| Literature DB >> 35684234 |
Muhammad Ammar Amanat1, Muhammad Kashif Naeem1, Hussah I M Algwaiz2, Muhammad Uzair1, Kotb A Attia3,4, Muneera D F AlKathani2, Imdad Ulah Zaid1, Syed Adeel Zafar1, Safeena Inam1, Sajid Fiaz5, Muhammad Hamza Arif1,6, Daniyal Ahmad1,7, Nageen Zahra1, Bilal Saleem1, Muhammad Ramzan Khan1.
Abstract
Rice (Oryza sativa) is an important staple food crop worldwide, especially in east and southeast Asia. About one-third of rice cultivated area is under saline soil, either natural saline soils or irrigation with brackish water. Salinity stress is among the devastating abiotic stresses that not only affect rice growth and crop productivity but also limit its cultivation area globally. Plants adopt multiple tolerance mechanisms at the morphological, physiological, and biochemical levels to tackle salinity stress. To identify these tolerance mechanisms, this study was carried out under both a controlled glass house as well as natural saline field conditions using 22 green super rice (GSR) lines along with two local varieties ("IRRI 6 and Kissan Basmati"). Several morpho-physiological and biochemical parameters along with stress-responsive genes were used as evaluation criteria under normal and salinity stress conditions. Correlation and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) suggested that shoot-related parameters and the salt susceptible index (SSI) can be used for the identification of salt-tolerant genotypes. Based on Agglomerative Hierarchical Cluster (AHC) analysis, two saline-tolerant ("S19 and S20") and saline-susceptible ("S3 and S24") lines were selected for further molecular evaluation. Quantitative RT-PCR was performed, and results showed that expression of 1-5-phosphoribosyl -5-5-phosphoribosyl amino methylidene amino imidazole-4-carboxamide isomerase, DNA repair protein recA, and peptide transporter PTR2 related genes were upregulated in salt-tolerant genotypes, suggesting their potential role in salinity tolerance. However, additional validation using reverse genetics approaches will further confirm their specific role in salt tolerance. Identified saline-tolerant lines in this study will be useful genetic resources for future salinity breeding programs.Entities:
Keywords: field evaluation; gene expression; green super rice; salinity stress
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684234 PMCID: PMC9182741 DOI: 10.3390/plants11111461
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Mean squares values from analysis of variance (ANOVA) for 12 seedling-related parameters of rice.
| SOV | Genotype (G) | Treatment (T) | G × T | Error | Total | Heritability (H2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DF | 23 | 1 | 23 | 92 | 143 | |
| SL | 15.15 *** | 80.27 *** | 4.72 * | 2.58 | 72.68 | |
| RL | 7.77 ns | 196.88 *** | 5.11 ns | 6.64 | 14.42 | |
| TPL | 27.22 ** | 528.6 *** | 14.1 ns | 13.07 | 50.09 | |
| SFW | 0.0022 *** | 0.2007 *** | 0.0005 ns | 0.008 | 65.60 | |
| RFW | 0.0012 ** | 0.2097 *** | 0.0003 ns | 0.006 | 52.69 | |
| SDW | 0.0002 *** | 0.0126 *** | 0.0001 *** | 0.000 | 72.39 | |
| RDW | 0.7205 ns | 0.0367 ns | 0.7828 ns | 0.7519 | 0.001 | |
| SNC | 4.05 *** | 665.64 *** | 6.6 *** | 0.0864 | 37.57 | |
| SKC | 3.65 *** | 108.16 *** | 1.44 *** | 0.1137 | 71.01 | |
| RNC | 0.211 *** | 15.34 *** | 0.224 *** | 0.0067 | 47.68 | |
| RKC | 0.424 *** | 5.46 *** | 0.455 *** | 0.0068 | 47.85 | |
| NKR | 0.23 *** | 38.74 *** | 0.29 *** | 0.0087 | 43.69 |
*** Highly significant (p < 0.001); ** Highly significant (p < 0.01); * significant (p < 0.05); ns = non-significant. SOV = source of variation; DF = degree of freedom; G × T = Genotype (G) × Treatment (T) interaction; SL = shoot length (cm); RL = root length (cm); TPL = total plant length (cm); SFW = shoot fresh weight (g); RFW = root fresh weight (g); SDW = shoot dry weight (g); RDW = root dry weight (g); SNC = shoot sodium (Na+) concentration; SKC = shoot potassium (K+) concentration; RNC = root Na+ concentration; RKC = root K+ concentration; NKR = whole plant sodium/potassium (Na+/K+) ratio.
