4.7 Article

A Proteomic Study of the Response to Salinity and Drought Stress in an Introgression Strain of Bread Wheat

Journal

MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS
Volume 8, Issue 12, Pages 2676-2686

Publisher

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M900052-MCP200

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Major Program of the Natural Science Foundation of China [30530480, 30700430]
  2. National Basic Research 973 Program of China [2006CB100100, 2009CB118300]
  3. National Transgenic Project [2009ZX08009-082B, 2008ZX08002-002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of drought and salinity stress on the seedlings of the somatic hybrid wheat cv. Shanrong No. 3 (SR3) and its parent bread wheat cv. Jinan 177 (JN177) was investigated using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry. Of a set of 93 (root) and 65 (leaf) differentially expressed proteins (DEPs), 34 (root) and six (leaf) DEPs were cultivar-specific. The remaining DEPs were salinity/drought stress-responsive but not cultivar-specific. Many of the DEPs were expressed under both drought and salinity stresses. The amounts of stress-responsive DEPs between SR3 and JN177 were almost equivalent, whereas only some of these DEPs were shared by the two cultivars. Overall, the number of salinity-responsive DEPs was greater than the number of drought-responsive DEPs. And most of the drought-responsive DEPs also responded to salinity. There are both similarities and differences in the responses of wheat to salinity and drought. A parallel transcriptomics analysis showed that the correlation between transcriptional and translational patterns of DEPs was poor. The enhanced drought/salinity tolerance of SR3 appears to be governed by a superior capacity for osmotic and ionic homeostasis, a more efficient removal of toxic by-products, and ultimately a better potential for growth recovery. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 8:2676-2686, 2009.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available