa (band 5) remained unaffected under all light sources and light intensities, except a strong variation was observed at 238 μmol m−1 s−1 under blue LEDs.


Figure 4.

(A) Analysis of thylakoid protein complex by BN-Page; (B) RuBisCO determination by SDS-PAGE; (C) and quantification as affected by green, red and blue LEDs at different light intensities green (70 and 180 μmol m−1 s−1), red (88 ...
For RuBisCo content quantification was performed after sodium dodecyl polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) (Figure 4B,C). The intensity of RuBisCO was observed highest at 238 μmol m−2 s−1 and lowered at 80 μmol m−2 s−1 in plants grown under blue LEDs. The intensity of RuBisCO was strongly reduced at green LEDs at 180 μmol m−2 s−1 and absent at 70 μmol m−2 s−1.

Go to:
 
Influence of Green, Red and Blue Light Emitting Diodes on Multiprotein Complex Proteins and Photosynthetic Activity under Different Light Intensities in Lettuce Leaves (Lactuca sativa L.) - PART 2

3. Discussion

The structure and physiology of plants are particularly regulated by light signals from the environment [4,20], as the primary response of plants during photosynthesis completely depends on light conditions. Plant growth and productivity depends on the light conditions [21] and photosynthetic metabolism is detrimentally affected by light intensity. Plants have developed a sophisticated mechanism to adapt their structure and physiology to the light environment. In this study, we demonstrate that blue LEDs with high light intensity superimpose over red and green LEDs. Plants grown under blue LEDs successfully induced maximum ΨW (water potential) to −2.33 MPa and fell to a minimum value of −0.233 MPa in leaves of plants grown at green LEDs (Figure 1E). Exposure to green LEDs reduces biomass at low light intensity and a biomass increase was observed under blue LEDs at 238 μmol m−1 s−1. These results give a clear indication that blue LEDs in combination with high light intensities are more efficient for biomass production in plants. Red and blue light is important for expansion of the leaf and enhancement of biomass [2224]. Yorio et al. [5] reported that there was higher weight accumulation in lettuce grown under red light supplemented with blue light than in lettuce grown under red light alone. However, the shoot dry matter weight of leaf lettuce plants irradiated with blue light decreased compared with that of white light [25]. In the present experiments, blue LEDs in combination with high light intensity was important for growth elongation and biomass accumulation compared to plants grown under low light intensities.

Physiological studies of photosynthesis conducted for many years have considered various light conditions. A combination of red and blue LEDs is an effective source for photosynthesis [16] using different light intensities and wave lengths. Blue LEDs deficiency can result in acclimations of light energy partitioning in PSII and CO2 to high irradiance in spinach leaves [7]. Presently, lettuce plants depended on high light intensity (Figure 2) and LEDs for higher rate of photosynthesis. The higher rate of photosynthesis at 238 μmol m−1 s−1 in plants grown at blue LEDs indicated that lettuce plants displayed pronounced acclimation of photosystems for CO2 fixation than plants grown under red and green LEDs. A lower photosynthetic rate in plants grown under red LEDs has been observed in several crops including rice [8] and in wheat [3]. The reduced rate of photosynthesis under low light intensity and red LEDs suggests that vulnerability to a decreased the photosynthetic rate might be associated with changes in multiprotein complexes (PSI and PSII). The lower rate of photosynthesis in red LEDs can also be attributed to low nitrogen content in leaves, due to low chlorophyll and carotenoid content, which was also observed in the present study (data not shown) [26].

The stomata are important channels for the exchange of water and gases with external environmental conditions. Light influences stomata conductivity and proton motive forces [27]. The development of stomata has been related to light intensity [28]. Our results agree with these previous findings and additionally show that blue LEDs are more efficient in stomatal structure and opening and closing of stomata (Figure 3). The number of stomata increased more in plants grown under blue LEDs at 238 μmol m−1 s−1 compared to plants grown under low light intensities and other LEDs. The closure and reduced number of stomata might be due to defoliation of leaves under low light intensity during growth of lettuce. Indeed, high temperatures under different light intensity conditions might induce palisade and increased sponge parenchyma cell length and thickness [29]. The closure of stomata with reduced normalized expression and number might be also the reason for reduction of transpiration rate and stomatal conductance in lettuce which were grown under green LEDs more so than those grown under blue LEDs.

