1 short title: hvcam1 negatively regulates salt tolerance · 2020-06-18 · 1 1. s. hort. title:...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Short Title: HvCaM1 negatively regulates salt tolerance 1
Author for Contact: Guoping Zhang, Email: [email protected], Tel & Fax: 2
(86)-571-88982115 3
Title: Calmodulin HvCaM1 negatively regulates salt tolerance via modulation of 4
HvHKT1s and HvCAMTA4 5
Author Names and Affiliations: 6
Qiufang Shen1, Liangbo Fu
1, Tingting Su
1, Lingzhen Ye
1, Lu Huang
1, Liuhui Kuang
1, 7
Liyuan Wu1, Dezhi Wu
1, Zhong-Hua Chen
2,3 and Guoping Zhang
1,* 8
1Institute of Crop Science, College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Zhejiang 9
University, Hangzhou 310058, P.R. China 10
2School of Science, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney 11
University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia 12
3Collaborative Innovation Centre for Grain Industry, College of Agriculture, Yangtze 13
University, Jingzhou 434025, China 14
*Corresponding author 15
One-sentence Summary: Barley calmodulin HvCaM1 regulates salt tolerance by 16
mediating the expression of Na+ transport-related HKT1 genes and the transcriptional 17
regulation by a CaM-binding transcription activator HvCAMTA4. 18
Author Contributions: GZ, DW and QS designed the research; DW and ZC guided 19
the research; QS, LF, TS, LY, LH, LK and LW performed experiments; QS and LF 20
analyzed the data; QS drafted the manuscript; GZ, DW and ZC revised the 21
manuscript. 22
Funding Information: This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation 23
of China (31901429, 31771685 and 3161001022), China Postdoctoral Science 24
Foundation (2019T120520 and 2018M640561), China Agriculture Research System 25
(CARS-05) and Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop 26
Production. 27
Plant Physiology Preview. Published on June 18, 2020, as DOI:10.1104/pp.20.00196
Copyright 2020 by the American Society of Plant Biologists
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
2
Abstract 28
Calcium (Ca2+
) signaling modulates sodium (Na+) transport in plants; however, the 29
role of the Ca2+
sensor calmodulin (CaM) in salt tolerance is elusive. We previously 30
identified a salt-responsive calmodulin (HvCaM1) in a proteome study of barley 31
(Hordeum vulgare) roots. Here, we employed bioinformatic, physiological, molecular 32
and biochemical approaches to determine the role of HvCaM1 in barley salt tolerance. 33
CaM1s are highly conserved in green plants and probably originated from ancestors 34
of green algae of the Chlamydomonadales order. HvCaM1 was mainly expressed in 35
roots and was significantly up-regulated in response to long-term salt stress. 36
Localization analyses revealed that HvCaM1 is an intracellular signaling protein that 37
localizes to the root stele and vascular systems of barley. After treatment with 200 38
mM NaCl for 4 weeks, HvCaM1 knock-down (RNAi) lines showed significantly 39
larger biomass but lower Na+ concentration, xylem Na
+ loading, and Na
+ 40
transportation rates in shoots compared with overexpression (OE) lines and wild-type 41
plants. Thus, we propose that HvCaM1 is involved in regulating Na+ transport, 42
probably via certain Class I High-affinity Potassium Transporters (HvHKT1;5 and 43
HvHKT1;1)-mediated Na+ translocation in roots. Moreover, we demonstrated that 44
HvCaM1 interacted with a CaM-binding transcription activator (HvCAMTA4), which 45
may be a critical factor in the regulation of HKT1s in barley. We conclude that 46
HvCaM1 negatively regulates salt tolerance, probably via interaction with 47
HvCaMTA4 to modulate the downregulation of HvHKT1;5 and/or upregulation of 48
HvHKT1;1 to reduce shoot Na+ accumulation under salt stress in barley. 49
Keywords: Ca2+
binding protein, Ca2+
signaling, Na+ transport, salt stress, Hordeum 50
vulgare 51
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
3
Introduction 52
Salt stress is a major abiotic factor restricting crop growth and productivity, which is 53
exacerbated by global climate change and human activities (Munns and Tester, 2008; 54
Munns et al, 2020). Excess sodium (Na+) causes ion toxicity and also ion imbalance 55
through competitively inhibiting the uptake of some mineral nutrients such as 56
potassium (K+). Maintaining lower Na
+ accumulation in shoots is crucial for salt 57
tolerant plant species and genotypes under salt stress (Munns, 2005; Munns and Tester, 58
2008; Horie et al, 2012; Deinlein et al, 2014; Shen et al, 2016, 2017). Lower shoot 59
Na+ accumulation in plants is attributed to either shoot Na
+ exclusion or vacuolar 60
sequestration, both of which are regulated by membrane transporters, such as some 61
members of High-affinity Potassium Transporters (HKTs), Na+/H
+ Exchanger (NHXs) 62
and Salt Overly Sensitive 1 (SOS1) (Apse et al, 1999; Shi et al, 2000; Zhang and 63
Blumwald, 2001; Davenport et al, 2007; Barragán et al, 2012; Huang et al, 2020). 64
Activation of membrane transport systems in roots plays a key role in reducing shoot 65
Na+ accumulation and enhancing salt tolerance in many plant species (Zhu, 2002; 66
Shabala and Cuin, 2008; Ismail and Horie, 2017). However, the mechanisms 67
underlying Na+ exclusion and translocation and the link to calcium (Ca
2+) signaling 68
require further investigation. 69
Ca2+
-mediated signal transduction plays a regulatory role in plant salt tolerance 70
(Zhu, 2002, 2016; Demidchik et al, 2018). For instance, SOS3 (calcineurin-like 71
protein, CBL4) is a Ca2+
sensor, which perceives the Na+-induced cytosolic Ca
2+ rise 72
via the interaction with SOS2 (calcineurin interacting protein kinase, CIPK24), 73
causing phosphorylation and activation of the plasma membrane SOS1/NHX7 (Shi et 74
al, 2000; Zhu, 2002; Mahi et al, 2019). The activation of SOS1 in root epidermal cells 75
and xylem parenchyma cells leads to the extrusion of Na+ from roots to rhizosphere 76
(Shi et al, 2002; Zhu, 2016). Meanwhile, a rapid elevation of cytosolic Ca2+
under Na+ 77
stress can also be captured by other Ca2+
sensors, including calmodulin (CaM), 78
calmodulin-like proteins (CMLs), and calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs) 79
(Galon et al, 2010; Cho et al, 2016). Multi-omics techniques have revealed that CaM 80
exhibits salt-induced expression changes at the transcriptional and translational levels 81
