Comparative analysis of panicle proteomes of two upland rice varieties upon hyper-osmotic stress

doi:10.1007/s11515-010-0720-3

Front Biol

2010, Vol. 5

Issue (6) : 546-555 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11515-010-0720-3

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative analysis of panicle proteomes of two upland rice varieties upon hyper-osmotic stress

Wei HUANG, Ting BI, Weining SUN(

)

SIBS–UC (Berkeley) Center of Molecular Life Sciences, Institute of Plant Physiology and Ecology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200032, China

Download: PDF(371 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Drought is a major environmental factor that limits the yield of rice dramatically. Upland rice is now regarded as a promising rice cultivar in water saving agriculture. Two varieties of upland rice Zhonghan 3 and IR29 were used to compare the physiological and proteomic responses to hyper-osmotic stress induced by 15% polyethyleneglycol (PEG) at the reproductive stage. Osmotic stress affected the growth development and caused the loss of production especially the grain yield. IR29 was more tolerant to PEG than Zhonghan 3 as shown by less yield loss under osmotic stress conditions. Comparative proteomic analysis of the panicle suggested that the up-regulation of glycolysis related proteins and defense proteins may contribute to the better osmotic tolerance in IR29.

Keywords upland rice panicle proteome grain yield glycolysis cytosolic ascorbate peroxidase

Corresponding Author(s): SUN Weining,Email:wnsun@sibs.ac.cn

Issue Date: 01 December 2010

Cite this article:

Wei HUANG,Ting BI,Weining SUN. Comparative analysis of panicle proteomes of two upland rice varieties upon hyper-osmotic stress[J]. Front Biol, 2010, 5(6): 546-555.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fib/EN/10.1007/s11515-010-0720-3
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fib/EN/Y2010/V5/I6/546

Fig.1 Growth of the rice was inhibited by polyethyleneglycol (PEG). The photo was taken 10 days after treatment with 15% PEG (A). The plant height (B), biomass (C), fertility (D), grain yield (E) and drop index of grain yield (F) were plotted. The experiment was performed with 6 plants and repeated for 3 times. The values were mean±SD of 18 plants from 3 replicates.

Fig.2 (A) and (B) are panicle proteins from Zhonghan 3 at normal growth conditions and treated with 15% PEG 6000 for 3 days, respectively. (C) and (D) are panicle proteins from IR29 at normal growth conditions and treated with 15% PEG 6000 for 3 days, respectively. The osmotic stress responsive proteins are numbered. IEF: isoelectric focusing.

Fig.3 A–F corresponds to 6 groups. A: Spots up-regulated only in Zhonghan 3; B: spots down-regulated only in Zhonghan 3; C: spots up-regulated only in IR29; D: spots down-regulated only in IR29; E: spots up-regulated in both varieties; F: spots down-regulated in both varieties.

