Skip to main content

Main menu

  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Preview Papers
    • Focus Collections
    • Classics Collection
    • Upcoming Focus Issues
  • Advertisers
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Board and Staff
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Contact Us
  • Other Publications
    • Plant Physiology
    • The Plant Cell
    • Plant Direct
    • The Arabidopsis Book
    • Plant Cell Teaching Tools
    • ASPB
    • Plantae

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Plant Physiology
  • Other Publications
    • Plant Physiology
    • The Plant Cell
    • Plant Direct
    • The Arabidopsis Book
    • Plant Cell Teaching Tools
    • ASPB
    • Plantae
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Plant Physiology

Advanced Search

  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Preview Papers
    • Focus Collections
    • Classics Collection
    • Upcoming Focus Issues
  • Advertisers
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Board and Staff
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Contact Us
  • Follow plantphysiol on Twitter
  • Visit plantphysiol on Facebook
  • Visit Plantae
Research ArticleENVIRONMENTAL STRESS AND ADAPTATION
You have accessRestricted Access

Antifreeze Proteins Modify the Freezing Process In Planta

Marilyn Griffith, Chelsey Lumb, Steven B. Wiseman, Michael Wisniewski, Robert W. Johnson, Alejandro G. Marangoni
Marilyn Griffith
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chelsey Lumb
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven B. Wiseman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Wisniewski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert W. Johnson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alejandro G. Marangoni
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Published May 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.104.058628

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Antifreeze activity of guttate from nonacclimated and cold-acclimated winter rye leaves. A, No antifreeze activity was observed in nonacclimated winter rye leaves. B and C, Low levels of antifreeze activity were observed in guttate from cold-acclimated leaves. D to F, Higher antifreeze activity was observed when guttate from cold-acclimated leaves was concentrated 30-fold. Magnification bar represents 20 μm.

    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    A, Freezing in nonacclimated (N), ABA-treated (A), ethephon-treated (E), and cold-acclimated (C) winter rye leaves observed by IRVT as leaves were cooled 0.05°C min−1 over a period of 38 min 30 s. Each image shows eight winter rye leaves oriented vertically with a droplet of ice+ bacteria placed midleaf. After freezing, the droplet was colder than the ambient temperature due to sublimation of water. The temperature scale and range are shown below each image. a and b, ABA-treated leaves froze first, followed quickly by nonacclimated leaves. c, Initiation of freezing (arrows) in cold-acclimated leaves. d, Initiation of freezing (arrows) in ethephon-treated leaves. Magnification bar in a represents 0.5 cm. B, Freezing in nonacclimated (NA), cold-acclimated (CA), and ethephon-treated (Eth) winter rye leaves. Leaves were cooled at 0.10°C min−1 over a period of 16 min 40 s, and freezing was observed by IRVT. A droplet containing ice+ bacteria was placed midleaf. After freezing, the droplet was colder than the ambient temperature due to sublimation of water. The temperature range and time that the image was taken are shown below each image. a, Arrows indicate two freezing exotherms in nonacclimated leaves that were not observed in either cold-acclimated or ethephon-treated leaves. b, Nonacclimated, cold-acclimated, and ethephon-treated leaves froze within a 1-min interval. c, The exotherm dissipated in the cold-acclimated leaf as the temperature rose by 0.4°C. d, The cold-acclimated leaf refroze upon cooling. Magnification bar in d represents 0.5 cm.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Effect of apoplastic proteins from cold-acclimated winter rye leaves on the rate of migration of ice through solution-saturated filter paper at −2.5°C. The samples were AE (apoplastic extract; 0.2 mg protein mL−1), and 2× AE (apoplastic extract concentrated 2-fold by ultrafiltration). Controls included water; Suc at a concentration of 40 mOs, which was the same osmotic concentration as AE and 2× AE; and BSA at a concentration of 5 mg protein mL−1. Data are presented as mean ice migration rates ± sem; n = 4.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Recrystallization of ice in the presence of apoplastic proteins from nonacclimated (C and D) and cold-acclimated (E and F) winter rye. Apoplastic extracts dialyzed against 5 mm EDTA were adjusted to a final concentration of 0.14 mg protein mL−1 and Suc was added to a concentration of 26% (w/w). The samples were frozen on a cold stage as follows: cooled at 30°C min−1 to −50°C, warmed at 10°C min−1 to −10°C, held 10 min, warmed at 1°C min−1 to −7°C, cooled at 1°C min−1 to −8°C, warmed to −7°C, and held isothermally. Samples were photographed at 3 min (A, C, and E) and 53 min (B, D, and F). A solution of 26% Suc was used as a control (A and B). Magnification bar = 100 μm.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Quantification of ice recrystallization in the presence of apoplastic proteins from nonacclimated (NA) and cold-acclimated (CA) winter rye. Ice crystals that formed in nonacclimated and cold-acclimated apoplastic extracts containing (26%, w/w) Suc were measured after holding at −7°C for 3 to 53 min to allow recrystallization. The blank (B) was a solution of 26% Suc. Data were calculated as equivalent diameter and as aspect ratio (maximum diameter/minimum diameter) and are presented as means ± se; n = 12 for the blank; n = 12 for nonacclimated samples; and n = 6 for cold-acclimated samples.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Cryoprotection of LDH by rye apoplastic proteins and BSA. LDH was frozen and thawed eight times in the presence of either BSA or apoplastic proteins isolated from cold-acclimated winter rye leaves. LDH activity was measured spectrophotometrically as the oxidation of NADH and calculated as a percentage of the unfrozen control. The data are presented as means ± se; n = 4.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Cryoprotection of spinach thylakoids by rye apoplastic proteins. Unstacked spinach thylakoids were frozen and thawed in the presence of apoplastic proteins isolated from cold-acclimated winter rye leaves, then MgCl2 was added to one-half of the samples to stack the thylakoids. Relative packed thylakoid volume was calculated as a percentage of the packed thylakoid volume of the corresponding unfrozen controls × 100. Data are presented as means ± se; n = 3.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table I.

    Freezing characteristics of winter rye leaves from plants grown at 20°C (NA) or 5°C (CA), or grown at 20°C and treated with ABA or ethephon as described in “Materials and Methods”

    Freezing and supercooling temperatures were determined by IRVT in the presence and absence, respectively, of ice+ bacteria. LT50 was calculated as the temperature at which the leaf lost 50% of the total leaf conductivity following freezing and thawing. Data are presented as means ± se (number of replicates). Within a row, means followed by different letters are statistically different from each other at P ≤ 0.05. Antifreeze activity was determined by observing the shape of ice crystals grown in solution. NA, Nonacclimated; CA, cold acclimated; FW, fresh weight.

    CharacteristicTreatment of Winter Rye Plants
    NAABAEthephonCA
    Apoplastic protein content (mg g−1 FW)0.1 ± 0.03 (3) aab0.4 ± 0.01 (3) ba0.3 ± 0.02 (3) bc0.3 ± 0.01 (3) bb
    Freezing temperature (°C)−2.4 ± 0.1 (16) a−2.1 ± 0.1 (17) a−2.7 ± 0.2 (19) b−3.3 ± 0.2 (16) b
    Supercooling temperature (°C)−13.4 ± 0.3 (3) a−13.8 ± 1.0 (3) a−13.6 ± 0.5 (3) a−12.2 ± 2.8 (3) a
    LT50 (°C)−7.0 ± 0.1 (3) a−7.3 ± 0.1 (3) a−6.3 ± 0.3 (3) a−25.3 ± 0.7 (3) b
    Antifreeze activityNoNoYesYes
    • ↵a Data from Yu and Griffith (2001).

    • ↵b Data from Marentes et al. (1993).

    • ↵c Data from Yu et al. (2001).

PreviousNext
Back to top

Table of Contents

Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Plant Physiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Antifreeze Proteins Modify the Freezing Process In Planta
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Plant Physiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Plant Physiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Antifreeze Proteins Modify the Freezing Process In Planta
Marilyn Griffith, Chelsey Lumb, Steven B. Wiseman, Michael Wisniewski, Robert W. Johnson, Alejandro G. Marangoni
Plant Physiology May 2005, 138 (1) 330-340; DOI: 10.1104/pp.104.058628

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Antifreeze Proteins Modify the Freezing Process In Planta
Marilyn Griffith, Chelsey Lumb, Steven B. Wiseman, Michael Wisniewski, Robert W. Johnson, Alejandro G. Marangoni
Plant Physiology May 2005, 138 (1) 330-340; DOI: 10.1104/pp.104.058628
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • LITERATURE CITED
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

In this issue

Plant Physiology: 138 (1)
Plant Physiology
Vol. 138, Issue 1
May 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View this article with LENS

More in this TOC Section

  • Submergence-Induced Morphological, Anatomical, and Biochemical Responses in a Terrestrial Species Affect Gas Diffusion Resistance and Photosynthetic Performance
  • The Capacity for Thermal Protection of Photosynthetic Electron Transport Varies for Different Monoterpenes in Quercus ilex
  • The Root Tip and Accelerating Region Suppress Elongation of the Decelerating Region without any Effects on Cell Turgor in Primary Roots of Maize under Water Stress
Show more ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS AND ADAPTATION

Similar Articles

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Plant Physiology Preview
  • Archive
  • Focus Collections
  • Classic Collections
  • The Plant Cell
  • Plant Direct
  • Plantae
  • ASPB

For Authors

  • Instructions
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Editorial Board and Staff
  • Policies
  • Recognizing our Authors

For Reviewers

  • Instructions
  • Journal Miles
  • Policies

Other Services

  • Permissions
  • Librarian resources
  • Advertise in our journals
  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2021 by The American Society of Plant Biologists

Powered by HighWire