The physiological relationship between abiotic stress in plants and polyamines was reported more than 40 years ago. Ever since there has been a debate as to whether increased polyamines protect plants against abiotic stress (e.g. due to their ability to deal with oxidative radicals) or cause damage to them (perhaps due to hydrogen peroxide produced by their catabolism). The observation that cellular polyamines are typically elevated in plants under both short-term as well as long-term abiotic stress conditions is consistent with the possibility of their dual effects, i.e. being a protector as well as a perpetrator of stress damage to the cells. The observed increase in tolerance of plants to abiotic stress when their cellular contents are elevated by either exogenous treatment with polyamines or through genetic engineering with genes encoding polyamine biosynthetic enzymes is indicative of a protective role for them. However, through their catabolic production of hydrogen peroxide and acrolein, both strong oxidizers, they can potentially be the cause of cellular harm during stress. In fact, somewhat enigmatic but strong positive relationship between abiotic stress and foliar polyamines has been proposed as a potential biochemical marker of persistent environmental stress in forest trees in which phenotypic symptoms of stress are not yet visible. Such markers may help forewarn forest managers to undertake amelioration strategies before the appearance of visual symptoms of stress and damage at which stage it is often too late for implementing strategies for stress remediation and reversal of damage. This review provides a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the published literature on interactions between abiotic stress and polyamines in plants, and examines the experimental strategies used to understand the functional significance of this relationship with the aim of improving plant productivity, especially under conditions of abiotic stress.

The metabolism of glutamate into ornithine, arginine, proline and polyamines is a major network of nitrogen-metabolizing pathways in plants, which also produces intermediates like nitric oxide, and γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) that play critical roles in plant development and stress. While the accumulations of intermediates and the products of this network depend primarily on nitrogen assimilation, the overall regulation of the interacting sub-pathways is not well understood. We tested the hypothesis that diversion of ornithine into polyamine biosynthesis (by transgenic approach) not only plays a role in regulating its own biosynthesis from glutamate but also affects arginine and proline biosynthesis. Using two high putrescine producing lines of Arabidopsis thaliana (containing a transgenic mouse ornithine decarboxylase gene), we studied the: (1) effects of exogenous supply of carbon and nitrogen on polyamines and pools of soluble amino acids; and, (2) the expression of genes encoding key enzymes in the interacting pathways of arginine, proline and GABA biosynthesis as well as the catabolism of polyamines. Our findings suggest that: (1) the overall conversion of glutamate to arginine and polyamines is enhanced by increased utilization of ornithine for polyamine biosynthesis by the transgene product; (2) proline and arginine biosynthesis are regulated independently of polyamines and GABA biosynthesis; (3) the expression of most genes (28 that were studied) that encode enzymes of the interacting sub-pathways of arginine and GABA biosynthesis does not change even though overall biosynthesis of Orn from glutamate is increased several fold; and (4) increased polyamine biosynthesis results in increased assimilation of both nitrogen and carbon by the cells.

We overexpressed a mouse ornithine decarboxylase gene under the control of a constitutive and an estradiol-inducible promoter in Arabidopsis thaliana to increase our understanding of the regulation of polyamine metabolism. Of particular interest was the role of the substrate ornithine not only in the regulation of polyamine biosynthesis, but also in the accumulation of related amino acids in response to short-term induction of this enzyme. We hypothesized that the inducible expression of the transgene would mimic the natural responses of plants to changing conditions, e.g. under stress conditions and during rapid growth. Our results reveal that ornithine, even though present in relatively small quantities (compared with other amino acids of the glutamate–arginine–proline pathway), may not only be the key regulator of polyamine biosynthesis in Arabidopsis, but it may also regulate the entire subset of pathways for glutamate to arginine and to proline. Indirectly, it could also regulate putrescine catabolism, therefore contributing to the γ-aminobutyric acid content of the cells. Furthermore, the induction of mouse ornithine decarboxylase resulted in up- and down-regulation of several amino acids in the transgenic plants. It was learned that the turnover of putrescine in both the wild type and the transgenic plants occurs rapidly, with a half-life of 6–8 h.

Arabidopsis has 5 paralogs of the S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase (SAMDC) gene. Neither their specific role in development nor the role of positive/purifying selection in genetic divergence of this gene family is known. While some data are available on organ-specific expression of AtSAMDC1, AtSAMDC2, AtSAMDC3 and AtSAMDC4, not much is known about their promoters including AtSAMDC5, which is believed to be non-functional. (1) Phylogenetic analysis of the five AtSAMDC genes shows similar divergence pattern for promoters and coding sequences (CDSs), whereas, genetic divergence of 5’UTRs and 3’UTRs was independent of the promoters and CDSs; (2) while AtSAMDC1 and AtSAMDC4 promoters exhibit high activity (constitutive in the former), promoter activities of AtSAMDC2, AtSAMDC3 and AtSAMDC5 are moderate to low in seedlings (depending upon translational or transcriptional fusions), and are localized mainly in the vascular tissues and reproductive organs in mature plants; (3) based on promoter activity, it appears that AtSAMDC5 is both transcriptionally and translationally active, but based on it’s coding sequence it seems to produce a non-functional protein; (4) though 5’-UTR based regulation of AtSAMDC expression through upstream open reading frames (uORFs) in the 5’UTR is well known, no such uORFs are present in AtSAMDC4 and AtSAMDC5; (5) the promoter regions of all five AtSAMDC genes contain common stress-responsive elements and hormone-responsive elements; (6) at the organ level, the activity of AtSAMDC enzyme does not correlate with the expression of specific AtSAMDC genes or with the contents of spermidine and spermine. Differential roles of positive/purifying selection were observed in genetic divergence of the AtSAMDC gene family. All tissues express one or more AtSAMDC gene with significant redundancy, and concurrently, there is cell/tissue-specificity of gene expression, particularly in mature organs. This study provides valuable information about AtSAMDC promoters, which could be useful in future manipulation of crop plants for nutritive purposes, stress tolerance or bioenergy needs. The AtSAMDC1 core promoter might serve the need of a strong constitutive promoter, and its high expression in the gametophytic cells could be exploited, where strong male/female gametophyte-specific expression is desired; e.g. in transgenic modification of crop varieties.