4.3 Article

Phenotypical, physiological and molecular assessment of drought tolerance of five Egyptian teosinte genotypes

Journal

JOURNAL OF PLANT INTERACTIONS
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 656-673

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17429145.2022.2085335

Keywords

Teosinte genotypes; watering frequency; osmoprotection; antioxidant potential; gene expression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the phenotypical, physiological, and molecular responses of five teosinte genotypes to prolonged drought. The results showed that drought had negative effects on growth and yield, but promoted the accumulation of protective substances. The study also identified genotypes with higher drought tolerance. These findings are of great significance for breeding programs and addressing the challenges of drought.
Prolonged drought presents a serious challenge to the agricultural sector. The main concern of this work was to assess the phenotypical, physiological, and molecular responses of five teosinte (Zea mexicana Schrad L.) genotypes (Ba, Gm1, Gm2, Gm3 and Gm4). In a two-season (2020 and 2021) field experiment, fifteen-day-old teosinte plants were subjected to well-watered (15-day watering frequency) as a control, moderate drought (25-day watering frequency), and extreme drought (35-day watering frequency) treatments. Drought negatively affected growth, yield, chlorophyll, and POD activity of all genotypes, but promoted soluble sugars and proteins, osmoregulatory molecules (glycinebetaine, amino acids, and proline), non-enzymatic antioxidants (phenols, flavonoids, and alkaloids), and SOD activity. Furthermore, long-term water stress upregulated MOCOS, Rad17, NCED1, CAT1, and P5CS genes expression, with Gm3 and Gm4 being the most drought-tolerant genotypes. These findings could be employed in breeding programs to develop tolerant genotypes to address the challenges posed by climate changes like drought.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available