Plant phenomics and the need for physiological phenotyping across scales to narrow the genotype-to-phenotype knowledge gap

Journal of Experimental Botany

Volumn 66, Issue 18, 2015, Pages 5429-5440

  Großkinsky, Dominik K ^a   Svensgaard, Jesper ^a   Christensen, Svend ^a   Roitsch, Thomas ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b Vvi   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

External phenotype; genome environment management interaction; genome phenome map; internal phenotype; phenomics; physiological traits; physiology; plant phenotyping; predictors

Indexed keywords

CROP; GENETICS; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; PHENOTYPE; PLANT BREEDING; PLANT GENOME; PROCEDURES;

CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; GENOME, PLANT; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; PHENOTYPE; PLANT BREEDING;

EID: 84940758361     PISSN: 00220957     EISSN: 14602431     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erv345     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. Andrade-Sanchez P, Gore MA, Heun JT, Thorp KR, Carmo-Silva AE, French AN, White JW. 2014. Development and evaluation of a fieldbased high-throughput phenotyping platform. Functional Plant Biology 41, 68-79.
2. Araus JL, Cairns JE. 2014. Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier. Trends in Plant Science 19, 52-61.
3. Araus JL, Serret MD, Edmeades GO. 2012. Phenotyping maize for adaptation to drought. Frontiers in Physiology 3, 305.
4. Arvidsson S, Pérez-Rodríguez, Mueller-Roeber B. 2011. A growth phenotyping pipeline for Arabidopsis thaliana integrating image analysis and rosette area modeling for robust quantification of genotype effects. New Phytologist 191, 895-907.
5. Baghalian K, Hajirezaei M-R, Schreiber F. 2014. Plant metabolic modeling: achieving new insight into metabolism and metabolic engineering. The Plant Cell 26, 3847-3866.
6. Baker NR, Rosenqvist E. 2004. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence can improve crop production strategies: an examination of future possibilities. Journal of Experimental Botany 55, 1607-1621.
7. Beauvoit BP, Colombié S, Monier A, et al. 2014. Model-assisted analysis of sugar metabolism throughout tomato fruit development reveals enzyme and carrier properties in relation to vacuole expansion. The Plant Cell 26, 3224-3242.
8. Bendig J, Bolten A, Bennertz S, Broscheit J, Eichfuss S, Bareth G. 2014. Estimating biomass of barley using crop surface models (CSMs) derived from UAV-based RGB imaging. Remote Sensing 6, 10395-10412.
9. Berger S, Benediktyová Z, Matouš K, Bonfig K, Nedbal L, Roitsch T. 2007. Visualization of early and late plant-pathogen interaction by novel combination of chlorophyll fluorescence imaging and statistical analysis: differential effects of virulent and avirulent strains of P. syringae and of oxylipins on A. thaliana. Journal of Experimental Botany 58, 797-806.
10. Berger B, Parent B, Tester M. 2010. High-throughput shoot imaging to study drought responses. Journal of Experimental Botany 61, 3519-3528.
11. Berni JAJ, Zarco-Tejada PJ, Suárez L, Fereres E. 2009. Thermal and narrowband multispectral remote sensing for vegetation monitoring from an unmanned aerial vehicle. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 47, 722-738.
12. Biais B, Bénard C, Beauvoit B, et al. 2014. Remarkable reproducibility of enzyme activity profiles in tomato fruits grown under contrasting environments provides a roadmap for studies of fruit metabolism. Plant Physiology 164, 1204-1221.
13. Blum A. 2014. Genomics for drought resistance-getting down to earth. Functional Plant Biology 41, 1191-1198.
14. Bock CH, Poole GH, Parker PE, Gottwald TR. 2010. Plant disease severity estimated visually, by digital photography and image analysis, and by hyperspectral imaging. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 29, 59-107.