spot no.	accession no.	protein name	score	peptide	theoretical Mr/pI	observed Mr/pI	group^a	expression change in ZH3/IR29^b
ENERGY
2	NP_001058863	23 kDa polypeptide of photosystem II	284	EFPGQVLRQYYSVTVLTRTNTEFIAYSGEGFK	26.92/8.66	21.00/5.56	A	13/–
7	NP_001046020	phosphoglycerate kinase, cytosolic	427	YSLKPLVPRLAAALPEGGVLLLENVRLAAVADLYVNDAFGTAHR	42.08/5.64	44.80/5.87	B	3.3/5
20	NP_001042016	triosephosphate isomerase	99	WLAANVSAEVAESTRVATPDQAQEVHDGLRK	27.59/6.60	28.50/5.20	C	–/5.3
21	CAE02009	glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase	93	GILGYVEEDLVSTDFQGDNR	42.03/6.41	31.00/5.90	C	–/2.6
23	NP_001046020	phosphoglycerate kinase, cytosolic	112	LAAALPEGGVLLLENVR	42.08/5.64	42.02/5.42	C	–/4.1
31	NP_039391	ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit	286	DTDILAAFRLTYYTPEYETKTFQGPPHGIQVER	52.85/6.22	22.03/5.50	E	6.1/9.9
34	AAA82047	glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase	473	VPTVDVSVVDLTVRLVAWYDNEWGYSNRGIIGYVEEDLVSTDFVGDSR	36.47/6.61	32.50/6.32	E	2.4/3.1
METABOLISM
4	NP_001065060	glycine decarboxylase complex H-protein; hypothetical protein	228	YSSSHEWVKVKPSSPSELDALLDPAKKLSETPGLINSSPYEDGWMIK	17.36/4.92	17.51/4.61	A	13/–
5	NP_001053928	aminomethyl transferase, mitochondrial precursor	249	WHVHDERDGTGTLTVFTNDRTALYDFHVAHGGKTGYTGEDGFEISVPSENAVDLAK	43.94/8.53	34.34/6.41	A	2.5/–
16	NP_001052013	arginase	224	VIDASLTLIRVLTDVGDVPIQEIRDVLNILHNLQGDVVAGDVVEFNPQR	36.92/5.90	41.08/5.63	B	0.36/–
29	NP_001051328	UDP-glucose 6-dehydrogenase	402	NLFFSTDVEKAADLTYWESAARIYDNMQKPAFVFDGRAQISIYDPQVTEDQIQR	52.87/5.79	60.00/6.10	D	–/0.24
30	BAD22334	putative acetyl-CoA C-acyltransferase	92	NSGAFAWEIVPIEVPVGR	41.00/6.15	43.00/6.49	D	–/0.5
33	NP_001049723	UDP-glucuronic acid decarboxylase	378	QHGIEIRIFNTYGPRVVSNFIAQAVRGEPLTVQKPGTQTR	39.28/7.16	29.00/6.20	E	3/7.2
37	Q6K669	leucine aminopeptidase 2, chloroplastic	478	DVEFSEWKGLTFDSGGYNIKYANDLSSGVIFGKGDILAIAVTENDLVKQVDLIGFGSGPEVDQK	61.78/8.29	60.00/5.90	F	0.19/0.29
DEFENSE
11	NP_001060741	APX2	593	QDKPEPPPEGRLPDATQGSDHLRLAWHSAGTFDVSSR	27.10/5.21	28.0/5.4	B	0.24/–
17	NP_001048274	heat shock 70 kDa protein	667	HLNITLTREVDEVLLVGGMTRAVITVPAYFNDAQRSQVFSTAADNQTQVGIR	72.85/5.49	73.00/5.51	B	0.42/–
19	BAB71741	glyoxalase I	111	GNAYAQVAIGTEDVYK	32.53/5.51	30.00/5.37	C	–/7.8
22	XP_470658	putative ascorbate peroxidase (APX1)	417	SGFEGPWTRLAWHSAGTFDVSSKALLSDPAFRPLVEKTPAELSHAANAGLDIAVR	27.14/5.42	26.00/5.15	C	–/4.5
24	NP_001049769	APX1	192	TPAELSHAANAGLDIAVR	27.14/5.42	27.00/5.30	C	–/3.6
25	NP_001049769	APX1	410	EDKPAPPPEGRAFFEDYKEAHLKTPAELSHAANAGLDIAVR	27.14/5.42	26.53/5.30	C	–/3.3
35	NP_001060741	APX2	298	LAWHSAGTFDVSSRYAADEDAFFADYAEAHLK	27.10/5.21	27.02/4.80	E	2.6/2.8
PROTEIN DESTINATION
36	BAA88950	importin alpha 1b	410	SPPIEEVINTGVVPRGKPQPNFEQVKPALSALQR	58.50/5.18	62.00/5.40	F	0.14/0.30

