Open access peer-reviewed chapter

The Role of Metabolites in Abiotic and Biotic Stress Tolerance in Legumes

Written By

Soheila Afkar

Submitted: 02 October 2023 Reviewed: 12 October 2023 Published: 13 December 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1003813

From the Edited Volume

Recent Trends in Plant Breeding and Genetic Improvement

Mohamed A. El-Esawi

Chapter metrics overview

46 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Population growth in the world has made the production of food to feed this population a major challenge. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that to meet human food needs by 2050, crop productivity must double. Legumes family plays an important role in food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainability. It is determined that plant development and stress responses, as well as processes such as growth, the integrity of cells, energy storing, cellular signaling, formation of membrane and scaffolding, cellular replenishing, and whole-plant resource assignment, are managed by plant metabolites. One of the important parts of early stress responses concerns changes in plant metabolism, which includes the accumulation of antioxidants for the protection of cellular components from oxidative damage and the accumulation of compatible solutes that retain water in the cell. Other components, such as GABA and amino acids, including threonine, leucine, methionine, lysine, valine, and isoleucine, were usually induced during environmental stress conditions. In general, it was determined that plants containing various metabolites alter their physiology to adapt to various situations, such as stress. Important metabolites that play a role in tolerance to stress in legumes can help breeding programs in developing stress-tolerant cultivars to increase food security in the world.

Keywords

  • legumes
  • secondary metabolite
  • primary metabolite
  • protein
  • biotic stress
  • abiotic stress

1. Introduction

Concerning the increasing population of the world, the production of food to feed this population is a major challenge. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that to meet human food needs by 2050, crop productivity must increase. However, because of climate change, the increase in production is not promising. In many countries, it is expected that the productivity of many crops will decrease by roughly 50% by 2080 [1, 2]. Changing global climatic conditions has a negative impact on food security and human health in two ways: 1- It directly affects the amount of food and indirectly affects the spread of disease and pests, water availability, and environmental pollution and 2- It changes CO2 concentration that causes a change in plant biomass [1]. The third largest flowering family is the legume family, which is classified into five subfamilies, including Detarioideae, Cercidoideae, Dialioideae, Papilionoideae, Caesalpinioideae, and Duparquetioideae [2]. Due to their symbiotic relationship with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, the legume family is able to fix nitrogen, so they provide nitrogen for subsequent crops and reduce future nitrogen fertilizer usage [3, 4]. On the other hand, legumes are a family with a rich source of plant proteins, fibers, carbohydrates, dietary fibers, vitamins, and minerals, and they are low in fat [3, 4, 5, 6]. Hence, seeds of the legume family have an important role in the human diet as they are rich in proteins, minerals, vitamins, and bioactive compounds [7]. Moreover, the legumes family plays an important role in food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainability [8]. Legumes provide 27% of global primary crop production and 33% of protein requirements and take the second place in food production after cereals [9]. In addition to primary metabolites, legumes are rich in secondary metabolites such as isoflavones, triterpenoid saponins, and inositol phosphates [5, 10, 11]. It is documented that stress tolerance in the legume family can be induced through the production of secondary metabolites such as phenolic, flavonoids, various alkaloids, and carotenoids [12].

Therefore, investigating the metabolites affecting the tolerance of biotic and abiotic stress in legumes helps researchers in breeding legumes to produce more yield under different stresses. In this part, with the aim of identifying important metabolites that play a role in tolerance to stresses in legumes, we reviewed metabolomics studies that focused on important abiotic stressors of legumes.

Advertisement

2. Drought stress

It is determined that water stress modifies the transcriptomic and metabolic profiles in plants. During drought, processes, such as the accumulation of compatible solutes and the production of hormones and antioxidants, occur for the regulation of the physiological processes. Also, the plant’s ability to tolerate water stress is associated with soluble compounds such as polyamines, sucrose, trehalose, amino acids, polyhydric alcohols, mannose, and oligosaccharides. Therefore, the regulation of these compounds can be used for the improvement of drought tolerance in legume plants [13, 14, 15]. Several studies reported that changes in some key primary and secondary metabolites, such as sugars, amino acids, polyamines, phytohormones, secondary metabolites, antioxidants, and TCA cycle metabolites, are the response and adaptation mechanism of legumes to water-deficient conditions [16]. In a study by Goufo and colleagues, when cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) was exposed to water deficiency, 41 primary metabolites such as 5 sugars, 4 polyols, 24 amino acids, and 8 organic acids were detected. In addition, secondary metabolites such as Quercetin 3-O-6″-malonylglycoside, kaempferol 3-O-diglycoside, quercetin, and galactinol were identified [14]. Drought stress increased soybean plants’ leucine, isoleucine, glycine, and proline. It seems that leucine, isoleucine, proline, and glycine are indicative of the potential for an advanced tolerance reaction under drought stress [17]. Cowpea plants responded to drought with an increase in quercetin 3-O-6′′-malonylglycoside and quercetin as secondary metabolites, as well as phenylalanine and ornithine as primary metabolites in leaves. However, compounds such as glutamine, glycerate, γ-aminobutyrate, and kaempferol derivatives decreased [14]. Metabolism profile in cowpea plants during drought stress indicated that compounds, such as kaempferol, amino acid derivatives, glycine, glutamine, glutamate, aspartate, asparagine, serine, alanine, threonine, sucrose, glucose, and fructose, had decreased but raffinose, catechin derivatives, unidentified phenolics, myricetin, trehalose, phenolic acids, polyols, and quercetin were induced [14].