in seedlings or roots, suggesting that these Ca2+
sensors participate in salt stress 82
signaling (Zhang et al, 2012; Wu et al, 2014; Zhu et al, 2015; Shen et al, 2018; Mahi 83
et al, 2019). However, regulation of the complex Ca2+
signaling by CaMs to function 84
in plant salt tolerance is still elusive. 85
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
4
CaMs usually encode a single peptide protein consisting of a pair of unique 86
Ca2+
binding EF-hands and have no other functional domains or motifs (Reddy et al, 87
2011). Meanwhile, CaM protein sequences are highly conserved in green plants, with 88
an averaged 90% identity of 65 members detected in 15 representative plant species 89
from Chlorophyceae to angiosperms (Zhu et al, 2015). Moreover, CaMs have less 90
variation and fewer family members than other Ca2+
sensors (Xu et al, 2015; Zhu et al, 91
2015). However, little attention has been paid to the origin and evolution of CaMs in 92
green plants. The recent advancement of assembled genomes (Kersey, 2019) and 93
transcriptome databases (Leebens-Mack et al, 2019) will likely unlock the evolution 94
of CaMs, providing insights into their roles in stress tolerance of plants. 95
CaM may function through post-transcriptional modification similar to that in 96
SOS3 via the regulation of downstream receptors, such as CaM-binding proteins 97
(CBPs) (Galon et al, 2010; Batistič and Kudla, 2012; Mahi et al, 2019). In different 98
plants, CaM can adjust the affinity of Ca2+
/CaM complex for the selection of special 99
receptors (e.g. phosphodiesterase) and targets [e.g. cyclic nucleotide-gated channel 12 100
(CNGC12)] after recognizing the cytosolic Ca2+
change for a specific stress response 101
(Gifford et al, 2013; Defalco et al, 2016). In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), 102
AtCaM1/4 shows an up-regulated expression under salt stress, resulting in enhanced 103
salt tolerance via binding with S-nitrosoglutathione reductase (GSNOR) in nitric 104
oxide (NO) signaling (Zhou et al, 2016). CaM-binding protein kinases (AtCaM2/3/5) 105
modulate the activity of heat shock factors (AtHSFs) through phosphorylation of a 106
CaM-binding protein kinase (AtCBK3) in heat stress signaling (Zhang et al, 2009), 107
while AtCaM6 and AtCaM7 are involved in the light-dependent stress pathway and 108
with reactive oxygen species (ROS) signaling (Kushwaha,2008; Al-Quraan et al, 109
2011). In rice (Oryza sativa), OsCaM1-1 also shows expression patterns similar to 110
AtCaM1/4 (Chinpongpanich et al, 2012), and its overexpression mitigates salt-induced 111
oxidative damage (Kaewneramit et al, 2019). In addition, overexpression of GmCaM4 112
enhances salt tolerance by regulating the expression of a series of salt-responsive 113
genes, including a key proline biosynthetic enzyme P5CS1 in soybean (Glycine max) 114
(Yoo et al, 2005; Rao et al, 2014). Moreover, many transcription factors, including 115
CaM-binding transcription activators (CAMTAs), CBP60s, MYBs, WRKYs, bZIPs, 116
bHLHs, NACs and GTs, have been identified as CBPs, suggesting that CaM might 117
play important roles in the transcriptional regulation of salt stress tolerance in plants 118
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
5
(Galon et al, 2010; Xi et al, 2012; Shkolnik et al, 2019). For example, AtCAMTA6 119
regulates the expression of AtHKT1 via the binding sites of CGCG-core or 120
CGTGT-core, contributing to Na+ homeostasis during seed germination (Shkolnik et 121
al, 2019). Therefore, the roles of CaMs in salt stress response have been reported, but 122
their function in the regulation of Na+ transport remains to be revealed. 123
As one of the most salt-tolerant diploid crop species with a large and complex 124
genome, barley (Hordeum vulgare) has been used as a model plant to decipher the 125
physiological and molecular mechanisms of salinity tolerance in plants (Chen et al, 126
2005; Munns and Tester, 2008; Nevo and Chen, 2010; Mascher et al, 2017; Dai et al, 127
2018). However, there are limited reports on CaM members and their functions in 128
barley. We have previous identified one salt-responding CaM protein (Protein ID: 129
A0MMD0) in the root proteome of wild barley genotypes (Wu et al, 2014; Shen et al, 130
2018). 131
We hypothesized that HvCaM1 plays a critical role in the establishment of higher 132
salt tolerance in barley via the regulation of the Ca2+
signaling transduction, 133
transcriptional factors and membrane transport. Here, we cloned HvCaM1 (Gene ID: 134
HORVU0Hr1G001270) and comprehensively analyzed its function through 135
overexpression and RNAi in barley with a range of physiological and molecular 136
techniques. We found that HvCaM1 negatively regulates salt tolerance in barley and 137
participates in Na+ transport from roots to shoots. Furthermore, we also detected that 138
HvCaM1 regulates two HvHKT1 members via the differential interaction with the 139
transcriptional activator HvCAMTA4. 140
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
6
Results 141
Evolutionary bioinformatics and phylogenetic analysis of HvCaM1 142
We first cloned the full-length cDNA and genome DNA of HvCaM1 from a barley 143
cultivar Golden Promise (GP). HvCaM1 contains 2 exons and 1 intron encoding a 144
peptide consisting of 149 aa, with two typical EF-hands (Fig S1A). No difference in 145
coding sequences (CDS) and protein sequences was found between the Tibetan wild 146
barley accessions and barley cultivars (Table S1). Sequence similarity analysis 147
showed HvCaM1 exhibits, on average, 98.8% identity with the CaM members in rice 148
and Arabidopsis with the four conserved Ca2+
binding sites (Fig S1B). Phylogenetic 149
analysis showed that HvCaM1 is relatively close to OsCaM1-1 and AtCaM1 (Fig 150
S1C). 151
Evolutionary analysis further indicated that CaM1 likely originates from the 152
ancestors of the Volvocales Order of chlorophyte algae (Chlamydomonadaceae) (Fig 153
1A). CaM1s are particularly conserved in angiosperms with up to 87% identity 154
detected in the CaM1 proteins of 60 representative plant species (Table S2). Moreover, 155
the sequence analysis showed that each CaM1 protein contains two conserved 156
EF-hand motifs and the ubiquitous presence of a consensus sequence of DDGDGE 157
and DXDXNE in the protein structure of Ca2+
binding sites in major lineages (Fig 1B). 158
