JXB Advance Access published online on November 16, 2006
Journal of Experimental Botany, doi:10.1093/jxb/erl163
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Department of Agroenvironmental Sciences and Technology, University of Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. A microarray including 1654 cDNAs, mainly derived from dehydration-shocked barley leaf tissues, was utilized to monitor expression changes in leaves of barley plants subjected to slow drying conditions (7 d and 11 d: 7d-WS and 11d-WS) in soil and after rehydration. The results were compared with those obtained under shock-like conditions imposed with a 6 h dehydration treatment. A total number of 173 transcripts (
Received February 17, 2006
Accepted August 21, 2006
Integrated Approaches to Sustain and Improve Plant Production under Drought Stress Special Issue
Barley transcript profiles under dehydration shock and drought stress treatments: a comparative analysis
Valentina Talamè 1, Neslihan Z. Ozturk 2, Hans J. Bohnert 3, and Roberto Tuberosa 1 *
2 Department of Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Present address: Institut für Pflanzenwissenschaften, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
3 Department of Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Roberto Tuberosa, E-mail: roberto.tuberosa{at}unibo.it
Abstract 
10% of all transcripts profiled) were declared up- or down-regulated in at least one of the conditions tested. The majority of the transcripts were regulated by only one of the drought treatments, with 57% of the differentially expressed transcripts exclusively affected in the dehydration shock treatment, 6% at 7d-WS, 14% at 11d-WS, and 6% after rehydration. Irrespective of the low percentage of transcripts (10%) with similar expression changes between shock and slow stress treatments, a sizeable portion of these transcripts shared a common expression trend under the different drought treatment conditions, as evidenced by low but significant correlations between the fast occurring and the 7d-WS and 11d-WS treatments (r=0.32 and 0.41, P=0.001, respectively). These results are discussed with respect to the merit of different dehydration treatments in the investigation of the changes in transcript profiling.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Guo, M. Baum, S. Grando, S. Ceccarelli, G. Bai, R. Li, M. von Korff, R. K. Varshney, A. Graner, and J. Valkoun Differentially expressed genes between drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive barley genotypes in response to drought stress during the reproductive stage J. Exp. Bot., August 1, 2009; 60(12): 3531 - 3544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Z. Habash, Z. Kehel, and M. Nachit Genomic approaches for designing durum wheat ready for climate change with a focus on drought J. Exp. Bot., July 1, 2009; 60(10): 2805 - 2815. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Marzin, R. Mihaly, J. Pauk, and P. Schweizer A transient assay system for the assessment of cell-autonomous gene function in dehydration-stressed barley J. Exp. Bot., September 1, 2008; 59(12): 3359 - 3369. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Tuberosa, S. Salvi, S. Giuliani, M. C. Sanguineti, M. Bellotti, S. Conti, and P. Landi Genome-wide Approaches to Investigate and Improve Maize Response to Drought Crop Sci., December 18, 2007; 47(Supplement_3): S-120 - S-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|