A study of metabolomics under water stress time in the leaves and roots of cowpeas showed that leaves are more suitable than roots for recording metabolism changes [14]. It was necessary to identify if these metabolomics compounds were controlled by genetics through a distinct pathway that could help improve drought tolerance. In the leaves of both cultivars, most pathways are regulated consistently, but this is not the case in the roots [14]. Other studies show that raffinose family oligosaccharides (RFOs) [18, 19, 20] and myoinositol [21] have an important role in drought resistance. This can probably be attributed to an increase in branched-chain amino acids such as valine, leucine, and isoleucine connecting with the substrates storage for critical metabolic pathways. It is documented that drought tolerance in plants is enhanced by the overaccumulation of phenolic and other secondary metabolites [22, 23]. A study of altered metabolomics in model and forage legumes in response to drought stress by Sanchez et al. [13] showed a significant increase in organic acids, sugars, and polyols. Organic acids, including TCA cycle intermediate succinic and malic acid, along with fructose, glucose-galactose, maltose, arabitol, ononitol, and galactitol as sugars and polyols, are accumulated in response to water deficit, while glutamic, aspartic, and phosphoric acid dropped during drought [13]. The change patterns in amino acids were different. Some amino acids such as proline, leucine, and isoleucine increased, while serine, glycine, and threonine decreased. Other amino acids, such as asparagine, lysine, and valine, showed no significant changes [13]. Previous studies indicated that the accumulation of small molecules, such as compatible solutes, played an important role in drought tolerance. So, drought tolerance was enhanced in transgenic plants with a high potential for compatible solutes [24, 25, 26]. In drought stress, the observed metabolic responses may reflect the basic metabolic adaptation. Thus, conserved metabolic responses indicate not only an osmotic adjustment but also a wide range of processes including protection of membranes and proteins, radical scavenging, signaling, or buildup of reusable nitrogen and carbon repositories [27, 28].

Among the global metabolic rearrangements found in primary metabolism under water stress and after recovery from dehydration, proline increases in lotus genotypes in response to drought, reflecting the critical physiological role of proline in drought stress [13, 29]. The metabolism response of two cultivars of cowpea (Pinhel and Fradel) to drought is different. In response to drought, first primary and secondary metabolites accumulated in the root of the Pinhel cultivar, but as water stress persisted, primary metabolites decreased to roughly the control level whereas some secondary metabolites increased. In the meantime, primary and secondary metabolites initially decreased in Fradel cultivar roots, but subsequently, primary metabolites increased [14]. Using cowpea as a model species, researchers found that during drought stress plants produce organic solutes, which act as a compatible osmolyte and store them in the cytosol for the maintenance of turgor and osmotic adjustment. It is proposed that metabolite-based markers could improve drought tolerance [30]. Cowpea is a drought-tolerant legume that, during drought stress, limits water deficiency through drought avoidance strategies including stomatal closure, paraheliotropism, and moisture conservation through osmolyte accumulation [14].

There is a hypothesis that better grain yield and survival during drought and the subsequent recovery depend on organs, developmental stage, and cultivar-specific similarities in metabolic reaction. During water stress in cowpeas, nearly 88 metabolites were identified. Modifications in the metabolome profile were more intense during long periods of stress, regardless of developmental stage [14]. The most important reactions to water stress, including combinations such as quercetin 3O-6′′-malonylglycoside, kaempferol 3-O-diglycoside, quercetin, galactinol, and proline, were identified in response to water stress [14]. A study of metabolomics in the roots and leaves of cowpeas during water stress indicated that, compared to roots, leaves were more suitable for recording metabolism changes [14]. Cowpea plants respond to water stress after 12 days by stimulating the arginine/proline pathway, which may be associated with the greater damage sustained under previous drought stresses. Results showed two other pathways that have important roles: the glycine/serine/threonine pathway and the alanine/aspartate/glutamate pathway. Researchers found that the content of the glycine/serine/threonine had decreased, and using chlorophyll fluorescence data [14] faster consumption of these metabolites through enhanced photorespiration [31] is suggested. It is shown that when cowpea plants are exposed to water deficiency, they modify their metabolism to resist this condition. This mechanism occurred via the interplay between the shikimate and arginine/proline pathways, which induced three drought-responsive metabolites, namely proline, galactinol, and quercetin 3-O-6′′-malonylglycoside [14]. Proline, L-arginine, L-histidine, L isoleucine, allantoin, tyrosine, and tryptophan showed higher levels of accumulation in the leaves of drought-stressed plants, whereas GABA, adenosine, alanine, alpha-ketoglutaric acid, phenylalanine, choline, glucosamine, guanine, and aspartic acid decreased under drought stress [30]. Accumulation of aromatic amino acids in chickpeas during drought stress acts as a different source of energy, leading to stress tolerance in chickpeas [30].

It is found that during drought stress in the leaves of chickpeas, compounds, such as tryptophan, proline, adenosine, alanine, choline, and histidine, were highly increased, and hence, they can be defined as responses to drought conditions [30]. Metabolites, such as guanosine, guanine, phenylalanine, aspartic acid, adenosine, GABA, and choline, constantly reduced during water stress, but glutathione disulfide was induced after water stress imposition but decreased because of longer periods of water stress [30]. During drought stress, increments of amino acids, such as histidine, isoleucine, tyrosine, proline, and tryptophan at both two-time points in chickpea, occur. Previous studies showed that amino acid content increased during drought stress in soybeans [32] and Phaseolus vulgaris [33]. Increased levels of amino acids influenced different physiological mechanisms, including regulation of osmotic changes, disintoxication of reactive oxygen species, and adjusting the pH range in intracellular, along with enhanced stress tolerance in plants [34]. D1 protein is necessary for damage repair in photosystem II and the photosynthetic machinery generally produces various ROS. During stress conditions, the production of ROS can be induced, which can prevent D1 protein production [35, 36] and can oxidase various proteins such as D1 protein [37].

Under drought stress in chickpeas, the amount of tryptophan increased, which is involved in the ROS scavenging mechanism, leading to decreased damage to the photosystem. When chickpeas were exposed to drought stress, tyrosin and histidine as amino acids increased [30], and it is reported that tyrosin plays a role in biotic and abiotic tolerance [38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. Different reports indicate that arginine is an important amino acid that produces a mechanism for the transmission of nitrogen in plants during high-stress conditions [43, 44]. In chickpeas, during drought conditions, arginine content was induced [30]. In chickpeas and soybeans, during water stress, the majority of the soluble sugar and sugar derivatives were downregulated [30, 32]. It was found that the content of choline and glutathione disulfide gamma-aminobutyric in the chickpea was reduced. GABA has critical roles in plant physiology and results in tolerance under abiotic stresses via maintenance of cell pH, osmoregulation, and metabolism [20, 32, 45]. During water stress in chickpeas, the synthesis of some amino acids, including isoleucine, tryptophan, tyrosine, phenylalanine, and arginine, was raised [30]. The three main molecules in plant metabolism are phenylalanine, tryptophane, and tyrosine [46]. Chorismate is the precursor of these molecules that originate from the shikimate pathway. This pathway serves a basic function in the plant reproductive system, development, insect defense, and abiotic stresses [47].

