4.7 Article

Wild Relatives of Wheat Respond Well to Water Deficit Stress: A Comparative Study of Antioxidant Enzyme Activities and Their Encoding Gene Expression

期刊

AGRICULTURE-BASEL
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agriculture10090415

关键词

Aegilopsspp; oxidative stress; gene expression; physio-chemical properties; enzyme activity

类别

资金

  1. University of Helsinki

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have revealed that some wild wheat accessions respond well to water deficit treatments and have a good potential in terms of photosynthetic parameters, root system architecture, and several physiological properties. However, the biochemical responses and molecular mechanisms of antioxidant-encoding genes remain to be elucidated. Herein, we investigated the most tolerant accessions fromA. crassa,Ae. tauschii, andAe. cylindricapreviously identified from a core collection in previous studies, along with a control variety of bread wheat (T. aestivumcv. Sirvan) through measuring the shoot fresh and dry biomasses; the activities of antioxidant enzymes (including ascorbate peroxidase (APX), catalase (CAT), guaiacol peroxidase (GPX), and peroxidase (POD)); and the relative expression ofCAT, superoxide dismutase (MnSOD), andGPXandAPXgenes under control and water deficit conditions. Water deficit stress caused a significant decrease in the shoot biomasses but resulted in an increase in the activity of all antioxidant enzymes and relative expression of antioxidant enzyme-encoding genes. Principal component analysis showed a strong association between the shoot dry biomass and the activity of CAT, POD, and APX, as well asMnSODgene expression. Thus, these traits can be used as biomarkers to screen the tolerant plant material in the early growth stage. Taken together, our findings exposed the fact thatAe. tauschiiandAe. crassarespond better to water deficit stress thanAe. cylindricaand a control variety. Furthermore, these accessions can be subjected to further molecular investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据