Figure 1Comparison of 12 morpho-physiological traits (A–L) of rice genotypes at seedlings stage. GSR lines were evaluated in control and 200 mM salt stress (Salt) under glasshouse conditions. Circles with different colors represent the genotypes. Inside the violin plot, big red circle showed the mean, boxplot represent the median (middle line), minimum, maximum, and error bars.
Performance of 24 rice genotypes under 200 mM salt stress condition in glasshouse.
| Trait | Salt-Tolerant Genotypes | Salt-Susceptible Genotypes |
|---|---|---|
| SL | S13 (29.91), S1 (28.52), and S22 (27.14) | S3 (20.34), S11(22.92), and S8 (22.97) |
| RL | S5 (21.16), S3 (20.83), and S20 (20.41) | S8 (14.81), S24 (15.7), and S9 (16.51) |
| TPL | S4 (49.35), S5 (48.33), and S3 (47.6) | S24 (36.86), S9 (37.73), and S19 (39.83) |
| SFW | S4 (0.159), S5 (0.142), and S3 (0.141) | S24 (0.080), S9 (0.088), and S19 (0.094) |
| RFW | S12 (0.124), S24 (0.122), and S8 (0.113) | S17 (0.064), S7 (0.065), and S21 (0.066) |
| SDW | S5 (0.048), S2 (0.047), and S17 (0.045) | S9 (0.026), S19 (0.028), and S21 (0.029) |
| RDW | S18 (2.23), S10 (0.022), and S24 (0.020) | S23 (0.012), S3 (0.012), and S1 (0.013) |
| SNC | S21 (9.13), S5 (8.83), and S18 (8.63) | S15 (2.93), S22 (3.53), and S11 (3.6) |
| SKC | S24 (6.06), S15 (5.93), and S11 (5.46) | S20 (2.43), S7 (2.60), and S12 (2.63) |
| RNC | S17 (1.70), S22 (1.67), and S14 (1.62) | S24 (0.85), S12 (0.85), and S16 (0.92) |
| RKC | S10 (2.98), S1 (1.97), and S6 (1.91) | S17 (0.85), S23 (0.95), and S22 (1.15) |
| NKR | S15 (2.34), S10 (2.15), and S2 (2.12) | S3 (0.76), S16 (0.83), and S4 (1.01) |
SL = shoot length (cm); RL = root length (cm); TPL = total plant length (cm); SFW = shoot fresh weight (g); RFW = root fresh weight (g); SDW = shoot dry weight (g); RDW = root dry weight (g); SNC = shoot sodium (Na+) concentration; SKC = shoot potassium (K+) concentration; RNC = root Na+ concentration; RKC = root K+ concentration; NKR = whole plant sodium/potassium (Na+/K+) ratio.
Figure 2Correlation between 12 morpho-physiological traits of rice genotypes at seedlings stage. Plants were evaluated in control (Con) and 200 mM salt stress (Salt). SL = shoot length (cm); RL = root length (cm); TPL = total plant length (cm); SFW = shoot fresh weight (g); RFW = root fresh weight (g); SDW = shoot dry weight (g); RDW = root dry weight (g); SNC = shoot sodium (Na+) concentration; SKC = shoot potassium (K+) concentration; RNC = root Na+ concentration; RKC = root K+ concentration; NKR = whole plant sodium/potassium (Na+/K+) ratio. *** Highly significant (p < 0.001); ** Highly significant (p < 0.01); * significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 3PCA of morpho-physiological traits of rice genotypes. Rice seedlings were evaluated under control (A) and 200 mM salt stress (B). SL = shoot length (cm); RL = root length (cm); TPL = total plant length (cm); SFW = shoot fresh weight (g); RFW = root fresh weight (g); SDW = shoot dry weight (g); RDW = root dry weight (g); SNC = shoot sodium (Na+) concentration; SKC = shoot potassium (K+) concentration; RNC = root Na+ concentration; RKC = root K+ concentration; NKR = whole plant sodium/potassium (Na+/K+) ratio.
