You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Ramon Gerardo Guevara-Gonzalez
 -- 1828 2022-04-19 17:48:14 |
2 format correct
Conner Chen
 Meta information modification 1828 2022-04-20 05:48:41 | |
3 format correct
Conner Chen
 Meta information modification 1828 2022-04-22 03:49:31 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Guevara-Gonzalez, R.G.; Hernandez-Escobedo, Q.; Rico Chávez, A.; Franco, J.; Fernandez-Jaramillo, A.; Contreras-Medina, L.M. Data in Plant Hormesis Research. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21958 (accessed on 16 May 2025).
Guevara-Gonzalez RG, Hernandez-Escobedo Q, Rico Chávez A, Franco J, Fernandez-Jaramillo A, Contreras-Medina LM. Data in Plant Hormesis Research. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21958. Accessed May 16, 2025.
Guevara-Gonzalez, Ramon Gerardo, Quetzalcoatl Hernandez-Escobedo, Amanda Rico Chávez, Jesus Franco, Arturo Fernandez-Jaramillo, Luis Miguel Contreras-Medina. "Data in Plant Hormesis Research" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21958 (accessed May 16, 2025).
Guevara-Gonzalez, R.G., Hernandez-Escobedo, Q., Rico Chávez, A., Franco, J., Fernandez-Jaramillo, A., & Contreras-Medina, L.M. (2022, April 19). Data in Plant Hormesis Research. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21958
Guevara-Gonzalez, Ramon Gerardo, et al. "Data in Plant Hormesis Research." Encyclopedia. Web. 19 April, 2022.
Data in Plant Hormesis Research
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/plants11070970

High-throughput analyses increase the chances to elucidate physiological processes and ecological interactions of plants from the broadened perspective of systems biology. The generation of big data sets from the simultaneous analysis of an extensive collection of biomolecules corresponding to a definite category (genes, transcripts, proteins, and metabolites) has led to the so-called omics approach, which is the primary tool of systems biology. Furthermore, a multi-omics approach makes it possible to obtain a more detailed snapshot of a plant system by simultaneously analyzing its whole genome, proteome, transcriptome, and metabolome. Moreover, the multi-omics approach applied to single-cell functional analyses can simplify data processing and modeling to accurately depict many biological processes in plants.

crop improvement Artificial Intelligence

1. Genomics and Transcriptomics

Genomics refers to the sequencing, assembly, and functional analysis of the genome of a plant, and it has advanced more rapidly than any other omics in plant science [1]. Only in the last two decades, the sequences of more than 100 plant genomes have been published, and further technological advances in genomics have increased our understanding of plant biology leading to substantial agricultural progress [2].
Genome sequencing has several applications in plant stress science. The structural analysis of DNA is not only fundamental for classifying organisms but also for identifying stress-driven mutations, which occur in plants under heat [3], drought [4], and other abiotic stresses [5]. Moreover, DNA structural variations occurring under low-dose stress can be linked to gene function using gene ontology analyses to reveal the genetic basis of hormesis [6]. DNA sequence variations such as Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) are also helpful for understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying hormetic responses when analyzed along with phenotypic traits as in Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) [7][8]. GWAS analyses consider big data sets to identify and predict gene candidates and quantitative trait loci accountable for stress responses [9].
SNPs genotyping in combination with other data sets from high-throughput analyses such as phenomics or enviromics has also led to the development of genomic selection for optimizing crop breeding [10]. With this strategy, it is possible to improve physiological traits with hormetic behavior in crops, such as yield, pest resistance, and environmental stress tolerance, to shorten breeding cycles and decrease the need for continuous phenotyping [11]. Additionally, the advent of outstanding new genome-editing techniques, such as the Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFN), the Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases (TALENs), and the Clustered Regulatory Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) systems, implies, along with transcriptomics, the most significant advance in the development of stress-resistant crops [12].
The rapid advances in sequencing technologies and bioinformatics have also substantially impelled RNA analyses [13]. The synthesis of RNA is dynamic, depending on the activation of a gene to occur. Therefore, transcriptomics is the key to investigating gene function in targeted physiological mechanisms qualitatively and quantitatively [14]. Detecting hormetic stimulation at the transcript level can be achieved by analyzing the differential expression of known genes on small (~20) [15][16][17] and very large scales using microarray technology (~50,000) [18] or by completely sequencing the RNA from a sample as in next-generation and third-generation sequencing [19][20][21].
