Abstract
Plant growth regulators (PGRs) and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) play an important role in mitigating abiotic stresses. However, little is known about the parallel changes in physiological processes coupled with metabolic changes induced by PGRs and PGPRs that help to cope with drought stress in chickpeas. The present investigation was carried out to study the integrative effects of PGRs and PGPRs on the physiological and metabolic changes, and their association with drought tolerance in two chickpea genotypes. Inoculated seeds of two chickpea genotypes, Punjab Noor-2009 (drought sensitive) and 93127 (drought tolerance), were planted in greenhouse condition at the University of Florida. Prior to sowing, seeds of two chickpea varieties were soaked for 3 h in 24 h old cultures of PGPRs (Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus thuringiensis, and Bacillus megaterium), whereas, some of the seeds were soaked in distilled water for the same period of time and were treated as control. Plant growth regulators, salicylic acid (SA) and putrescine (Put), were applied on 25 days old seedlings just prior to the induction of drought stress. Drought stress was imposed by withholding the supply of water on 25-day-old seedlings (at the three-leaf stage) and continued for the next 25 days until the soil water content reached 14%. Ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (UPLC-HRMS) analysis concomitant with physiological parameters were carried out in chickpea leaves at two-time points i.e. 14 and 25 d after imposition of drought stress. The results showed that both genotypes, treated with PGRs and PGPRs (consortium), performed significantly better under drought condition through enhanced leaf relative water content (RWC), greater biomass of shoot and root, higher Fv/FM ratio and higher accumulation of protein, sugar and phenolic compounds. The sensitive genotype was more responsive than tolerant one. The results revealed that the accumulation of succinate, leucine, disaccharide, saccharic acid and glyceric acid was consistently higher in both genotypes at both time points due to PGRs and PGPRs treatment. Significant accumulation of malonate, 5-oxo-L-proline, and trans-cinnamate occurred at both time points only in the tolerant genotype following the consortium treatment. Aminoacyl-tRNA, primary and secondary metabolite biosynthesis, amino acid metabolism or synthesis pathways, and energy cycle were significantly altered due to PGRs and PGPRs treatment. It is inferred that changes in different physiological and metabolic parameters induced by PGRs and PGPRs treatment could confer drought tolerance in chickpeas.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
The PGR and PGPR consortium significantly enhanced leaf relative water content under drought in both chickpea genotypes.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- PGRs and PGPRs (consortium)e0
- Outcome
- leaf relative water content (RWC)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both genotypes, treated with PGRs and PGPRs (consortium), performed significantly better under drought condition through enhanced leaf relative water content (RWC)”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The consortium increased shoot and root biomass under drought in both chickpea genotypes.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.Cicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PGRs and PGPRs (consortium)e0
- Outcome
- biomass of shoot and roote0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both genotypes, treated with PGRs and PGPRs (consortium), performed significantly better under drought condition through enhanced leaf relative water content (RWC), greater biomass of shoot and root”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The consortium increased the Fv/FM ratio under drought in both genotypes.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.Cicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PGRs and PGPRs (consortium)e0
- Outcome
- Fv/FM ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both genotypes, treated with PGRs and PGPRs (consortium), performed significantly better under drought condition through enhanced leaf relative water content (RWC), greater biomass of shoot and root, higher Fv/FM ratio”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The consortium increased protein, sugar and phenolic compound accumulation under drought.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.Cicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PGRs and PGPRs (consortium)e0
- Outcome
- accumulation of protein, sugar and phenolic compoundse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both genotypes, treated with PGRs and PGPRs (consortium), performed significantly better under drought condition through enhanced leaf relative water content (RWC), greater biomass of shoot and root, higher Fv/FM ratio and higher accumulation of protein, sugar and phenolic compounds.”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The sensitive genotype responded more strongly than the tolerant genotype.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.Cicer arietinumt0
- Material
- sensitive genotypee0
- Outcome
- more responsivee0
- Direction
- more responsivee0
- Comparator
- tolerant onee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The sensitive genotype was more responsive than tolerant one.”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Succinate, leucine and disaccharide accumulation was consistently higher with treatment in both genotypes at both time points.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.Cicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PGRs and PGPRs treatmente0
- Outcome
- accumulation of succinate, leucine, disaccharidee0
- Direction
- consistently highere0
- Qualifier
- both genotypes at both time pointse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the accumulation of succinate, leucine, disaccharide, saccharic acid and glyceric acid was consistently higher in both genotypes at both time points due to PGRs and PGPRs treatment.”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Saccharic acid and glyceric acid accumulation was consistently higher with treatment in both genotypes at both time points.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.Cicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PGRs and PGPRs treatmente0
- Outcome
- saccharic acid and glyceric acide0
- Direction
- consistently highere0
- Qualifier
- both genotypes at both time pointse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the accumulation of succinate, leucine, disaccharide, saccharic acid and glyceric acid was consistently higher in both genotypes at both time points due to PGRs and PGPRs treatment.”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Malonate, 5-oxo-L-proline and trans-cinnamate accumulated significantly in the tolerant genotype at both time points after consortium treatment.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.Cicer arietinumt0
- Material
- tolerant genotypee0
- Treatment
- consortium treatmente0
- Outcome
- accumulation of malonate, 5-oxo-L-proline, and trans-cinnamatee0
- Direction
- Significant accumulatione0
- Qualifier
- at both time pointse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant accumulation of malonate, 5-oxo-L-proline, and trans-cinnamate occurred at both time points only in the tolerant genotype following the consortium treatment.”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
PGR and PGPR treatment significantly altered aminoacyl-tRNA and primary and secondary metabolite biosynthesis pathways.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.Cicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PGRs and PGPRs treatmente0
- Outcome
- Aminoacyl-tRNA, primary and secondary metabolite biosynthesise0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Aminoacyl-tRNA, primary and secondary metabolite biosynthesis, amino acid metabolism or synthesis pathways, and energy cycle were significantly altered due to PGRs and PGPRs treatment.”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
PGR and PGPR treatment significantly altered amino acid metabolism or synthesis pathways and the energy cycle.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum L.Cicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PGRs and PGPRs treatmente0
- Outcome
- amino acid metabolism or synthesis pathways, and energy cyclee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Aminoacyl-tRNA, primary and secondary metabolite biosynthesis, amino acid metabolism or synthesis pathways, and energy cycle were significantly altered due to PGRs and PGPRs treatment.”
t0“Cicer arietinum L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors infer that treatment induced physiological and metabolic changes could confer drought tolerance in chickpeas.
- Taxon
- chickpeasCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- PGRs and PGPRs treatmente0
- Outcome
- drought tolerancee0
- Qualifier
- changes in different physiological and metabolic parameterse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“changes in different physiological and metabolic parameters induced by PGRs and PGPRs treatment could confer drought tolerance in chickpeas.”
The same questions in other papers
class · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →class · physiology: photosynthesis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
class · quality: protein · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
class · molecular: metabolites · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.