Paper · 2018 · Australian Journal of Crop Science

Physiological and proteomic analysis of two contrasting Sorghum bicolor genotypes in response to drought stress

Hind Emad Fadoul; Marmar A. El Siddig; Abdel Wahab H. Abdalla; et al.

9
claims
16
verbatim quotes
28
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Understanding the response of a crop to drought is the first step in the breeding of tolerant genotypes. In this study, two sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) genotypes with contrasting sensitivity to drought were subjected drought stress by withholding water for 7 days at seedling stage; physiological and protein analyses were made. Reduction percentage was recorded on leaf water content, chlorophyll a and b and total chlorophyll. Shoot and root lengths reductions were observed in the drought-sensitive Cultivar (Tabat) while the drought-tolerant line (EL9) showed an increase in shoot and root lengths under drought conditions. Drought tolerant sorghum line EL9 accumulated higher proline (26% increase) when compared to the sensitive cultivar Tabat (5% increase). Mass spectrometry analysis coupled with nanoflow UPLC was used to compare daily-watered with drought stressed (7 days) seedlings. A total of 36 protein spots were detected, of which 23 were recorded for one or both accessions under drought stress conditions only. These proteins were identified using MASCOT database search in accordance with sequence similarity with previously characterized proteins from the Uniprot database. The identified proteins were assigned to different functional categories as follows: Response to stress (35%); metabolic processes (26%); photosynthetic (13%); fatty acid biosynthesis (4%) and cell wall biogenesis/degradation (4%). Seven of the identified proteins under stress condition were unique to El9, in contrast to 4 proteins were unique to Tabat. This study showed a differential protein expression pattern of two sorghum accessions under drought stress, which will be valuable for studying the molecular mechanisms underlying drought tolerance in the future. Also, these proteins could be potential candidates for development of markers to be used in markers assisted selection.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drought reduced leaf water content and chlorophyll measures.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolort0
Outcome
leaf water content, chlorophyll a and b and total chlorophylle0
Direction
Reductione0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Reduction percentage was recorded on leaf water content, chlorophyll a and b and total chlorophyll.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 330–429 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum bicolor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drought reduced shoot and root lengths in Tabat.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolort0
Material
Tabate0
Treatment
drought conditionse0
Outcome
Shoot and root lengthse0
Direction
reductionse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Shoot and root lengths reductions were observed in the drought-sensitive Cultivar (Tabat) while the drought-tolerant line (EL9) showed an increase in shoot and root lengths under drought conditions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 430–628 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum bicolor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drought increased shoot and root lengths in EL9.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolort0
Material
EL9e0
Treatment
drought conditionse0
Outcome
shoot and root lengthse0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Shoot and root lengths reductions were observed in the drought-sensitive Cultivar (Tabat) while the drought-tolerant line (EL9) showed an increase in shoot and root lengths under drought conditions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 430–628 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum bicolor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–71 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

EL9 proline increased by 26% under drought.

Taxon
sorghumSorghume0
Material
EL9e0
Outcome
prolinee0
Direction
increasee0
Value
26%e0
Comparator
Tabate0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Drought tolerant sorghum line EL9 accumulated higher proline (26% increase) when compared to the sensitive cultivar Tabat (5% increase).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 629–765 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tabat proline increased by 5% under drought.

Taxon
sorghumSorghume0
Material
Tabate0
Outcome
prolinee0
Direction
increasee0
Value
5%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Drought tolerant sorghum line EL9 accumulated higher proline (26% increase) when compared to the sensitive cultivar Tabat (5% increase).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 629–765 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Of 36 detected protein spots, 23 occurred only under drought in one or both accessions.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolort0
Outcome
protein spotse0
Value
23e0
Qualifier
under drought stress conditions onlye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A total of 36 protein spots were detected, of which 23 were recorded for one or both accessions under drought stress conditions only.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 896–1029 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum bicolor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–71 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Identified drought-responsive proteins were assigned to stress response (35%), metabolic processes (26%), photosynthetic (13%), fatty acid biosynthesis (4%) and cell wall biogenesis/degradation (4%) categories.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolort0
Outcome
functional categoriese0
Value
35%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The identified proteins were assigned to different functional categories as follows: Response to stress (35%); metabolic processes (26%); photosynthetic (13%); fatty acid biosynthesis (4%) and cell wall biogenesis/degradation (4%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1195–1426 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum bicolor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–71 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seven stress-responsive proteins were unique to EL9.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolort0
Material
El9e0
Outcome
identified proteins under stress conditione0
Value
Sevene0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Seven of the identified proteins under stress condition were unique to El9, in contrast to 4 proteins were unique to Tabat.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1427–1550 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum bicolor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–71 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four stress-responsive proteins were unique to Tabat.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolort0
Material
Tabate0
Outcome
proteins were unique to Tabate0
Value
4e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Seven of the identified proteins under stress condition were unique to El9, in contrast to 4 proteins were unique to Tabat.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1427–1550 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum bicolor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–71 · show in text ↑

drought · growth · Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)Positive and negative results

29 papers: 5 positive, 24 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

25 papers more in this group

See all 29 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.