The computational analysis of transcriptomic datasets precedes the reconstruction of gene regulatory networks and the crosstalk by which they interconnect during specific physiological processes [22]. In particular, machine learning algorithms can infer interactions between genes with great accuracy [23]. Nevertheless, gene regulation during hormetic responses involves biological processes other than transcription, such as epigenome dynamics, which depends on chromatin structural changes, namely DNA methylation and histone modifications [24]. Therefore, integrating additional types of datasets and adding spatial and temporal information is fundamental to increasing model resolution and depicting the mechanisms of hormesis truthfully [25].

2. Proteomics

Proteins are the main regulatory molecules in every cell process. Therefore, the ensemble of differentially translated proteins in response to a given stimulus is an additional dataset that contains essential information for ascertaining hormetic cellular mechanisms [26]. Moreover, many studies show that RNA quantity does not proportionally relate to protein abundance [27]. The latter occurs mainly due to additional regulation steps between transcription and protein synthesis and the stability of the end products [28]. For that reason, transcriptomics and proteomics, or other high-throughput analyses should be simultaneously conducted to validate and reconstruct entire regulatory networks [29].
Detecting differential changes in plant proteome is especially useful for studying plant stress responses since relatively small variations in the dose of a stressor result in a significant difference in the proteome at both mild and severe stressor incidence [30]. Furthermore, under stress conditions, the plant cell upregulates the expression of proteins associated with primary metabolic processes such as photosynthesis, redox homeostasis, energy metabolism, nitrogen absorption, and the biosynthesis of signaling molecules [31][32]. Therefore, plant proteomics can help researchers detect stress at a molecular level earlier than it would be possible by analyzing changes in observable phenotypic traits and for both stress-susceptible and tolerant genotypes [33].
Proteome analyses make it possible to identify and characterize novel proteins, and along with bioinformatics, proteomics enables tracking variations in protein abundance, form, cellular location, and activity following a stressors incidence [34]. Additionally, proteome research has proven helpful for clarifying cellular organelle function, post-translational modifications, and protein–protein interactions, providing a more in-depth insight into the stress-driven molecular mechanisms of plant cells [35]. Proteomics technologies range from the classic gel-based and the Liquid Chromatography coupled to Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) approaches to the modern Mass Spectrometry Imaging (MSI), and combined with additional high-throughput analyses, these still underexploited tools are among the most powerful methods for unraveling the molecular mechanism of hormetic stress responses in plants [36].

3. Metabolomics

A number of the differentially expressed proteins resulting from stress incidence are regulators that activate and shape specialized metabolic pathways inside the cell [37]. Metabolomics is the study of all the small molecules in a tissue, which, in the case of plants, possess a unique structural and functional complexity [38]. Moreover, due to their sessility, plants depend on chemical signaling to maintain homeostasis and ecological interactions at intra- and interspecies levels. Plant specialized metabolism is evolutionarily shaped by environmental pressures to synthesize chemical compounds with an enormous structural and functional diversity and capable of interacting with living tissues [39].
Many plant specialized metabolites are an active part of plant internal signaling pathways or exert bioactivity on other organisms [40]. Furthermore, every plant organism is a genuine biological factory capable of synthesizing an estimated 30,000 metabolites [41]. Hence, plants are a significant source of chemical compounds with pharmacological properties and are particularly valuable among natural products for drug discovery purposes [42]. In addition, plant metabolites are fundamental for maintaining human health by conferring nutritional, functional, and nutraceutical value to food products [43].
Being an adaptive response, the activation of plant metabolism also exhibits a hormetic behavior [44][45][46], and deliberately exposing crops to low-dose stress is a convenient means for stimulating metabolites accumulation [47]. Moreover, the metabolomics analysis of plant stress response along with bioinformatics makes it possible to find candidate markers for directing crop breeding and predicting crop performance under environmental stress [48].
