| Literature DB >> 35002440 |
Muhammad Anwar1,2, Muhammad Asif Saleem3, Ma Dan4, Waqas Malik3, Sami Ul-Allah5, Muhammad Qadir Ahmad3, Abdul Qayyum3, Muhammad Waqas Amjid6, Zia Ullah Zia7, Hammad Afzal3, Muhammad Asif3, Muhammad Aneeq Ur Rahman1, Zhangli Hu1,8.
Abstract
Climate change could be an existential threat to many crops. Drought and heat stress are becoming harder for cultivated crops. Cotton in Pakistan is grown under natural high temperature and low moisture, could be used as a source of heat and drought tolerance. Therefore, the study was conducted to morphological, physiological and molecular characterization of cotton genotypes under field conditions. A total of 25 cotton genotypes were selected from the gene pool of Pakistan based on tolerance to heat and drought stress. In field trail, the stress related traits like boll retention percentage, plant height, number of nodes and inter-nodal distance were recorded. In physiological assessment, traits such as photosynthesis rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, leaf temperature, relative water content and excised leaf water loss were observed. At molecular level, a set of 19 important transcription factors, controlling drought/heat stress tolerance (HSPCB, GHSP26, HSFA2, HSP101, HSP3, DREB1A, DREB2A, TPS, GhNAC2, GbMYB5, GhWRKY41, GhMKK3, GhMPK17, GhMKK1, GhMPK2, APX1, HSC70, ANNAT8, and GhPP2A1) were analyzed from all genotypes. Data analyses depicted that boll retention percentage, photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, relative water content under the stress conditions were associated with the presence of important drought & heat TF/genes which depicts high genetic potential of Pakistani cotton varieties against abiotic stress. The variety MNH-886 appeared in medium plant height, high boll retention percentage, high relative water content, photosynthesis rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate and with maximum number transcription factors under study. The variety may be used as source material for heat and drought tolerant cotton breeding. The results of this study may be useful for the cotton breeders to develop genotype adoptable to environmental stresses under climate change scenario.Entities:
Keywords: DREB; Drought; HSP; Heat; MKK; MPK; Tolerance
Year: 2021 PMID: 35002440 PMCID: PMC8717151 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.09.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Mean data for the traits Plant height (PH), Net Photosynthesis (NP), Stomatal Conductance (SC), Transpiration Rate (TR), Leaf-Air Temperature (ΔT), Relative Water Content (RWC), Excised Leaf Water Loss (ELWL), Boll Retention Percentage (BR%), and Screened Genes (SG) under Control (C) and under Drought stress (S) in selected varieties of cotton.
| Sr. No | Genotypes | T | PH | NP | SC | TR | ΔT | RWC | ELWL | BR %age | Screened genes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CRIS-342 | C | 85.2 | 13.22 | 198.12 | 7.51 | 1.01 | 56.12 | 0.55 | 40.21 | 11 |
| 2 | VH-260 | C | 119.0 | 21.05 | 345.61 | 7.29 | −2.54 | 71.21 | 1.10 | 58.11 | 16 |
| 3 | VH-259 | C | 118.0 | 31.25 | 253.9 | 6.03 | −2.13 | 68.90 | 1.21 | 69.6 | 17 |
| 4 | VH-Gulzar | C | 104.5 | 25.10 | 263.7 | 7.01 | −0.8 | 73.71 | 0.91 | 66.50 | 17 |
| 5 | VH-189 | C | 112.5 | 32.96 | 304.74 | 7.18 | 0.25 | 70.14 | 0.88 | 54.80 | 17 |
| 6 | VH-305 | C | 118.8 | 28.80 | 501.90 | 8.73 | −1.0 | 67.31 | 0.94 | 68.00 | 18 |
| 7 | VH-383 | C | 102.0 | 23.4 | 335.20 | 6.02 | 1.31 | 70.14 | 1.03 | 71.40 | 17 |
| 8 | CIM-446 | C | 92.5 | 19.03 | 361.30 | 8.04 | −2.06 | 69.13 | 1.02 | 68.20 | 16 |
| 9 | CIM-506 | C | 102.5 | 20.27 | 250.60 | 6.85 | 0.65 | 72.11 | 0.89 | 73.30 | 17 |
| 10 | MNH-1035 | C | 105.5 | 22.40 | 431.03 | 6.91 | 0.15 | 69.90 | 0.99 | 68.90 | 16 |
| 11 | MNH-886 | C | 95.5 | 35.69 | 384.25 | 7.37 | −0.75 | 74.15 | 0.73 | 77.70 | 18 |
| 12 | CIM-616 | C | 88.5 | 31.30 | 497.54 | 8.84 | −0.60 | 71.14 | 0.79 | 63.30 | 17 |
| 13 | CIM-599 | C | 89.5 | 8.65 | 94.12 | 6.91 | 1.80 | 69.91 | 1.33 | 68.60 | 17 |
| 14 | CIM-600 | C | 115.3 | 46.58 | 806.05 | 8.75 | −1.0 | 70.81 | 0.97 | 72.20 | 18 |
| 15 | Sitara-008 | C | 90.4 | 35.60 | 321.09 | 8.35 | 0.85 | 68.13 | 0.79 | 76.60 | 17 |
