4.6 Article

Cross talk between Cu excess and Fe deficiency in the roots of rice

Journal

GENE
Volume 874, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2023.147491

Keywords

Cu excess; Fe deficiency; Crosstalk; Transcriptome; Rice

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, transcriptome analysis was performed to investigate the crosstalk between copper excess and iron deficiency in rice. Several WRKY and bHLH family members were identified as potential transcription factors involved in copper detoxification and iron utilization regulation. The results indicate that copper excess induces iron deficiency response, while iron deficiency does not lead to copper toxicity response.
Copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) share similar characteristics and participate as coenzymes in several physiological processes. Both Cu excess and Fe deficiency result in chlorosis, however, the crosstalk between the two is not clear in rice. In this study, we performed transcriptome analysis for Cu excess and Fe deficiency in rice. Some WRKY family members (such as WRKY26) and some bHLH family members (such as late flowering) were selected as novel potential transcription factors involved in the regulation of Cu detoxification and Fe utilization, respectively. These genes were induced under corresponding stress conditions. Many Fe uptake-related genes were induced by Cu excess, while Cu detoxification-related genes were not induced by Fe deficiency. Meanwhile, some genes, such as metallothionein 3a, gibberellin 3beta-dioxygenase 2 and WRKY11, were induced by Cu excess but repressed by Fe deficiency. Concisely, our results highlight the crosstalk between Cu excess and Fe deficiency in rice. Cu excess caused Fe deficiency response, while Fe deficiency did not lead to Cu toxicity response. Metallothionein 3a might be responsible for Cu toxicity-induced chlorosis in rice. The crosstalk between Cu excess and Fe deficiency might be regulated by gibberellic acid.

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