| Literature DB >> 32268484 |
Li-Qin Li1, Cheng-Cheng Lyu1, Jia-Hao Li1, Chuan-Yin Wan1, Lun Liu1, Min-Qiu Xie1, Rui-Jie Zuo1, Su Ni1, Fan Liu1, Fu-Chun Zeng1, Yi-Fei Lu1, Li-Ping Yu1, Xue-Li Huang1, Xi-Yao Wang1, Li-Ming Lu1.
Abstract
Alligator weed is reported to have a strong ability to aEntities:
Keywords: alligator weed; cationic peroxidase; leaf; potassium; proteomics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32268484 PMCID: PMC7177825 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21072537
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Morphological and microstructural characteristics of alligator weed leaves under different potassium conditions. Note (A) statistical results of leaf length; (B) leaves from CK; (C) leaves from LK; (D) leaf microstructure under CK conditions; (E) leaf microstructure under LK conditions. Values are the mean ± SD (n = 3), and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the treatments, CK indicates control, LK indicates potassium deficiency.
Figure 2Leaf physiological parameters were analyzed. Note (A) total chlorophyll content; (B) SOD activity; (C) net photosynthetic rate; (D) soluble protein content. Values are the mean ± SD (n = 3), and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the treatments, CK indicates control, LK indicates potassium deficiency.
Figure 3Analysis results of subcellular localization and protein domain. Note (A) subcellular localization analysis was derived from TargetP1.1 prediction; (B) protein domain analysis.
Figure 4Enrichment results of DAPs by KEGG analysis. Note red indicates increased protein abundance; green indicates decreased protein abundance.
Confirmation of DAPs in proteomic analysis using PRM analysis.
| Description | Change in TMT | Change in PRM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malate synthase | 1.31 | 0.00772 | 1.6 | 0.0004 |
| Cysteine proteinase RD21A | 1.4 | 0.00878 | 1.57 | 0.022 |
| Betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase | 0.82 | 0.0431 | 0.71 | 0.009 |
| Antiviral protein MAP | 0.83 | 0.00814 | 0.67 | 0.0011 |
| Major latex protein 31 | 0.74 | 0.0315 | 0.63 | 0.005 |
| Choline monooxygenase | 0.69 | 0.0000391 | 0.61 | 0.002 |
Figure 5Complementation of the proteomic results by qRT-PCR. Note values are the mean ± SD (n = 3), and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the treatments, 0 day indicates control, 15 day indicates LK treatment for 15 day.
Figure 6LK stress response of ApCPX1 transgenic tobacco lines. Note (A) Morphological observation of WT and transgenic lines under CK conditions; (B) Morphological observation under LK conditions. WT indicates non-transgenic tobacco; OE1, OE2, and OE3 indicate transgenic tobacco lines.
Figure 7The physiological parameter analysis of wild-type and ApCPX1 transgenic tobacco lines under MS and LK conditions. Note (A) germination rate; (B) POD activity; (C) K+ content; (D) H2O2 content. Values are the mean ± SD (n = 3), and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the treatments. MS indicates MS medium, LK indicates LK medium (containing 10 μm K+).
Figure 8Root hair number and net K flux rates in roots of ApCPX1 transgenic tobacco lines. Note (A) morphology of root hairs under CK conditions; (B) morphology of root hairs under LK conditions; (C) net K flux rate analysis under CK conditions; (D) net K flux rate analysis under LK conditions. Positive value indicates K efflux.