Advertisement

3. Cold stress

Cold stress causes dehydration, resulting in plasma membrane damage. According to some studies, this might occur since the flexibility of the membrane under such conditions might be low, and it may lose its function [48, 49]. The growth and productivity of economically important crops are affected by low-temperature stress as a main abiotic stress. Osmoprotectants, such as glycine betaine, sugars (trehalose and fructans), and polyamines, were accumulated to tolerate cold stress [49]. Plants adapt to low (nonfreezing) temperatures with an accumulation of soluble sugars, among which sucrose is the most abundant [50]. Sucrose is an important signaling molecule that regulates plant metabolism under stress conditions [51, 52]. In addition, it has an important role in various processes related to the growth and development of plants [52]. Protection of cell membranes against freeze dehydration is a major factor in freezing tolerance, which is related to the accumulation of solutes such as sugars, proline, and betaines in the cytosol and alteration in membrane lipid composition [53, 54, 55]. When chickpeas were subjected to cold stress, higher levels of components such as putrescine (Put) (322%), spermidine (Spd) (45%), spermine (Spm) (69%), and the highest ratio of Put/(Spd + Spm) were observed in the tolerant genotype after the sixth day. This time, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) was accumulated up to 74% more in the tolerant genotype [56]. According to reports on the effect of cold stress on the legume family, it was evident that cold stress can increase metabolites with changes in gene expression. These metabolites play a role in stress protection. Using metabolite information and genetic engineering, new cold stress-tolerant varieties of the legume crop could be developed [57].

Advertisement

4. Salinity stress

Salt stress removes water from the cytoplasm, causing osmotic stress. Plants respond to salt stress by the accumulation or decrease of specific secondary metabolites [58]. Polyphenol content is increased in response to biotic or abiotic stresses [59, 60]. Parida and Das showed that under salinity stress, the polyphenol content in different tissues in some plants is increased [61]. In another study, El-Shintinawy and El-Shourbagy reported that in response to salinity stress, amino acids, including cysteine, arginine, and methionine decrease, while proline concentration increases [62]. Glycine betaine is one of the nontoxic cellular osmolytes that increases osmolarity during stress periods and then helps with stress mitigation through ROS reduction, protein stabilization, and osmotic modification [63, 64, 65]. The metabolic profile in lotus legumes subjected to drought stress and salt stress indicated that their metabolic acclimation had standard features. Also, Sanchez and colleagues showed that one third to half of the metabolic changes within all lotus species were conserved [13]. Similarly, research shows that the metabolic pathways of response to environmental stress within these species are relatively conserved [66]. With increased salinity in the soil, the accumulation of ions occurs. This is one of the main abiotic stresses that negatively affect the productivity of cultivated plants. A study by Sarri and colleagues revealed that in the roots of M. arborea exposed to salt stress, the number of saponins, flavonoids, and triterpenic acids was reduced, while benzyl tetrahydrofurans, lignans, and phenols increased [67]. Also, research shows that the metabolic response of vicia faba to salt stress includes increased leaf proline and decreased fumaric and malic acid [68].

Advertisement

5. Heat stress

Drought and heat stresses regulate various metabolic pathways in different ways. These metabolic pathways include the metabolism of carbohydrates, amino acids, peptides, secondary metabolites, and the biosynthesis of purine and pyrimidine [17]. Heat stress in soybean decreased primary metabolic, including citrate, alpha-ketoglutarate, malate, oxaloacetate, glucose, dihydroxy acetone phosphate, succinate, pyruvate, and mannitol but drought-stress-induced carbohydrates such as glucose, fructose, sucrose, raffinose, ribose, deoxyribose, gluconate, xylose, and xylitol [17]. In a study, Liu and colleagues reported that metabolites have a critical role in response to heat stress in legume seed setting [69]. In soybean plants, the amino acid biosynthesis pathway shikimate and total aspartate family-derived amino acids are reduced in response to heat stress. So heat stress results in the reduction of tryptophan, tyrosine, phenylalanine, lysine, alanine, methionine, and isoleucine, but drought stress increases leucine, isoleucine, glycine, and proline in soybean plants. Leucine, isoleucine, proline, and glycine indicate the potential for an improved tolerance reaction under drought stress [17]. Soybean plants react to heat stress with a reduction in thymine, cytosine, and uracil as major building blocks of pyrimidine and thymidine, deoxycytidine, orotate, 2′,3′-cyclic UMP, and dUMP as a pyrimidine biosynthetic pathway, while drought stress induces the number of total metabolites in purine biosynthesis pathway [17]. Using metabolic profiling, Das and colleagues showed that upon drought stress 73% of observed flavonoids and phenylpropanoids are upregulated, and 84% of the detected secondary metabolites increase at a lower content relative to the control in reaction to heat stress, which signifies the activation of the defense mechanism for relieving stress [17]. Also, A study by Jansen, Jürgens, and Ordon shows that high temperature in Lupinus angustifolius increased alkaloid accumulation [70].

In soybean plants, the amino acid biosynthesis pathway shikimate and all aspartate family-derived amino acids are reduced in response to heat stress. So, heat stress results in the reduction of tryptophan, tyrosine, phenylalanine, lysine, alanine, methionine, and isoleucine [17]. Moreover, a significant reduction in phytochemicals, such as genistin, daidzin, formononetin, glycitin, syringic acid, genistein, and daidzein, is reported as the soybean plants’ reaction to heat stress, but these compounds are increased in soybean plants exposed to drought stress [17]. Gill and Tuteja argued that plants alleviate stress by activating their tolerance mechanisms and antioxidant activity [71]. When soybean plants were briefly exposed to heat stress, several metabolites were downregulated. Nonetheless, under water stress, the majority of the metabolites were considerably induced or were similar to the control plants [17].

