| Literature DB >> 30374359 |
Peter R Ryan1, Dengfeng Dong1,2, Felix Teuber1, Neele Wendler1,3, Karl H Mühling3, Jie Liu1,4, Muyun Xu1, Naike Salvador Moreno1,5, Jiangfeng You6, Hans-Peter Maurer7, Walter J Horst8, Emmanuel Delhaize1.
Abstract
The mechanisms of aluminum (Al) resistance in wheat and rye involve the release of citrate and malate anions from the root apices. Many of the genes controlling these processes have been identified and their responses to Al treatment described in detail. This study investigated how the major Al resistance traits of wheat and rye are transferred to triticale (x Tritosecale Wittmack) which is a hybrid between wheat and rye. We generated octoploid and hexaploid triticale lines and compared them with the parental lines for their relative resistance to Al, organic anion efflux and expression of some of the genes encoding the transporters involved. We report that the strong Al resistance of rye was incompletely transferred to octoploid and hexaploid triticale. The wheat and rye parents contributed to the Al-resistance of octoploid triticale but the phenotypes were not additive. The Al resistance genes of hexaploid wheat, TaALMT1, and TaMATE1B, were more successfully expressed in octoploid triticale than the Al resistance genes in rye tested, ScALMT1 and ScFRDL2. This study demonstrates that an important stress-tolerance trait derived from hexaploid wheat was expressed in octoploid triticale. Since most commercial triticale lines are largely hexaploid types it would be beneficial to develop techniques to generate genetically-stable octoploid triticale material. This would enable other useful traits that are present in hexaploid but not tetraploid wheat, to be transferred to triticale.Entities:
Keywords: Secale cereale; Triticum aestivum; acid soil; citrate; malate; roots
Year: 2018 PMID: 30374359 PMCID: PMC6196275 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01334
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Summary of germplasm used in this study.
| Wheat (hexaploid, Al-res) | Malate efflux | Sasaki et al., | ||
| Wheat (hexaploid, Al-sens) | ||||
| Triticale (octoploid) | ||||
| Triticale (octoploid) | ||||
| Rye (diploid, Al-res) | Malate efflux | Fontecha et al., | ||
| Wheat (tetraploid, Al-sens) | ||||
| Triticale (hexaploid) | ||||
| Triticale (hexaploid) | ||||
| Rye (diploid, Al-sens) | ||||
| Rye (diploid, Al-res) | Malate efflux | As above | ||
Likely mechanism from previous work but not previously investigated in these rye and triticale lines.
These include known Al-resistance genes and candidate resistance genes. Note that some of the genes listed for citrate efflux might represent the same gene.
Figure 1Al resistance of the wheat and rye parents and the resulting triticale lines. Root length after 4 days growth in a range of Al concentrations (A) and relative root length (B) was measured in two hexaploid wheats, Carazinho (Al-resistant) and Egret (Al-sensitve), a rye genotype , and the triticales generated by crossing the rye with each wheat parent. Data show means, SE (n = 6–10). Data with different letters in (B) are significantly different from one another (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Malate and citrate efflux from genotypes in the presence and absence of Al. Malate and citrate efflux were measured from excised root apices over 2 h with and without 40 μM Al in the collection solution. Data show the mean and SE (n = 3 or 4). Data with different letters are significantly different from one another (p < 0.05). Note the statistical analysis in (A) included the +Al treatment only whereas in (B) both treatments were included.
Figure 3Malate and citrate efflux from genotypes with and without pre-treatment in Al. Malate (A) and citrate (B) efflux were measured from apices over 2 h in 40 μM Al with and without a pretreatment in 30 μM Al for at least 24 h. Mean ±SE (n = 3 or 4). Data with different letters indicate significant differences after a one factor ANOVA (p < 0.05) using the Student-Newman-Keuls method for multiple pairwise comparisons. The data in (B) were first transformed with natural logarithm to satisfy normality.
Figure 4Expression of the ALMT1-type genes in wheat, rye and triticale lines. Relative expression of the TaALMT1 (A) and the ScALMT1 (B) genes was measured with or without a pretreatment in 30 μM AlCl3 for at least 24 h. Data show means and SE (n = 3 biological replicates). Data with different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 using a one factor ANOVA.
Figure 5Expression of specific MATE-type genes in wheat, rye and the triticale lines. Relative expression of the TaMATE1B (A) and the ScFRDL2 (B) genes was measured with and without a pretreatment in 30 μM AlCl3 for 24 h. Means, SE (n = 3 biological replicates for TaMATE1B and n = 3–4 for ScFRDL2). Data with different letters indicate significant differences after a one way ANOVA (p < 0.05) using the Student-Newman-Keuls method for multiple pairwise comparisons. The data in (B) were first transformed with natural logarithm to satisfy normality.
Figure 6Al resistance of the wheat, rye and triticale lines. Net root length in a range of Al concentrations (A) after 4 days and relative root length (B) in Al-resistant () and sensitive () rye lines, a durum wheat (tetraploid) and the triticale lines. Data show means with SE (n = 6–10). Data with the different letters in (B) are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 7Malate and citrate efflux from wheat, rye and triticale with and without a pre-treatment in Al. Malate (A) and citrate (B) efflux were measured in the presence of 40 μM Al with and without a pre-treatment in 30 μM Al for at least 24 h. Data show mean and SE (n = 3 or 4). Data with different letters are significantly different at (p < 0.05) after a one factor ANOVA.
Figure 8Relative expression of the rye ScALMT and ScFRDL2 genes in different genotypes. Relative expression of ScALMT (A) and ScFRDL2 (B) was measured without (white) and with (gray) a pre-treatment in 30 μM Al for at least 24 h. Data show mean and SE (n = 3 biological replicates). Data with different letters are significantly different at (p < 0.05) after a one factor ANOVA.