盐胁迫对不同藜麦品种幼苗生长及CqNHX1基因表达的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20191200914

中国农学通报 ›› 2020, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (33): 19-24.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20191200914

所属专题：生物技术；小麦

盐胁迫对不同藜麦品种幼苗生长及CqNHX1基因表达的影响

时丕彪¹(), 王军¹, 费月跃¹, 洪立洲¹, 王伟义¹, 吕远大², 顾闽峰¹()

¹盐城市新洋农业试验站,江苏盐城 224049
²江苏省农业科学院种质资源与生物技术研究所,南京 210014

收稿日期:2019-12-05 修回日期:2020-01-10 出版日期:2020-11-25 发布日期:2020-11-18
通讯作者: 顾闽峰
作者简介:时丕彪,男,1989年出生,山东菏泽人,助理研究员,硕士,主要从事农作物新品种选育及分子育种研究。通信地址：224049 江苏省盐城市亭湖区黄尖镇南首新洋农业试验站,Tel：0515-82600928,E-mail： 1032175660@qq.com。
基金资助:
江苏省农业科技自主创新资金项目“营养型作物藜麦矮杆品种密植机械化栽培技术创新”(CX193116);国家自然科学基金面上项目“玉米α-醇溶蛋白基因eQTL定位及调控网络解析”(31771813);江苏省现代农业产业体系项目“江苏现代农业(蔬菜)产业技术体系(盐城)推广示范基地”(JATS2018137);江苏省农业科学院探索性颠覆性创新计划项目“构建新型农作物DNA身份检测系统”(ZX172015)

Effects on Seedling Growth and CqNHX1 Gene Expression of Different Quinoa Varieties: Salt Stress

Shi Pibiao¹(), Wang Jun¹, Fei Yueyue¹, Hong Lizhou¹, Wang Weiyi¹, Lv Yuanda², Gu Minfeng¹()

¹Xinyang Agricultural Experiment Station of Yancheng City, Yancheng Jiangsu 224049
²Institute of germplasm resources and biotechnology, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing 210014

Received:2019-12-05 Revised:2020-01-10 Online:2020-11-25 Published:2020-11-18
Contact: Gu Minfeng

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了筛选出耐盐性较强的藜麦品种并为苗期耐盐性鉴定提供参考,以3个不同的藜麦品种为试验材料,在盐胁迫下用测量法测定其相关生长指标,紫外分光光度计法测定叶绿素含量,电导法测定相对离子渗透率,并利用实时荧光定量PCR法比较了耐盐基因CqNHX1的相对表达量。结果表明,NaCl胁迫下SQ1株高降幅较小,生物量有所增加,相对离子渗透率几乎不变,且CqNHX1a和CqNHX1b表达量均极显著升高,说明SQ1在高盐环境下能正常生长;SQ34的株高和叶绿素含量均显著降低,生物量保持不变,而CqNHX1a和CqNHX1b表达量均显著升高;QQ61的根冠比和叶绿素含量极显著下降,相对离子渗透率极显著升高,CqNHX1a和CqNHX1b呈下调表达,说明该品种耐盐性较弱。藜麦品种间耐盐性存在显著差异,耐盐性强弱为：SQ1 > SQ34 > QQ61,SQ1作为高耐盐品种,可在盐碱地进一步推广种植。

关键词: 藜麦, 盐胁迫, 幼苗生长, CqNHX1基因表达, 耐盐性

Abstract:

In order to select out the quinoa varieties with strong salt tolerance and provide reference for the identification of salt tolerance at seedling stage, three different quinoa varieties were used as experiment materials. The relative growth indexes were determined by measurement, the chlorophyll content was determined by ultraviolet spectrophotometer, the relative ion permeability was determined by conductance method, and the relative expression of salt-tolerant gene CqNHX1 was compared by real-time quantitative PCR under salt stress. The results showed that the plant height of SQ1 was decreased slightly, the biomass was increased, the relative ion permeability remained almost unchanged, and the expression levels of CqNHX1a and CqNHX1b were both significantly increased under salt stress, indicating that SQ1 could grow normally under a high salt environment. Compared with the control, the plant height and chlorophyll content of SQ34 was significantly decreased, the biomass remained unchanged, while the expression levels of CqNHX1a and CqNHX1b were significantly increased. The root-shoot ratio and chlorophyll content of QQ61 were significantly decreased under salt stress, while the relative ion permeability was significantly increased, and the expressions of CqNHX1a and CqNHX1b were down-regulated, demonstrating that the salt tolerance of this variety was weak. Salt tolerance between different quinoa varieties differed remarkably, the rank was: SQ1 > SQ34> QQ61. SQ1, as a high salt tolerant variety, can be further popularized in saline-alkali land.