Advertisement

6. Flooding stress

Planting areas of Soybean, as the most important oleaginous seeds in the world, are affected by flooding. In a study, flooding stress reduced plant stand growth and grain yield and underscored the importance of genetic diversity for detecting flooding tolerance in various cultivars [72]. To distinguish the traits that mediate flooding tolerance among different soybean cultivars, Coutinho and colleagues evaluated the metabolites that play a role in flooding stress response [73]. Fumarate, succinate, pinitol, citrate, alanine, malate, and phenolic compounds are the metabolites that were detected in the leaves of soybeans upon flooding stress. Soybeans that were exposed to flooding stress had more isoflavones accumulated in the roots compared to their leaves [73]. A large percentage of the metabolites in the roots and leaves of soybeans changed by flooding stress. Browne and colleagues reported that during flooding stress, the amount of several metabolites in the leaves decreased, whereas most of the compounds in the roots increased [38]. Similarly, an important change in the primary metabolism of nitrogen and carbon was observed during flooding stress. Metabolites, such as succinate, citrate, sucrose, acetate, GABA, and alanine, accumulated in the roots, while most of these metabolites were reduced in the leaves under flooding stress [38]. Soybean plants respond to flooding stress by changing compounds that are involved in the primary metabolism of carbon and nitrogen such as carbohydrates (glucose, fructose, and sucrose), organic acids of the TCA cycle, amino acids, and metabolite profiling of isoflavone glycosides [38]. In the leaves of plants during flooding stress, the amount of fructose as a carbohydrate was decreased, but the increase in sucrose and glucose is time-dependent. This change is different in roots, where a significant increase in carbohydrates, mainly sucrose, is detected for all stress periods [38]. Previous studies showed that the amount of succinate was induced compared to the other compound of the TCA cycle [74, 75], which is in agreement with succinate accumulation and lower fumarate and malate contents in soybean plants during low oxygen conditions [73]. Soybean plants respond to flooding stress by changing compounds involved in the primary metabolism of carbon and nitrogen, such as carbohydrates (glucose, fructose, and sucrose), organic acids of the TCA cycle, amino acids, and metabolite profiling of isoflavone glycosides [73]. During flooding stress, in the leaves of plants, the amount of fructose as a carbohydrate was decreased, but the accumulation of glucose and sucrose was time-dependent. This change is different in roots, where a remarkable accumulation of carbohydrates, especially sucrose, was detected for all stress periods [73].

Previous studies showed that, compared to other compounds of the TCA cycle, the amount of succinate was induced [74, 75]. This is in agreement with succinate accumulation and lower fumarate and malate contents in soybean plants during low oxygen conditions [73]. Previous studies indicated that alanine and GABA had an important role under low oxygen conditions [76, 77]. The precursor of glycine betaine (GlyBet) is an essential osmoprotectant in plants. Research shows that GlyBet changes tolerance to drought, salinity, and other stresses [78]. During flooding stress, choline content was induced in soybean roots, while the content of this metabolite decreased in leaves. Since flooding may induce stomatal resistance and inhibit water uptake because of internally limited water [79], leaf cells need an osmoprotectant for the cellular structures. This means that the higher amount of GlyBet is part of the osmoprotectant mechanism needed in this tissue. Thus, a lower amount of choline in the leaves may show a higher demand for converting this metabolite into GlyBet [73]. It is suggested that primary and secondary metabolisms in soybean plants are strongly affected by flooding stress. Most of the changed metabolites were active in carbon and nitrogen metabolism and also in the phenylpropanoid pathway. Various responses were observed in the roots and leaves and also within flood-tolerant and flood-sensitive cultivars [73]. When Medicago truncatula was exposed to flooding stress, root components such as γ-aminobutyrate and alanine, accumulated raffinose, sucrose, and hexoses, while pentoses decreased. Leaves showed a significant increase in starch, sugars, sugar derivatives, and phenolics (tyrosine, tryptophan, phenylalanine, benzoate, ferulate). As a result, there was an accumulation of sugar and a reduction in organic acids in phloem sap exudates during flooding stress [73].

Advertisement

7. Biotic stress

Infesting alfalfa with thrips increased flavonoids and amino acids [2]. Chen and colleagues that in common beans infested with Fusarium pathogens, isoflavonoids, proline, amino acids, purines, and flavonoids were induced [80]. In addition to glycoside, terpenes, phenols, flavonoids, lipids, carbohydrates, peptides, and amino acids content were accumulated in common bean plants infected with the pathogen R. solani [81]. In soybean plants exposed to Melodegyne pinodes, and Heterodera glycines pressure, the number of components such as tropane, alkaloid, cysteine methionine, and phenylpropanoids increased, which could be related to the resistance properties of the crop to nematodes [30]. The same results were recorded for common beans infected with F. solani [80] T. velutinum, and R. solani [81]. The content of primary metabolites, including alkaloids, alcohols, and amino acids, was accumulated and Wood and colleagues found that precursor molecules of these metabolites play a role in the defense and energy supply of the plant [82]. Legumes, such as red clover, pea, and alfalfa, respond to aphid infestation by increasing triterpene, flavonoid, and saponin [83] and in alfalfa plants, infected by thrips the content of flavonoid, and amino acids were induced [84]. Another study found that soybean responds to Melodegyne pinodes, and Heterodera glycines pressure by increasing phenylpropanoids, cysteine, methionine, alkaloid, and tropane, which results in a crop resistant to nematodes [85].

Advertisement

8. Conclusion

It is determined that plant development and stress responses, as well as processes, such as growth, the integrity of cells, energy storing, cellular signaling, formation of membrane and scaffolding, cellular replenishing, and whole-plant resource assignment, are managed by plant metabolites [86]. There are nearly 200,000 to 1,000,000 metabolites in plants [87, 88]. In plants that produce various metabolites, changes in metabolism alter plants’ physiology to adapt to various situations, such as stresses [31, 86, 89]. One of the important parts of early stress responses is changes in plant metabolism, which includes the accumulation of antioxidants to protect cellular components from oxidative damage and the accumulation of compatible solutes that retain water in the cell [15]. Phenolic compounds, such as phenolic acids, hydroxybenzoic acids, hydroxycinnamic acids, flavonoids, anthocyanins, flavonols and flavones, flavanones, and tannins, are detected in the legume family [90]. Moreover, negative and positive correlations were detected between certain metabolites and grain yield [21]. So metabolomics profiles in plants could be used as a strong selection tool to provide the correlation between phenotype and genotype and, hence, to improve plant responses to stress [30].