15. Bojacá CR, García SJ, Schrevens E. 2011. Analysis of potato canopy coverage as assessed through digital imagery by nonlinear mixed effects models. Potato Research 54, 237-252.
16. Borisjuk L, Rolletschek H, Neuberger T. 2012. Surveying the plant's world by magnetic resonance imaging. The Plant Journal 70, 129-146.
17. Brown TB, Cheng R, Sirault XRR, Rungrat T, Murray KD, Trtilek M, Furbank RT, Badger M, Pogson BJ, Borevitz JO. 2014. TraitCapture: genomic and environment modelling of plant phenomic data. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 18, 73-79.
18. Burns J. 1970. The synthetic problem and the genotype-phenotype relation in cellular metabolism. In: Waddington CH, ed. Towards a theoretical biology. 3. Drafts. An IUBS Symposium . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 47-51.
19. Busemeyer L, Mentrup D, Möller K, Wunder E, Alheit K, Hahn V, Ruckelshausen A. 2013. Breedvision- a multi-sensor platform for nondestructive field-based phenotyping in plant breeding. Sensors 13, 2830-2847.
20. Cabrera-Bosquet L, Molero G, Stellacci AM, Bort J, Nogués S, Araus JL. 2011. NDVI as a potential tool for predicting biomass, plant nitrogen content and growth in wheat genotypes subjected to different water and nitrogen conditions. Cereal Research Communications 39, 147-159.
21. Calderon R, Navas-Cortes JA, Lucena PJ, Zarco-Tejada PJ. 2013. High-resolution airborne hyperspectral and thermal imagery for early detection of Verticillium wilt of olive using fluorescence, temperature and narrow-band spectral indices. Remote Sensing of Environment 139, 231-245.
22. Chaerle L, Hagenbeek D, De Bruyne E, Van Der Straeten D. 2007. Chlorophyll fluorescence imaging for disease-resistance screening of sugar beet. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 91, 97-106.
23. Chen D, Chen M, Altmann T, Klukas C. 2014. Bridging genomics and phenomics. In: Chen M, Hofestädt R, eds. Approaches in integrative bioinformatics: towards the virtual cell . Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 299-333.
24. Colombié S, Nazaret C, Bénard C, et al. 2015. Modelling central metabolic fluxes by constraint-based optimization reveals metabolic reprogramming of developing Solanum lycopersicum (tomato) fruit. The Plant Journal 81, 24-39.
25. Comar A, Burger P, de Solan B, Baret F, Daumard F, Hanocq JF. 2012. A semi-automatic system for high throughput phenotyping wheat cultivars in-field conditions: description and first results. Functional Plant Biology 39, 914-924.
26. Costa JM, Grant OM, Chaves MM. 2013. Thermography to explore plant-environment interactions. Journal of Experimental Botany 64, 3937-3949.
27. Dale LM, Thewis A, Boudry C, Rotar I, Dardenne P, Baeten V, Pierna JAF. 2013. Hyperspectral imaging applications in agriculture and agrofood product quality and safety control: a review. Applied Spectroscopy Reviews 48, 142-159.
28. Deery D, Jimenez-Berni J, Jones H, Sirault X, Furbank R. 2014. Proximal remote sensing buggies and potential applications for field-based phenotyping. Agronomy 4, 349-379.
29. Dhont S, Wuyts N, Inzé D. 2013. Cell to whole-plant phenotyping: the best is yet to come. Trends in Plant Science 18, 428-439.
30. Eitel JU, Magney TS, Vierling LA, Brown TT, Huggins DR. 2014. LiDAR based biomass and crop nitrogen estimates for rapid, nondestructive assessment of wheat nitrogen status. Field Crops Research 159, 21-32.
31. Fabre J, Dauzat M, Nègre V, et al. 2011. PHENOPSIS DB: an information system for Arabidopsis thaliana phenotypic data in an environmental context. BMC Plant Biology 11, 77.