Given the structural diversity of plant metabolites, the main limitation of metabolomics resides in developing comprehensive extraction techniques and analytical methods to detect a big heterogeneous ensemble of chemical compounds simultaneously. Nevertheless, thanks to the recent advances in coupled analytical technologies and bioinformatics, particularly Mass Spectrometry (MS), Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), and hybrid MS/NMR methods [49], it is now possible to separate and detect the whole metabolome from a biological sample quickly and affordably [50]. Moreover, many intrinsic experimental conditions for metabolome analysis are compatible with other omics studies, making metabolomics a convenient foundation for designing and fulfilling multi-omics experiments and an effective tool for systems biology research [51].

4. Phenomics

Plant phenotyping is the measurement of phenotypic traits either at the cell, organ, or whole plant level for understanding the underlying mechanisms of the interactions of plants with their environment [52]. Molecular responses drive phenotypic change, and for that reason, the developmental traits of plants, such as growth, seed germination, photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance, and pigmentation, among others, also display hormetic behavior [53]. As a result, various sensors can be used for differentially analyzing physiological plant hormetic responses to stress-related events [54].
Image-based phenotyping is useful to detect leaf morphological variations in plants [55]. Red-green-blue (RGB) imaging uses Charge Coupled Device (CCD) or Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) sensors to detect color changes related to plant stress responses. Such sensors work within the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum and are convenient to diagnose nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and iron (Fe) deficiency symptoms [56]. Detecting nutrient deficit can also help identify environmental stress incidence. For example, Martinez et al. (2020) [57] reported that water deficit modifies nitrate uptake by altering the expression of genes related to nitrate assimilation in the roots and the shoot. Moreover, changes in pigment content can be related to visible stress symptoms in such a detailed manner, that it is possible to discriminate between their biotic or abiotic origin [58].
Yellowing is the most notable symptom of leaf senescence, and it appears due to seasonal developmental processes, pathogen attack, and abiotic stressors incidence, indicating a decrease in the photosynthetic rate [59]. Chlorophyll metabolism is regulated in a hormetic manner, and therefore it can perform as a biomarker to identify other metabolic changes resulting from low-dose stress incidence [60][61]. Many imaging techniques focus on detecting chlorophyll fluctuations with convenient results for biotic and abiotic stress phenotyping, such as chlorophyll fluorescence. This technique is relevant to determining overall crop fitness, and due to its high sensitivity, it has been extensively applied for the early detection of stress incidence [62].
Imaging techniques can also be used to analyze plant physiological processes and identify stress even in the absence of symptoms unobservable for the unaided eye. Magnetic resonance imaging can be applied to plant systems to elucidate plant-water relationships and as a post-harvest control to determine maturity and mechanical damage of agricultural products [63]. Thermography uses optical sensors that detect radiation outside the visual range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it has been used to detect plant interactions with biotic and abiotic stressors and monitor environmental stress susceptibility and resistance [64][65]. Mild-stress responses can also be detected using multispectral and hyperspectral imaging. Multispectral imaging considers only specific bands of electromagnetic spectra, whereas hyperspectral imaging increases the resolution of the wavelengths. These technologies can identify plant diseases such as yellow rust and powdery mildew in wheat and leaf rust in sugar beet from early stages [66]. Moreover, multispectral imaging works on large scales by employing uncrewed aerial vehicles and satellites. Therefore, multispectral and hyperspectral imaging, along with other omics techniques, could be used to develop hormesis management protocols at a crop scale.
Given the intricacy of physiological responses, the elucidation of the adaptive mechanisms of plants to low-dose stress must be carried out from a multidimensional approach, utilizing comprehensive analyses for detecting the differential changes stimulated in different layers of the stress response. Understanding such mechanisms and, in particular, characterizing the hormetic dose-response curve allows eustress treatments to be implemented to enhance stress tolerance and increase food production and quality [67]. Nevertheless, integrating multiple-layer datasets gives rise to additional challenges beyond data collection and storage, including data management and processing [68]. Therefore, handling and modeling hormetic responses from multi-omics data requires computational methods for transforming data into knowledge.

References

  1. Mir, R.R.; Reynolds, M.; Pinto, F.; Khan, M.A.; Bhat, M.A. High-throughput phenotyping for crop improvement in the genomics era. Plant Sci. 2019, 282, 60–72.