Polyphenol components play an important role in protecting against oxidative stresses in plants and can also indirectly protect them through the activation of endogenous defense systems and modulation of cellular signaling processes [91]. It is reported that Medicago truncatula responds to biotic and abiotic elicitors with changes in metabolite profiling, particularly amino acid and carbohydrate metabolism [92]. It is found that proline has an important role in stress tolerance in plants. It acts as a signaling molecule that inhibits oxidative damage [93, 94, 95]. In most stress conditions, the amount of sucrose, as a major transport sugar, was increased [96]. In addition, compatible solutes are induced during various environmental stresses. These compounds that are highly soluble in water are nontoxic. They play a role in sustaining the ordered vicinal water around proteins [26, 97]. Compatible solutes include betaines and related compounds; polyols and sugars, such as mannitol, sorbitol, and trehalose; and amino acids, such as proline [26, 98]. Previous studies indicate that compatible solutes protect plants from osmotic stress and various stress factors [26, 72, 99, 100]. Raffinose is a sugar that acts as an osmoprotectant that protects plant cells during most stressful situations, especially at the subsequent stages of stress treatment [21], and protects plants from oxidative damage [101]. GABA is another metabolite that plays a role in biotic and abiotic stress responses [40, 102, 103]. This compound protects plants against different stress situations such as protection against oxidative stress, regulation of cytosolic pH, and functions of GABA as a signaling and osmoregulation molecule [40]. Obata and Farnie showed that amino acids, including threonine, leucine, methionine, lysine, valine, and isoleucine, were usually induced during environmental stress conditions [21].