Mean squares values from Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for 7 maturity related parameters of rice.
| SOV | Genotype (G) | Treatment (T) | G × T | Error | Total | Heritability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DF | 23 | 1 | 23 | 92 | 143 | |
| PH | 282.9 *** | 31.0 ns | 14.0 ns | 13.63 | 93.21 | |
| TN | 28.3 ** | 1614.7 *** | 10.19 ns | 12.10 | 57.23 | |
| GY | 391.56 *** | 104959.36 *** | 151.45 ns | 151.40 | 61.32 | |
| SY | 861.98 ** | 12886 *** | 439 ns | 339.18 | 54.35 | |
| TGW | 39.21 *** | 205.76 *** | 3.73 ns | 2.01 | 90.89 | |
| GL | 4.30 *** | 0.166 ns | 0.155 ns | 0.10 | 96.43 | |
| HI | 0.0056 *** | 0.8445 *** | 0.0045 *** | 0.001 | 48.10 |
*** Highly significant (p < 0.001); ** Highly significant (p < 0.01); ns = non-significant. SOV = source of variation; DF = degree of freedom; G × T = Genotype (G) × Treatment (T) interaction; PH = plant height (cm); TN = tillers number; GY = grain yield/plant (g); SY = straw yield (g); TGW = 1000-grain weight (g); GL = grain length (mm); HI = harvest index (%).
Performance of 24 GSR lines under field conditions.
| Trait | Salt-Tolerant Genotypes | Salt-Susceptible Genotypes |
|---|---|---|
| PH | S3 (117.53), S23 (114), and S24 (113.8) | S18 (88.33), S8 (92.13), and S5 (93.33) |
| TN | S9 (22.2), S19 (22), and S24 (21.8) | S4 (14.33), S2 (14.73), and S6 (15) |
| GY | S9 (51.46), S8 (48.8), and S22 (42.66) | S1 (23.93), S6 (24.83), and S24 (27.2) |
| SY | S1 (125.6), S20 (115.06), and S23 (108.93) | S8 (43.6), S17 (64.26), and S19 (70.66) |
| TGW | S1 (30.62), S20 (24.63), and S19 (24.12) | S4 (17.43), S6 (17.63), and S12 (17.99) |
| GL | S1 (12.18), S12 (11.14), and S15 (10.05) | S2 (7.81), S10 (8.49), and S23 (8.81) |
| HI | S12 (0.41), S14 (0.37), and S9 (0.36) | S2 (0.15), S5 (0.20), and S1 (0.22) |
| SSI | S19 (1.16), S18 (0.94), and S23 (0.94) | S16 (0.743), S17 (0.746), and S2 (0.759) |
PH = plant height (cm); TN = tillers number; GY = grain yield/plant (g); SY = straw yield (g); TGW = 1000-grain weight (g); GL = grain length (mm); HI = harvest index (%); SSI = stress susceptibility index.
Figure 4Comparison of yield related parameters (A–G) of rice genotypes at maturity stage. Plants were evaluated in control and 200 mM salt stress (salt) under field conditions. Circles with different colors represent the distribution of genotypes. Inside the violin plot, big red circle showed the mean, boxplot represent the median (middle line), minimum, maximum, and error bars.
Figure 5Correlation between seven morpho-physiological traits of rice genotypes at maturity stage. Plants were evaluated in control (Con) and salt stress (Salt) under field conditions. PH = plant height (cm); TN = tillers number; GY = grain yield/plant (g); SY = straw yield (g); TGW = 1000-grain weight (g); GL = grain length (mm); HI = harvest index (%). *** Highly significant (p < 0.001); ** Highly significant (p < 0.01); * significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 6PCA of yield and yield-related traits of rice genotypes. Rice genotypes were evaluated at control (A,B) and salinity stress (C,D) under field conditions. Scree plots of control (A), salinity (C) showing significant PCs. First two PCs of control (B) and salt stress (D). PH = plant height (cm); TN = tillers number; GY = grain yield/plant (g); SY = straw yield (g); TGW = 1000-grain weight (g); GL = grain length (mm); HI = harvest index (%).
Figure 7Grouping of 24 rice genotypes on the bases of their performance under salt stress conditions in glasshouse and field conditions. Four main groups light blue (susceptible); red (moderate-susceptible); light green (moderate-tolerant); and purple (tolerant) were created.
Figure 8Physiological response of rice tolerant (“S19”) and susceptible (“S3”) genotypes in response to 200 mM salt stress. Comparison of S19 and S3 under salt stress (A), whole seedlings (B); and roots (C). Bars = 1 cm. (D) Quantification RT-PCR analysis of selected genes expression in salt-tolerant (“S19” and “S20”) and salt-susceptible (“S3” and “S24”) genotypes. OsActin1 was used for normalization. Bars showing the mean ± SD of three different experiments. t-test was used; ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.