KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / European Journal of Biology / 2014 / Volume: 73 Issue: 2

İki Arpa Varyetesinde Tuzluluğun Etkisiyle Oluşan Değişimlerin Karşılaştırılması

Comparison of Salinity-Induced Changes in Two Cultivars of Barley

Aslıhan Temel
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2016-03-23
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bornova-92 ve Hilal, sırayla tuza dayanıklı ve duyarlı olarak tanımlanabilir ve Bornova-92’nin görece tuzluluk dayanıklılığı sitozin metilasyon profilinden ve/veya protein sentezinin düzenlenmesinden kaynaklı olabilir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Tuzluluğun in vitro ortamdaki etkileri 2 arpa varyetesinde (Hordeum vulgare cv.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bornova-92 and Hilal) karşılaştırıldı.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bornova-92 ve Hilal, sırayla tuza dayanıklı ve duyarlı olarak tanımlanabilir ve Bornova-92’nin görece tuzluluk dayanıklılığı sitozin metilasyon profilinden ve/veya protein sentezinin düzenlenmesinden kaynaklı olabilir.
🔬Tür:Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Cytosine methylation · Hordeum vulgare L. · RAPD

Özet

Tuzluluğun in vitro ortamdaki etkileri 2 arpa varyetesinde (Hordeum vulgare cv. Bornova-92 and Hilal) karşılaştırıldı. Olgun embriyolar 0, 50 ve 100 mM NaCl içeren Murashige ve Skoog besiortamında 20 gün boyunca kültüre alındı. NaCl uygulaması maksimum sürgün boyunu, total çözünebilir protein ve DNA içeriğini her 2 varyetede de azaltırken; maksimum kök uzunluğunu Hilal varyetesinde azalttı. Taze ve kuru ağırlıktaki ve su içeriğindeki değişimler istatistik olarak anlamlı bulunmadı. İnhibe edici etkiler Hilal varyetesinde daha belirgindi. Tuzluluk her 2 varyetede de genotoksik etki oluşturmamasına karşın Bornova-92 varyetesinde protein profilini biraz etkiledi. Tuzluluk, Bornova-92 varyetesinde sitozin metilasyonunu CCG’den CG olacak şekilde etkilerken; Hilal varyetesinde CG’den CCG olacak şekilde etkiledi. Bornova-92 ve Hilal, sırayla tuza dayanıklı ve duyarlı olarak tanımlanabilir ve Bornova-92’nin görece tuzluluk dayanıklılığı sitozin metilasyon profilinden ve/veya protein sentezinin düzenlenmesinden kaynaklı olabilir.

Abstract

In vitro effects of salinity were compared in two cultivars of barley (Hordeum vulgare cv. Bornova-92 and Hilal). Mature embryos were cultured on Murashige and Skoog media supplemented with 0, 50 and 100 mM NaCl for 20 days. NaCl-treatment decreased maximum shoot length, total soluble protein and DNA contents in both cultivars but decreased maximum root length in Hilal. Changes in fresh and dry weight and water content were not statistically-significant. Inhibitory effects were more dramatic in Hilal. Salinity did not cause genotoxic effects in both cultivars yet slightly affected protein patterns in Bornova-92. However, salinity altered cytosine methylation patterns from CCG to CG in Bornova-92, from CG to CCG in Hilal. Bornova-92 and Hilal may be regarded as salt-tolerant and salt-susceptible, respectively and the relative salt-tolerance of Bornova-92 may be due to cytosine methylation patterns and/or regulation of protein synthesis.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Temel, A. (2016). İki Arpa Varyetesinde Tuzluluğun Etkisiyle Oluşan Değişimlerin Karşılaştırılması. European Journal of Biology, Volume: 73 Issue: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/1096503

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (87)