However, the difference of a couple of amino acids in the protein sequences of 159
different chlorophyte algae indicated that CaM1s likely evolved from 160
Chlamydomonadaceae but are conserved from streptophyte alage (e.g. Klebsormidium 161
subtile), and then diversified in their function during adaptation of land plants (Figs 1 162
and S1). 163
HvCaM1 is up-regulated in roots under salt stress and mainly localized in stele 164
and vascular cells of roots 165
We investigated the expression of HvCaM1 in roots and shoots of barley seedlings. 166
qPCR analysis showed that HvCaM1 is expressed in both roots and shoots with 167
significantly higher expression in roots (Fig 2A). Moreover, the expression of 168
HvCaM1 in roots was greatly affected by salt concentration, with the highest 169
up-regulated value occurring at 200 mM NaCl treatment (Fig 2B). Interestingly, the 170
expression of HvCaM1 was significantly up-regulated by 3.04-fold after four weeks 171
of long-term salt stress compared to control value (Fig 2C). 172
The subcellular localization detected by green fluorescent protein (GFP) showed 173
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
7
that HvCaM1 appears to be expressed in the nucleus and plasma membrane but not in 174
the cytosol of onion (Allium cepa L.) epidermal cells, while it is expressed in the 175
nucleus, cytosol and plasma membrane in barley leaf mesophyll protoplasts, 176
suggesting it may be an intracellular signal protein (Fig 2D-E). We performed in situ 177
PCR to determine the cellular localization of HvCaM1 transcripts in the cross sections 178
of roots and leaves, respectively. In roots, the HvCaM1 transcripts were mainly 179
detected in phloem and xylem parenchyma cells of the stele (Fig 2F). In leaves, the 180
transcripts were found predominately in phloem vessel and mesophyll cells and to a 181
lesser extent in stomatal cells (Fig 2G). Additionally, observation of fluorescence 182
signals from GFP fused with the 2.1 kb promoter of HvCaM1 in the transformed 183
barley seedlings also confirmed that HvCaM1 mainly localizes in the stele of roots 184
(Fig S2A) and in stomatal guard cells, subsidiary cells, and leaf mesophyll cells (Fig 185
S2B). 186
HvCaM1 negatively regulates salt tolerance via the modulation of Na+ transport 187
in barley 188
To examine the function of HvCaM1, we generated 46 and 52 independent 189
knockdown (RNAi) and overexpressed (OE) barley lines, respectively. Three RNAi 190
lines and three OE lines were examined by PCR verification via specific primers (Fig 191
S3A), showing the significant average decrease and increase in the expression levels 192
of HvCaM1 by 59% and 2.41-fold, respectively, in comparison with the wild-type 193
(WT) plants (Fig S3B). The phenotypic difference between the 194
genetically-transformed lines and the WT plant was evident 3 weeks after 200 mM 195
salt exposure (Fig 3A). RNAi lines showed significantly higher salt tolerance than OE 196
and WT seedlings 4 weeks after salt stress as reflected by shoot and root dry weight 197
(Fig 3B). Only dry weight of OE73 was significantly lower than that of WT in 198
response to salt stress. Meanwhile, shoots of RNAi lines had higher relative water 199
content than those of OE lines and WT plants at 4 w of salt stress (Fig S4A). When 200
planted in the saline soil, these RNAi lines were less affected in grain yield traits 201
(spikes per plant, seeds per spike, setting rate and kernel weight) in comparison with 202
WT plants (Fig S5). These results indicate that HvCaM1 may function as a negative 203
regulator of salt tolerance in barley. 204
After 4 weeks of salt treatment, RNAi lines had a significantly lower shoot Na+ 205
concentration (52.0 mg g-1
DW) than OE (81.4 mg g-1
DW) and WT plants (78.6 mg 206
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
8
g-1
DW), but such differences were not found in roots (Fig 3C). RNAi lines showed a 207
significantly higher K+ concentration in both roots and shoots (1.52-fold and 1.45-fold 208
higher) than in WT plants, respectively. The OE lines showed significant 209
NaCl-induced reduction of shoot K+ in comparison to the WT (Fig 3D). Consistently, 210
RNAi lines showed a significant 144% and 109% higher shoot K+/Na
+ ratio than the 211
WT and OE lines under salt stress, respectively (Fig 3E). In addition, RNAi lines had 212
a significantly lower Na+ transport rate from roots to shoots than both OE and WT 213
plants, but there was no difference in K+ transport rate or Ca
2+ concentration among 214
these genetic lines (Fig S4B-D). Thus, we hypothesized that HvCaM1 negatively 215
regulates salt tolerance in barley, probably due to root-to-shoot Na+ translocation. 216
To validate the hypothesis that the involvement of HvCaM1 in the regulation of 217
salt tolerance is related to Na+ transport, we examined the responses of RNAi lines 218
(R1, R2 and R3) and WT seedlings to 200 mM (S200) and 250 mM (S250) salt stress 219
solutions (Fig 4). After 4 weeks of salt stress, three RNAi lines had significantly 220
larger root and shoot dry weight than the WT plant under both S200 and S250 221
treatments, but there was no difference under S300 treatment (Fig 4A-B; Table S3). 222
Furthermore, WT plants had significantly higher shoot Na+ concentrations than RNAi 223
lines under S250 treatment. Such a difference was not detected in roots (Fig 4C). 224
Meanwhile, three RNAi lines and WT plants showed little difference in the total Na+ 225
accumulation per plant (Fig 4D), but the RNAi lines had much lower Na+ transport 226
rates than the WT plants at S200 treatment, while differences at S250 were not 227
significant (Fig 4E). Clearly, the higher salt stress tolerance of RNAi lines is closely 228
associated with less Na+ transport from roots to shoots, which was mediated by 229
HvCaM1. On the other hand, RNAi lines had higher K+ concentration and 230
accumulation in plant tissues in comparison with WT plants at S200 treatment, but no 231
difference was found in root-to-shoot K+ transport rate (Fig 4F-H). Therefore, the 232
current results indicate that HvCaM1 negatively regulates salt tolerance, indirectly 233
resulting in reduced Na+ transport from roots to shoots under salt stress. 234
Silencing of HvCaM1 modulates HKT1s expression in roots 235
To determine whether HvCaM1 regulates Na+ transport, qPCR analysis of the 236
well-known genes associated with Na+ and K