  2. Purugganan, M.D.; Jackson, S.A. Advancing Crop Genomics from Lab to Field. Nat. Genet. 2021, 53, 595–601.
  3. Lu, Z.; Cui, J.; Wang, L.; Teng, N.; Zhang, S.; Lam, H.-M.; Zhu, Y.; Xiao, S.; Ke, W.; Lin, J. Genome-Wide DNA Mutations in Arabidopsis Plants after Multigenerational Exposure to High Temperatures. Genome Biol. 2021, 22, 1–27.
  4. Hou, S.; Zhu, G.; Li, Y.; Li, W.; Fu, J.; Niu, E.; Li, L.; Zhang, D.; Guo, W. Genome-Wide Association Studies Reveal Genetic Variation and Candidate Genes of Drought Stress Related Traits in Cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1276.
  5. Hu, H.; Scheben, A.; Verpaalen, B.; Tirnaz, S.; Bayer, P.E.; Hodel, R.G.; Batley, J.; Soltis, D.E.; Soltis, P.S.; Edwards, D. Amborella Gene Presence/Absence Variation Is Associated with Abiotic Stress Responses That May Contribute to Environmental Adaptation. New Phytol. 2022, 233, 1548–1555.
  6. Mo, F.; Wang, M.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Deng, N.; Chai, R.; Wang, H. Biological Effects of Silver Ions to Trifolium Pratense L. Revealed by Analysis of Biochemical Indexes, Morphological Alteration and Genetic Damage Possibility with Special Reference to Hormesis. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2021, 186, 104458.
  7. Sertse, D.; You, F.M.; Ravichandran, S.; Soto-Cerda, B.J.; Duguid, S.; Cloutier, S. Loci Harboring Genes with Important Role in Drought and Related Abiotic Stress Responses in Flax Revealed by Multiple GWAS Models. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 191–212.
  8. Luo, Z.; Szczepanek, A.; Abdel-Haleem, H. Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) Analysis of Camelina Seedling Germination under Salt Stress Condition. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1444.
  9. Xiao, Q.; Bai, X.; Zhang, C.; He, Y. Advanced High-Throughput Plant Phenotyping Techniques for Genome-Wide Association Studies: A Review. J. Adv. Res. 2022, 35, 215–230.
  10. Crossa, J.; Fritsche-Neto, R.; Montesinos-Lopez, O.A.; Costa-Neto, G.; Dreisigacker, S.; Montesinos-Lopez, A.; Bentley, A.R. The Modern Plant Breeding Triangle: Optimizing the Use of Genomics, Phenomics, and Enviromics Data. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 651480.
  11. Fugeray-Scarbel, A.; Bastien, C.; Dupont-Nivet, M.; Lemarié, S. R2D2 Consortium Why and How to Switch to Genomic Selection: Lessons from Plant and Animal Breeding Experience. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 1185.
  12. Zhan, X.; Lu, Y.; Zhu, J.; Botella, J.R. Genome Editing for Plant Research and Crop Improvement. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2021, 63, 3–33.
  13. Zappia, L.; Theis, F.J. Over 1000 tools reveal trends in the single-cell RNA-seq analysis landscape. Genome Biol 2021, 22, 1–8.
  14. Imadi, S.R.; Kazi, A.G.; Ahanger, M.A.; Gucel, S.; Ahmad, P. Plant Transcriptomics and Responses to Environmental Stress: An Overview. J. Genet. 2015, 94, 525–537.
  15. Gorbatova, I.V.; Kazakova, E.A.; Podlutskii, M.S.; Pishenin, I.A.; Bondarenko, V.S.; Dontsova, A.A.; Dontsov, D.P.; Snegirev, A.S.; Makarenko, E.S.; Bitarishvili, S.V. Studying Gene Expression in Irradiated Barley Cultivars: PM19L-like and CML31-like Expression as Possible Determinants of Radiation Hormesis Effect. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1837.
  16. Duarte-Sierra, A.; Nadeau, F.; Angers, P.; Michaud, D.; Arul, J. UV-C Hormesis in Broccoli Florets: Preservation, Phyto-Compounds and Gene Expression. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2019, 157, 110965.
  17. Scott, G.; Dickinson, M.; Shama, G.; Rupar, M. A Comparison of the Molecular Mechanisms Underpinning High-Intensity, Pulsed Polychromatic Light and Low-Intensity UV-C Hormesis in Tomato Fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 137, 46–55.
