| 郝晶,姚立蓉,汪军成,司二静,杨轲,乔岩,孟亚雄,马小乐,李葆春,尚勋武,王化俊.不同基因型大麦苗期对干旱胁迫的响应及HvPIPs基因表达特征分析[J].干旱地区农业研究,2023,(4):41~50 |
| 不同基因型大麦苗期对干旱胁迫的响应及HvPIPs基因表达特征分析 |
| Response of different genotypes of barley to drought stress at seedling stage and analysis of HvPIPs gene expression characteristics |
| |
| DOI：10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2023.04.05 |
| 中文关键词: 大麦 苗期 干旱胁迫 HvPIPs |
| 英文关键词:barley seedling stage drought stress HvPIPs |
| 基金项目:财政部和农业农村部：国家现代农业产业技术体系项目（CARS-05-04B-2）；甘肃省教育厅产业支撑计划项目（2021CYZC-12）；国家自然科学基金（31960426，31860377，32160496）；甘肃省自然基金（21JR7RA801）；甘肃农业大学伏羲青年英才计划（Ganfx-03Y06） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 496 |
| 全文下载次数: 544 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 为研究不同基因型大麦苗期对干旱胁迫的响应，挖掘优质抗旱的大麦种质资源，以4份不同基因型大麦(2个高抗品种ZDM5430和ZDM5458，2个干旱敏感型品种7DCADA和IL-12)为材料，利用聚乙二醇(PEG-6000)模拟干旱条件，综合分析不同品种大麦的苗期抗旱性差异；并通过对不同品种根系进行PIPs实时定量分析，研究水通道蛋白AQPs基因与干旱胁迫之间的应答关系。结果表明，持续干旱胁迫会使大麦生长变缓，各处理苗长、根长、叶含水量和根含水量都呈下降趋势，其中，4个品种的大麦叶含水量在干旱胁迫14 d时下降最为显著，与对照相比，其降幅分别为29.14%、52.64%、21.67%和72.15%。干旱胁迫对大麦苗期干物质积累量和根冠比的影响较小，各处理间差异不显著；但持续干旱后，抗旱品种ZDM5430的根冠比呈上升趋势，在胁迫7、14、21 d时较CK分别增加了4.92%、42.86%和21.05%。随着胁迫时间的延长，大麦旗叶叶绿素含量和根系活力也呈下降趋势，其中ZDM5430和ZDM5458较对照组降幅较小，说明抗旱品种的形态指标、叶绿素含量及根系活力受干旱胁迫的影响较小。通过PIPs相对表达量分析发现，在相同处理条件下，4个不同品种的大麦根系HvPIPs的变化趋势基本相似，2个亚家族的基因在干旱胁迫后大多呈上调趋势，仅HvPIP1;1、HvPIP1;2、HvPIP2;1和HvPIP2;5有下降趋势，其中ZDM5430和ZDM5458这2个品种的表达量显著高于7DCADA和IL-12；表明该基因参与了大麦对干旱胁迫的适应性调控过程，且其在抗旱型品种中的表达量显著高于在干旱敏感型品种中。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| To study the response of different genotypes of barley to drought stress at seedling stage and explore the germplasm resources of high\|quality drought\|resistant barley, 4 batches of barley with different genotypes of 2 highly resistant varieties ZDM5430 and ZDM5458 and 2 drought\|sensitive varieties 7DCADA and IL-12 were used as materials, and polyethylene glycol (PEG-6000) was used to simulate drought conditions.Differences in drought resistance at seedling stage of different varieties of barley were comprehensively analyzed. Through real\|time quantitative analysis of PIPs in the root systems of different cultivars, the response relationship between aquaporin AQPs genes and drought stress was studied. The results showed that barley growth was slowed down by continuous drought stress, and the seedling length, root length, leaf water content and root water content of all treatments had a downward trend. Of which the leaf water content of the four varieties decreased most significantly during drought stress for 14 days, and the decreases were 29.14%, 52.64%, 21.67% and 72.15%, respectively. The effects of drought stress on dry matter accumulation and root\|shoot ratio at seedling stage of barley were small, and the differences between treatments were not significant. However, after continuous drought, the root\|shoot ratio of ZDM5430 showed an upward trend, which increased by 4.92%, 42.86% and 21.05% compared with CK under stress for 7, 14 and 21 days, respectively. With the extension of stress time, the chlorophyll content and root activity of barley banner also showed a downward trend, and ZDM5430 and ZDM5458 decreased less than those in the control group, indicating that the morphological indexes, chlorophyll content and root vitality of drought\|resistant cultivars were less affected by drought stress. Analyzing the relative expression of PIPs found that under the same treatment conditions, the change trend of HvPIPs in the root system of four different varieties of barley was basically similar. And most of the genes of two subfamilies showed an upward regulation trend after drought stress, and only HvPIP;1, HvPIP1;2, HvPIP2;1 and HvPIP2;5 had a downward trend.The expression of ZDM5430 and ZDM5458 was significantly higher than that of 7DCADA and IL-12. The results showed that this gene was involved in the adaptive regulation of barley to drought stress, and its expression in drought\|tolerant varieties was significantly higher than in drought\|sensitive varieties. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| | |