+ transport (HKT1;1-5 except 2, 237
HKT2;1-3, NHX1-6 and SOS1-3 members) was performed for roots of the WT and 238
RNAi lines under normal condition and salt treatment (Fig 5). The relative expression 239
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
9
(salt stress/control) of all examined Na+ and K
+ transporter genes showed the dramatic 240
difference between the two RNAi lines and WT plants at 3 weeks after salt treatment 241
(Figs 5 and S6). Moreover, all eight genes were greatly down-regulated in the two 242
RNAi lines in comparison with the WT plants, except for HvHKT1;1, which was 243
clearly up-regulated in the RNAi lines. Interestingly, over the 3-week salt treatment, 244
relative expression of HvHKT1;5 showed a similar pattern as that of HvCaM1, while 245
HvHKT1;1 showed a completely opposite response, suggesting involvement of 246
HvCaM1 in regulation of both HvHKT1;1 and HvHKT1;5 expression (Fig 5A-C). On 247
the contrary, four NHX genes (HvSOS1/HvNHX7, HvNHX1, HvNHX3 and HvNHX5) 248
showed the different patterns of relative expression from that of HvCaM1, although 249
these genes were also greatly up-regulated in the WT plants under salt treatment (Fig 250
5D-G). HvSOS2 and HvSOS3 showed a similar expression pattern with that of the 251
NHX genes (Fig. 5H-I). Therefore, involvement of HvCaM1 in regulating salt stress 252
tolerance may influence the expression of HvHKT1;1 and HvHKT1;5 responsible for 253
Na+ transport. 254
Furthermore, the physiological role of Na+ transporters, mainly for HvHKT1s in 255
Na+ transportation from roots to shoots, was validated by xylem sap analysis (Fig 6). 256
Na+ concentrations in the xylem sap of HvCaM1 RNAi lines were significantly lower 257
than in the WT plants after 7 d of 50 mM and 100 mM NaCl treatments (Fig 6B). 258
There was a slight difference in K+ concentration in the xylem sap among these barley 259
lines (Fig 6C-D). 260
HvCaM1 interacts with HvCAMTA4 to regulate the preferential expression of 261
HKT1s 262
To understand how HvCaM1 affects HKT1 expression (i.e. HvHKT1;1 and 263
HvHKT1;5), we performed a yeast two-hybrid assay using the library constructed 264
from barley roots under salt stress. We identified nine candidate proteins that interact 265
with HvCaM1 in the assay (Table S4). Calmodulin-binding transcription activator 4 266
(HvCAMTA4, HORVU2Hr1G069950) was amongst the candidate proteins and 267
contains an IQ domain for CaM binding and a CG-1 domain with specific DNA 268
binding activity (specific CGCG-core and co-recognized CGTCT-core with ABRE) to 269
function as a co-activator of transcription. 270
Bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC) assay confirmed the 271
interaction between HvCaM1 and HvCAMTA4 in both the yeast (Saccharomyces 272
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
10
cerevisiae) system and barley protoplasts (Fig 7A-B). Compared to the sites for 273
protein-protein interaction between HvSOS2 and HvSOS3 in the nucleus, cytoplasm, 274
and plasma membrane, the interaction between HvCaM1 and HvCAMTA4 was 275
limited to the nucleus, indicating a role for HvCaM1 in regulation of 276
HvCAMTA4-mediated transcriptional activation (Fig 7B). Furthermore, qPCR 277
analysis showed consistent patterns of expression for HvCAMTA4 and HvHKT1;5, 278
with a significant correlation of r=0.97 (P<0.01), in the roots of WT and RNAi lines 279
under salt stress (Figs 5C and 7C). 280
Then we identified binding sites along 3 kb promoter region of HKT genes using 281
the two CAMTA-recognized motifs (CGCG-core and CGTCT-core) (Table S5). 282
Within a 2 kb region, the cis-regulatory elements were detected in all HvHKT1s, but 283
not in HvHKT2s of barley (Fig 7D). Among the members of the barley HKT1 284
subfamily, the CGCG-core was only found in the promoters of HvHKT1;5 and 285
HvHKT1;1, while HvHKT1;3 and HvHKT1;4 specifically had only CGTCT-cores. 286
Moreover, only one CGCG-core site was found in the promoter of HvHKT1;5 287
(-818~-821 bp), which is quite close to the regions in HvHKT1;1 (-837~-840 bp for 288
CGCG-core; -823~-827 bp for CGTCT-core), and might be considered an important 289
cis-regulatory region (Fig 7D). This indicated that HvCaM1 likely regulates the 290
expression of HvHKT1;5 and HvHKT1;1 for Na+ transport through coordinated 291
interaction with HvCAMTA4. 292
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
11
Discussion 293
Down-regulation of HvCaM1 enhances salt tolerance in barley 294
In plants, CaMs are Ca2+
sensors responding rapidly to early signaling transduction 295
under salt stress (Zhang et al, 2012; Rao et al, 2014; Zhou et al, 2016). However, the 296
roles of CaM in the long-term response to salt stress remain elusive. Previously, we 297
discovered a salt-responding HvCaM1 in the analysis of the barley root proteome (Wu 298
et al, 2014; Shen et al, 2018). The current study shows that HvCaM1 is involved in 299
regulation of salt tolerance via the modulation of gene expression of Na+ transporters 300
HvHKT1;5 and HvHKT1;1 and HvCAMTA4-mediated transcriptional regulation. In 301
Arabidopsis, the knockout mutants Atcam1 and Atcam4 show hypersensitivity to salt 302
stress (Zhou et al, 2016). Similarly, higher expression of both rice OsCaM1 and 303
soybean GmCaM4 enhance salt tolerance (Chinpongpanich et al, 2012; Rao et al, 304
2014). However, we found that the knockdown (RNAi) lines of HvCaM1 showed a 305
large increase of salt tolerance, as reflected by their larger biomass than WT and OE 306
lines under 200 mM and 250 mM salt treatments (Figs 3 and 4). There are many 307
reports showing that gene silencing is beneficial for enhanced resistance and 308
production (e.g. AtWRKY11, OsMADS26 and TaDA1), but overexpressing the same 309
gene has negative effects in transgenic plants (Journot-Catalino et al, 2006; Khong et 310
al, 2015; Liu et al, 2020). One possible explanation is that constitutive overexpression 311
of a regulator gene can modulate the expression of downstream stress-associated 312
genes, which could impose a major energy cost to the plants (Munns et al, 2020; 313
Shabala et al, 2020). For example, drought hypersensitive OsMADS26-overexpressing 314
rice lines modulated 412 differentially-expressed genes (DEGs) as compared with 95 315
DEGs in the RNAi rice lines, which displayed an enhanced drought tolerance (Khong 316