  18. Volkova, P.Y.; Duarte, G.T.; Soubigou-Taconnat, L.; Kazakova, E.A.; Pateyron, S.; Bondarenko, V.S.; Bitarishvili, S.V.; Makarenko, E.S.; Churyukin, R.S.; Lychenkova, M.A. Early Response of Barley Embryos to Low-and High-dose Gamma Irradiation of Seeds Triggers Changes in the Transcriptional Profile and an Increase in Hydrogen Peroxide Content in Seedlings. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2020, 206, 277–295.
  19. Guo, J.; Ma, Z.; Peng, J.; Mo, J.; Li, Q.; Guo, J.; Yang, F. Transcriptomic Analysis of Raphidocelis Subcapitata Exposed to Erythromycin: The Role of DNA Replication in Hormesis and Growth Inhibition. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 402, 123512.
  20. He, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hu, Y.; Chen, W.; Yan, Z. Superconducting Electrode Capacitor Based on Double-Sided YBCO Thin Film for Wireless Power Transfer Applications. Supercond. Sci. Technol. 2018, 32, 015010.
  21. Arisha, M.H.; Ahmad, M.Q.; Tang, W.; Liu, Y.; Yan, H.; Kou, M.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Q. RNA-Sequencing Analysis Revealed Genes Associated Drought Stress Responses of Different Durations in Hexaploid Sweet Potato. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12573.
  22. García-Gómez, M.L.; Castillo-Jiménez, A.; Martínez-García, J.C.; Álvarez-Buylla, E.R. Multi-Level Gene Regulatory Network Models to Understand Complex Mechanisms Underlying Plant Development. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2020, 57, 171–179.
  23. Haque, S.; Ahmad, J.S.; Clark, N.M.; Williams, C.M.; Sozzani, R. Computational Prediction of Gene Regulatory Networks in Plant Growth and Development. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2019, 47, 96–105.
  24. Wang, J.; Chen, B.; Ali, S.; Zhang, T.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, L.; Jiang, T. Epigenetic Modification Associated with Climate Regulates Betulin Biosynthesis in Birch. J. Res. 2021, 1–15.
  25. Qian, Y.; Huang, S.C. Improving Plant Gene Regulatory Network Inference by Integrative Analysis of Multi-Omics and High Resolution Data Sets. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 2020, 22, 8–15.
  26. Smith-Sonneborn, J. The Role of the ”Stress Protein Response” in Hormesis. In Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures to Chemicals and Radiation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 41–52. ISBN 1-315-15028-X.
  27. Koussounadis, A.; Langdon, S.P.; Um, I.H.; Harrison, D.J.; Smith, V.A. Relationship between Differentially Expressed MRNA and MRNA-Protein Correlations in a Xenograft Model System. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 10775.
  28. Sahoo, J.P.; Behera, L.; Sharma, S.S.; Praveena, J.; Nayak, S.K.; Samal, K.C. Omics Studies and Systems Biology Perspective towards Abiotic Stress Response in Plants. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 2172.
  29. Buccitelli, C.; Selbach, M. MRNAs, Proteins and the Emerging Principles of Gene Expression Control. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020, 21, 630–644.
  30. Kosová, K.; Vítámvás, P.; Urban, M.O.; Prášil, I.T.; Renaut, J. Plant Abiotic Stress Proteomics: The Major Factors Determining Alterations in Cellular Proteome. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 122.
  31. Mehmood, S.S.; Lu, G.; Luo, D.; Hussain, M.A.; Raza, A.; Zafar, Z.; Zhang, X.; Cheng, Y.; Zou, X.; Lv, Y. Integrated Analysis of Transcriptomics and Proteomics Provides Insights into the Molecular Regulation of Cold Response in Brassica Napus. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2021, 187, 104480.
  32. Frukh, A.; Siddiqi, T.O.; Khan, M.I.R.; Ahmad, A. Modulation in Growth, Biochemical Attributes and Proteome Profile of Rice Cultivars under Salt Stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 146, 55–70.
  33. Chawade, A.; Alexandersson, E.; Bengtsson, T.; Andreasson, E.; Levander, F. Targeted Proteomics Approach for Precision Plant Breeding. J. Proteome Res. 2016, 15, 638–646.
  34. Al-Obaidi, J.R. Proteoinformatics and Agricultural Biotechnology Research: Applications and Challenges. In Essentials of Bioinformatics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume III, pp. 1–27.
