4.2 Article

RootBot: High-throughput root stress phenotyping robot

期刊

APPLICATIONS IN PLANT SCIENCES
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/aps3.11541

关键词

automation; drought stress; phenotyping; roots

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Higher temperatures causing more frequent and severe droughts have negative impacts on agricultural crops. RootBot, an automated high-throughput phenotyping robot, provides an efficient solution for studying root growth under drought conditions, aiding in understanding drought tolerance mechanisms and identifying targets for crop breeding and genetic engineering.
Premise: Higher temperatures across the globe are causing an increase in the frequency and severity of droughts. In agricultural crops, this results in reduced yields, financial losses, and increased food costs at the supermarket. Root growth maintenance in drying soils plays a major role in a plant's ability to survive and perform under drought, but phenotyping root growth is extremely difficult due to roots being under the soil. Methods and Results: RootBot is an automated high-throughput phenotyping robot that eliminates many of the difficulties and reduces the time required for performing drought-stress studies on primary roots. RootBot simulates root growth conditions using transparent plates to create a gap that is filled with soil and polyethylene glycol (PEG) to simulate low soil moisture. RootBot has a gantry system with vertical slots to hold the transparent plates, which theoretically allows for evaluating more than 50 plates at a time. Software pipelines were also co-opted, developed, tested, and extensively refined for running the RootBot imaging process, storing and organizing the images, and analyzing and extracting data. Conclusions: The RootBot platform and the lessons learned from its design and testing represent a valuable resource for better understanding drought tolerance mechanisms in roots, as well as for identifying breeding and genetic engineering targets for crop plants.

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

4.2
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