32. Finkel E. 2009. With 'phenomics', plant scientists hope to shift breeding into overdrive. Science 325, 380-381.
33. Fiorani F, Rascher U, Jahnke S, Schurr U. 2012. Imaging plants dynamics in heterogenic environments. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 23, 227-235.
34. Fiorani F, Schurr U. 2013. Future scenarios for plant phenotyping. Annual Review of Plant Biology 64, 267-291.
35. Floková K, Tarkowská D, Miersch O, Strnad M, Wasternack C, Novák O. 2014. UHPLC-MS/MS based target profiling of stress-induced phytohormones. Phytochemistry 105, 147-157.
36. Furbank RT, Tester M. 2011. Phenomics-technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends in Plant Science 16, 635-644.
37. Ghanem ME, Marrou H, Sinclair TR. 2015. Physiological phenotyping of plants for crop improvement. Trends in Plant Science 20, 139-144.
38. Gibon Y, Blaesing OE, Hannemann J, Carillo P, Höhne M, Hendriks JH, Palacios N, Cross J, Selbig J, Stitt M. 2004. A robot-based platform to measure multiple enzyme activities in Arabidopsis using a set of cycling assays: comparison of changes of enzyme activities and transcript levels during diurnal cycles and in prolonged darkness. The Plant Cell 16, 3304-3325.
39. Gjuvsland AB, Vik JO, Beard DA, Hunter PJ, Omholt SW. 2013. Bridging the genotype-phenotype gap: what does it take? Journal of Physiology 591, 2055-2066.
40. Golzarian MR, Frick RA, Rajendran K, Berger B, Roy S, Tester M, Lun DS. 2011. Accurate inference of shoot biomass from high-throughput images of cereal plants. Plant Methods 7, 2.
41. Gorbe E, Calatayud A. 2013. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence imaging technique in horticultural research: a review. Scientia Horticulturae 138, 24-35.
42. Granier C, Aguirrezabal L, Chenu K, et al. 2006. PHENOPSIS, an automated platform for reproducible phenotyping of plant responses to soil water deficit in Arabidopsis thaliana permitted the identification of an accession with low sensitivity to soil water deficit. New Phytologist 169, 623-635.
43. Granier C, Vile D. 2014. Phenotyping and beyond: modelling the relationships between traits. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 18, 96-102.
44. Großkinsky DK, Albacete A, Jammer A, Krbez P, van der Graaff E, Pfeifhofer H, Roitsch T. 2014. A rapid phytohormone and phytoalexin screening method for physiological phenotyping. Molecular Plant 7, 1053-1056.
45. Gutierrez M, Reynolds MP, Klatt AR. 2010. Association of water spectral indices with plant and soil water relations in contrasting wheat genotypes. Journal of Experimental Botany 61, 3291-3303.
46. Houle D, Govindaraju DR, Omholt S. 2010. Phenomics: the next challenge. Nature Reviews Genetics 11, 855-866.
47. Hoyos-Villegas V, Houx JH, Singh SK, Fritschi FB. 2014. Groundbased digital imaging as a tool to assess soybean growth and yield. Crop Science 54, 1756-1768.
48. Jammer A, Gasperl A, Luschin-Ebengreuth N, et al. 2015. Simple and robust determination of the activity signature of key carbohydrate metabolism enzymes for physiological phenotyping in model and crop plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 5531-5542.
49. Jansen M, Gilmer F, Biskup B, Nagel KA, Rascher U, Fischbach A, Walter A. 2009. Simultaneous phenotyping of leaf growth and chlorophyll fluorescence via GROWSCREEN FLUORO allows detection of stress tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana and other rosette plants. Functional Plant Biology 36, 902-914.
50. Jones HG, Vaughan RA. 2010. Remote sensing of vegetation: principles, techniques, and applications . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Kempthorne D, Turner IW, Belward JA, McCue SW, Barry M, Young JA, Dorr GJ, Hanan J, Zabkiewicz JA. 2015. Surface reconstruction of wheat leaf morphology from three-dimensional scanned data. Functional Plant Biology 42, 444-451.
