4.6 Article

Transcriptome Profiling of Sugarcane Roots in Response to Low Potassium Stress

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126306

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Earmarked Fund for China Agriculture Research System [CARS-20-1-4, CARS-20-3-1]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China [2012B020301008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sugarcane is the most important crop for supplying sugar. Due to its high biomass, sugarcane needs to absorb a large amount of potassium (K) throughout its lifecycle. In South China, a deficiency of K available in soil restricts the production of sugarcane. Increasing the tolerance of sugarcane to low-K will be an effective approach for improving survival of the crop in this area. However, there is little information regarding the mechanism of tolerance to low-K stress in sugarcane. In this study, a customized microarray was used to analyze the changes in the level of transcripts of sugarcane genes 8 h, 24 h and 72 h after exposure to low-K conditions. We identified a total of 4153 genes that were differentially expressed in at least one of the three time points. The number of genes responding to low-K stress at 72 h was almost 2-fold more than the numbers at 8 h and 24 h. Gene ontology (GO) analysis revealed that many genes involved in metabolic, developmental and biological regulatory processes displayed changes in the level of transcripts in response to low-K stress. Additionally, we detected differential expression of transcription factors, transporters, kinases, oxidative stress-related genes and genes in Ca+ and ethylene signaling pathways; these proteins might play crucial roles in improving the tolerance of sugarcane to low-K stress. The results of this study will help to better understand the molecular mechanisms of sugarcane tolerance to low-K.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available