Euphytica

, Volume 138, Issue 2, pp 123–132 | Cite as

Comparative study between transgenic and non-transgenic soybean lines proved transgenic lines to be more drought tolerant

  • J.A. de Ronde
  • R.N. Laurie
  • T. Caetano
  • M.M. Greyling
  • I. Kerepesi

Abstract

Transgenic soybean, containing a L-Δ1-Pyrroline-5-carboxylate reductase (P5CR) gene in sense or antisense orientation, was compared with untransformed control soybean while subjected to drought stress, through evaluation of physiological techniques. The significant higher relative water content (RWC) of the sense plants, especially after 8 days stress, coincides with much higher free proline levels compared to control and antisense plants. It was implied that some of this free proline might be a result of protein degradation and therefore proline dehydrogenase (PDH) enzyme analysis was performed. PDH activity was highest in the antisense plants, followed by control plants and least the sense plants. This confirmed that some free proline measured in antisense plants were degradation products. In the sense plants, the initial changes after the drought stress were largely due to a rise in reducing sugars. In the antisense plants the first reaction was an increase in sucrose. The fructose and glucose levels were highest in the sense plants at 4 and 6 dww. Molecular analysis of transgenic plants confirms the presence of between one and five copies of the P5CR gene in the test plants. The sense plants behaved more tolerant to the drought stress and experienced the highest RWC, highest free proline levels, higher or similar P5CR but lower PDH enzyme activity compared to antisense and control plants. These results justify the hypothesis that the sense transgenic plants reacted more drought tolerant than the control and antisense plants.

