4.5 Article

Salt-resistant and salt-sensitive wheat genotypes show similar biochemical reaction at protein level in the first phase of salt stress

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION AND SOIL SCIENCE
卷 169, 期 4, 页码 542-548

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jpln.200520557

关键词

proteomics; salinity; sodium toxicity; Triticum aestivum; wheat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Salinity has a two-phase effect on plant growth, an osmotic effect due to salts in the outside solution and ion toxicity in a second phase due to salt build-up in transpiring leaves. To elucidate salt-resistance mechanisms in the first phase of salt stress, we studied the biochemical reaction of salt-resistant and salt-sensitive wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes at protein level after 10 d exposure to 125 mM-NaCl salinity (first phase of salt stress) and the variation of salt resistance among the genotypes after 30 d exposure to 125 mM-NaCl salinity (second phase of salt stress) in solution culture experiments in a growth chamber. The three genotypes differed significantly in absolute and relative shoot and root dry weights after 30 d exposure to NaCl salinity. SARC-1 produced the maximum and 7-Cerros the minimum shoot dry weights under salinity relative to control. A highly significant negative correlation (r(2) = -0.99) was observed between salt resistance (% shoot dry weight under salinity relative to control) and shoot Na+ concentration of the wheat genotypes studied. However, the salt-resistant and salt-sensitive genotypes showed a similar biochemical reaction at the level of proteins after 10 d exposure to 125 mM NaCl. In both genotypes, the expression of more than 50% proteins was changed, but the difference between the genotypes in various categories of protein change (up-regulated, down-regulated, disappeared, and new-appeared) was only 1%-8%. It is concluded that the initial biochemical reaction to salinity at protein level in wheat is an unspecific response and not a specific adaptation to salinity.

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

4.5
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