Tab.1

1	Abbasi F M, Komatsu S (2004). A proteomic approach to analyze salt-responsive proteins in rice leaf sheath. Proteomics , 4(7): 2072-2081 doi: 10.1002/pmic.200300741
2	Agrawal G K, Rakwal R (2006). Rice proteomics: a cornerstone for cereal food crop proteomes. Mass Spectrom Rev , 25(1): 1-53 doi: 10.1002/mas.20056
3	Bernier J, Atlin G N, Serraj R, Kumar A, Spaner D (2008). Breeding upland rice for drought resistance. J Sci Food Agric , 88(6): 927-939 doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3153
4	Bernier J, Kumar A, Ramaiah V, Spaner D, Atlin G (2007). A large-effect QTL for grain yield under reproductive-stage drought stress in upland rice. Crop Sci , 47(2): 507-516 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2006.07.0495
5	Del Buono D, Prinsi B, Espen L, Scarponi L (2009). Triosephosphate isomerases in Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum ): characterization and susceptibility to herbicides. J Agric Food Chem , 57(17): 7924-7930 doi: 10.1021/jf901681q
6	Douce R, Bourguignon J, Neuburger M, Rébeillé F (2001). The glycine decarboxylase system: a fascinating complex. Trends Plant Sci , 6(4): 167-176 doi: 10.1016/S1360-1385(01)01892-1
7	Jiang C J, Shoji K, Matsuki R, Baba A, Inagaki N, Ban H, Iwasaki T, Imamoto N, Yoneda Y, Deng X W, Yamamoto N (2001). Molecular cloning of a novel importin alpha homologue from rice, by which constitutive photomorphogenic 1 (COP1) nuclear localization signal (NLS)-protein is preferentially nuclear imported. J Biol Chem , 276(12): 9322-9329 doi: 10.1074/jbc.M006430200
8	Johansson H, Sterky F, Amini B, Lundeberg J, Kleczkowski L A (2002). Molecular cloning and characterization of a cDNA encoding poplar UDP-glucose dehydrogenase, a key gene of hemicellulose/pectin formation. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Structure and Expression , 1576: 53-58
9	Jubault M, Hamon C, Gravot A, Lariagon C, Delourme R, Bouchereau A, Manzanares-Dauleux M J (2008). Differential regulation of root arginine catabolism and polyamine metabolism in clubroot-susceptible and partially resistant Arabidopsis genotypes. Plant Physiol , 146(4): 2008-2019 doi: 10.1104/pp.108.117432
10	Király Z (1998). Plant infection-biotic stress. Ann N Y Acad Sci , 851(STRESS OF LIFE: FROM MOLECULES TO MAN): 233-240
11	Liu G L, Mei H W, Yu X Q, Zou G H, Liu H Y, Li M S, Chen L, Wu J H, Luo L J (2007). Panicle water potential, a physiological trait to identify drought tolerance in rice. J Integr Plant Biol , 49(10): 1464-1469 doi: 10.1111/j.1672-9072.2007.00551.x
12	Liu H Y, Mei H W, Yu X Q, Zou G H, Liu G L, Luo L J (2006). Towards improving the drought tolerance of rice in China. Plant Genetic Resources , 4(1): 47-53 doi: 10.1079/PGR2006111
13	Lu Z, Liu D, Liu S (2007). Two rice cytosolic ascorbate peroxidases differentially improve salt tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Rep , 26(10): 1909-1917 doi: 10.1007/s00299-007-0395-7
14	Lu Z, Neumann P M (1999). Water stress inhibits hydraulic conductance and leaf growth in rice seedlings but not the transport of water via mercury-sensitive water channels in the root. Plant Physiol , 120(1): 143-152 doi: 10.1104/pp.120.1.143
15	Peng Z Y, Wang M C, Li F, Lv H J, Li C L, Xia G M (2009). A proteomic study of the response to salinity and drought stress in an introgression strain of bread wheat. Mol Cell Proteomics , 8(12): 2676-2686 doi: 10.1074/mcp.M900052-MCP200
16	Pillai M A, Lihuang Z, Akiyama T (2002). Molecular cloning, characterization, expression and chromosomal location of OsGAPDH, a submergence responsive gene in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Theor Appl Genet , 105(1): 34-42 doi: 10.1007/s00122-001-0833-9
17	Rabello A R, Guimar?es C M, Rangel P H, da Silva F R, Seixas D, de Souza E, Brasileiro A C, Spehar C R, Ferreira M E, Mehta A (2008). Identification of drought-responsive genes in roots of upland rice (Oryza sativa L). BMC Genomics , 9(1): 485 doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-485
18	Riccardi F, Gazeau P, Zivy Mde Vienne D, Zivy M (1998). Protein changes in response to progressive water deficit in maize. Quantitative variation and polypeptide identification. Plant Physiol , 117(4): 1253-1263 doi: 10.1104/pp.117.4.1253
19	Salekdeh G H, Siopongco J, Wade L J, Ghareyazie B, Bennett J (2002). A proteomic approach to analyzing drought- and salt-responsiveness in rice. Field Crops Res , 76(2-3): 199-219 doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00040-0
