| Literature DB >> 23608743 |
Alessandra Podda1, Giovanni Checcucci, Wafa Mouhaya, Delphine Centeno, Valerie Rofidal, Renata Del Carratore, François Luro, Raphael Morillon, Patrick Ollitrault, Bianca Elena Maserti.
Abstract
To understand the genotypic variation of citrus to mild salt stress, a proteomic approach has been carried out in parallel on two citrus genotypes ('Cleopatra' and 'Willow leaf' mandarins), which differ for Na(+) and Cl(-) accumulation, and their cognate autotetraploids (4×). Using two-dimensional electrophoresis approximately 910 protein spots were reproducibly detected in control and salt-stressed leaves of all genotypes. Among them, 44 protein spots showing significant variations at least in one genotype were subjected to mass spectrometry analysis for identification. Salt-responsive proteins were involved in several functions, including photosynthetic processes, ROS scavenging, stress defence, and signalling. Genotype factors affect the salt-responsive pattern, especially that of carbon metabolism. The no ion accumulator 'Cleopatra' mandarin genotype showed the highest number of salt-responsive proteins, and up-regulation of Calvin cycle-related proteins. Conversely the ion accumulator 'Willow leaf' mandarin showed high levels of several photorespiration-related enzymes. A common set of proteins (twelve spots) displayed higher levels in salt-stressed leaves of 2× and 4× 'Cleopatra' and 4× 'Willow leaf' mandarin. Interestingly, antioxidant enzymes and heat shock proteins showed higher constitutive levels in 4× 'Cleopatra' mandarin and 4× 'Willow leaf' mandarin compared with the cognate 2× genotype. This work provides for the first time information on the effect of 8 weeks of salt stress on citrus genotypes contrasting for ion accumulation and their cognate autotetraploids. Results underline that genetic factors have a predominant effect on the salt response, although a common stress response independent from genotype was also found.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23608743 DOI: 10.1016/j.jplph.2013.03.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Plant Physiol ISSN: 0176-1617 Impact factor: 3.549