4.7 Article

Evaluation of the Morpho-Physiological, Biochemical and Molecular Responses of Contrasting Medicago truncatula Lines under Water Deficit Stress

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10102114

关键词

Medicago truncatula; water deficit stress; morpho-physiological characters; biochemical parameters; DREB1B

资金

  1. Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research [CBBC02 LR15]
  2. National Research Foundation of South Africa [GUN 95358]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Medicago truncatula is a popular forage crop for farmers and a model species for molecular research. Water deficit stress affects different lines of M. truncatula differently, with TN6.18 showing the highest tolerance. DREB1B gene may play a key role in water deficit tolerance in this species.
Medicago truncatula is a forage crop of choice for farmers, and it is a model species for molecular research. The growth and development and subsequent yields are limited by water availability mainly in arid and semi-arid regions. Our study aims to evaluate the morpho-physiological, biochemical and molecular responses to water deficit stress in four lines (TN6.18, JA17, TN1.11 and A10) of M. truncatula. The results showed that the treatment factor explained the majority of the variation for the measured traits. It appeared that the line A10 was the most sensitive and therefore adversely affected by water deficit stress, which reduced its growth and yield parameters, whereas the tolerant line TN6.18 exhibited the highest root biomass production, a significantly higher increase in its total protein and soluble sugar contents, and lower levels of lipid peroxidation with greater cell membrane integrity. The expression analysis of the DREB1B gene using RT-qPCR revealed a tissue-differential expression in the four lines under osmotic stress, with a higher induction rate in roots of TN6.18 and JA17 than in A10 roots, suggesting a key role for DREB1B in water deficit tolerance in M. truncatula.

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