4.7 Article

The BAG2 and BAG6 Genes Are Involved in Multiple Abiotic Stress Tolerances in Arabidopsis Thaliana

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22115856

关键词

Bcl-2 associated athanogene (BAG); BAG2; BAG6; Arabidopsis; drought stress; heat stress; abscisic acid (ABA); reactive oxygen species (ROS)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31870230, 31570247, 91417308]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BAG2 and BAG6 proteins in plants play diverse roles in response to various stresses, including abiotic and biotic. They exhibit differential sensitivity to ABA stress and survival rates in drought and heat stress, with varying levels of ROS accumulation.
The BAG proteins are a family of multi-functional co-chaperones. In plants, BAG proteins were found to play roles both in abiotic and biotic stress tolerance. However, the function of Arabidopsis BAG2 remains largely unknown, whereas BAG6 is required for plants' defense to pathogens, although it remains unknown whether BAG6 is involved in plants' tolerance to abiotic stresses. Here, we show that both BAG2 and BAG6 are expressed in various tissues and are upregulated by salt, mannitol, and heat treatments and by stress-related hormones including ABA, ethylene, and SA. Germination of bag2, bag6 and bag2 bag6 seeds is less sensitive to ABA compared to the wild type (WT), whereas BAG2 and BAG6 overexpression lines are hypersensitive to ABA. bag2, bag6, and bag2 bag6 plants show higher survival rates than WT in drought treatment but display lower survival rates in heat-stress treatment. Consistently, these mutants showed differential expression of several stress- and ABA-related genes such as RD29A, RD29B, NCED3 and ABI4 compared to the WT. Furthermore, these mutants exhibit lower levels of ROS after drought and ABA treatment but higher ROS accumulation after heat treatment than the WT. These results suggest that BAG2 and BAG6 are negatively involved in drought stress but play a positive role in heat stress in Arabidopsis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据