4.7 Article

Next-Generation Proteomics Reveals a Greater Antioxidative Response to Drought in Coffea arabica Than in Coffea canephora

Journal

AGRONOMY-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy12010148

Keywords

acclimation; climate change; coffee; comparative proteome; water deficit response

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Drought has a significant impact on coffee production, affecting its quality and quantity. The proteomic response to water deficits varies between different genotypes, with C. arabica showing a stronger ability to adapt and repair compared to C. canephora. Developing new coffee varieties that can withstand water scarcity is crucial.
Drought is a major threat to coffee, compromising the quality and quantity of its production. We have analyzed the core proteome of 18 Coffea canephora cv. Conilon Clone 153 and C. arabica cv. Icatu plants and assessed their responses to moderate (MWD) and severe (SWD) water deficits. Label-free quantitative shotgun proteomics identified 3000 proteins in both genotypes, but less than 0.8% contributed to ca. 20% of proteome biomass. Proteomic changes were dependent on the severity of drought, being stronger under SWD and with an enrolment of different proteins, functions, and pathways than under MWD. The two genotypes displayed stress-responsive proteins under SWD, but only C. arabica showed a higher abundance of proteins involved in antioxidant detoxification activities. Overall, the impact of MWD was minor in the two genotypes, contrary to previous studies. In contrast, an extensive proteomic response was found under SWD, with C. arabica having a greater potential for acclimation/resilience than C. canephora. This is likely supported by a wider antioxidative response and an ability to repair photosynthetic structures, being crucial to develop new elite genotypes that assure coffee supply under water scarcity levels.

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