Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T22:48:25.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological, biochemical and molecular responses of durum wheat under salt stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Mohammad Mehdi Momeni ,
Mansoor Kalantar Open the ORCID record for Mansoor Kalantar [Opens in a new window]  and
Mahdi Dehghani-Zahedani
Mohammad Mehdi Momeni
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding, Yazd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Yazd, Iran
Mansoor Kalantar*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding, Yazd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Yazd, Iran
Mahdi Dehghani-Zahedani
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding, Yazd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Yazd, Iran
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: mkalantar@iauyazd.ac.ir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The yield of durum wheat extremely reduces in response to salinity stress because of several variations in biochemical, physiological and molecular traits in this unfavorable condition. According to the agro-physiological traits under salinity stress, the most resistant and sensitive cultivars were selected from 10 genotypes of durum wheat over a period of 2 years. Afterwards, the molecular, biochemical, and physiological traits in these two genotypes were evaluated. The seedlings (3–4 leaves) were exposed to salinity through irrigating with 0.5 × Hoagland solution containing 200 mM NaCl until physiological maturity. Principal components analysis for the agronomic characteristics and stress resistance index led to identifying Behrang and Arya as the most tolerant and sensitive genotypes, respectively. In these two genotypes in response to salinity stress, osmolyte contents (proline, total soluble carbohydrates and total soluble proteins) and enzymatic antioxidant defence system activities (ascorbate peroxidase, catalase and guaiacol peroxidase) were much higher in the most tolerant genotype than those of the sensitive cultivar. Moreover, the most tolerant genotype showed less amount of oxidative stress parameters (hydrogen peroxide, electrolyte leakage, malondialdehyde and other aldehydes) than the sensitive one. Pyrroline-5-carboxylate reductase (P5CR) and delta-1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthase (P5CS) genes expression increased under salinity stress (considering much higher increase in the most tolerant cultivar). Also, proline content was shown to have a significant positive correlation with P5CS and P5CR genes expression levels. Our result not only identified Behrang cultivar as a superior genotype for durum wheat breeding programs, but also represented several efficient mechanisms involved in salt tolerance.

Keywords

agronomic traitsdurum wheatmolecular responsesP5CRP5CSphysio-biochemical mechanisms
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 93 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of NIAB

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbasi, A, Mohammadi, B, Sarvestani, R and Mirataei, F (2015) Expression analysis of candidate genes in Common Vetch (Vicia sativa L.) under drought stress. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 17: 1291–1302.Google Scholar
Al-Khaishany, MY, Al-Qurainy, FH, Alaraidh, IA, Barakat, MN, Ahmed, A, Elshafei, MH, Alamri, SA, Ali, HM, Alsahli, AA and Alzahrani, SM (2018) Genetic variation of wheat for salt tolerance based on physiological and agronomic traits. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 20: 2853–2861.Google Scholar
Arnon, DI (1949) Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology 24: 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badridze, G, Weidner, A, Asch, F and Börner, A (2009) Variation in salt tolerance within a Georgian wheat germplasm collection. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 56: 1125–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, LS, Waldren, RP and Teare, I (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil 39: 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhina, O, Virolainen, E and Fagerstedt, KV (2003) Antioxidants, oxidative damage and oxygen deprivation stress: a review. Annals of Botany 91: 179–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borges, A, Tsai, SM and Caldas, DGG (2012) Validation of reference genes for RT-qPCR normalization in common bean during biotic and abiotic stresses. Plant Cell Reports 31: 827–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry 72: 248–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cakmak, I and Horst, WJ (1991) Effect of aluminium on lipid peroxidation, superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidase activities in root tips of soybean (Glycine max). Physiologia Plantarum 83: 463–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandlee, J and Scandalios, J (1984) Analysis of variants affecting the catalase developmental program in maize scutellum. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 69: 71–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandrasekar, V, Sairam R, K. and Srivastava, G (2000) Physiological and biochemical responses of hexaploid and tetraploid wheat to drought stress. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185: 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chanratana, M, Joe, MM, Choudhury, AR, Anandham, R, Krishnamoorthy, R, Kim, K, Jeon, S, Choi, J, Choi, J and Sa, T (2019) Physiological response of tomato plant to chitosan-immobilized aggregated Methylobacterium oryzae CBMB20 inoculation under salinity stress. 3 Biotech 9: 397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dugasa, MT, Cao, F, Ibrahim, W and Wu, F (2019) Differences in physiological and biochemical characteristics in response to single and combined drought and salinity stresses between wheat genotypes differing in salt tolerance. Physiologia Plantarum 165: 134–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Hendawy, SE, Hu, Y, Yakout, GM, Awad, AM, Hafiz, SE and Schmidhalter, U (2005) Evaluating salt tolerance of wheat genotypes using multiple parameters. European Journal of Agronomy 22: 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fao, I (2018) WFP. 2018. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 1–62.Google Scholar
Flowers, T (2004) Improving crop salt tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany 55: 307–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goudarzi, M and Pakniyat, H (2008) Evaluation of wheat cultivars under salinity stress based on some agronomic and physiological traits. Journal of Agriculture and Social Science 4: 35–38.Google Scholar
Grieve, CM, Grattan, SR and Maas, EV (2012) Plant salt tolerance. In: Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management. 2nd edn. Reston, VA: ASCE, Manual and Reports on Engineering Practice vol. 71. pp. 405–459.Google Scholar
Guellim, A, Catterou, M, Chabrerie, O, Tetu, T, Hirel, B, Dubois, F, Ben Ahmed, H and Kichey, T (2019) Identification of phenotypic and physiological markers of salt stress tolerance in Durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) through Integrated Analyses. Agronomy 9: 844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamshidi Goharrizi, K, Wilde, HD, Amirmahani, F, Moemeni, MM, Zaboli, M, Nazari, M, Moosavi, SS and Jamalvandi, M (2018) Selection and validation of reference genes for normalization of qRT-PCR gene expression in wheat (Triticum durum L.) under drought and salt stresses. Journal of Genetics 97: 1433–1444.Google Scholar
Jamshidi Goharrizi, K, Riahi-Madvar, A, Rezaee, F, Pakzad, R, Jadid Bonyad, F and Ghazizadeh Ahsaei, M (2019) Effect of salinity stress on enzymes’ activity, ions concentration, oxidative stress parameters, biochemical traits, content of sulforaphane, and CYP79F1 gene expression level in Lepidium draba plant. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 6: 1–20.Google Scholar
Jamshidi Goharrizi, K, Amirmahani, F and Salehi, F (2020a) Assessment of changes in physiological and biochemical traits in four pistachio rootstocks under drought, salinity and drought + salinity stresses. Physiologia Plantarum 168: 973–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamshidi Goharrizi, K, Baghizadeh, A, Kalantar, M and Fatehi, F (2020b) Assessment of changes in some biochemical traits and proteomic profile of UCB-1 pistachio rootstock leaf under salinity stress. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 39: 608–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamshidi Goharrizi, K, Baghizadeh, A, Kalantar, M and Fatehi, F (2020c) Combined effects of salinity and drought on physiological and biochemical characteristics of pistachio rootstocks. Scientia Horticulturae 261: 108970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamshidi Goharrizi, K, Moosavi, SS, Amirmahani, F, Salehi, F and Nazari, M (2020d) Assessment of changes in growth traits, oxidative stress parameters, and enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant defense mechanisms in Lepidium draba plant under osmotic stress induced by polyethylene glycol. Protoplasma 257: 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandil, A, Sharief, A and Elokda, M (2012) Germination and seedling characters of different wheat cultivars under salinity stress. Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences 8: 585–596.Google Scholar
Kaya, Y, Jocic, S and Miladinovic, D (2012) Sunflower Technological Innovations in Major World Oil Crops, vol. 1. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 85–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S, Beena, A, Awana, M and Singh, A (2017) Physiological, biochemical, epigenetic and molecular analyses of wheat (Triticum aestivum) genotypes with contrasting salt tolerance. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 1151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lan, J (1998) Comparison of evaluating methods for agronomic drought resistance in crops. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica 7: 85–87.Google Scholar
Lekshmy, S and Jha, S (2017) Selection of reference genes suitable for qRT-PCR expression profiling of biotic stress, nutrient deficiency and plant hormone responsive genes in bread wheat. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology 22: 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, CC and Kao, CH (1999) Nacl induced changes in ionically bound peroxidase activity in roots of rice seedlings. Plant and Soil 216: 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutts, S, Kinet, J and Bouharmont, J (1996) NaCl-induced senescence in leaves of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars differing in salinity resistance. Annals of Botany 78: 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, L, Zhou, E, Gao, L, Mao, X, Zhou, R and Jia, J (2008) Isolation, expression analysis and chromosomal location of P5CR gene in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). South African Journal of Botany 74: 705–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, S, Philosoph-Hadas, S and Aharoni, N (1992) Ethylene-increased accumulation of fluorescent lipid-peroxidation products detected during senescence of parsley by a newly developed method. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural science 117: 128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munns, R and Filmer, M (2007) Paving the way for salt-tolerant wheat. Farming Ahead 186: 50–53.Google Scholar