20	Shigeoka S, Ishikawa T, Tamoi M, Miyagawa Y, Takeda T, Yabuta Y, Yoshimura K (2002). Regulation and function of ascorbate peroxidase isoenzymes. J Exp Bot , 53(372): 1305-1319 doi: 10.1093/jexbot/53.372.1305
21	Singla-Pareek S L, Yadav S K, Pareek A, Reddy M K, Sopory S K (2006). Transgenic tobacco overexpressing glyoxalase pathway enzymes grow and set viable seeds in zinc-spiked soils. Plant Physiol , 140(2): 613-623 doi: 10.1104/pp.105.073734
22	Smirnoff N (1998). Plant resistance to environmental stress. Curr Opin Biotechnol , 9(2): 214-219 doi: 10.1016/S0958-1669(98)80118-3
23	Sun Z X, Cheng S H, Si H MZongxiu S, Shihua C, Huamin S (1993). Determination of critical temperatures and panicle development stage for fertility change of thermo-sensitive genic male sterile rice line '5460S'. Euphytica , 67(1-2): 27-33
24	Suzuki K, Watanabe K, Masumura T, Kitamura S (2004). Characterization of soluble and putative membrane-bound UDP-glucuronic acid decarboxylase (OsUXS) isoforms in rice. Arch Biochem Biophys , 431(2): 169-177 doi: 10.1016/j.abb.2004.08.029
25	Suzuki M, Hashioka A, Munyra T, Ashihara H (2005). Salt stress and glycolytic regulation in suspension-cultured cells of the mangrove tree, Bruguiera sexangula. Physiol Plant ,123(3): 246-253 doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00456.x
26	Taylor N L, Day D A, Millar A H (2002). Environmental stress causes oxidative damage to plant mitochondria leading to inhibition of glycine decarboxylase. J Biol Chem , 277(45): 42663-42668 doi: 10.1074/jbc.M204761200
27	Thornalley P J (1990). The glyoxalase system: new developments towards functional characterization of a metabolic pathway fundamental to biological life. Biochem J , 269(1): 1-11
28	Vauclare P, Diallo N, Bourguignon J, Macherel D, Douce R (1996). Regulation of the expression of the glycine decarboxylase complex during pea leaf development. Plant Physiol , 112(4): 1523-1530
29	Venuprasad R, Lafitte H R, Atlin G N (2007). Response to direct selection for grain yield under drought stress in rice. Crop Sci , 47(1): 285-293 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2006.03.0181
30	Xiao X, Yang Y, Yang Y, Lin J, Tang D, Liu X (2009). Comparative analysis of young panicle proteome in thermo-sensitive genic male-sterile rice Zhu-1S under sterile and fertile conditions. Biotechnol Lett , 31(1): 157-161 doi: 10.1007/s10529-008-9838-7
31	Xie J H, Zapata-Arias F J, Shen M, Afza R (2000). Salinity tolerant performance and genetic diversity of four rice varieties. Euphytica , 116(2): 105-110 doi: 10.1023/A:1004041900101
32	Yadav S K, Singla-Pareek S L, Ray M, Reddy M K, Sopory S K (2005a). Methylglyoxal levels in plants under salinity stress are dependent on glyoxalase I and glutathione. Biochem Biophys Res Commun , 337(1): 61-67 doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.08.263
33	Yadav S K, Singla-Pareek S L, Reddy M K, Sopory S K (2005b). Transgenic tobacco plants overexpressing glyoxalase enzymes resist an increase in methylglyoxal and maintain higher reduced glutathione levels under salinity stress. FEBS Lett , 579(27): 6265-6271 doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2005.10.006
34	Yan S P, Tang Z C, Su W A, Sun W N (2005). Proteomic analysis of salt stress-responsive proteins in rice root. Proteomics , 5(1): 235-244 doi: 10.1002/pmic.200400853
35	Yan S P, Zhang Q Y, Tang Z C, Su W A, Sun W N (2006). Comparative proteomic analysis provides new insights into chilling stress responses in rice. Mol Cell Proteomics , 5(3): 484-496 doi: 10.1074/mcp.M500251-MCP200
36	Yang S L, Lan S S, Gong M (2009). Hydrogen peroxide-induced proline and metabolic pathway of its accumulation in maize seedlings. J Plant Physiol , 166(15): 1694-1699 doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.04.006
37	Yue B, Xue W Y, Xiong L Z, Yu X Q, Luo L J, Cui K H, Jin D M, Xing Y Z, Zhang Q F (2006). Genetic basis of drought resistance at reproductive stage in rice: separation of drought tolerance from drought avoidance. Genetics , 172(2): 1213-1228 doi: 10.1534/genetics.105.045062
38	Zang X, Komatsu S (2007). A proteomics approach for identifying osmotic-stress-related proteins in rice. Phytochemistry , 68(4): 426-437 doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2006.11.005
39	Zhang Q S, Shirley N, Lahnstein J, Fincher G B (2005). Characterization and expression patterns of UDP-D-glucuronate decarboxylase genes in barley. Plant Physiol , 138(1): 131-141 doi: 10.1104/pp.104.057869

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed