4.7 Article

Medicago truncatula and Glycine max: Different Drought Tolerance and Similar Local Response of the Root Nodule Proteome

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 12, 页码 5240-5251

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00617

关键词

Medicago truncatula; soybean; nodule proteome; drought; split-root system

资金

  1. Austrian Science foundation (FWF) [P23441-B20]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [AGL 2011-23738]
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 23441] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P23441] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Legume crops present important agronomical and environmental advantages mainly due to their capacity to reduce atmospheric N-2 to ammonium via symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF). This process is very sensitive to abiotic stresses such as drought, but the mechanism underlying this response is not fully understood. The goal of the current work is to compare the drought response of two legumes with high economic impact and research importance, Medicago truncatula and Glycine max, by characterizing their root nodule proteomes. Our results show that, although M. truncatula exhibits lower water potential values under drought conditions compared to G. max, SNF declined analogously in the two legumes. Both of their nodule proteomes are very similar, and comparable down-regulation responses in the diverse protein functional groups were identified (mainly proteins related to the metabolism of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur). We suggest lipoxygenases and protein turnover as newly recognized players in SNF regulation. Partial drought conditions applied to a split-root system resulted in the local down-regulation of the entire proteome of drought-stressed nodules in both legumes. The high degree of similarity between both legume proteomes suggests that the vast amount of research conducted on M. truncatula could be applied to economically important legume crops, such as soybean.

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