Transcriptomic and Physiological Variations of Three Arabidopsis Ecotypes in Response to Salt Stress.

Salt stress is one of the major abiotic stresses in agriculture worldwide. Analysis of natural genetic variation in Arabidopsis is an effective approach to characterize candidate salt responsive genes. Differences in salt tolerance of three Arabidopsis ecotypes were compared in this study based on their responses to salt treatments at two developmental stages: seed germination and later growth. The Sha ecotype had higher germination rates, longer roots and less accumulation of superoxide radical and hydrogen peroxide than the Ler and Col ecotypes after short term salt treatment. With long term salt treatment, Sha exhibited higher survival rates and lower electrolyte leakage. Transcriptome analysis revealed that many genes involved in cell wall, photosynthesis, and redox were mainly down-regulated by salinity effects, while transposable element genes, microRNA and biotic stress related genes were significantly changed in comparisons of Sha vs. Ler and Sha vs. Col. Several pathways involved in tricarboxylic acid cycle, hormone metabolism and development, and the Gene Ontology terms involved in response to stress and defense response were enriched after salt treatment, and between Sha and other two ecotypes. Collectively, these results suggest that the Sha ecotype is preconditioned to withstand abiotic stress. Further studies about detailed gene function are needed. These comparative transcriptomic and analytical results also provide insight into the complexity of salt stress tolerance mechanisms

Global gene expression analysis of transgenic, mannitol-producing, and salt-tolerant Arabidopsis thaliana indicates widespread changes in abiotic and biotic stress-related genes

Mannitol is a putative osmoprotectant contributing to salt tolerance in several species. Arabidopsis plants transformed with the mannose-6-phosphate reductase (M6PR) gene from celery were dramatically more salt tolerant (at 100 mM NaCl) as exhibited by reduced salt injury, less inhibition of vegetative growth, and increased seed production relative to the wild type (WT). When treated with 200 mM NaCl, transformants produced no seeds, but did bolt, and exhibited less chlorosis/necrosis and greater survival and dry weights than the WT. Without salt there were no M6PR effects on growth or phenotype, but expression levels of 2272 genes were altered. Many fewer differences (1039) were observed between M6PR and WT plants in the presence of salt, suggesting that M6PR pre-conditioned the plants to stress. Previous work suggested that mannitol is an osmoprotectant, but mannitol levels are invariably quite low, perhaps inadequate for osmoprotectant effects. In this study, transcriptome analysis reveals that the M6PR transgene activated the downstream abscisic acid (ABA) pathway by up-regulation of ABA receptor genes (PYL4, PYL5, and PYL6) and down-regulation of protein phosphatase 2C genes (ABI1 and ABI2). In the M6PR transgenic lines there were also increases in transcripts related to redox and cell wall-strengthening pathways. These data indicate that mannitol-enhanced stress tolerance is due at least in part to increased expression of a variety of stress-inducible genes

Photosynthetic Responses to Heat Treatments at Different Temperatures and following Recovery in Grapevine (Vitis amurensis L.) Leaves

BACKGROUND: The electron transport chain, Rubisco and stomatal conductance are important in photosynthesis. Little is known about their combined responses to heat treatment at different temperatures and following recovery in grapevines (Vitis spp.) which are often grown in climates with high temperatures. METHODOLOGY/FINDINGS: The electron transport function of photosystem II, the activation state of Rubisco and the influence of stomatal behavior were investigated in grapevine leaves during heat treatments and following recovery. High temperature treatments included 35, 40 and 45°C, with 25°C as the control and recovery temperature. Heat treatment at 35°C did not significantly (P>0.05) inhibit net photosynthetic rate (P(n)). However, with treatments at 40 and 45°C, P(n) was decreased, accompanied by an increase in substomatal CO(2) concentration (C(i)), decreases in stomatal conductance (g(s)) and the activation state of Rubisco, and inhibition of the donor side and the reaction center of PSII. The acceptor side of PSII was inhibited at 45°C but not at 40°C. When grape leaves recovered following heat treatment, P(n), g(s) and the activation state of Rubisco also increased, and the donor side and the reaction center of PSII recovered. The increase in P(n) during the recovery period following the second 45°C stress was slower than that following the 40°C stress, and these increases corresponded to the donor side of PSII and the activation state of Rubisco. CONCLUSIONS: Heat treatment at 35°C did not significantly (P>0.05) influence photosynthesis. The decrease of P(n) in grape leaves exposed to more severe heat stress (40 or 45°C) was mainly attributed to three factors: the activation state of Rubisco, the donor side and the reaction center of PSII. However, the increase of P(n) in grape leaves following heat stress was also associated with a stomatal response. The acceptor side of PSII in grape leaves was responsive but less sensitive to heat stress

Agapanthus

Volume: 23-26Start Page: 73End Page: 7