  35. Komatsu, S. Plant Proteomic Research 2.0: Trends and Perspectives. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2495.
  36. Jorrin-Novo, J.V. What Is New in (Plant) Proteomics Methods and Protocols: The 2015–2019 Quinquennium. In Plant Proteomics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–10.
  37. Jan, R.; Asaf, S.; Numan, M.; Kim, K.-M. Plant Secondary Metabolite Biosynthesis and Transcriptional Regulation in Response to Biotic and Abiotic Stress Conditions. Agronomy 2021, 11, 968.
  38. Kosmacz, M.; Sokołowska, E.M.; Bouzaa, S.; Skirycz, A. Towards a Functional Understanding of the Plant Metabolome. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2020, 55, 47–51.
  39. Weng, J.-K.; Lynch, J.H.; Matos, J.O.; Dudareva, N. Adaptive Mechanisms of Plant Specialized Metabolism Connecting Chemistry to Function. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2021, 17, 1037–1045.
  40. Rinschen, M.M.; Ivanisevic, J.; Giera, M.; Siuzdak, G. Identification of Bioactive Metabolites Using Activity Metabolomics. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019, 20, 353–367.
  41. Verpoorte, R.; Choi, Y.H.; Kim, H.K. Metabolomics: Will It Stay? Phytochem. Anal. PCA 2010, 21, 2–3.
  42. Lautie, E.; Russo, O.; Ducrot, P.; Boutin, J.A. Unraveling Plant Natural Chemical Diversity for Drug Discovery Purposes. Front. Pharm. 2020, 11, 397.
  43. Sharma, D.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, V.; Thakur, A. Comprehensive Review on Nutraceutical Significance of Phytochemicals as Functional Food Ingredients for Human Health Management. J. Pharm. Phytochem. 2019, 8, 385–395.
  44. Pishenin, I.; Gorbatova, I.; Kazakova, E.; Podobed, M.; Mitsenyk, A.; Shesterikova, E.; Dontsova, A.; Dontsov, D.; Volkova, P. Free Amino Acids and Methylglyoxal as Players in the Radiation Hormesis Effect after Low-Dose γ-Irradiation of Barley Seeds. Agriculture 2021, 11, 918.
  45. Mengdi, X.; Wenqing, C.; Haibo, D.; Xiaoqing, W.; Li, Y.; Yuchen, K.; Hui, S.; Lei, W. Cadmium-Induced Hormesis Effect in Medicinal Herbs Improves the Efficiency of Safe Utilization for Low Cadmium-Contaminated Farmland Soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 225, 112724.
  46. Corrado, G.; Vitaglione, P.; Giordano, M.; Raimondi, G.; Napolitano, F.; Di Stasio, E.; Di Mola, I.; Mori, M.; Rouphael, Y. Phytochemical Responses to Salt Stress in Red and Green Baby Leaf Lettuce (Lactuca Sativa L.) Varieties Grown in a Floating Hydroponic Module. Separations 2021, 8, 175.
  47. Alvarado, A.M.; Aguirre-Becerra, H.; Vázquez-Hernández, M.; Magaña-Lopez, E.; Parola-Contreras, I.; Caicedo-Lopez, L.H.; Contreras-Medina, L.M.; Garcia-Trejo, J.F.; Guevara-Gonzalez, R.G.; Feregrino-Perez, A.A. Influence of Elicitors and Eustressors on the Production of Plant Secondary Metabolites. In Natural Bio-Active Compounds; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 333–388.
  48. Villate, A.; San Nicolas, M.; Gallastegi, M.; Aulas, P.-A.; Olivares, M.; Usobiaga, A.; Etxebarria, N.; Aizpurua-Olaizola, O. Metabolomics as a Prediction Tool for Plants Performance under Environmental Stress. Plant Sci. 2021, 303, 110789.
  49. Miggiels, P.; Wouters, B.; van Westen, G.J.; Dubbelman, A.-C.; Hankemeier, T. Novel Technologies for Metabolomics: More for Less. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 120, 115323.
  50. Hong, J.; Yang, L.; Zhang, D.; Shi, J. Plant Metabolomics: An Indispensable System Biology Tool for Plant Science. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 767.