The thylakoid membranes are the sub-compartments in which the primary reactions of photosynthesis occur. About 100 proteins are involved in these reactions; they are organized in four major multisubunit protein complexes: PSI, PSII, ATP synthase complex and cytochrome b6/f (cyt b6/f) complex [30]. Proteomics of the thylakoid membrane are an excellent approach to establish the number and identity of the proteins localized to this sub-compartment in pigment–multiprotein complexes, and to study the impact of light intensity and light source on them for increased photosynthetic metabolism and other physiological process. Several diverse photosynthetic factors have been observed at different light intensities with inhibition of photosynthetic factors associated with carbohydrate metabolism in leaves [31]. However, to date there is no information on the expression of thylakoid proteins under different intensities of light and light sources. Our results show that the induction in the expression of PSII-core dimer under blue LEDs at 238 μmol m−1 s−1 (Figure 4A). The reduction of these multiprotein complexes at red and green LEDs might limit mineral nutrient clusters which are associated with the chloroplast membrane [32]. In addition to this, leaves exposed to green LEDs might reject light due to chlorosis that occurs due to proteolytic loss of photosystems and the cytb6/f complex [33] and the light-harvesting chlorophylls and carotenoids. The inhibition of PSI and PSII under red and green LEDs with low light intensity suggests the involvement of an unidentified problem related to transport of substances in plants are due to reduced amounts of core antenna Chl-protein complexes [34]. The involvement of blue LEDs at high light intensity leads to maintenance of PSI and PSII core complexes. In some reports, it has been postulated that the intensity of blue light for activation of PSII core protein content in Arabidopsis acting via cryptochromes, along with non-blue specific activation signals

Our data clearly show that RuBisCO was expressed at 238 μmol m−1 s−1 whereas it was absent in plants grown under green LED light sources (Figure 4B,C) which were positively paralleled with other multiprotein complexes. The enhancement of RuBisCO under high intensity of blue LED might be associated with an increase in the amount of N content accompanied by induction of chlorophyll content or it might be also due to wider and thinner expansion of palisade and sponge parenchyma. The induction of RuBisCO in plants grown under blue LED light might be also due the expansion of palisade and sponge parenchyma. Reduction of thylakoid protein complexes and photosynthetic parameters under green and red LEDs at low light intensity indicate a close dependence of the photosynthetic metabolism on the source of light and its intensity. The proteins of chloroplast sub-compartments under blue LEDs at high light intensity optimize photosynthesis and provide an advantage for higher growth and development of plants than those grown under red and green LEDs at low light intensities.

Go to:
4. Material and Methods
4.1. LEDs of Different Light Intensities
All combined LEDs had different spectra of green, red, and blue light. Light treatments for young lettuce plants were 70 and 180 μmol m−2 s−1 for green, 88 and 238 μmol m−2 s−1 for red, and 80 and 238 μmol m−2 s−1 for blue. Photon flux density (PPFD) was measured using a LI-250 quantum sensor (LI-COR, Lincoln, NE, USA) and was separately controlled by adjusting both electric currents and number of light bulbs for the LEDs. The wavelengths of different light intensities are shown in Table 2. All treatments were done in a culture room, employing separate plots for the different light intensities. The room was ventilated to maintain the CO2 level the same as that of the outside atmosphere. The relative humidity was maintained at 70% ± 10% with a 16 h photoperiod and a temperature of 25 °C during the light period and 18 °C during the dark period.


Table 2.

Major light wavelengths of different light intensities.

4.2. Plant Material and Growth Conditions
Red-wrinkled lettuce seeds (“Hongyeom”, Sakata Korea Seed, Seoul, Korea) of Lactuca sativa L. were sown in 240 cells of Rockwool tray with electrical conductivity of 1.5 dS m−1 and were germinated at 25 °C under florescent light. The seedling with 5 true leaves seven days after sowing was transplanted on the growing system of deep flow technique (DFT) using commercially solid nutrient [35] (Global Coseal, Limited, Seoul, Korea) diluted in tap water with EC 1.53 dS m−1 with pH 5.9. The plants were randomized into eight groups and were placed under 8 light treatments for 15 days. All measurements were carried out using the fully expanded mature leaf of the plant.

4.3. Growth Measurements and ΨW Potential
Plants were uprooted carefully from the hydroponic solution and blot-dried with soft lint free paper. Each plant was separated into roots, stem, and leaves using a sharp scalpel and forceps in moist paper sheets. The biomass of the leaf, root, and stem fractions was determined. For dry biomass determination, plant material was dried at 65 °C for 2 days and weighed on an electronic weighing balance.

After fresh and dry weight of samples following formula was used to calculate leaf water potential.


Relative water content (RWC)%=(FW−DW)/(TM−DW)×100

where FW indicates fresh weight, DW indicates dry weight and TM indicates turgid weight.