et al, 2015). 317
HvCaM1 appears to be highly conserved in comparison with its closest 318
homologous genes, AtCaM1 and OsCaM1 (Figs 1 and S1). Why does it show a 319
different function in salt tolerance in barley? Our previous studies on the root 320
proteome found that HvCaM1 is significantly down-regulated in the salt-tolerant 321
barley genotypes (XZ16, XZ26 and CM72) under salt stress (Wu et al, 2014; Shen et 322
al, 2018). A plausible explanation is that distinct functions of CaMs among the plants 323
may be driven by natural selection or adaption favoring a complex survival system in 324
responding to external environments (Zhu et al, 2015; Zhao et al, 2019). Barley 325
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
12
originated from the Middle East where drought and high salinity are natural 326
environmental conditions (Nevo and Chen, 2010), in contrast to the natural habitats of 327
Arabidopsis, rice, and soybean (Hyten et al, 2006; Kovach et al, 2009; Beilstein et al, 328
2010). 329
Moreover, the expression level of HvCaM1 varied greatly with NaCl 330
concentrations and the exposed time in salt treatments (Fig 2B-C). As intracellular 331
Ca2+
sensors, the expression level of CaMs could be changed with cytosolic Ca2+
332
oscillation elicited by Na+ stress (Reddy et al, 2011; Ismail and Horie, 2017). In 333
comparison with barley, Arabidopsis, rice and soybean are less tolerant to salt (Munns 334
and Tester, 2008; Horie et al, 2012) and all CaM1s in these four species are linked to 335
salt tolerance/sensitivity. In addition, there is no difference in the protein sequence of 336
HvCaM1 among those genotypes (Table S1) and high similarity to CaM1s in 337
Arabidopsis, rice and soybean, suggesting its function is probably related to 338
post-transcriptional modification or translational regulatory networks (Batistič and 339
Kudla, 2012; Mahi et al, 2019). Therefore, unlike AtCaM1 and other CaM1s, 340
HvCaM1 may negatively regulate salt tolerance with function of long-term adaption 341
to salinity in barley, which has not been previously identified. 342
HvCaM1 may be involved in the modulation of long distance of Na+ transport 343
from roots to shoots 344
In general, roots have higher salt tolerance than shoots, and lower shoot Na+
345
concentration is mainly associated with less Na+ transport from roots, which is an 346
important characteristic for higher salt tolerance in most plants including barley 347
(Shabala et al, 2010; Zahra et al, 2014; Shen et al, 2016). Here, it is obvious that 348
HvCaM1 knockdown lines had significantly lower shoot Na+ concentration than that 349
of WT or OE lines under both 200 and 250 mM NaCl (Figs 3B and 4C). Lower shoot 350
Na+ concentration likely results from either the increase of root Na
+ exclusion or the 351
decrease of root-to-shoot Na+ transport (Wu et al, 2019; Huang et al, 2020). 352
Interestingly, we confirmed that the lower shoot Na+ concentration in RNAi lines is 353
closely associated with a lower Na+ transportation rate from roots to shoots (Figs 4E 354
and S4B) and lower xylem sap Na+ concentration (Fig 6), but with unchanged Na
+ 355
accumulation per plant (Fig 4D). These results indicated that HvCaM1 is involved in 356
root-to-shoot Na+ transportation, which is further supported by the preferential 357
expression of HvCaM1 in root stele and vascular systems (Fig 2A and 2E). Another 358
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
13
important factor that affects the amount of Na+ transport to the shoot is the rate of 359
xylem Na+ loading. The xylem Na
+ loading is thermodynamically active (Shabala, 360
2013) and is also mediated by either SOS1 or CCC transporters operating at the xylem 361
parenchyma interface (Colmenero-Flores et al, 2007; Ishikawa et al, 2018). Here we 362
showed that transcript levels of SOS genes are significantly downregulated in RNAi 363
lines (Fig 5G), which may restrict the amounts of xylem Na+ loading, thus reducing 364
Na+ transport between roots and shoots. However, it requires a detailed investigation 365
in the future. 366
High K+ accumulation and K
+/Na
+ ratios are beneficial for plants to cope with 367
salt stress (Chen et al, 2007; Shalala et al, 2010). In this study, RNAi lines had higher 368
K+ concentration and K
+/ Na
+ ratios than WT and OE plants (Figs 3D-E, 4F-G), 369
suggesting HvCaM1 might affect K+ homeostasis. However, there was no difference 370
in K+ transportation rate among these barley genotypes under salt stress (Figs 4H and 371
S4B), indicating that HvCaM1 is not involved in the regulation of K+ transportation. 372
In short, we propose that the preferential expression and cellular localization of 373
HvCaM1 makes it possible for barley to modulate long distance Na+ transport from 374
roots to shoots (Zhu, 2016). 375
HvCaM1 regulates Na+ transport via preferential transcriptional regulation of 376
HvHKT1s 377
CaMs may bind with quantitatively changed Ca2+
signals across membrane systems 378
(Gifford et al, 2013; Defalco et al, 2016; Demidchik et al, 2018). The major 379
membrane transporters conferring cellular and whole-plant Na+ homeostasis are HKTs 380
and NHXs/SOS1 (Zhu, 2002; Mahi et al, 2019; Munns et al, 2020; Shabala et al, 381
2020). Here, only some HKT1 members, in particular HvHKT1;5 and HvHKT1;1, 382
were significantly affected by the knockdown of HvCaM1 (Figs 5A-C, S6A-B). HKTs 383
regulate long distance Na+ delivery, depending on root-to-shoot Na
+ translocation and 384
Na+ exclusion from the reproductive organ (Cao et al, 2020). HvHKT1;5 negatively 385
regulates salt tolerance in barley (Huang et al, 2020). Thus, lower expression of 386
HvHKT1;5 in RNAi roots potentially indicates less Na+ transport from roots to shoots, 387
which is consistent with the function of HvCaM1 in Na+ transport. Correspondingly, 388
lower Na+ loading from roots to shoots via the xylem was confirmed with higher salt 389
tolerance by the down-regulation of HvCaM1 and HvHKT1;5 (Fig 6A-B; Huang et al, 390
2020). By contrast, another Na+ transporter, HvHKT1;1, plays a role in Na
+ retrieval 391
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
14
from shoots to roots, and overexpression of HvHKT1;1 in Arabidopsis reduces Na+ 392
accumulation (Han et al 2018). However, there is no report on the overexpressing and 393
silencing of HvHKT1;1 in barley, and the level of salt tolerance is very different 394
