Article

Expression analysis of RING zinc finger genes from Triticum aestivum and identification of TaRZF70 that contains four RING-H2 domains and differentially responds to water deficit between leaf and root

CSIRO Plant Industry, 306 Carmody Road, St. Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia; ARC Centre of Excellence for Integrative Legume Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
Plant Science 01/2007; DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2007.09.001

ABSTRACT RING zinc finger proteins are known for their role predominantly in targeted protein degradation and participate in gene regulation through interaction with other regulatory proteins. In this study seven RING zinc finger genes from Triticum aestivum (bread wheat) were analysed for expression profiles in various organs (leaf, root, stem, spike, endosperm and embryo) and during leaf development and aging as well as in their responses to water deficit. Expression levels of six of these seven genes varied markedly among the six organs examined. All seven genes changed their expression levels in the leaf from the growing to senescing stage. Four genes were responsive to water deficit. A RING-H2 zinc finger gene, TaRZF70 showed differential response to water deprivation, namely up-regulation in the leaf and down-regulation in the root. This differential response was also observed in abscisic acid (ABA)-treated plants. Sequence analysis revealed that TaRZF70 contained four RING-H2 domains, the largest number of RING-H2 domains in any RING-H2 zinc finger proteins reported to date. These results indicate that these RING zinc finger genes are involved in diverse physiological processes in wheat, including response to drought.

1 Bookmark
 · 
34 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drought is one of the most important phenomena which limit crops' production and yield. Crops demonstrate various morphological, physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses to tackle drought stress. Plants' vegetative and reproductive stages are intensively influenced by drought stress. Drought tolerance is a complicated trait which is controlled by polygenes and their expressions are influenced by various environmental elements. This means that breeding for this trait is so difficult and new molecular methods such as molecular markers, quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping strategies, and expression patterns of genes should be applied to produce drought tolerant genotypes. In wheat, there are several genes which are responsible for drought stress tolerance and produce different types of enzymes and proteins for instance, late embryogenesis abundant (lea), responsive to abscisic acid (Rab), rubisco, helicase, proline, glutathione-S-transferase (GST), and carbohydrates during drought stress. This review paper has concentrated on the study of water limitation and its effects on morphological, physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses of wheat with the possible losses caused by drought stress.
    The Scientific World Journal 01/2013; 2013:610721. · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The dehydration responsive element binding (DREB) proteins are important transcription factors that contribute to stress endurance in plants triggering the expression of a set of abiotic stress-related genes. A DREB2-related gene, previously referred to as dehydration responsive factor 1 (DRF1) was originally isolated and characterized in durum wheat. The aim of this study was to monitor the expression profiles of three alternatively spliced TdDRF1 transcripts during dehydration experiments and to evaluate the effects of genetic diversity on the molecular response, using experimental conditions reflecting as closely as possible water stress perceived by cereals in open field. To investigate the effect of moderate water stress conditions, time-course dehydration experiments were carried out under controlled conditions in the greenhouse on four durum wheat and one triticale genotypes. Differences were observed in molecular patterns, thus, suggesting a genotype dependency of the DRF1 gene expression in response to the stress induced. The biodiversity of the transcripts of the DRF1 gene was explored in order to assess the level of polymorphism and its possible effects on structure and function of putative proteins. A total of nine haplotypes were identified in the sequences cloned, seven of which encompassing polymorphisms in exon 4, including the region codifying for the DNA binding Apetala2 (AP2) domain. The 3D structural models of the AP2 domain were generated by homology modelling using the variability observed. The polymorphisms analysed did not significantly affect the structural arrangement of the DNA binding domains, thus resulting compatible with the putative functionality.
    Planta 11/2012; · 3.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Crop adaptation to abiotic stresses requires alterations in expression of a large number of stress protection genes and their regulators, including transcription factors. In this study, the expression levels of ten MYB transcription factor genes from wheat (Triticum aestivum) were examined in two recombinant inbred lines contrasting in their salt tolerance in response to salt or drought stress. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis revealed that four MYB genes were consistently up-regulated in the seedling roots of both genotypes under short-term salt treatment. Three MYB genes were found to be up-regulated in both genotypes under long-term salt stress. One MYB gene was up-regulated in both genotypes under both short- and long-term salt stress. Of these salt up-regulated MYB genes, one MYB gene (TaMYBsdu1) was markedly up-regulated in the leaf and root of wheat under long-term drought stress. In addition, TaMYBsdu1 showed higher expression levels in the salt-tolerant genotype than in the susceptible genotype under salt stress. These data suggest that TaMYBsdu1 is a potentially important regulator involved in wheat adaptation to both salt and drought stresses.
    Plant Cell Reports 08/2010; 29(8):835-44. · 2.94 Impact Factor