Key words: quinoa, salt stress, seedling growth, CqNHX1 gene expression, salt tolerance

中图分类号:

S332.6

时丕彪, 王军, 费月跃, 洪立洲, 王伟义, 吕远大, 顾闽峰. 盐胁迫对不同藜麦品种幼苗生长及CqNHX1基因表达的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(33): 19-24.

Shi Pibiao, Wang Jun, Fei Yueyue, Hong Lizhou, Wang Weiyi, Lv Yuanda, Gu Minfeng. Effects on Seedling Growth and CqNHX1 Gene Expression of Different Quinoa Varieties: Salt Stress[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(33): 19-24.

图/表 5

参考文献 49

[1]	Maughan P J, Bonifacio A, Jellen E N, et al. A genetic linkage map of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) based on AFLP, RAPD, and SSR markers[J]. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2004,109(6):1188-1195. URL pmid: 15309300
[2]	Zurita-Silva A, Fuentes F, Zamora P, et al. Breeding quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): potential and perspectives[J]. Molecular Breeding, 2014,34(1):13-30. doi: 10.1007/s11032-014-0023-5 URL
[3]	Jacobsen S E. The worldwide potential for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.)[J]. Food Reviews International, 2003,19(1-2):167-177. doi: 10.1081/FRI-120018883 URL
[4]	Vega-galvez A, Miranda M, Vergara J, et al. Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), an ancient Andean grain: A review[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2010,90:2541-2547. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4158 URL pmid: 20814881
[5]	Repo-Carrasco R, Espinoza C, Jacobsen S E. Nutritional value and use of the Andean crops quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and kaniwa (Chenopodium pallidicaule)[J]. Food Reviews International, 2003,19(1-2):179-189. doi: 10.1081/FRI-120018884 URL
[6]	Ng S C, Anderson A, Coker J, et al. Characterization of lipid oxidation products in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa)[J]. Food Chemistry, 2007,101:185-192. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.01.016 URL
[7]	Abugoch L E. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): Composition, chemistry, nutritional and functional properties[J]. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 2009,58(9):1-31.
[8]	Wu G Y, Peterson A J, Morris C F, et al. Quinoa seed quality response to sodium chloride and sodium sulfate salinity[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2016,7:790. URL pmid: 27375648
[9]	Nowak V, Du J, Charrondiere U R. Assessment of the nutritional composition of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.)[J]. Food Chemistry, 2016,193:47-54. URL pmid: 26433286
[10]	Risi J C, Galwey N W. The pattern of genetic diversity in the Andean grain crop quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). I. Associations between characteristics[J]. Euphytica, 1989,41(1-2):147-162. doi: 10.1007/BF00022424 URL
[11]	Fuentes F, Bhargavaa. Morphological analysis of quinoa germplasm grown under lowland desert conditions[J]. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 2011,197(2):124-134. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2010.00445.x URL
[12]	Gonzalez J A, Bruno M, Valoy M. Genotypic variation of gas exchange parameters and leaf stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in ten quinoa cultivars grown under drought[J]. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 2011,197(2):81-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2010.00446.x URL
[13]	Martinez E A, Veas E, Jorquera C. Re-introduction of quinoa into arid Chile: cultivation of two lowland races under extremely low irrigation[J]. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 2009,195(1):1-10. doi: 10.1111/jac.2009.195.issue-1 URL
[14]	Vacher J J. Responses of two main Andean crops, quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) and papa amarga (Solanum juzepczukii Buk.) to drought on the Bolivian Altiplano: significance of local adaptation[J]. Agriculture,Ecosystems & Environment, 1998,68:99-108.
[15]	Haradi Y, Marandon K, Tian Y, et al. Ionic and osmotic relations in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants grown at various salinity levels[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2011,62(1):185-193. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq257 URL pmid: 20732880
[16]	Jacobsen S E, Monteros C, Christiansen J L, et al. Plant responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to frost at various phenological stages[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2005,22(2):131-139. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2004.01.003 URL
[17]	Liu Z X, Zou L S, Chen C H, et al. iTRAQ-based quantitative proteomic analysis of salt stress in Spica Prunellae[J]. Scientific Reports, 2019,9:9590. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46043-9 URL pmid: 31270436
[18]	Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance[J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2008,59:651-681. URL pmid: 18444910
[19]	Deinlein U, Stephan A B, Horie T, et al. Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms[J]. Trends in Plant Science, 2014,19(6):371-379. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.02.001 URL pmid: 24630845
[20]	Li S, Wang N, Ji D D, et al. A GmSIN1/GmNCED3s/GmRbohBs feed-forward loop acts as a signal amplifier that regulates root growth in soybean exposed to salt stress[J]. Plant Cell, 2019,31:2107-2130. doi: 10.1105/tpc.18.00662 URL pmid: 31227558
[21]	Liang W J, Ma X L, Wan P, et al. Plant salt-tolerance mechanism: A review[J]. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2018,495:286-291. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.11.043 URL pmid: 29128358
[22]	Abdel-Mageed T A, Semida W M, Taha R S, et al. Efect of summer-fall defcit irrigation on morpho-physiological, anatomical responses, fruit yield and water use efciency of cucumber under salt afected soil[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2018,237:148-155. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.04.014 URL
[23]	Rozema J, Cornelisse D, Zhang Y C, et al. Comparing salt tolerance of beet cultivars and their halophytic ancestor: consequences of domestication and breeding programmes[J]. AoB Plants, 2015,7:plu083. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plu083 URL pmid: 25492122
[24]	Jarvis D E, Ho Y S, Lightfoot D J, et al. The genome of Chenopodium quinoa[J]. Nature, 2017,542:307-312. doi: 10.1038/nature21370 URL pmid: 28178233
[25]	Chen X Y, Bao H X, Guo J, et al. Na⁺/H⁺ exchanger 1 participates in tobacco disease defence against Phytophthora parasitica var. nicotianae by affecting vacuolar pH and priming the antioxidative system[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2014,65(20):6107-6122. URL pmid: 25170102
[26]	Ruiz K B, Aloisi I, Delduca S, et al. Salares versus coastal ecotypes of quinoa: salinity responses in Chilean landraces from contrasting habitats[J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2016,101:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.01.010 URL pmid: 26841266
[27]	Ruiz-Carrasco K, Antognoni F, Coulibaly A K, et al. Variation in salinity tolerance of four lowland genotypes of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as assessed by growth, physiological traits, and sodium transporter gene expression[J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2011,49:1333-1341. URL pmid: 22000057
[28]	Lichtenthaler H K. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic Biomembranes[J]. Methods in Enzymology, 1987,148:350-382.
[29]	Sakuraba Y, Jeong J, Kang M-Y, et al. Phytochrome-interacting transcription factors PIF4 and PIF5 induce leaf senescence in Arabidopsis[J]. Nature Communications, 2014,5:4636. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5636 URL pmid: 25119965
[30]	Zhang L, Ma H J, Chen T T, et al. Morphological and physiological responses of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants to salinity[J]. PLoS One, 2014,9(11):e112807. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112807 URL pmid: 25391141
[31]	Meng H B, Jiang S S, Hua S J, et al. Comparison between a tetraploid turnip and its diploid progenitor (Brassica rapa L.): the adaptation to salinity stress[J]. Agricultural Sciences in China, 2011,10(3):363-375. doi: 10.1016/S1671-2927(11)60015-1 URL