52. Krajewski P, Chen D, wiek H, et al. 2015. Towards recommendations for metadata and data handling in plant phenotyping. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 5417-5427.
53. Kristensen HL, Thorup-Kristensen K. 2004. Root growth and nitrate uptake of three different catch crops in deep soil layers. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68, 529-537.
54. Kruger NJ, Ratcliffe RG. 2015. Fluxes through plant metabolic networks: measurements, predictions, insights and challenges. Biochemical Journal 465, 27-38.
55. Langridge P, Reynolds MP. 2015. Genomic tools to assist breeding for drought tolerance. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 32, 130-135.
56. Li L, Zhang Q, Huang D. 2014. A review of imaging techniques for plant phenotyping. Sensors 14, 20078-20111.
57. Matouš K, Benediktyová Z, Berger S, Roitsch T, Nedbal L. 2006. Case study of combinatorial imaging: what protocol and what chlorophyll fluorescence image to use when visualizing infection of Arabidopsis thaliana by Pseudomonas syringae? Photosynthesis Research 90, 243-253.
58. Ménard G, Biais B, Prodhomme D, Ballais P, Petit J, Just D, Rothan C, Rolin D, Gibon Y. 2013. High-throughput biochemical phenotyping for plants. Advances in Botanical Research 67, 407-439.
59. Meroni M, Rossini M, Guanter L, Alonso L, Rascher U, Colombo R, Moreno J. 2009. Remote sensing of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence: review of methods and applications. Remote Sensing of Environment 113, 2037-2051.
60. Mistele B, Schmidhalter U. 2008a. Estimating the nitrogen nutrition index using spectral canopy reflectance measurements. European Journal of Agronomy 29, 184-190.
61. Mistele B, Schmidhalter U. 2008b. Spectral measurements of the total aerial N and biomass dry weight in maize using a quadrilateral-view optic. Field Crops Research 106, 94-103.
62. Naika M, Shameer K, Sowdhamini R. 2013. Comparative analyses of stress-responsive genes in Arabidopsis thaliana: insight from genomic data mining, functional enrichment, pathway analysis and phenomics. Molecular BioSystems 9, 1888-1908.
63. Neilson EH, Edwards AM, Blomstedt BB, Berger B, Lindberg Møller B, Gleadow RM. 2015. Utilization of a high-throughput shoot imaging system to examine the dynamic phenotypic response to a C4 cereal crop plant to nitrogen and water deficiency over time. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 1817-1832.
64. Oellrich A, Walls RL, Cannon EKS, et al. 2015. An ontology approach to comparative phenomics in plants. Plant Methods 11, 10.
65. Paproki A, Sirault X, Berry S, Furbank R, Fripp J. 2012. A novel mesh processing based technique for 3D plant analysis. BMC Plant Biology 12, 63.
66. Pask AJD, Pietragalla J, Mullan DM, Reynolds MP. 2012. Physiological breeding II: a field guide to wheat phenotyping. CIMMYT.
67. Pengelly JJ, Sirault XR, Tazoe Y, Evans JR, Furbank RT, von Caemmerer S. 2010. Growth of the C4 dicot Flaveria bidentis: photosynthetic acclimation to low light through shifts in leaf anatomy and biochemistry. Journal of Experimental Botany 61, 4109-4122.
68. Poorter H, Niinemets U, Walter A, Fiorani F, Schurr U. 2010. A method to construct dose-response curves for a wide range of environmental factors and plant traits by means of a meta-analysis of phenotypic data. Journal of Experimental Botany 61, 2043-2055.
69. Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L. 2012. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytologist 193, 30-50.
70. Porter JR, Christensen S. 2013. Deconstructing crop processes and models via identities. Plant, Cell and Environment 36, 1919-1925.
