4.0 Article

MicroRNAs regulate tolerance mechanisms in sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) under aluminum stress

期刊

出版社

BRAZILIAN SOC PLANT BREEDING
DOI: 10.1590/1984-70332021v21n1a5

关键词

Aluminum toxicity; co-expression network; RT-qPCR; Saccharum; small RNAs

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [001]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified key regulatory mechanisms of miRNA expression in sugarcane under aluminum toxicity stress, with miR395 involved in detoxification and miR160, miR6225-5p, and miR167 participating in lateral root formation, enhancing tolerance in the genotype. These findings could be important for biotechnological strategies aiming at miRNA silencing or gene overexpression, as well as for future genetic improvement programs focused on developing abiotic stress-tolerant sugarcane genotypes.
The agricultural yield of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) is influenced by various abiotic stresses, including aluminum toxicity (Al3+). MicroRNAs (miRNAs) play a role in plant tolerance to such stresses by modulating the expression of several important target genes involved in plant growth. This study investigated the possible tolerance mechanisms of two sugarcane genotypes (CTC-2 and R8855453) under Al3+ stress through miRNA expression profiles and in silico analysis of target genes. The expression data obtained using RT-qPCR and coexpression network analysis identified two possible regulatory mechanisms in the tolerant genotype (CTC-2) under Al3+ stress. miR395 was involved in Al3+ detoxification, whereas miR160, miR6225-5p, and miR167 participated in the process of lateral root formation, conferring tolerance to the genotype. These findings might be useful for biotechnological strategies that aim for miRNA silencing or gene overexpression and provide subsidies for future genetic improvement programs aimed at the development of abiotic stress-tolerant sugarcane genotypes.

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

4.0
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