[32]	Zheng G S, Fan C Y, Di S K, et al. Over-expression of Arabidopsis EDT1 gene confers drought tolerance in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2017,8:2125. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.02125 URL pmid: 29326737
[33]	Almansouri M, Kinet J M, Lutts S. Effect of salt and osmotic stresses on germination in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.)[J]. Plant Soil, 2001,231(2):243-254. doi: 10.1023/A:1010378409663 URL
[34]	Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance[J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2008,59(1):651-681. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 URL
[35]	Zhu J K. Genetic analysis of plant salt tolerance using Arabidopsis[J]. Plant Physiology, 2000,124(3):941-948. doi: 10.1104/pp.124.3.941 URL pmid: 11080272
[36]	Tuteja N. Mechanisms of high salinity tolerance in plants[J]. Methods in Enzymology, 2007,428:419-438. URL pmid: 17875432
[37]	Abel G, Mackenzie A J. Salt tolerance of soybean varieties (Glycine max L. Merrill) during germination and later growth[J]. Crop Science, 1964,4(2):157-161. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1964.0011183X000400020010x URL
[38]	Foolad M R. Comparison of salt tolerance during seed germination and vegetative growth in tomato by QTL mapping[J]. Genome, 1999,42(4):727-734. doi: 10.1139/g98-163 URL
[39]	Ungar I A. Effect of salinity on seed germination, growth, and ion accumulation of Atriplex patula (Chenopodiaceae)[J]. American Journal of Botany, 1996,83(5):604-607. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1996.tb12745.x URL
[40]	Song J, Fan H, Zhao Y Y, et al. Effect of salinity on germination, seedling emergence, seedling growth and ion accumulation of a euhalophyte Suaeda salsa in an intertidal zone and on saline inland[J]. Aquatic Botany, 2008,88(4):331-337. doi: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2007.11.004 URL
[41]	Chen D J, Shi R L, Pape J-M, et al. Predicting plant biomass accumulation from image-derived parameters[J]. GigaScience, 2018,7(2):1-13. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/gix117 URL pmid: 29186425
[42]	Kafi M, Rahimi Z. Effect of salinity and silicon on root characteristics, growth, water status, proline content and ion accumulation of purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.)[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2011,57(2):341-347. doi: 10.1080/00380768.2011.567398 URL
[43]	Tanaka A, Tanaka R. Chlorophyll metabolism[J]. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 2006,9(3):248-255. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2006.03.011 URL pmid: 16603411
[44]	Zhang Q, Alfarra M R, Worsnop D, et al. Deconvolution and quantification of hydrocarbon-like and oxygenated organic aerosols based on aerosol mass spectrometry[J]. Environment Science and Technology, 2005,39:4938-4952. doi: 10.1021/es048568l URL
[45]	Sairam R, Srivastava G. Changes in antioxidant activity in sub-cellular fractions of tolerant and susceptible wheat genotypes in response to long term salt stress[J]. Plant Science, 2002,162(6):897-904. doi: 10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00037-7 URL
[46]	Parida A K, Das A B. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: a review[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2005,60(3):324-349. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.06.010 URL pmid: 15590011
[47]	Taji T, Seki M, Satou M, et al. Comparative genomics in salt tolerance between Arabidopsis and Arabidopsis-related halophyte salt cress using Arabidopsis microarray[J]. Plant Physiology, 2004,135(3):1697-1709. URL pmid: 15247402
[48]	Parker R, Flowers T J, Moore A L, et al. An accurate and reproducible method for proteome profiling of the effects of salt stress in the rice leaf lamina[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2006,57(5):1109-1118. URL pmid: 16513811
[49]	Blumwald E, Poole R J. Na/H antiport in isolated tonoplast vesicles from storage tissue of Beta vulgaris[J]. Plant Physiology, 1985,78(1):163-167. URL pmid: 16664191