71. Reynolds MP, Pask AJD, Mullan DM. 2012. Physiological breeding I: interdisciplinary approaches to improve crop adaptation. CIMMYT.
72. Roda F, Musulin E. 2014. An ontology-based framework to support intelligent data analysis of sensor measurements. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 7914-7926.
73. Rossini M, Fava F, Cogliati S, et al. 2013. Assesing canopy PRI from airborne imagery to map water stress in maize. Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 86, 168-177.
74. Sadras VO, Richards RA. 2014. Improvement of crop yield in dry environments: benchmarks, levels of organization and the role of nitrogen. Journal of Experimental Botany 65, 1981-1995.
75. Salvi S, Tuberosa R. 2015. The crop QTLome comes of age. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 32, 179-185.
76. Schork NJ. 1997. Genetics of complex disease-approaches, problems, and solutions. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 156, S103-S109.
77. Seelig H-D, Hoehn A, Stodieck LS, Klaus DM, Adams WW III, Emery WJ. 2008. The assessment of leaf water content using leaf reflectance ratios in the visible, near-, and short-wave-infrared. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29, 3701-3713.
78. Shameer K, Naika MBN, Mathew OK, Sowdhamini R. 2014. POEAS: automated plant phenomic analysis using plant ontology. Bioinformatics and Biology Insights 8, 209-214.
79. Sharma DK, Andersen SB, Ottosen C-O, Rosenqvist E. 2012. Phenotyping of wheat cultivars for heat tolerance using chlorophyll a fluorescence. Functional Plant Ecology 39, 936-947.
80. Sharma DK, Andersen SB, Ottosen C-O, Rosenqvist E. 2015. Wheat cultivars selected for high Fv/Fm under heat stress maintain high photosynthesis, total chlorophyll, stomatal conductance, transpiration and dry matter. Physiologia Plantarum 153, 284-298.
81. Soulé M. 1967. Phenetics of natural populations I. Phenetic relationships of insular populations of the side-blotched lizard. Evolution 21, 584-591.
82. Stitt M, Gibon Y. 2014. Why measure enzyme activities in the era of systems biology? Trends in Plant Science 19, 256-265.
83. Sulpice R, Trenkamp S, Steinfath M, et al. 2010. Network analysis of enzyme activities and metabolite levels and their relationship to biomass in a large panel of Arabidopsis accessions. The Plant Cell 22, 2872-2893.
84. Svensgaard J, Roitsch T, Christensen S. 2014. Development of a mobile multispectral imaging platform for precise field phenotyping. Agronomy 4, 322-336.
85. Sweetlove LJ, Obata T, Fernie AR. 2014. Systems analysis of metabolic phenotypes: what have we learnt? Trends in Plant Science 19, 222-230.
86. Tester M, Langridge P. 2010. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 327, 818-822.
87. Thomsen A, Schelde B. 2010. Application of a canopy multisensor. The 10th International Conference of Precision Agriculture , Denver, CO.
88. Tuberosa R, Turner NC, Cakir M. 2014. Two decades of InterDrought conferences: are we bridging the genotype-to-phenotype gap? Journal of Experimental Botany 65, 6137-6139.
89. Walls RL, Athreya B, Cooper L, et al. 2012. Ontologies as integrative tools for plant science. American Journal of Botany 99, 1263-1275.
90. Wang W, Vinocur B, Altman A. 2003. Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures: towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Planta 218, 1-14.
91. Woo NS, Badger MR, Pogson BJ. 2008. A rapid, non-invasive procedure for quantitative assessment of drought survival using chlorophyll fluorescence. Plant Methods 4, 27.
92. Yin X, Struik PC, Kropff MJ. 2004. Role of crop physiology in predicting gene-to-phenotype relationships. Trends in Plant Science 9, 426-432.
93. Zhang X, Cai X. 2011. Climate change impacts on global agricultural land availability. Environmental Research Letters 6, 014014.