Munns, R and James, RA (2003) Screening methods for salinity tolerance: a case study with tetraploid wheat. Plant and Soil 253: 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munns, R and Tester, M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology 59: 651–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munns, R, Hare, R, James, R and Rebetzke, G (2000) Genetic variation for improving the salt tolerance of durum wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 51: 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakano, Y and Asada, K (1981) Hydrogen peroxide is scavenged by ascorbate-specific peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts. Plant and Cell Physiology 22: 867–880.Google Scholar
Nazari, M, Goharrizi, KJ, Moosavi, SS and Maleki, M (2019) Expression changes in the TaNAC2 and TaNAC69-1 transcription factors in drought stress tolerant and susceptible accessions of Triticum boeoticum. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 17: 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolacci, AR, Tanzarella, OA, Porceddu, E and Ciaffi, M (2009) Identification and validation of reference genes for quantitative RT-PCR normalization in wheat. BMC Molecular Biology 10: 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parida, AK and Das, AB (2005) Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: a review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 60: 324–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfaffl, MW (2001) A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT–PCR. Nucleic Acids Research 29: e45–e45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfaffl, MW, Horgan, GW and Dempfle, L (2002) Relative expression software tool (REST©) for group-wise comparison and statistical analysis of relative expression results in real-time PCR. Nucleic Acids Research 30: e36–e36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qasim, M, Ashraf, M, Ashraf, M, Rehman, S-U and Rha, E (2003) Salt-induced changes in two canola cultivars differing in salt tolerance. Biologia Plantarum 46: 629–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, SJ, Negrão, S and Tester, M (2014) Salt resistant crop plants. Current opinion in Biotechnology 26: 115–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozen, S and Skaletsky, H (2000) Primer3 on the WWW for General Users and for Biologist Programmers Bioinformatics Methods and Protocols. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, pp. 365–386.Google Scholar
Sairam, R and Srivastava, G (2002) Changes in antioxidant activity in sub-cellular fractions of tolerant and susceptible wheat genotypes in response to long term salt stress. Plant Science 162: 897–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sairam, R and Tyagi, A (2004) Physiology and molecular biology of salinity stress tolerance in plants. Current Science 10: 407–421.Google Scholar
Sairam, RK, Rao, KV and Srivastava, G (2002) Differential response of wheat genotypes to long term salinity stress in relation to oxidative stress, antioxidant activity and osmolyte concentration. Plant Science 163: 1037–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, R (2015) Genotypic response to salt stress: I–relative tolerance of certain wheat cultivars to salinity. Advances in Crop Science and Technology 3: 192.Google Scholar
Singh, A, Bhushan, B, Gaikwad, K, Yadav, O, Kumar, S and Rai, R (2015) Induced defence responses of contrasting bread wheat genotypes under differential salt stress imposition.Google Scholar
Tajbakhsh, M, Zhou, M, Chen, Z and Mendham, N (2006) Physiological and cytological response of salt-tolerant and non-tolerant barley to salinity during germination and early growth. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46: 555–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tammam, AA, Alhamd, MA and Hemeda, MM (2008) Study of salt tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestium L.) cultivar Banysoif 1. Australian Journal of Crop Science 1: 115–125.Google Scholar
Tenea, GN, Bota, AP, Raposo, FC and Maquet, A (2011) Reference genes for gene expression studies in wheat flag leaves grown under different farming conditions. BMC Research Notes 4: 373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tounsi, S, Feki, K, Hmidi, D, Masmoudi, K and Brini, F (2017) Salt stress reveals differential physiological, biochemical and molecular responses in T. monococcum and T. durum wheat genotypes. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants 23: 517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velikova, V, Yordanov, I and Edreva, A (2000) Oxidative stress and some antioxidant systems in acid rain-treated bean plants: protective role of exogenous polyamines. Plant Science 151: 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardlaw, IF and Willenbrink, J (1994) Carbohydrate storage and mobilisation by the culm of wheat between heading and grain maturity: the relation to sucrose synthase and sucrose-phosphate synthase. Functional Plant Biology 21: 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshiba, Y, Kiyosue, T, Katagiri, T, Ueda, H, Mizoguchi, T, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K, Wada, K, Harada, Y and Shinozaki, K (1995) Correlation between the induction of a gene for Δ1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase and the accumulation of proline in Arabidopsis thaliana under osmotic stress. The Plant Journal 7: 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhan, Y, Wu, Q, Chen, Y, Tang, M, Sun, C, Sun, J and Yu, C (2019) Comparative proteomic analysis of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) seedlings under salt stress. BMC genomics 20: 381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Momeni et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S8

Download Momeni et al. supplementary material(File)
File 30.9 KB