Proteomic Analysis of Rapeseed Root Response to Waterlogging Stress

Abstract

The overall health of a plant is constantly affected by the changing and hostile environment. Due to climate change and the farming pattern of rice (Oryza sativa) and rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), stress from waterlogging poses a serious threat to productivity assurance and the yield of rapeseed in China’s Yangtze River basin. In order to improve our understanding of the complex mechanisms behind waterlogging stress and identify waterlogging-responsive proteins, we firstly conducted iTRAQ (isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification)-based quantitative proteomic analysis of rapeseed roots under waterlogging treatments, for both a tolerant cultivar ZS9 and sensitive cultivar GH01. A total of 7736 proteins were identified by iTRAQ, of which several hundred showed different expression levels, including 233, 365, and 326 after waterlogging stress for 4H, 8H, and 12H in ZS9, respectively, and 143, 175, and 374 after waterlogging stress for 4H, 8H, and 12H in GH01, respectively. For proteins repeatedly identified at different time points, gene ontology (GO) cluster analysis suggested that the responsive proteins of the two cultivars were both enriched in the biological process of DNA-dependent transcription and the oxidation–reduction process, and response to various stress and hormone stimulus, while different distribution frequencies in the two cultivars was investigated. Moreover, overlap proteins with similar or opposite tendencies of fold change between ZS9 and GH01 were observed and clustered based on the different expression ratios, suggesting the two genotype cultivars exhibited diversiform molecular mechanisms or regulation pathways in their waterlogging stress response. The following qRT-PCR (quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction) results verified the candidate proteins at transcription levels, which were prepared for further research. In conclusion, proteins detected in this study might perform different functions in waterlogging responses and would provide information conducive to better understanding adaptive mechanisms under environmental stresses.

Waterlogging differentially affects yield and its components in wheat, barley, rapeseed and field pea depending on the timing of occurrence

“…Lastly, it should be noted that genotypic variation for waterlogging tolerance can exist within each species (e.g. Arduini et al, , Collaku & Harrison, for wheat; Masoni et al, , Pang et al, for barley; Xu et al, for rapeseed; Malik, Ailewe, & Erskine, for field pea); analyses of intra‐specific variation for the parameters measured here would be an interesting future study.…”

“…Regarding to rapeseed, rooting length has only been studied in seedlings, having an extremely sensitive response to waterlogging, as plants of 3 DAS waterlogged for 12 hr reached ca. 50% of controls (Xu et al, ). In seedlings of field pea subjected to 12 days of waterlogging at 8 DAS, the penetration depth of roots reached 44% of controls (Przywara & Stępniewski, ).…”

Two Brassica napus cultivars differ in gene expression, but not in their response to submergence

“…It has been shown that differences between cultivars exist in respect to waterlogging tolerance, mainly in Asian cultivars (e.g., Zou et al, 2014; Xu et al, 2015, summarized in Mustroph, 2018). However, the underlying mechanisms of tolerance have not been identified yet, despite comparative analyses at the transcriptional (Zou et al, 2015; Zou, Tan, et al, 2013) and proteomic (Xu et al, 2018) level. These analyses only showed minor differences in gene expression in response to waterlogging between the two cultivars Zhongshuang 9 and GH01 (Zou et al, 2015).…”

Genome-Wide Identification of the DUF668 Gene Family in Cotton and Expression Profiling Analysis of GhDUF668 in Gossypium Hirsutum Under Adverse Stress

“…Although the second broad group contains a relatively small number of genes, they have been retained during the evolution of cotton, implying that they may play important roles in biological processes. Regardless of whether plants are subjected to biological or abiotic stress, their initial sensing parts are basically at the roots [44][45][46]. Moreover, analysis of the gene expression in different tissues and the molecular biological functions were performed differentially [47,48].…”