Literature DB >> 23162116

Genetic engineering to improve plant performance under drought: physiological evaluation of achievements, limitations, and possibilities.

David W Lawlor1.   

Abstract

Fully drought-resistant crop plants would be beneficial, but selection breeding has not produced them. Genetic modification of species by introduction of very many genes is claimed, predominantly, to have given drought resistance. This review analyses the physiological responses of genetically modified (GM) plants to water deficits, the mechanisms, and the consequences. The GM literature neglects physiology and is unspecific in definitions, which are considered here, together with methods of assessment and the type of drought resistance resulting. Experiments in soil with cessation of watering demonstrate drought resistance in GM plants as later stress development than in wild-type (WT) plants. This is caused by slower total water loss from the GM plants which have (or may have-morphology is often poorly defined) smaller total leaf area (LA) and/or decreased stomatal conductance (g (s)), associated with thicker laminae (denser mesophyll and smaller cells). Non-linear soil water characteristics result in extreme stress symptoms in WT before GM plants. Then, WT and GM plants are rewatered: faster and better recovery of GM plants is taken to show their greater drought resistance. Mechanisms targeted in genetic modification are then, incorrectly, considered responsible for the drought resistance. However, this is not valid as the initial conditions in WT and GM plants are not comparable. GM plants exhibit a form of 'drought resistance' for which the term 'delayed stress onset' is introduced. Claims that specific alterations to metabolism give drought resistance [for which the term 'constitutive metabolic dehydration tolerance' (CMDT) is suggested] are not critically demonstrated, and experimental tests are suggested. Small LA and g (s) may not decrease productivity in well-watered plants under laboratory conditions but may in the field. Optimization of GM traits to environment has not been analysed critically and is required in field trials, for example of recently released oilseed rape and maize which show 'drought resistance', probably due to delayed stress onset. Current evidence is that GM plants may not be better able to cope with drought than selection-bred cultivars.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23162116     DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ers326

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Bot        ISSN: 0022-0957            Impact factor:   6.992


  73 in total

1.  Application of T-DNA activation tagging to identify glutamate receptor-like genes that enhance drought tolerance in plants.

Authors:  Guihua Lu; Xiping Wang; Junhua Liu; Kun Yu; Yang Gao; Haiyan Liu; Changgui Wang; Wei Wang; Guokui Wang; Min Liu; Guanfan Mao; Binfeng Li; Jianying Qin; Mian Xia; Junli Zhou; Jingmei Liu; Shuqin Jiang; Hua Mo; Jinteng Cui; Nobuhiro Nagasawa; Shoba Sivasankar; Marc C Albertsen; Hajime Sakai; Barbara J Mazur; Michael W Lassner; Richard M Broglie
Journal:  Plant Cell Rep       Date:  2014-03-29       Impact factor: 4.570

Review 2.  The agony of choice: how plants balance growth and survival under water-limiting conditions.

Authors:  Hannes Claeys; Dirk Inzé
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 8.340

3.  Identification of drought-responsive microRNAs in tomato using high-throughput sequencing.

Authors:  Minmin Liu; Huiyang Yu; Gangjun Zhao; Qiufeng Huang; Yongen Lu; Bo Ouyang
Journal:  Funct Integr Genomics       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 3.410

Review 4.  General mechanisms of drought response and their application in drought resistance improvement in plants.

Authors:  Yujie Fang; Lizhong Xiong
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 9.261

5.  Drought-inducible expression of Hv-miR827 enhances drought tolerance in transgenic barley.

Authors:  Jannatul Ferdous; Ryan Whitford; Martin Nguyen; Chris Brien; Peter Langridge; Penny J Tricker
Journal:  Funct Integr Genomics       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 3.410

6.  The ETHYLENE RESPONSE FACTORs ERF6 and ERF11 Antagonistically Regulate Mannitol-Induced Growth Inhibition in Arabidopsis.

Authors:  Marieke Dubois; Lisa Van den Broeck; Hannes Claeys; Kaatje Van Vlierberghe; Minami Matsui; Dirk Inzé
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 8.340

Review 7.  The potential of transcription factor-based genetic engineering in improving crop tolerance to drought.

Authors:  Roel C Rabara; Prateek Tripathi; Paul J Rushton
Journal:  OMICS       Date:  2014-08-13

8.  Systems responses to progressive water stress in durum wheat.

Authors:  Dimah Z Habash; Marcela Baudo; Matthew Hindle; Stephen J Powers; Michael Defoin-Platel; Rowan Mitchell; Mansoor Saqi; Chris Rawlings; Kawther Latiri; Jose L Araus; Ahmad Abdulkader; Roberto Tuberosa; David W Lawlor; Miloudi M Nachit
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Rapid Recovery Gene Downregulation during Excess-Light Stress and Recovery in Arabidopsis.

Authors:  Peter A Crisp; Diep R Ganguly; Aaron B Smith; Kevin D Murray; Gonzalo M Estavillo; Iain Searle; Ethan Ford; Ozren Bogdanović; Ryan Lister; Justin O Borevitz; Steven R Eichten; Barry J Pogson
Journal:  Plant Cell       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 11.277

Review 10.  Emerging tools, concepts and ideas to track the modulator genes underlying plant drought adaptive traits: An overview.

Authors:  Parvathi Ms; Karaba N Nataraja
Journal:  Plant Signal Behav       Date:  2016
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.