  51. Pinu, F.R.; Beale, D.J.; Paten, A.M.; Kouremenos, K.; Swarup, S.; Schirra, H.J.; Wishart, D. Systems Biology and Multi-Omics Integration: Viewpoints from the Metabolomics Research Community. Metabolites 2019, 9, 76.
  52. Pieruschka, R.; Schurr, U. Plant Phenotyping: Past, Present, and Future. Plant Phenomics 2019, 2019, 7507131.
  53. Arif, Y.; Singh, P.; Siddiqui, H.; Bajguz, A.; Hayat, S. Salinity Induced Physiological and Biochemical Changes in Plants: An Omic Approach towards Salt Stress Tolerance. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 156, 64–77.
  54. Singh, V.; Sharma, N.; Singh, S. A Review of Imaging Techniques for Plant Disease Detection. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2020, 4, 229–242.
  55. Zheng, C.; Abd-Elrahman, A.; Whitaker, V. Remote Sensing and Machine Learning in Crop Phenotyping and Management, with an Emphasis on Applications in Strawberry Farming. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 531.
  56. Li, D.; Li, C.; Yao, Y.; Li, M.; Liu, L. Modern Imaging Techniques in Plant Nutrition Analysis: A Review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 174, 105459.
  57. Martinez, H.E.; de Souza, B.P.; Caixeta, E.T.; de Carvalho, F.P.; Clemente, J.M. Water Deficit Changes Nitrate Uptake and Expression of Some Nitrogen Related Genes in Coffee-Plants (Coffea Arabica L.). Sci. Hortic. 2020, 267, 109254.
  58. Susič, N.; Žibrat, U.; Širca, S.; Strajnar, P.; Razinger, J.; Knapič, M.; Vončina, A.; Urek, G.; Stare, B.G. Discrimination between Abiotic and Biotic Drought Stress in Tomatoes Using Hyperspectral Imaging. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 273, 842–852.
  59. Mayta, M.L.; Hajirezaei, M.-R.; Carrillo, N.; Lodeyro, A.F. Leaf Senescence: The Chloroplast Connection Comes of Age. Plants 2019, 8, 495.
  60. Agathokleous, E.; Feng, Z.; Peñuelas, J. Chlorophyll Hormesis: Are Chlorophylls Major Components of Stress Biology in Higher Plants? Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138637.
  61. Fenu, G.; Malloci, F.M. Forecasting Plant and Crop Disease: An Explorative Study on Current Algorithms. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2021, 5, 2.
  62. Pérez-Bueno, M.L.; Pineda, M.; Barón, M. Phenotyping Plant Responses to Biotic Stress by Chlorophyll Fluorescence Imaging. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 1135.
  63. Jakusch, P.; Kocsis, T.; Székely, I.K.; Hatvani, I.G. The Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Mri) to the Examination of Plant Tissues and Water Barriers. Acta Biol. Hung. 2018, 69, 423–436.
  64. Pineda, M.; Barón, M.; Pérez-Bueno, M.-L. Thermal Imaging for Plant Stress Detection and Phenotyping. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 68.
  65. Benavente, E.; García-Toledano, L.; Carrillo, J.; Quemada, M. Thermographic Imaging: Assessment of Drought and Heat Tolerance in Spanish Germplasm of Brachypodium Distachyon. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2013, 19, 262–266.
  66. Lowe, A.; Harrison, N.; French, A.P. Hyperspectral Image Analysis Techniques for the Detection and Classification of the Early Onset of Plant Disease and Stress. Plant Methods 2017, 13, 80.
  67. Agathokleous, E.; Kitao, M.; Calabrese, E.J. Hormesis: A Compelling Platform for Sophisticated Plant Science. Trends Plant Sci. 2019, 24, 318–327.
  68. Großkinsky, D.K.; Svensgaard, J.; Christensen, S.; Roitsch, T. Plant Phenomics and the Need for Physiological Phenotyping across Scales to Narrow the Genotype-to-Phenotype Knowledge Gap. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 5429–5440.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Ramon Gerardo Guevara-Gonzalez
,
Quetzalcoatl Hernandez-Escobedo
,
Amanda Rico Chávez
,
Jesus Franco
,
Arturo Fernandez-Jaramillo
,
Luis Miguel Contreras-Medina
View Times: 459
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 Apr 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback