مقایسه الگوی بیان ژن های منتخب القاء شونده با تنش شوری در گندم نان (Triticum aestivum L.)
محورهای موضوعی : یافته های نوین کشاورزی
مسعود گماریان
1
(دانش آموخته دکتری اصلاح نباتات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران)
محمد علی ملبوبی
2
(دانشیار، پژوهشگاه ملی مهندسی ژنتیک و زیست فناوری، گروه بیوتکنولوژی گیاهی)
فرخ درویش
3
(استاد دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران)
سید ابوالقاسم محمدی
4
(استاد گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه تبریز)
کلید واژه: تحمل, حساسیت, گندم, تنش شوری بلند مدت, بیان ژن, رونوشت برداری,
چکیده مقاله :
به منظور بررسی تنوع درون گونه ای تحمل به تنش شوری در دو رقم گندم متحمل و حساس در شرایط کنترل و تنش گندم الگوی بیان 60 ژن منتخب القا شونده با تنش شوری در سطح رونوشت برداری مورد مقایسه قرار گرفت. در این آزمایش از روش نورترن بلات معکوس جهت بررسی الگوی بیان ژن ها استفاده گردید. جهت سادگی 16 الگوی بیان ممکن برای ارقام متحمل و حساس در شرایط کنترل و تنش در نظر گرفته شد. الگوی بیان ژن های مورد بررسی در 10 الگو از 16 الگوی بیان قرار گرفت. الگو های بیان شماره 2، 6، 8 و 12 در این آزمایش نسبت به سایر الگوها با اهمیت تر در نظر گرفته شدند. الگوی بیان شماره 2 نسبت به سایر الگو های بیان بیشترین تعداد ژن را در خود جای داد. الگوی بیان اکثر عوامل رونویسی مورد مطالعه در چهار الگوی فوق قرار گرفتند. با اعمال تنش شوری 7 ژن در هر دو رقم متحمل و حساس افزایش بیان معنی دار نشان دادند. در این تحقیق 4 ژن شامل ژن LEA از الگوی بیان شماره 2، ژن CBEFP از الگوی بیان شماره 6، ژن bZIP5 از الگوی شماره 8 و ژن wsr3 از الگوی بیان شماره 12 به عنوان ژن های منتخب برای تحمل به تنش شدید و طولانی مدت در رقم ماهوتی در نظر گرفته شدند. نتایج نشان دهنده آن بود که با اعمال تنش شوری بیان ژن ها در رقم متحمل بیشتر دستخوش تغییر قرار می گیرد. این نتایج نشان می دهد که تفاوت در الگوی بیان ژن ها در واریته های درون یک گونه ممکن است منشاء ایجاد واریته های متحمل و حساس به تنش شوری باشد.
In order to investigation intra specious variation to salinity tolerance in wheat gene expression patterns were compared in salt tolerant and sensitive wheat under control and stress conditions. Reverse northern blot technique was used to compare gene expression patterns. To simplify, sixteen gene expression patterns were considered in salt tolerant and sensitive genotype in control and stress conditions. The gene expression patterns of the studied genes were located in ten out of sixteen gene expression patterns. The most important expression patterns were number 2, 6, 8 and 12. More genes were placed in the expression pattern of the number 2 than to other expression patterns. The majority of the transcription factor expressions were located in the four above gene expression patterns. Seven genes up regulated in both sensitive and tolerant genotypes in the present of salt stress. In the current study, four genes were selected as long term salt tolerant candidate genes in Mahooti cultivar including LEA, CBEFP, bZIP5 and wsr3 genes from second, sixth, eighth and twelfth expression patterns, respectively. The results also indicated that a larger number of salt responsive transcripts were expressed in tolerant genotype. These results show that differences in the gene expression patterns in varieties within species may produce salt stress tolerant and sensitive genotypes.
1- Agarwal, P.K., Agarwal, P., Reddy, M. and Sopory, S. 2006. Role of DREB transcription factors in abiotic and biotic stress tolerance in plants. Plant Cell Report, 25: 1263-1274.
2- Ashraf, M., Oztork, M. and Athar, H. R. 2009. Salinity and water stress. Springer science + Business media B.V.
3- Bohnert, H. and Jensen, R. 1996. Metabolic engineering for increased salt tolerance- The next step. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 23: 661-667.
4- Capozzi, F., Casadei, F. and Luchinat, C. 2006. EF-hand protein dynamics and evolution of calcium signal transduction: an NMR view. Journal of Biological Inorganism Chemistry, 11: 949-962.
5- Colmer, T., Munns, R. and Flowers, T. 2006. Improving salt tolerance of wheat and barley: future prospects. Australian Journal of Exprimental Agriculture, 45: 1425-1443.
6- Flowers, T. 2004. Improving crop salt tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55: 307-319.
7- Flowers, T. and Yeo, A. 1995. Breeding for salinity resistance in crop plants: where next? Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 22: 875-884.
8- Guo, P., Baum, M., Grando, S., Ceccarelli, S., Bai, G., Li, R., Korff, M., Varshney, R., Graner, A. and Valkoun, J. 2009. differentially expressed genes between drought tolerant androut sensitive barely genotypes in response to drought stress during the reproductive stage. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60: 3531-3544.
9- Hoagland, D. and Arnon, D. 1950. The water culture method of growing plants without soil. California Agricultural Experiment Station, University of California, USA.
