In vivo and in vitro approaches demonstrate proline is not directly involved in the protection against superoxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide and peroxynitrite.

Abstract

Plants accumulate proline under diverse types of stresses, and it has been suggested that this α-amino acid has the capacity to protect against oxidative stress. However, it is still controversial whether its protection is due to the direct scavenging of reactive oxygen species (ROS). To solve this issue and considering that nitrosative stress is directly related with an oxidative stress condition, we evaluated whether proline can protect against nitrosative damage. Using proteins of Lotus japonicus (Regel) K.Larsen leaves exposed to a peroxynitrite (ONOO-/ONOOH) generator in presence and absence of 100mM proline, the potential of proline to protect was analysed by the protein nitration profile and NADP-dependent isocitrate dehydrogenase activity, which is inhibited by nitration. In both cases, the presence of proline did not diminish the peroxynitrite effects. Additionally, proline biosynthesis Arabidopsis knockout (KO) mutant plants of Δ(1)-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase1 (P5CS1) gene, designated as Atp5cs1-1 and Atp5cs1-4, showed similar protein nitration levels as wild-type plants under salinity-induced oxidative stress, despite mutants having higher levels of lipid oxidation, H2O2 and superoxide (O2·-). Finally, by a fluorometric assay using specific fluorescent probes, it was determined that the presence of 100mM proline did not affect the time-course content of peroxynitrite or nitric oxide generation in vitro. Our results reveal the relevance of proline accumulation in vivo under stress, but unequivocally demonstrate that proline is not a direct scavenger of peroxynitrite, superoxide, ·NO and nitrogen dioxide (·NO2).