carbohydrate drought proline soybean transgenic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bates, L.S., R.P. Waldren & I.D. Teare, 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39: 205–207.Google Scholar
  2. Bianco, R.L., M. Rieger & S.-J.S. Sung, 2000. Effect of drought on sorbitol and sucrose metabolism in sinks and sources of peach. Physiologia Plantarum 108: 71–78.Google Scholar
  3. Binzel, M.L., P.M. Hasegawa, D. Rhodes, S. Handa, A.K. Handa & R.A. Bressan, 1987. Solute accumulation in tobacco cells adapted to NaCl. Plant Physiol 84: 1408–1415.Google Scholar
  4. Bohnert, H.J. & B. Shen. Transformation and compatible solutes. Scientia Horticulturae 78: 237–260.Google Scholar
  5. Csonka, L.N., 1981. Proline overproduction results in enhanced os-motolerance in Salmonella thyphimurium. Mol Gen Genet 182: 82–86.Google Scholar
  6. De Ronde, J.A., W.A. Cress & A. Van der Mescht, 2001. Agrobac-terium mediated transformation of soybean seed with the GUS-INT marker gene. South African J Sci 97: 421–424.Google Scholar
  7. De Ronde, J.A., W.A. Cress, G.H.J. Krüger, R.J. Strasser & J. Van Staden, 2004a. Photosynthetic response of transgenic soybean plants, containing an Arabidopsis P5CR gene during heat and drought stress. J Plant Physiol, in press.Google Scholar
  8. De Ronde, J.A., W.A. Cress & J. Van Staden, 2004b. Phenotypic evaluation for drought tolerance of transgenic soybean. South African J Plant Soil, submitted.Google Scholar
  9. De Roover, J., K. Vandenbranden, Van Laere & W. Van den Ende, 2000. Drought induces fructan synthesis and 1-SST in roots and leaves of chicory seedlings Cichorium intybus L. Planta 210: 808–814.Google Scholar
  10. Dellaporta, S.L., J. Wood & J.B. Hicks, 1983. A plant DNA minipreparation: Version II. Plant Mol Biol Reporter 14: 19–21.Google Scholar
  11. Devlin, R.M., 1975. Plant Physiology, 3rd edn, Carbohydrates, pp. 129–152. D Van Nostrand Company.Google Scholar
  12. Edwards, K.C., C. Johnstone & C. Thompson, 1991. A simple and rapid method for the preparation of plant genomic DNA for PCR analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 19: 1349.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, A.E., 2001. Crop Responses to Environment. CRC Press, 232 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Hare, P.D., W.A. Cress & J. Van Staden, 1998. Dissecting roles of osmolyte accumulation during stress. Plant Cell Environ 21: 535–554.Google Scholar
  15. Lawlor, D.W., 2002. Limitation to photosynthesis in water stressed leaves: Stomata vs. metabolism and the role of ATP. Annals Bot 89: 871–885.Google Scholar
  16. Kerepesi, I., G. Galiba & E. Banyai, 1998. Osmotic and salt stresses induced differential alteration in water soluble carbohydrate con-tent in wheat seedlings. J Agric Food Chem 46: 5347–5354.Google Scholar
  17. Koster, K.L. & A.C. Leopold, 1988. Sugars and desiccated tolerance in seed. Plant Physiol 96: 302–304.Google Scholar
  18. Mattioni, C., N.G. Lacerenza, A. Troccoli, A.M. De Leonardis & N. Di Fonzo, 1997. Water and salt stress-induced alterations in pro-line metabolism of Triticum durum seedlings. Physiol Plantarum 101: 787–792.Google Scholar
  19. McKersie, B.D. & Y.Y. Leshan, 1994. Stress and Stress Coping in Cultivated Plants. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  20. Muller, J., T. Boller & A. Wiemken, 1996. Pools of non structural car-bohydrates in soybean root nodules during water stress. Physiol Plantarum 98: 723–730.Google Scholar
  21. Nilsen, E.T., D.M. Orcutt, 1996. Water limitations. In: Physiology of Plants under Stress. John Wiley and Sons Inc., pp. 322–361.Google Scholar
  22. Peng, Z., Lu, Q. & D.P. Verma, 1996. Reciprocal regulation of delta 1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase & proline dehydrogenase genes controls proline levels during and after osmotic stress in plants. Mol Gen Genet 253: 334–341.Google Scholar
  23. Rayapati, P.J. & C.R. Stewart, 1991. Solubilization of proline dehy-drogenase from maize Zea mays L. Plant Physiol 95: 787–791.Google Scholar
  24. Sairam, R.K., K. Veerabhadra Rao & G.C. Strivastava, 2002. Dif-ferential response of wheat genotypes to long term salinity stress in relation to oxidative stress, antioxidant activity and osmolyte concentration. Plant Sci 163: 1037–1046.Google Scholar
  25. Toroser, D. & S.C. Huber, 1997. Protein phosphorylation as a mecha-nism for osmotic stress activation of sucrose phosphate synthetase in spinach leaves. Plant Physiol 114: 947–955.Google Scholar
  26. Vagujfalvi, A., I. Kerepesi, G. Galiba, T. Tischner & J. Sutka, 1999. Frost hardiness depending on carbohydrate changes during cold acclimation in wheat. Plant Sci 144: 85–92.Google Scholar
  27. Yeh, G.C. & J.M. Phang, 1988. Stimulation of phosphoribosyl py-rophosphate and purine nucleotide production by pyrroline-5-carboxylate in human erythrocutes. J Biol Chem 263: 13083–13089.Google Scholar
  28. Zhu, B., J. Su, M. Chang, D.P.S. Verma, Y.-L., Fan & R. Wu, 1998. Overexpression of a 1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase gene and analysis of tolerance to water-and salt-stress in transgenic rice. Plant Sci 139: 41–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.A. de Ronde
    • 1
  • R.N. Laurie
    • 1
  • T. Caetano
    • 1
  • M.M. Greyling
    • 1
  • I. Kerepesi
    • 2
  1. 1.ARC, Roodeplaat Vegetable and Ornamental Plant InstitutePretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.University of PécsHungary

Personalised recommendations