4.4. Measurement of Photosynthetic Activity
Photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and stomatal conductance were measured using a LI-6400XT portable photosynthesis measurement system (LI-COR, John Morris Scientific, Sydney, Australia). Gas exchange was measured on the fully expanded mature leaves at 20 °C inside the clutch with CO2concentration maintained at 600 μmol mol−1. Chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) was measured by using a PAM 2000 chlorophyll fluorescence meter (Heinz Walz GmbH, Effeltrich, Germany). The leaves were adapted to dark conditions for 30 min before measurement. The maximum fluorescence (Fm) and minimum fluorescence (F0) were determined by applying a saturating light pulse (20 kHz) of 1100 μmol·m−2·s−1 PPF for 3 μs. The maximum PS II quantum yield (Fv/Fm) was calculated as Fv/Fm = (Fm − F0)/Fm.

4.5. Observation of Stomata
For stomatal observation, thin layers of leaf tissues were carefully cut and were laid on a glass slide, covered with a cover slip by adding a few drops of glycerine, and were observed using a DM4000 light microscope (Leica, Wetzlar, Germany) at 10× and 40× magnification. The number of stomata was observed by counting the number in the present leaf area. The stomatal density was calculated by dividing the number of stomata counted by 10 times the area of 1 grid square.

4.6. Multiprotein Complex Proteins
Blue native-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (BN-PAGE) of integral thylakoid proteins was performed as previously described [36]. Five grams of fresh leaf tissues were homogenized in liquid nitrogen and thylakoid membranes were extracted using an extraction buffer (pH 7.8) containing 20 mM Tricine-NaOH, 70 mM sucrose, and 5 mM MgCl2 and were filtered through miracloth/cheesecloth before centrifugation at 4500× g for 10 min. The thylakoid pellet was resuspended in the same buffer (pH 7.8) and centrifuged again. The resulting pellet containing thylakoid membranes was washed and extracted with each proper buffer. An equal volume of resuspension buffer containing 2% (w/v) n-dodecyl-β-d maltoside (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was added under continuous mixing and the solubilization of membrane-protein complexes was allowed to occur for 3 min on ice. Insoluble material was removed by centrifugation at 18,000× g for 15 min. The supernatant was mixed with 0.1 volume of 5% w/v Serva blue G, 100 mM Bis Tris-HCl (pH 7.0), 30% w/v sucrose, and 500 mM €-amino-n-caproic acid and loaded onto a 0.75-mm-thick 5%–12.5% w/v acrylamide gradient gel (180 × 160 mm). Electrophoresis was performed at 4 °C by increasing the voltage from 100 to 200 V overnight.

4.7. RuBisCO Determination by SDS-PAGE
Leaf tissues were homogenized at 4 °C in 100 mM Tris buffer (pH 7.5) containing 5 mM of DTT, 2 mM iodoacetate and 5% (v/v) glycerol at a leaf; buffer ratio of 1:5–10 (g:mL). For this extraction, a buffer without sodium or potassium ion was recommended for SDS-PAGE analysis because those cations reduce the solubility of DS (dodecyl sulfate). Before centrifugation, a TritonX100 (25%, v/v) was added to a portion of leaf homogenate to make a final concentration of 0.1% (v/v). An addition of TritonX100 was effective for the extraction of RuBisCO bound to the membrane fraction. The homogenates were centrifuged at 5000× g for 3 min at 4 °C. A lithium DS solution (25% w/v) and 2-mercaptoethanol were added to the supernatant fluid to a final concentration of 1.0% (w/v) and 1% (v/v), respectively. This preparation was immediately treated at 100 °C for 1 min, and was then stored at −30 °C until the analysis of SDS-PAGE. The samples containing 2–10 μg RuBisCO were loaded onto 12% polyacrylamide gel. After electrophoresis, the gels were stained in 0.25% (w/v) CBB-R. The stained bands corresponding to larger and smaller subunits of RuBisCO were cut out of the gels with a razor blade and were eluted in 1–2.5 mL of formamide in a stoppered amber test tube at 50 °C for 5 h with shaking. The absorbance of the resultant solution was read at 595 nm with a spectrophotometer. RuBisCO content was determined by using the standard curve calculated from the absorbance of a known amount of purified RuBisCO.

4.8. Statistical Analysis
A completely randomized design was used with five replicates for six treatments. An individual Student’s t test and Tukey’s studentized range test was employed to compare the means of separate replicates by using SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).


Go to:
5. Conclusions
Finally, we conclude that blue LEDs at high light intensity promote plant growth by controlling the integrity of chloroplast proteins that elevates photosynthetic performance in the natural environment. Further analysis in multiprotein complex proteins followed by the second dimension along with genomic data will provide important information for development of plants with better with-standing potential under different light intensities and LED conditions.
 
Back
Top