| Literature DB >> 32630201 |
Qing He1, Hanyang Cai1, Mengyan Bai2, Man Zhang1, Fangqian Chen1, Youmei Huang1, S V G N Priyadarshani1, Mengnan Chai1, Liping Liu2, Yanhui Liu2, Huihuang Chen1, Yuan Qin1,3.
Abstract
The basic leucine zipper (bZIP) is a plant-specific transcription factor family that plays crucial roles in response to biotic and abiotic stresses. However, little is known about the function of bZIP genes in soybean. In this study, we isolated a bZIP gene, GmbZIP19, from soybean. A subcellular localization study of GmbZIP19 revealed its nucleus localization. We showed that GmbZIP19 expression was significantly induced by ABA (abscisic acid), JA (jasmonic acid) and SA (salicylic acid), but reduced under salt and drought stress conditions. Further, GmbZIP19 overexpression Arabidopsis lines showed increased resistance to S. sclerotiorum and Pseudomonas syringae associated with upregulated ABA-, JA-, ETH- (ethephon-)and SA-induced marker genes expression, but exhibited sensitivity to salt and drought stresses in association with destroyed stomatal closure and downregulated the salt and drought stresses marker genes' expression. We generated a soybean transient GmbZIP19 overexpression line, performed a Chromatin immunoprecipitation assay and found that GmbZIP19 bound to promoters of ABA-, JA-, ETH-, and SA-induced marker genes in soybean. The yeast one-hybrid verified the combination. The current study suggested that GmbZIP19 is a positive regulator of pathogen resistance and a negative regulator of salt and drought stress tolerance.Entities:
Keywords: GmbZIP19; abiotic stress; biotic stress; transcription factor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32630201 PMCID: PMC7369738 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21134701
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1The expression profile of GmbZIP19 in response to biotic and abiotic stresses. (A–I) The expression profile of GmbZIP19 in response to S. sclerotiorum, 100 μM JA (jasmonic acid), 1 mM SA (salicylic acid), 100 μM ABA (abscisic acid), 1 mM ETH (ethephon), 100 μM BR (brassinolide), 100 mM NaCl for salt condition, 250 mM Mannitol for drought condition and 4 °C for low temperature. Three technical replicates were performed for each of the three independent biological replicates. The error bars were obtained from multiple replicates of the RT-qPCR and indicate ±SD (n = 3 replicates). Asterisks indicate significant differences for the indicated comparisons based on a Student’s t-test (** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05).
Figure 2The responses of the GmbZIP19 promoter to salt, drought and S. sclerotiorum. (A) GUS staining result of 1-week-old pGmbZIP19-GUS Arabidopsis seedlings. (B) GUS staining result of two-week-old pGmbZIP19-GUS Arabidopsis seedlings. Bar = 1 mm. (C) GUS staining result of 4-week-old pGmbZIP19-GUS Arabidopsis leaf. (D) GUS staining result of 6-week-old pGmbZIP19-GUS Arabidopsis inflorescence. Bar = 1 mm. (E) GUS staining result of 1-week-old pGmbZIP19-GUS Arabidopsis seedlings under 150 mM NaCl for 6 days. Bar = 1 mm. (F) GUS staining result of 1-week-old pGmbZIP19-GUS Arabidopsis seedlings under 300 mM mannitol for 6 days. Bar = 1 mm. (G) GUS staining result of pGmbZIP19-GUS Arabidopsis leaf under 0 h S. scleroterium infection. (H) GUS staining result of pGmbZIP19-GUS Arabidopsis leaf under 6 h S. scleroterium infection.
Figure 3Overexpression of GmbZIP19 confers improved disease resistance against S. sclerotiorum and Pseudomonas syringae. (A) The phenotype of GmbZIP19-OE lines and WT after S. scleroterium infection. (B) The relative lesion area of GmbZIP19-OE lines and WT under S. scleroterium infection. Error bars indicate ± SD (n = 5 leaves). (C) The DAB staining result (accumulation of H2O2 in leaves) of GmbZIP19-OE lines and WT after S. scleroterium infection. (D) qPCR analysis of transcription levels in GmbZIP19-OE transgenic and WT plants after S. scleroterium infection. (E) The phenotype and trypan blue staining result of GmbZIP19-OE and WT plants under Pseudomonas syringae infection. Bar = 20 μm. (F) qPCR analysis of transcription levels in GmbZIP19-OE transgenic and WT plants after pst. DC3000 infection. The error bars were obtained from multiple replicates of the RT-qPCR and indicate ±SD (n = 3 replicates). Asterisks indicate significant differences for the indicated comparisons based on a Students’ t-test (** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05).
Figure 4GmbZIP19-overexpressed plants display sensitivity to salinity. (A) The phenotype of GmbZIP19-OE lines and the WT under 150 mM and 200 mM NaCl. (B) Quantification of the germination rate, root length and fresh weight of GmbZIP19-OE lines and the WT under 150 mM and 200 mM NaCl. The error bars indicate ±SD (n > 10 seedlings). (C) The stomatal aperture phenotype of GmbZIP19-OE lines and WT under 150 mM NaCl. Bar = 20 μm. (D) The quantitative analysis of stomatal aperture of GmbZIP19-OE lines and WT under 150 mM NaCl. (E) The expression levels of stomata movement marker genes in GmbZIP19-OE lines and WT under 150 mM NaCl. (F) The transcription levels of stress-related genes in GmbZIP19-OE lines and the WT under 150 mM NaCl. Three technical replicates were performed for each of the three independent biological replicates. The error bars indicate ±SD (n = 3 replicates). Asterisks indicate significant differences for the indicated comparisons based on a Student’s t-test (** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05).
Figure 5GmbZIP19-overexpressed plants display sensitivity to drought. (A) The phenotype of GmbZIP19-OE transgenic lines and WT under 300 and 400 mM mannitol. (B) Quantification of the germination rate, root length and fresh weight of GmbZIP19-OE transgenic lines and WT under 300 and 400 mM mannitol. The error bars indicate ±SD (n > 10 seedlings). (C) The stomatal aperture phenotype of GmbZIP19-OE transgenic lines and WT under 300 mM Mannitol. Bar = 20 μm. (D) The quantitative analysis of stomatal aperture of GmbZIP19-OE transgenic lines and WT under 300 mannitol. (E) The expression levels of stomata movement marker genes in GmbZIP19-OE lines and WT under 300 mM mannitol. (F) The transcription levels of stress-related genes in GmbZIP19-OE lines and WT under 300 mM Mannitol. The error bars indicate ±SD (n = 3 replicates). Asterisks indicate significant differences for the indicated comparisons based on a Student’s t-test (** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05).
Figure 6The ChIP result of 35S-GmbZIP19–GFP transient expressing soybean. (A) qRT-PCR analysis of biotic stress-related genes in 35S-GmbZIP19–GFP transient expressing soybean. (B) qRT-PCR analysis of abiotic stress-related genes in 35S-GmbZIP19–GFP transient expressing soybean. (C) ChIP-qPCR analysis of GmbZIP19 binding to abiotic stress-related genes using GFP antibody and 35S-GmbZIP19–GFP transient expressing soybean. (D) ChIP-qPCR analysis of GmbZIP19 binding to biotic stress-related genes using GFP antibody and 35S-GmbZIP19–GFP transient expressing soybean. Three independent biological replicates were performed. The error bars indicate ± SD (n = 3 replicates). Asterisks indicate significant differences for the indicated comparisons based on a Student’s t-test (** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05). (E) The yeast one-hybrid result of GmbZIP19. Three independent biological replicates were performed.