基因	正向引物 (5'→3')	反向引物 (5'→3')
CqEF1a	GTACGCATGGGTGCTTGACAAACTC	ATCAGCCTGGGAGGTACCAGTAAT
CqNHX1a	GCTTATGATGCTTATGGCTTA	GCTTGGAGGTTATTCTTGAG
CqNHX1b	ATGCTTATGGCTTATCTATCTTAC	TGCTTGGTGGTTACTCTT

基因	正向引物 (5'→3')	反向引物 (5'→3')
CqEF1a	GTACGCATGGGTGCTTGACAAACTC	ATCAGCCTGGGAGGTACCAGTAAT
CqNHX1a	GCTTATGATGCTTATGGCTTA	GCTTGGAGGTTATTCTTGAG
CqNHX1b	ATGCTTATGGCTTATCTATCTTAC	TGCTTGGTGGTTACTCTT

NaCl浓度/ (mmol/L)	株高/cm			根长/cm			生物量/g			根冠比
NaCl浓度/ (mmol/L)	SQ1	SQ34	QQ61	SQ1	SQ34	QQ61	SQ1	SQ34	QQ61	SQ1	SQ34	QQ61
0	23.2	22.7	23	21.7	22.9	20.3	0.352	0.369	0.372	12.126	10.842	14.006
300	21.3	19.4^*	19.7^*	18.4	16.9	19.7	0.374	0.368	0.335	9.632^*	8.559^*	8.367^**

NaCl浓度/ (mmol/L)	株高/cm			根长/cm			生物量/g			根冠比
NaCl浓度/ (mmol/L)	SQ1	SQ34	QQ61	SQ1	SQ34	QQ61	SQ1	SQ34	QQ61	SQ1	SQ34	QQ61
0	23.2	22.7	23	21.7	22.9	20.3	0.352	0.369	0.372	12.126	10.842	14.006
300	21.3	19.4^*	19.7^*	18.4	16.9	19.7	0.374	0.368	0.335	9.632^*	8.559^*	8.367^**

盐胁迫对不同藜麦品种幼苗生长及CqNHX1基因表达的影响

Effects on Seedling Growth and CqNHX1 Gene Expression of Different Quinoa Varieties: Salt Stress

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 49

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

作者中心

审者中心

在线期刊

联系我们

[1]	武迪, 张锋, 隋春莹, 师君慧, 万雪洁, 刘义国, 韩伟, 师长海. 外源活性物质对小麦苗期抗逆性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9): 14-19.
[2]	刘青松, 贾艳丽, 肖宇, 郭志顶, 纪明妹, 赵忠祥, 黄素芳, 岳明强, 刘震, 阎旭东, 徐玉鹏. 盐胁迫对苜蓿生理性状和生长性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(8): 96-101.
[3]	张宇阳, 周雪, 刘灵艺, 许吴俊, 任旭琴, 王广龙, 熊爱生. 大蒜几丁质酶基因AsCHI1的鉴定及其对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(5): 23-29.
[4]	伊嘉雯, 冯棣, 朱崴, 亓娜, 滕奉魁, 卢小引. 不同品种水稻发芽阶段耐盐性对比研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(33): 10-14.
[5]	王洋, 张瑞, 周雨晴, 刘永昊, 刘高生, 戴其根. 基于文献计量的国内水稻耐盐性研究态势分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(31): 147-153.
[6]	梅丽, 韩立红, 周继华, 周吉红, 祝宁, 王俊英, 曹彩红, 何秉青. 藜麦菜用品种筛选及刈割可行性初探[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(31): 31-37.
[7]	郭东森, 王琳, 魏启舜, 崔联明, 周影, 郭成宝. 羽毛生物降解液对盐胁迫下小白菜生长的生理调控作用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(25): 25-29.
[8]	黄平升, 刘世男, 李婷, 覃永华. 外源硅对盐胁迫下黄果厚壳桂幼苗的光合荧光及抗氧化特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(23): 32-38.
[9]	李嘉炜, 陈潇, 常静静, 宋钊, 何裕志, 张白鸽. 可溶性盐浓度影响南瓜幼苗生长和荧光响应特性[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(18): 70-78.
[10]	张利琴, 殷红燕, 穆淑媛, 付均惠, 李燕. 5个杂交桑种质的耐盐性评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(17): 62-68.
[11]	邢起铭, 金文杰, 周利斌, 李文建, 刘瑞媛, 马建忠. 植物根际促生菌提高植物耐盐性的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(11): 46-52.
[12]	杨钊, 黄杰, 魏玉明, 刘文瑜, 金茜, 杨发荣. 机械化对甘肃省藜麦产业进程的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(1): 142-144.
[13]	卢辛成, 蒋剑春, 何静, 孙康, 孙云娟. 木醋液对小麦幼苗生长、抗氧化特性及内源激素含量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(7): 7-13.
[14]	王明泉, 付立新, 李国良, 扈光辉, 任洪雷, 胡少新, 杨剑飞, 刘畅, 龚士琛. 玉米抗感种质资源苗期耐盐性的光合作用机制研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(5): 8-14.
[15]	时佳琦, 萨如拉, 令玉, 萨茹拉其其格, 范富, 张雪婷. 盐碱土秸秆添加量对玉米种子萌发及幼苗生长特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(36): 13-18.