References

  1. 1. Shukla PR, Skea J, Calvo Buendia E, Masson-Delmotte V, Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, et al. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climate change and land: Summary for policymakers.an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. 2019. Chapter 4, in press
  2. 2. Zhang Z, Chen Q , Tan Y, Shuang S, Dai R, Jiang X, et al. Combined transcriptome and metabolome analysis of alfalfa response to thrips infection. Genes. 2021;12(12):1-14. DOI: 10.3390/genes12121967
  3. 3. Foyer CH, Lam H, Nguyen HT, Siddique KHM, Varshney RK, Comer TD, et al. Neglecting legumes has compromised human health and sustainable food production. Nature Plants. 2016;2:1-10
  4. 4. Furlan ALF, Bianucci E, Castro S, Dietz K. Metabolic features involved in drought stress tolerance mechanisms in peanut nodules and their contribution to biological nitrogen fixation. Plant Science. 2017;263:12-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.06.009
  5. 5. Singh B, Singh JP, Kaur A, Singh N. Bioactive compounds in banana and their associated health benefits–A review. Food Chemistry. 2016a;206:1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.03.033
  6. 6. Singh JP, Kaur A, Singh N, Nim L, Shevkani K, Kaur H, et al. In vitro antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of jambolan (Syzygium cumini) fruit polyphenols. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2016b;65:1025-1030. DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.09.038
  7. 7. Magalhães SC, Taveira M, Cabrita AR, Fonseca AJ, Valentão P, Andrade PB. European marketable grain legume seeds: Further insight into phenolic compounds profiles. Food Chemistry. 2017;215:177-184. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.07.152
  8. 8. Mousavi-Derazmahalleh M, Bayer PE, Hane JK, Valliyodan B, Nguyen HT, Nelson MN, et al. Adapting legume crops to climate change using genomic approaches. Plant Cell Environment. 2019;42:6-19. DOI: 10.1111/pce.13203
  9. 9. Pradhan J, Katiyar D, Hemantaranjan A. Drought mitigation strategies in pulses. The Pharma Inovvation Journal. 2019;8(1):567-576
  10. 10. Muzquiz M, Varela A, Burbano C, Cuadrado C, Guillamon E, Pedrosa MM. Bioactive compounds in legumes: Pronutritive and antinutritive actions, implications for nutrition and health. Phytochemistry Reviews. 2012;11:227-244
  11. 11. Zhang H, Yasmin F, Song BH. Neglected treasures in the wild-legume wild relatives in food security and human health. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2019;49:17-26. DOI: 0.1016/j.pbi.2019.04.004
  12. 12. Handa N, Arora U, Kaur P, Kapoor D, Bhardwaj R. Role of metabolites in abiotic stress tolerance in legumes. In: Abiotic Stress and Legumes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: Academic Press; 2021. pp. 245-276. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815355-0.00013-8
  13. 13. Sanchez DH, Schwabe F, Erban A, Udvardi MK, Kopka J. Comparative metabolomics of drought acclimation in model and forage legumes. Plant, Cell Environment. 2012;35(1):136-149. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02423.x
  14. 14. Goufo P, Moutinho-Pereira M, Jorge TF, Correia CM, Oliveria MR, Rosa EAS, et al. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) metabolomics: Osmoprotection as a physiological strategy for drought stress resistance and improved yield. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017;8(586):1-22. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00586
  15. 15. Nadeem M, Li J, Yahya M, Sher A, Ma C, Wang X, et al. Research Progress and perspective on drought stress in legumes: A review. International Journal of Molecular Science. 2019;20(2541):1-32. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20102541
  16. 16. Bueni PCP, Lopes NP. Metabolomics to characterize adaptive and signaling responses in legume crops under abiotic stresses. ACS Omega. 2020;5:1752-1763. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.9b03668
  17. 17. Das A, Rushton PJ, Rohila JS. Metabolomic profiling of soybean (Glycin max) reveals the importance of sugar and nitrogen metabolism under drought and heat stress. Plants. 2017;6:1-21. DOI: 10.3390/plants6020021
  18. 18. Lugan R, Niogret MF, Leport L, Guegan JP, Larher FR, Savoure A, et al. Metabolome and water homeostasis analysis of Thellungiella salsuginea suggests that dehydration tolerance is a key response to osmotic stress in this halophyte. The Plant Journal. 2010;64:215-229. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04323.x
  19. 19. Hochberg U, Degu A, Toubiana D, Gendler T, Nikoloski Z, Rachmilevitch S, et al. Metabolite profiling and network analysis reveal coordinated changes in grapevine water stress response. BMC Plant Biology. 2013;13(184):1-16
  20. 20. Li Z, Yu J, Peng Y, Huang B. Metabolic pathways regulated by γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) contributing to heat tolerance in creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera). Scientific Reports. 2016;6:1-16. DOI: 10.1038/srep30338
  21. 21. Obata T, Witt S, Lisec J, Palacios-Rojas N, Florez-Sarasa I, Araus JL, et al. Metabolite profiles of maize leaves in drought, heat and combined stress field trials reveal the relationship between metabolism and grain yield. Plant Physiology. 2015;169(4):2665-2683. DOI: 10.1104/pp.15.01164
  22. 22. Nakayama TJ, Rodrigues FA, Neumaier N, Marcelino-Guimarães FC, Farias JRB, CN OM, et al. Reference genes for quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction studies in soybean plants under hypoxic conditions. Genetics and Molecular Research. 2014;13:860-871. DOI: 10.4238/2014.February.13.4
  23. 23. Corso M, Vannozz A, Maza E, Vitulo N, Meggio F, Pitacco A, et al. Comprehensive transcript profiling of two grapevine rootstock genotypes contrasting in drought susceptibility links the phenylpropanoid pathway to enhanced tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2015;66(19):5739-5752. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erv274
  24. 24. Rai VK. Role of amino acids in plant responses to stresses. Biologia Plantarum. 2002;45:481-487
  25. 25. Ashraf M, Foolad MR. Roles of glycine betaine and praline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2007;59:206-216. DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.12.006
  26. 26. Chen THH, Murata N. Glycinebetaine protects plants against abiotic stress: Mechanisms and biotechnological applications. Plant, Cell and Environment. 2011;34(1):1-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02232.x
  27. 27. Bhatnagar-Mathur P, Valdez V, Sharma KK. Transgenic approaches for abiotic stress tolerance in plants: Retrospect and prospects. Plant Cell Reports. 2008;27:411-424. DOI: 10.1007/s00299-007-0474-9
  28. 28. Hummel I, Pantin F, Sulpice R, Piques M, Rolland G, Dauzat M, et al. Arabidopsis plants acclimate to water deficit at low cost through changes of carbon usage: An integrated perspective using growth, metabolite, enzyme and gene expression analysis. Plant Physiology. 2010;154(1):357-372. DOI: 10.1104/pp.110.157008
  29. 29. Diaz P, Betti M, Sanchez DH, Udvardi MK, Monza J, Marquez AJ. Deficiency in plastidic glutamine synthetase alters proline metabolism and transcriptomic response in Lotus japonicus under drought stress. New Phytologist. 2010;188(4):1001-1013. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03440.x
  30. 30. Khan N, Bano A, Rahman MA, Rathinasabapathi B, Babar MA. UPLC-HRMS based untargeted metabolic profiling reveals changes in chickpea (Cicer arietinum) metabolome following long-term drought stress. Plant Cell Environment. 2019;42(1):115-132. DOI: 10.1111/pce.13195
  31. 31. Kim HK, Choi YH, Verpoorte R. NMR-based plant metabolomics: Where do we stand, where do we go? Trends in Biotechnology. 2011;29(6):267-275. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2011.02.001
  32. 32. Silvente S, Sobolev AP, Lara M. Metabolite adjustments in drought tolerant and sensitive soybean genotypes in response to water stress. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):1-11. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038554
  33. 33. Sassi S, Aydi S, Hessini K, Gonzalez EM, Arrese-Igor C. Long-term mannitol induced osmotic stress leads to stomatal closure, carbohydrate accumulation and changes in leaf elasticity in Phaseolus vulgaris leaves. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2010;9(37):6061-6069. DOI: 10.5897//AJB09.1793
  34. 34. Krasensky J, Jonak C. Drought, salt, and temperature stress-induced metabolic rearrangements and regulatory networks. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2012;63(4):1593-1608. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/err460