between barley and Arabidopsis, which requires further investigation. 395
The regulation of HvHKT1s by HvCaM1 probably occurs at transcriptional or 396
post-transcriptional levels (Reddy et al, 2011; Wang et al, 2015). In general, CaM 397
functions in transcriptional regulation through specific CBP transcription factors, such 398
as CAMTAs (Galon et al, 2010). CAMTA binds to Ca2+
/CaM and participates in 399
transcriptional regulation by recognizing and binding to a specific cis-element 400
(G/A/C)CGCG(C/G/T) (Yang and Poovaiah, 2002; Shen et al, 2015). AtCAMTA6 401
negatively regulates salt tolerance via HKT1, probably with the specific CGCG-core 402
or AREB co-operated CGTCT-core motif (Shkolnik et al, 2019). Here, we identified 403
an interacting partner of HvCaM1, HvCAMTA4, through yeast two-hybrid screening, 404
showing transcriptional function in the nucleus (Fig 7A-B; Table S4). Meanwhile, the 405
expressing pattern of HvCAMTA4 was similar to those of HvHKT1;5 and HvCaM1 406
(Fig 7C), indicating its possible role as a linker protein for HvCaM1 to 407
transcriptionally regulate the expression of HvHKT1;5. Interestingly both HvHKT1;1 408
and HvHKT1;5 contain regulatory elements (Figure 7D) for HvCaMT4 (Shkolnik et 409
al., 2019), and there are different cis-regulatory element sites in the promoter region 410
of HvHKT1;5 and HvHKT1;1. Therefore, it may be concluded that HvCAMTA4 411
regulates HvHKT1;5 independently while it modulates HvHKT1;1 together with 412
regulatory proteins for abscisic acid signaling in responses to salt stress (Whalley and 413
Knight, 2013). Moreover, HvHKT1;1 is an important Na+ transporter that confers salt 414
tolerance (Han et al., 2018), but HvHKT1;5 is a negative regulator of salt tolerance in 415
barley (Huang et al., 2020). Overall expression of the key salt-responsive genes 416
(HKTs, NHXs, SOSs) is down-regulated in the HvCaM1 RNAi lines with the 417
exception of HvHKT1;1. Interestingly, HvHKT1;1 and HvHKT1;5 in the R1 and R2 418
RNAi lines are similarly highly expressed after salt-induced upregulation and 419
downregulation at Week 3, respectively (Fig 5). This could be the explanation for the 420
differential expressions of HvHKT1;1 and HvHKT1;5 in HvCaM1 knockdown lines. 421
However, the possibility of other HvCaM1 interacting-proteins, such as CBP60b, 422
participating in the regulation of HKT1 transportation activity by post-transcriptional 423
modification requires future experimentation (Lin et al, 2014). 424
In summary, we found a transcriptional activator HvCAMTA4 interacts with 425
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
15
HvCaM1 under salt stress to regulate the expression of HvHKT1;5 and HvHKT1;1 at 426
different sites of cis-regulatory elements of the promoter regions. However, the 427
inherent interaction and signal transduction between HvCaM1 and HvCAMTA4 in 428
mediating HvHKT1 activity remains unknown. Meanwhile, the protein sequence of 429
HvCaM1 is quite conserved among plant species. Thus, RNAi or gene editing of 430
CaM1s may be used for improving salt tolerance of different crops. 431
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
16
Materials and methods 432
Growth condition and sampling 433
Barley (Hordeum vulgare) genotype c.v. Golden Promise (GP) was used for the 434
experiment. Barley germination and growth conditions were performed as described 435
in previous studies (Wu et al, 2014; Shen et al, 2016). In the hydroponic experiments, 436
salt treatment began at 14-d-old seedlings by adding 100 mM NaCl per day to reach a 437
final salt concentration of 100, 200, 250 or 300 mM, according to experimental 438
purposes. For a screening assay, the seedlings were exposed to 200 mM salt condition 439
and photographed every week. For gene expression analysis, roots and shoots were 440
sampled under normal conditions. Moreover, roots were sampled under 0, 100, 200 441
and 300 mM salt treatments, and at 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 w under 200 mM salt level, 442
respectively. Normal condition without salt addition was used as the control. The 443
modified 1/5 Hoagland solution was renewed every 3 d. In the soil experiment, 444
seedlings were transplanted into 10 L containers with mixed artificial soil, supplied 445
with the same conditions as in Shen et al (2018). Soil salt treatment began at heading 446
stage by applying 1 L of 200 mM NaCl solution to the bottom of the pots every 3 d to 447
a final content of 2% NaCl (w/w). Seedlings supplied with tap water were used as the 448
control. Yield traits, including spikes per plant, seeds per spike, setting rate and kernel 449
weight were recorded. There were six biological replicates in both hydroponic and 450
soil experiments. 451
Gene cloning and bioinformatics analysis 452
HvCaM1 (HORVU0Hr1G001270) was cloned from GP. Single nucleotide 453
polymorphism and amino acid variation of HvCaM1 were validated among barley 454
genotypes (c.v. Morex, CM72 and GP, Tibetan wild barley accessions XZ16, XZ26 455
and XZ169) (Wu et al, 2014; Shen et al, 2018). Evolutionary bioinformatics were 456
performed according to Zhao et al. (2019) with some modifications as in Feng et al 457
(2020). The candidate sequences of CaM1 members among 60 representative plants 458
were selected from the 1000 plant Transcriptome (OneKP) and EnsemblPlants 459
databases by blast-p (Zhu et al, 2015; Leebens-Mack et al, 2019) (Table S2). Multiple 460
sequence alignment and phylogenetic analysis were performed by MAFFT and 461
FastTree via the maximum-likelihood method, respectively. The phylogenetic tree was 462
annotated by Interactive Tree of Life resource (http://itol.embl.de). Jalview was used 463
to perform the alignment of protein sequences. The primers used are listed in 464
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
17
Supplemental Table S6. 465
Plant transformation and verification 466
Genetic transformation was mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain AGL1 467
according to Harwood (2014) with some modification. To generate the RNAi 468
construct, a 388 bp specific fragment (primers RNAi_HvCaM1_F/R) of HvCaM1 469
transcript was cloned into pDONR-Zeo cloning vector by Gateway BP ClonaseTM
II 470
enzyme mix kit (11789, Invitrogen, USA), according to Miki et al (2004; 2005). The 471