10- Jacoby, M., Weisshaar, B., Droge-Laser, W., Vicente-Carbajosa, J., Tiedemann, J., Kroj, T. and Parcy, F. 2002. bZIP transcription factors in Arabidopsis. TRENDS in Plant Science, 7: 106-111.
11- Kawasaki S., Borchert, C., Deyholos, M., Wang, H., Brazhlle, S., Kawai, K., Galbraith, D. and Bohnert, H. 2001. Gene expression profile during the initial phase of salt stress in Rice, The Plant Cell, 13: 889-905.
12- Kawaura, K., Mochida, K., Yamazaki, Y. and Ogihara, Y. 2006. Transcriptome analysis of salinity stress responses in common wheat using a 22k oligo-DNA microarray. Funct Integr Genomics, 6: 132-142.
13- Liu, Q., Kasuga, M., Sakuma, Y., Abe, H., Miura, S., Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. and Shinozaki, K. 1998. Two transcription factors, DREB1 and DERB2, with an EREBP/AP2 DNA binding domain separate two cellular signal transduction pathways in drought and low temperature responsive gene expression, respectively, in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell, 10: 1391-1406.
14- Milborrow, B. 2001. The pathway of biosynthesis of abscisic acid in vascular plants: a review of present state of knowledge of ABA biosynthesis. Journal of Experimental Botany, 52: 1145-1164.
15- Micheletto, S., Rodriguez-Uribe, L., Hernandez, R., Richins, R. D., Curry, J. and O’Connell, M. A. 2007. Comparative transcript profiling in roots of Phaseolus acutifolius and P. vulgaris under water deficit stress. Plant Science, 173: 510-520.
16- Mott, I. and Wang, R. 2007. Comparative transcriptome analysis of salt tolerant wheat germplasm lines using wheat genome arrays. Plant Science, 173: 327-339.
17- Munns, R. 2005. Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together. New Physiologist, 167: 645-663.
18- 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.
19- Munns, R., James, R. and Lauchli, A. 2006. Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1-19.
20- Munns, R. and Tester, M. 2008. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59: 651-658.
21- Ozturk, Z., Talame, V., Deyholos, M., Michalowski, C., Galbraith, D., Gozukirmizi, N., Tuberosa, R. and Bohnert, H. 2002. Monitoring large scale changes abundance in drought and salt stress barley. Plant Molecular Biology, 48: 551-573.
22- Pandey, G., Reddy, V., Reddy, M., Deswal, R., Bhattacharya, A. and Sopory, S. 2002. transgenic tobacco expressing Entamoeba histolytica calcium binding protein exhibits enhanced growth and tolerance to salt stress. Plant Sciences, 163: 41-47.
23- Perez-Torres, E., Paredes, M. and Polanco, V2009. gene expression analysis: a way to study tolerance to abiotic stresses in crops species. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 69: 260-269.
24- Poustini, K. and Siosemardeh, A. 2004. Ion distribution in wheat cultivars in response to salinity stress. Field Crops Research, 85: 125-133.
25- Rabbani, M., Maruyama, K., Abe, H., Khan, M., Katsura, K., Ito, Y., Yoshiwara, K., Seki, M., Shinozaki, K. and Yamaguchi- Shinozaki, K. 2003. Monitoring expression profiles of rice genes under cold, drought, and high-salinity stresses and abscisic acid application using cDNA microarray and RNA gel-blot analyses. Plant Physiology, 133: 1755-1767.
26- Rampino, P., Pataleo, S., Gerardi, C., Mita, G. and Perrotta, C. 2006. Drought stress response in wheat: physiological and molecular analysis of resistant ant sensitive genotypes. Plant Cell and Environment, 29: 2143-2152.
27- Rodrigues, F. A., Laia, M. L. and Zingaretti, S. M. 2009. Analysis of gene expression profiles under water stress in tolerant and sensitive sugarcane plants. Plant Science, 176: 286-302.
28- Qin, Z. and Zeevaart, J. 1999. The 9-cis-epoxycartenoid cleavage reaction is the key regulatory step of abscisic acid biosynthesis in water stressed bean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 96: 15354-15361.
29- Sairam, R. and Tyagi, A. 2004. Physiology and molecular biology of salinity stress tolerance in plants. Current Science, 86: 3-10.
30-Taji, T., Seki, M., Satou, M., Sakurai, T., Kobayashi, M., Ishiyama, M., Narusaka, M., Zhu, J. and Shinozaki, K. 2004. Comparative genomics in salt tolerance between Arabidopsis and Arabidopsis related halophyte Salt Cress using Arabidopsis microarray. Plant Physiology, 135: 1697-1709.
31- Tester, M. and Davenport, R. 2003. Na+ tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants. Annals of Botany, 91: 503-527.
32- Udea, A., Kathiresan, A., Inada, M., Narita, Y., Nakamura, I., Shi, W., Takabe, T. and Bennett, J. 2004. Osmotic stress in barley regulates expression of a different set of genes than salt stress dose. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55: 2213-2218.
33- Uno, Y., Furihata, T., Abe, H., Yoshida, R., Shinozaki, K. and Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. 2000. Arabidopsis basic leucine zipper transcription factors involve in abscisic acid dependent signal transduction pathway under drought and high salinity conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 97: 11632- 11637.
34- Walia, H., Wilson, C., Condamine, P., Liu, X., Ismail, A. M., Zeng, L., Wanamaker, S. I., Mandal, J., Xu, J., Cui, X. and Close, T. J. 2005. Comparative transcriptional profiling of two contrasting rice genotypes under salinity stress during the vegetative growth. Plant physiology, 139: 822-835.