  1. and Depledge M. (2000) Optimized
  2. RAPD analysis generates high-quality
  3. genomic DNA profiles at high annealing
  4. temperature. Biotechniques, 28: 52-54. Aydin S. S., Gokce E., Buyuk I. and Aras
  5. S. (2012) Characterization of stress
  6. induced by copper and zinc on cucumber
  7. (Cucumis sativus L.) seedlings by means
  8. of molecular and population parameters.
  9. Mutation Research, 746: 49-55. Ben-Hattar J., Beard P. and Jiricny J. (1989)
  10. Cytosine methylation in CTF and Sp1
  11. recognition sites of an HSV tk promoter:
  12. effects on transcription in vivo and on
  13. factor binding in vitro. Nucleic Acids
  14. Research, 17: 10179-10190. Cai Q., Guy C. L. and Moore G. A. (1996)
  15. Detection of cytosine methylation and
  16. mapping of a gene influencing cytosine
  17. methylation in the genome of Citrus.
  18. Genome 39: 235-242. Clark S. J., Harrison J. and Molloy P. L. (1997)
  19. Sp1 binding is inhibited by mCpmCpG
  20. methylation. Gene, 195: 67-71.
  21. Gozukirmizi N. (2013) Genetic and
  22. epigenetic effects of salinity on in vitro
  23. growth of barley. Genetics and Molecular
  24. Biology, 36: 566-570. Fatehi F., Hosseinzadeh A., Alizadeh H.,
  25. Brimavandi T. and Struik P.C. (2012) The
  26. proteome response of salt-resistant and
  27. salt-sensitive barley genotypes to long
  28. term salinity stress. Molecular Biology
  29. Reports 39: 6387-6397. Fernandez E., Figueiras M. and Benito C. (2002)
  30. The use of ISSR and RAPD markers for
  31. detecting DNA polymorphism, genotype
  32. identification and genetic diversity among
  33. barley cultivars with known origin.
  34. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 104: 845-851. Hernandez J. A., Corpas F. J., Gomez M., del
  35. Rio L. A. and Sevilla F. (1993) Salt induced oxidative stress mediated by activated oxygen species in pea leaf mitochondria.
  36. Physiologia Plantarum, 89: 103-110. Hu Y. and Schmidhalter U. (2005) Drought
  37. and salinity: A comparison of their effects
  38. on mineral nutrition of plants. Journal of
  39. Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 168: 541- 549. Imlay J. A. (2003) Pathways of oxidative
  40. damage. Annual Reviews of Microbiology, 57: 395-418. Laemmli U. K. (1970) Cleavage of structural
  41. proteins during the assembly of the head of
  42. bacteriophage T4. Nature, 227: 680-685. Liu T., Van Staden J. and Cress W. A. (2000)
  43. Salinity induced nuclear and DNA
  44. degradation in meristematic cells of Temel A. and Gozukirmizi N. (2012) Effects of
  45. soybean (Glycine max (L.)) roots. Plant
  46. Growth Regulation, 30: 49-54. Liu W., Li P. J., Qi X. M., Zhou Q. X., Zheng
  47. L., Sun T. H. and Yang Y. S. (2005) DNA
  48. changes in barley (Hordeum vulgare)
  49. seedlings induced by cadmium pollution
  50. using RAPD analysis. Chemosphere, 61: 158-167. Lu G., Xiaoming W., Biyun C., Gao G. and
  51. Kun X. (2007) Evaluation of genetic Yumurtaci A., Vardar F. and Unal M. (2007)
  52. and epigenetic modification in rapeseed
  53. (Brassica napus) induced by salt stress.
  54. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 49: 1599-1607. Peng H. and Zhang J. (2009) Plant genomic
  55. DNA methylation in response to stresses:
  56. Potential applications and challenges
  57. in plant breeding. Progress in Natural
  58. Science, 19: 1037-1045. Pesserakli M., Tucker T. C. and Nakabayaski
  59. K. (1991) Growth response of barley
  60. and wheat to salt stress. Journal of Plant
  61. Nutrition, 14: 331-340. Rasoulnia A., Bihamta M. R., Peyghamberi
  62. S.A., Alizadeh H. and Rahnama A. (2011)
  63. Proteomic response of barley leaves to
  64. salinity. Molecular Biology Reports, 38: 5055-5063. Sairam R. K. and Srivastava G. C. (2002)
  65. Changes in antioxidant activity in sub
  66. cellular fractions of tolerant and susceptible
  67. wheat genotypes in response to long term
  68. salt stress. Plant Science, 162: 897-904. Tan M. (2010) Analysis of DNA methylation of
  69. maize in response to osmotic and salt stress
  70. based on methylation-sensitive amplified
  71. polymorphism. Plant Physiology and
  72. Biochemistry, 48: 21-26.
  73. homobrassinolide in barley callus culture.
  74. Plant Soil and Environment 58: 441-445., Temel A., Kartal G. and Gozukirmizi N. (2008)
  75. Genetic and epigenetic variations in
  76. barley calli cultures. Biotechnology and
  77. Biotechnological Equipment, 22: 911-914. Tuteja N. (2007) Mechanisms of high
  78. salinity tolerance in plants. Methods in
  79. Enzymology, 428: 419-438.
  80. Inhibition of barley root growth by
  81. actinomycin D: Effects on mitotic activity,
  82. protein content and peroxidase activity.
  83. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 16: 917-921. Zhang H. X. and Blumwald E. (2001)
  84. Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants
  85. accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit.
  86. Nature Biotechnology, 19: 765-768. Zhu J. K. (2001) Plant salt tolerance. Trends in
  87. Plant Science, 6: 66-71.