  35. 35. Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto H, Allakhverdiev SI, Inaba M, Yokota A, Murata N. Oxidative stress inhibits the repair of photodamage to the photosynthetic machinery. EMBO Journal. 2001;20:5587-5594. DOI: 10.1093/emboj/20.20.5587
  36. 36. Allakhverdiev SI, Murata N. Environmental stress inhibits the synthesis de novo of proteins involved in the photodamage–repair cycle of photosystem II in Synechocystis sp. PCC6803. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics. 2004;1657:23-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2004.03.003
  37. 37. Silva P, Thompson E, Bailey S, Kruse O, Mullineaux CW, Robinson C, et al. FtsH is involved in the early stages of repair of photosystem II in Synechocystis sp PCC 6803. The Plant Cell. 2003;15(9):2152-2216. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.012609
  38. 38. Browne JB, Erwin TA, Juttner J, Schnurbusch T, Langridge P, Bacic A, et al. Drought responses of leaf tissues from wheat cultivars of differing drought tolerance at the metabolite level. Molecular Plant. 2012;5(2):418-429. DOI: 10.1093/mp/ssr114
  39. 39. Yao LM, Wang B, Cheng LJ, WuTL. Identification of key drought stress related genes in the hyacinth bean. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):1-11. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058108
  40. 40. Bouche N, Fromm H. GABA in plants: Just a metabolite? Trends in Plant Science. 2004;9(3):110-115. DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2004.01.006
  41. 41. Mata-Pérez C, Begara-Morales JC, Chaki M, Sánchez-Calvo B, Valderrama R, Padilla MN, et al. Protein tyrosine nitration during development and abiotic stress response in plants. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7:1-7. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01699
  42. 42. Shankar A, Agrawal N, Sharma M, Pandey AK, Pandey G. Role of protein tyrosine phosphatases in plants. Current Genomics. 2015;16(4):224-236. DOI: 10.2174/1389202916666150424234300
  43. 43. Flores T, Todd CD, Tovar-Mendez A, Dhanoa PK, Correa-Aragunde N, Hoyos ME, et al. Arginase-negative mutants of Arabidopsis exhibit increased nitric oxide signaling in root development. Plant Physiology. 2008;147(4):1936-1946. DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2008.10.013
  44. 44. Brauc S, De Vooght E, Claeys M, Geuns JMC, Höfte M, Angenon G. Overexpression of arginase in Arabidopsis thaliana influences defence responses against Botrytis cinerea. Plant Biology. 2012;14(s1):39-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2011.00520.x
  45. 45. Barbosa JM, Singh NK, Cherry JH, Locy RD. Nitrate uptake and utilization is modulated by exogenous γ–aminobutyric acid in Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2010;48:443-450. DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.01.020
  46. 46. Galili G, Höfgen R. Metabolic engineering of amino acids and storage proteins in plants. Metabolic engineering. 2002;4(1):3-11. DOI: 10.1006/mben.2001.0203
  47. 47. Maeda H, Dudareva N. The shikimate pathway and aromatic amino acid biosynthesis in plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2012;63:73-105. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042811-105439
  48. 48. Hatfield JL, Prueger JH. Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development. Weather and Climimate Extremes. 2015;10:4-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.wace.2015.08.001
  49. 49. Mega S, Basu U, Kav NNV. Metabolic engineering of cold tolerance in plants. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology. 2014;3(1):88-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.bcab.2013.11.007
  50. 50. Guy GL, Huber JL, Huber SC. Sucrose phosphate synthase and sucrose accumulation at low temperature. Plant Physiology. 1992;100:502-508. DOI: 10.1104/pp.100.1.502
  51. 51. Roitsch T. Source-sink regulation by sugars and stress. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 1999;2(3):198-206. DOI: 10.1016/S1369-5266(99)80036-3
  52. 52. Ho SL, Chao YC, Tong WF, Yu SM. Sugar coordinately and differentially regulates growth- and stress-related gene expression via a complex signal transduction network and multiple control mechanisms. Plant Physiology. 2001;125(2):877-890. DOI: 10.1104/pp.125.2.877
  53. 53. Xin Z, Browse J. Cold comfort farm: The acclimation of plants to freezing temperatures. Plant Cell and Environment. 2000;23(9):893-902. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.2000.00611.x
  54. 54. Dalmannsdóttir S, Helgadóttir A, Gudleifsson BE. Fatty acid and sugar content in white clover in relation: To frost tolerance and ice-encasement tolerance. Annals of Botany. 2001;88:753-759. DOI: 10.1006/anbo.2001.1465
  55. 55. Collins RP, Helgadóttir A, Fothergill M, Rhodes I. Variation amongst survivor populations of white clover collected from sites across Europe: Growth attributes and physiological responses to low temperature. Annals of Botany. 2002;89:283-292. DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcf037
  56. 56. Amini S, Maali-Amiri R, Kazemi-Shahandashti SS, Lopez-Gomez M, Sobhani-Najafabadi A, Kariman K. Effect of cold stress on polyamine metabolism and antioxidant responses in chickpea. Plant Physiology. 2021;258-259:1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jplph.2021.153387
  57. 57. Bhat KA, Mahajan R, Pakhtoon MM, Urwat U, Bashir Z, Shah AA, et al. Low temperature stress tolerance: An insight in to the omics approaches for legume crops. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2022;13:1-18. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.888710
  58. 58. Mahajan S, Tuteja N. Cold, salinity and drought stresses: An overview. Archive of Biochemistry and Biophysics. 2005;444(2):139-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.abb.2005.10.018
  59. 59. Muthukumarasamy M, Gupta SD, Pannerselvam R. Enhancement of peroxidase, polyphenol oxidase and superoxide dismutase activities by tridimefon in NaCl stressed Raphanus sativus L. Biology Plant. 2000;43:317-320
  60. 60. Dixon RA, Paiva N. Stressed induced phenyl propanoid metabolism. The Plant Cell. 1995;7(7):1085-1097. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.7.7.1085
  61. 61. Parida AK, Das AB. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2005;60(3):324-349. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.06.010
  62. 62. El-Shintinawy F, El-Shourbagy MN. Alleviation of changes in protein metabolism in NaCl-stressed wheat seedlings by thiamine. Biologia Plantarum. 2001;44(4):541-545
  63. 63. Gadallah MAA. Effects of proline and glycinebetaine on Vicia faba responses to salt stress. Biologia Plantarum. 1999;42(2):249-257
  64. 64. Makela P, Karkkainen J, Somersalo S. Effect of glycinebetaine on chloroplast ultrastructure, chlorophyll and protein content, and RuBPCO activities in tomato grown under drought or salinity. Biologia Plantarum. 2000;43(3):471-475
  65. 65. Saxena SC, Kaur H, Verma P, Petla BP, Andugula VR, Majee M. Osmoprotectants: Potential for crop improvement under adverse conditions. In: Plant Acclimation to Environmental Stress. New York, NY, USA: Springer; 2013. pp. 197-232
  66. 66. Sanchez DH, Siahpoosh MR, Roessner U, Udvardi MK, Kopka J. Plant metabolomics reveals conserved and divergent metabolic responses to salinity. Physiologia Plantarum. 2008;132(2):209-219. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.00993.x
  67. 67. Sarri E, Termentzi A, Abranham EM, Papadopoulos GK, Baira E, Machera K, et al. Salinity stress alters the secondary metabolic profile of M. Sativa, M. Arborea and their hybrid (Alborea). International Journal of Molecular Science. 2021;22(4882):1-19. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22094882
  68. 68. Richter JA, Behr JH, Erban A, Kopka J, Zorb C. Ion-dependent metabolic response of Vicia faba to salt stress. Plant Cell Environment. 2019;42(1):295-309. DOI: 10.1111/pce.13386
  69. 69. Liu Y, Li J, Zhu Y, Jones A, Rose AJ, Song Y. Heat stress in legume seed setting: Effects, causes and future prospects. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10:1-12
  70. 70. Jansen G, Jürgens HU, Ordon F. Effects of temperature on the alkaloid content of seeds of Lupinus angustifolius cultivars. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2009;195(3):172-177. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-037x.2008.00356.x
  71. 71. Gill SS, Tuteja N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2010;48:909-930