positive cloning plasmid was then recombined with pANDA vector by Gateway LR 472
reaction (11791, Invitrogen, USA). To generate the overexpression plasmid, a 450 bp 473
complete coding region (primers OE_HvCaM1_F/R) of HvCaM1 was amplified and 474
then constructed into pBract214 vector with the similar method of RNAi construction. 475
There were more than 10 independent transgenic events of RNAi and overexpression. 476
Among them, 3 RNAi lines (R1, R2 and R3), 3 OE lines and 1 transgenically-negative 477
line (WTTN) were used as the materials. Only PCR-positive plants with specific test 478
primers (R_Test_F/R for RNAi and OE_Test_F/R for OE) were used in the following 479
experiments. 480
Gene expression analysis 481
The transcript levels of HvCaM1 and transporter-associated genes were detected by 482
qPCR. Briefly, total RNA of samples was extracted by MiniBEST kit and reversed by 483
PrimeScript™ RT reagent kit (Takara, Japan). Then qPCR was performed with SYBR 484
Green Supermix (Bio-Rad, USA) on a Roche LightCycler 480 instrument. For 485
absolute qPCR analysis, a pDONR plasmid containing the complete CDS region of 486
HvCaM1 was used to quantify the transcript concentration by diluting to 100, 10
-1, 487
10-2
, 10-3
, 10-4
, 10-5
ng μg-1
(a standard curve of R2 >0.999), as described by Wu et al 488
(2015). For relative gene expression analysis, the comparative 2-△△Ct
method was 489
performed using a reference gene α-Tublin (Wu et al, 2014). The transcripts of WT 490
(GP) roots under normal condition were regarded as the controls. The primers of HKT, 491
NHX and SOS genes were designed following Fu et al (2018) and Huang et al (2020). 492
There were four biological replicates and three technical repeats for gene expression 493
analysis. 494
Element determination and analysis 495
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
18
After 4 w salt exposure (200 or 250 mM), fresh weight (FW) of roots and shoots was 496
determined, and then tissues were dried in an oven at 80 °C for 2 d to obtain dry 497
weight (DW). Relative water content (RWC) was calculated using the formula: RWC 498
(%)= (FW-DW)/FW×100%. Dried samples were digested by HNO3 using microwave 499
digestion equipment (Multiwave 3000, Anton Paar GmbH, Australia) according to 500
Shen et al (2018). For element analysis, the concentrations of Na+, K
+ and Ca
2+ were 501
determined by an inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometer 502
(ICP-OES, iCAP 6000 series, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). In addition, Na+ or K
+ 503
content was calculated based on concentration and DW, while the transportation rates 504
were also calculated as (shoot content) / (total content per plant) × 100%. There 505
were four biological replicates for element analysis. 506
Xylem sap analysis 507
Na+ and K
+ concentrations in the xylem sap were measured according to Huang et al 508
(2020). Four-week-old seedlings of the WT and RNAi lines (R1-R3) were exposed to 509
0 (control), 50 and 100 mM NaCl. After 2 and 7 d, the stems were cut 1-2 cm above 510
the root and shoot junction. The cut surface was cleaned using soft filter papers to 511
avoid contamination. Xylem sap exudates were collected within 1 h with a 512
micropipette and stored in ice-chilled Eppendorf tubes. About 10 µl sap was collected 513
for each replicate pooled from two to six plants and then diluted with 3-10 ml 2%(v/v) 514
HNO3 for ion measurement. The concentrations of Na+ and K
+ in the solution were 515
determined by an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS, ELAN 516
DRC-e, PerkinElmer, USA). Four to six biological replicates for each treatment and 517
time point were used. 518
Tissue-specific and Subcellular localization 519
To generate the stable expression plasmid for tissue-specific localization, 520
approximately 2.1 kb upstream fragments of the HvCaM1 start was amplified with the 521
primers Pro_HvCaM1_F/R and then cloned into pCAMBIA1300 (deleted 35S 522
promoter) fused with the GFP coding region. The recombinant plasmid was 523
transferred into AGL1 to obtain genetically modified barley materials. Fresh root and 524
leaf samples of 14-d-old seedlings (verified by PCR with Pro_Test_F/R) were used to 525
observe GFP fluorescence under the confocal laser microscope at 488/490-540 nm. 526
To generate the transiently-expressing plasmid for subcellular localization, the 527
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
19
447 bp coding region of HvCaM1 without the stop code was amplified and fused with 528
the 5’ terminus of the sGFP gene into pCAMBIA1300 vector after linearization 529
digestion using the homologous recombination cloning kit (C112, Vazyme, Nanjing). 530
The recombinant and empty vectors driven by the 35S promoter were transformed 531
separately into onion (Allium cepa L.) epidermis cells by a biolistic PDS-1000/He 532
particle device (Bio-Rad, USA), along with a cell-localized RFP marker, as described 533
previously (Huang et al, 2020). GFP and RFP fluorescence signals were measured 534
under a confocal laser microscope (LSM780, Zeiss, Germany) at 488/490-540 nm and 535
561/580-630 nm, respectively. 536
in situ PCR 537
For in situ PCR analysis, a 388 bp sequence of the HvCaM1 transcript, same as in 538
RNA silencing, was amplified and performed according to Athman et al (2014) with 539
some modification, as described by Long et al (2018). In brief, 1-cm-length barley 540
leaf and root sections from 14-d-old seedlings were immersed into fixative solution 541
(63% ethanol, 5% acetic acid and 2% formaldehyde (v/v)) for 4 h at 4 °C. The 542
samples were then embedded in 5% (w/v) low melting-temperature agarose and cut 543
into 60~70 μm cross sections. After DNase I treatment (Takara, Japan), reverse 544
transcription was performed with gene specific reverse primers using DIG labelled 545
dUTP and KOD FX enzyme (Toyobo, Japan) for PCR amplification. The tested 546
samples were then incubated with anti-DIG-AP antibody, stained with BM purple 547
substrate (Roche), and mounted in 40% (v/v) glycerol after washing. The ribosomal 548
18 S transcript was amplified by in situ PCR as the positive control, while only water 549
without primer addition was used as a negative control. A Leica microscope was used 550
for observation and imaging, according to the color reaction between alkaline 551
phosphate and DIG-labeled antibody. 552