| 16 | CIM-534 | C | 110.0 | 22.49 | 265.59 | 7.06 | 0.35 | 67.07 | 0.66 | 60.41 | 17 |
| 17 | CRIS-134 | C | 111.6 | 19.80 | 269.03 | 5.99 | 0.23 | 64.91 | 1.30 | 51.24 | 17 |
| 18 | CRSM-38 | C | 103.5 | 18.90 | 353.05 | 7.61 | 0.06 | 69.01 | 0.83 | 48.34 | 18 |
| 19 | CIM-482 | C | 111.3 | 32.03 | 578.28 | 8.73 | −0.5 | 71.23 | 0.69 | 66.08 | 17 |
| 20 | NIAB-111 | C | 106.1 | 36.36 | 682.46 | 9.16 | −1.15 | 65.29 | 0.63 | 59.01 | 18 |
| 21 | CIM-496 | C | 114.8 | 26.98 | 376.54 | 7.84 | 0.10 | 68.71 | 0.47 | 57.45 | 15 |
| 22 | MNH-552 | C | 105.5 | 26.60 | 221.04 | 5.94 | −1.09 | 62.93 | 0.81 | 60.31 | 15 |
| 23 | CYTO-124 | C | 107.3 | 14.28 | 222.23 | 6.54 | 0.62 | 65.39 | 0.91 | 63.01 | 17 |
| 24 | CYTO-177 | C | 104.5 | 33.59 | 764.39 | 9.06 | −1.0 | 69.01 | 0.77 | 70.00 | 16 |
| 25 | CYTO-178 | C | 101.4 | 22.48 | 188.72 | 5.83 | 0.65 | 66.42 | 0.98 | 63.41 | 15 |
| Probability | C | ** | ** | * | ** | * | ** | ** | * |
List of transcription factors, transcription variant, signaling genes and functional gene screened in this study.
| 1 | HSPCB | FP: GTGCGTCCTCTAGTGTCTTT | Heat shock protein | |
| 2 | GHSP26 | FP: TGGGGCTACTCTCAAAGGGTTG | ||
| 3 | HSP101 | FP: GGAAGTGGAATCTGCGATAGT | ||
| 4 | HSP3 | FP: AGAAAAGTTGACCCTGACCGC | ||
| 5 | HSC70 | FP: TTGTTACCGTCCCTGCATACTT | ||
| 6 | HSFA2 | FP: GAAGGAAGGGCTTAACGAGG | Heat stress transcription factor (HSF) | |
| 7 | DREB1A | FP: CAGAGAATTCCGGATCCCAATGAACTCATTTTCTGCT | Dehydration responsive element binding proteins | |
| 8 | DREB2A | FP: GATCCGAATTCATGGCAGTTTATGATCAGAGTGG | ||
| 9 | TPS | FP: CTGCGAGCCCAATATGCCAC | Trehalose-6- phosphate synthase | |
| 10 | GhNAC2 | FP: ATGTGCATCGCAGTCCATC | NAC protein | |
| 11 | GbMYB5 | FP: GACATCAATGGTTCAAAAGACAGC | MYB protein | |
| 12 | GhWRKY41 | FP: CTTACAGTGGAAGGAAAGAAGA | WRKY protein | |
| 13 | GhMKK1 | FP: GAAGAAGAAGCAAAACCTCAGATG | MMK protein | |
| 14 | GhMKK3 | FP: CTGCGTCGGATTGGGAAG | ||
| 15 | GhMPK2 | FP: GGATCCCAGGAAAATGGCAACTCCAG | Mitogen activated protein kinase | |
| 16 | GhMPK17 | FP: GTTGCAAGCATCCGTGGAACCAGAAT | ||
| 17 | APX1 | FP: GGCACTCAGCTGGAACTTTTG | Ascorbate peroxidase (APX) enzyme | |
| 18 | ANNAT8 | FP: CAGGATCTTGAGTACAAGGAGC | Annexin | |
| 19 | GhPP2A1 | FP: GATCCTTGTGGAGGAGTGGA | Phytochrome |
Molecular evaluation of selected varieties under drought stress.
| ✔ | × | × | × | × | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | 11 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 16 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 18 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | 16 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 16 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 18 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 18 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 18 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 18 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | × | ✔ | × | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 15 | ||
| × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | 15 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | 17 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | 16 | ||
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | × | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | × | 15 | ||
Fig. 1Screening of transcription factors GbWRKY41, GHSP20, ANNAT8 in selected genotypes.
Correlations among the traits Plant height (PH), Net Photosynthesis (NP), Stomatal Conductance (SC), Transpiration Rate (TR), Leaf-Air Temperature (ΔT), Relative Water Content (RWC), Excised Leaf Water Loss (ELWL), Boll Retention Percentage (BR%), and Screened Genes (SG) under Control (C) and under Drought stress (S) in selected varieties of cotton.
| C | 0.22 | ||||||||
| C | 0.02 | 0.51 | |||||||
| C | 0.44* | 0.39 | 0.39 | ||||||
| C | 0.61* | 0.04 | 0.51 | 0.40* | |||||
| C | 0.13 | 0.42* | 0.33 | 0.38 | −0.08 | ||||
| C | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.27 | 0.41* | 0.08 | −0.31* | |||
| C | −0.32 | 0.21* | 0.05 | 0.34 | −0.20* | 0.21* | 0.01 | ||
| C | 0.01 | 0.31* | 0.03 | 0.05 | −0.39* | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.31 |