  72. 72. Van TTT, Hoa TTC, Hue NTN, Nguyen HT, Shannon JG, Rahman MA. Flooding tolerance of soybean (Glycine max L.) Merr. Germplasm from Southeast Asia under field and screen-house environments. The Open Agriculture Journal. 2010;4:38-46. DOI: 10.2174/1874331501004010038
  73. 73. Coutinho ID, Henning LMM, Dopp SA, Nepomuceno AN, Moraes LAC, Gomes JM, et al. Flooding soybean metabolomics analysis reveals important primary and secondary metabolites involved in the hypoxia stress response and tolerance. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2018;153:176-187. DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2018.05.018
  74. 74. Rocha M, Licausi F, Araújo WL, Nunes-Nesi A, Sodek L, Fernie AR, et al. Glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid cycle are linked by alanine aminotransferase during hypoxia induced by waterlogging of Lotus japonicus. Plant Physiology. 2010;152(3):1501-1513. DOI: 10.1104/pp.109.150045
  75. 75. António C, Päpke C, Rocha M, Diab H, Limami AM, Obata T, et al. Regulation of primary metabolism in response to low oxygen availability as Reveaed by carbon and nitrogen isotope redistribution. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2016;170:43-56. DOI: 0.1104/pp.15.00266
  76. 76. Miyashita Y, Dolferus R, Ismond KP, Good AG. Alanine aminotransferase catalyses the breakdown of alanine after hypoxia in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Journal. 2007;49:1108-1121. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.03023.x
  77. 77. Limami AM, Glévarec G, Ricoult C, Cliquet JB, Planchet E. Concerted modulation of alanine and glutamate metabolism in young Medicago truncatula seedlings under hypoxic stress. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2008;59(5):2325-2335. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ern102
  78. 78. McNeil SD, Nuccio ML, Ziemak MJ, Hanson AD. Enhanced synthesis of choline and glycine betaine in transgenic tobacco plants that overexpress phosphoethanolamine N-methyltransferase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 2001;98(17):10001-10005. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.17122899
  79. 79. Parent C, Capelli N, Berger A, Crèvecoeur M, Dat JF. An overview of plant responses to soil waterlogging plant stress. Global Science Books. 2008;2:20-27
  80. 80. Chen L, Wu Q , He T, Lan J, Ding L, Liu T, et al. Transcriptomic and metabolomic changes triggered by Fusarium solani in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Genes. 2020;11(2):1752-1763. DOI: 10.3390/genes11020177
  81. 81. Mayo-Prieto S, Marra R, Vinale F, Rodríguez-González Á, Woo SL, Lorito M, et al. Effect of Trichoderma velutinum and Rhizoctonia solani on the metabolome of bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). International Journal of Molecular Siences. 2019;20(549):1-18. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20030549
  82. 82. Wood C, Pilkington B, Vaidya P, Biel C, Stinchcombel J. Genetic conflict with a parasitic nematode disrupts the legumerhizobia mutualism. Evaluation Letter. 2018;2(3):233-245. DOI: 10.1002/evl3.51
  83. 83. Sanchez-Arcos C, Kai M, Svatos A, Gershenzon J, Kunert G. Untargeted metabolomics appr oach reveals differences in host plant chemistry before and after infestation with different pea a phid host races. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10:1-13. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00188
  84. 84. Saito K, Matsuda F. Metabolomics for functional genomics, systems biology, and biotechnology. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2010;61:463-489. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092035
  85. 85. Kang W, Zhu X, Wang Y, Chen L, Duan Y. Transcriptomic and metabolomic analyses reveal that bacteria promote plant defense during infection of soybean cyst nematode in soybean. BMC Plant Biology. 2018;18(86):1-14
  86. 86. Wen W, Li K, Alseekh S, Omranian N, Zhao L, Zhou Y, et al. Genetic determinants of the network of primary metabolism and their relationships to plant performance in a maize recombinant inbred line population. The Plant Cell. 2015;27(7):1839-1856. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.15.00208
  87. 87. Davies HV, Shepherd LV, Stewart D, Frank T, Rohlig RM, Engel KH. Metabolome variability in crop plant species—When, where, how much and so what? Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2010;58(3):S54-S61. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.07.004
  88. 88. De Luca V, St. Pierre B. The cell and developmental biology of alkaloid biosynthesis. Trends in Plant Science. 2000;5(4):168-173. DOI: 10.1016/s1360-1385(00)01575-2
  89. 89. Khan N, Bano A. Effects of exogenously applied salicylic acid and putrescine alone and in combination with rhizobacteria on the phytoremediation of heavy metals and chickpea growth in sandy soil. International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2017;20(5):405-414. DOI: 10.1080/15226514.2017.1381940
  90. 90. Singh JP, Kaur A, Shevkani K, Singh N. Influence of jambolan (Syzygium cumini) and xanthan gum incorporation on the physicochemical, antioxidant and sensory properties of gluten- free eggless rice muffins. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2015;5(50):1190-1197. DOI: 10.1111/ijfs.12764
  91. 91. Amarowicz R, Pegg RB. Legumes as a source of natural antioxidants. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 2008;110:865-878. DOI: 10.1002/ejlt.200800114
  92. 92. Broeckling CD, Huhman DV, Farag MA, Smith JT, May GD, Mendes P, et al. Metabolic profiling of Medicago truncatula cell cultures reveals the effects of biotic and abiotic elicitors on metabolism. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2005;56(410):323-336. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eri058
  93. 93. Hayat S, Hayat Q , Alyemeni MN, Wani AS, Pichtel J, Ahmad A. Role of proline under changing environments: A review. Plant Signaling and Behavior. 2012;7(11):1456-1466. DOI: 10.4161/psb.21949
  94. 94. Gagné-Bourque F, Bertrand A, Claessens A, Aliferis KA, Jabaji S. Alleviation of drought stress and metabolic changes in timothy (Phleum pratense L.) colonized with Bacillus subtilis B26. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7(584):1-16. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00584
  95. 95. Cheng Z, Dong K, Ge P, Bian Y, Dong L, Deng X, et al. Identification of leaf proteins differentially accumulated between wheat cultivars distinct in their levels of drought tolerance. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):1-20. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125302
  96. 96. Rolland F, Baena-Gonzalez E, Sheen J. Sugar sensing and signaling in plants: Conserved and novel mechanisms. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2006;57:675-709. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105441
  97. 97. Thomashow MF. Molecular basis of plant cold acclimation: Insights gained from studying the CBF cold response pathway. Plant Physiology. 2010;154(2):571-577. DOI: 10.1104/pp.110.161794
  98. 98. Diamant S, Eliahu N, Rosenthal D, Goloubinoff P. Chemical chaperones regulate molecular chaperones in vitro and in cells under combined salt and heat stresses. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2001;276(43):39586-395891. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M103081200
  99. 99. Chen THH, Murata N. Enhancement of tolerance to abiotic stress by metabolic engineering of betaines and other compatible solutes. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2002;5(3):250-257. DOI: 10.1016/S1369-5266(02)00255-8
  100. 100. Ford KL, Cassin A, Bacic A. Quantitative proteomic analysis of wheat cultivars with differing drought stress tolerance. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2011;2(44):1-11. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2011.00044
  101. 101. Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto H, Allakhverdiev SI, Inaba M, Yokota A, Murata N, et al. Galactinol and raffinose constitute a novel function to protect plants from oxidative damage. Plant Physiology. 2008;147(3):1251-1263. DOI: 10.1104/pp.108.122465
  102. 102. Shelp BJ, Bown AW, Mclean MD. Metabolism and functions of gamma-aminobutyric acid. Trends Plant Science. 1999;4:446-452. DOI: 10.1016/s1360-1385(99)01486-7
  103. 103. Kinnersley AM, Turano FJ. Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) and plant responses to stress. Critical Review in Plant Science. 2000;19(6):479-509. DOI: 10.1080/07352680091139277

Written By

Soheila Afkar

Submitted: 02 October 2023 Reviewed: 12 October 2023 Published: 13 December 2023