Differential gene expression in response to water deficit in leaf and root tissues of soybean genotypes with contrasting tolerance profiles
Rattachement africain : br. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Water deficit is one of the major limitations to soybean production worldwide, yet the genetic basis of drought-responsive mechanisms in crops remains poorly understood. In order to study the gene expression patterns in leaves and roots of soybean, two contrasting genotypes, Embrapa 48 (drought-tolerant) and BR 16 (drought-sensitive), were evaluated under moderate and severe water deficit. Transcription factors from the AP2/EREBP and WRKY families were investigated. Embrapa 48 showed 770 more up-regulated genes than BR 16, in eight categories. In general, leaves presented more differentially expressed genes (DEGs) than roots. Embrapa 48 responded to water deficit faster than BR 16, presenting a greater number of DEGs since the first signs of drought. Embrapa 48 exhibited initial modulation of genes associated with stress, while maintaining the level of the ones related to basic functions. The genes expressed exclusively in the drought-tolerant cultivar, belonging to the category of dehydration responsive genes, and the ones with a contrasting expression pattern between the genotypes are examples of important candidates to confer tolerance to plants. Finally, this study identified genes of the AP2/EREBP and WRKY families related to drought tolerance.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Differential gene expression in response to water deficit in leaf and root tissues of soybean genotypes with contrasting tolerance profiles
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2020
- Éditeur
- FapUNIFESP (SciELO)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.