Yeast two-hybrid interaction assay 553
The candidate gene HvCAMTA4 (HORVU2Hr1G069950) was originally screened 554
from a yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)library constructed with the total cDNA of 555
salt-treated barley roots by CloneMiner II kit (A11180, Invitrogen, USA). To verify 556
the interaction between HvCaM1 and HvCAMTA4, the cDNA of HvCAMTA4 was 557
amplified into pGADT7 as prey, while the coding region of HvCaM1 cloned into 558
pGBKT7 was used as a bait according to Cho et al (2016). The combination of 559
pGBKT7-53 and pGADT7-T was used as the positive control, while empty vector of 560
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
20
pGBKT7-Lam and pGADT7-T was used as the negative control. The yeast 561
two-hybrid interaction assay was performed after co-transformation of both the bait 562
and prey constructs into Y2HGold yeast competent cells (Clontech). The transformed 563
yeast cells were then screened on SD double dropout media (lacking Leu and Trp) 564
with or without Aureobasidin A (AbA) addition. 565
BIFC assay 566
For the BIFC interaction assay, the coding regions of HvCaM1 and HvCAMTA4 were 567
separately cloned into pSAT1-cEYFP/nEYFP vectors to generate HvCaM1-cEYFP 568
and nEYFP-HvCAMTA4 vectors by Vazyme homologous recombination kit. Barley 569
protoplast isolation and transformation were performed as described by Ye et al. 570
(2019). Seven-d-old barley seedlings were used to isolate the protoplast. The genes 571
HvSOS3 (HORVU1Hr1G080820, CBL4) and HvSOS2 (HORVU7Hr1G090260, 572
CIPK24) involved in the SOS pathway were used to generate HvCBL4-cEYFP and 573
nEYFP-HvCIPK24 vectors as the positive control, while HvCaM1-cEYFP and 574
nEYFP were used as the negative control. A total of 10 mg plasmid DNA of each 575
construct was transformed by polyethylene glycol into the barley protoplast. The YFP 576
fluorescence signals were detected by a confocal laser microscope at 514/520-550 nm. 577
Statistical analysis 578
The significant difference of dry weight, relative water content, element content, yield 579
and gene expression among genotypes, treatments or tissues were analyzed by 580
one-way ANOVA or independent t-test using SPSS 20.0 software (IBM SPSS 581
Statistics). The significance level at P<0.05 and P<0.01 were defined as significant 582
and highly significant, respectively. 583
Accession Numbers 584
All accession numbers and species for sequence aliment and gene expression are 585
listed in Supplemental Table S2. 586
Supplemental Data 587
Supplemental Figure S1. Cloning and sequence analysis of HvCaM1. 588
Supplemental Figure S2. Tissue-specific localization of HvCaM1. 589
Supplemental Figure S3. PCR verification in RNAi and OE lines. 590
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
21
Supplemental Figure S4. Physiological indexes of WT, RNAi and OE seedlings 591
under salt stress. 592
Supplemental Figure S5. Growth performance and yield traits of WT and RNAi 593
plants in the saline soil (n=6). 594
Supplemental Figure S6. Expression analysis of Na+ and K
+ transporters under salt 595
stress (remaining). 596
Supplemental Table S1. Sequence variation in the HvCaM1 CDS region of barley 597
genotypes. 598
Supplemental Table S2. Accession numbers for sequence alignment and gene 599
expression. 600
Supplemental Table S3. Dry weight of WT and RNAi seedlings under salt conditions 601
for 4 w (n=4). 602
Supplemental Table S4. Positive interaction candidates with HvCaM1 by yeast two 603
hybrid screening assay. 604
Supplemental Table S5. CAMTA cis-regulatory elements in the 3 kb promoters of 605
HKT genes. 606
Supplemental Table S6. The primer list used in this study. 607
Acknowledgements 608
We thank Dr. Peter Dominay (University of Glasgow, UK.) and Dr. Hiroyuki Tsuji 609
(Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Japan) for providing the vector pBract214 610
and pANDA, respectively. We also thank Dr. Yong Han (Murdoch University, 611
Australia), Dr. Zhonchang Wu and Dr. Jiming Xu (Zhejiang University, China) for the 612
technical support. 613
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
22
Figure legends 614
Figure 1. Phylogenetic tree and sequence analysis of HvCaM1. (A) Evolution 615
analysis of predicted CaM1 candidates in 60 representative species of the major 616
lineage of green plants. All sequences were downloaded from OneKP and 617
EnsemblPlants databases. (B) Sequence alignment of the two conserved EF-hand 618
domains among nine representative species of major lineages. Hv, Horduem vulgare; 619
Mt, Microcachrys tetragona; Pg, Polypodium glycyrrhiza; Sm, Selaginella 620
moellendorffii; Tl, Takakia lepidozioides; Ph, Paraphymatoceros hallii; Mp, 621
Marchantia polymorpha; Ks, Klebsormidium subtile; Pp, Pyramimonas parkeae. 622
Arrows indicate conserved amino acids in the four Ca2+
binding sites. 623
Figure 2. Expression pattern analysis of HvCaM1. (A) Absolute quantification of 624
HvCaM1 transcript in roots and shoots under normal condition. (B) Relative 625
expression of HvCaM1 in roots exposed to salt concentration gradients within 2 h. (C) 626
Relative HvCaM1 expression within 4 w of salt exposure (200 mM). * and ** 627
represent highly significant and significant at P<0.05 and P<0.01 level determined by 628
independent t-test, respectively (n=4, ±SE). (D) Subcellular localization of HvCaM1 629
in onion epidermal cells. Scale bars=50 μm. in situ PCR analysis of HvCaM1 630
transcript in (E) root and (F) leaf cross section of 14-d-old seedlings. s: stomatal guard 631
cell; pv: phloem vessel; xv: xylem vessel; bs: bundle sheath; ms: mesophyll; en: endodermis; 632
pe: pericycle; p: phloem; xp: xylem parenchyma; c: cortex. Scale bars=100 μm. 633
Figure 3. Phenotypic difference and ion responses of WT, RNAi and OE seedlings 634
under salt stress. (A) Phenotypes under 200 mM salt treatment and control condition. 635
Observation was conducted every week since 14-day-old seedling (referred as the ‘0’ 636
time point) until 4 w. Scale bar=10 cm. (B) Dry weight, (C) Na+ concentration, (D) K
+ 637
concentration and (E) K+/Na
+ ratio of barley genotypes under salt stress for 4 w. WT: 638
wild type; RNAi lines: R1, R2, R3; OE lines: OE73, OE74, OE15; WTTN: negative 639
lines; 4C: 4 week under control condition since 14-day-old seedlings. Data were 640
means of six replicates (n=6, ±SE). Different letters in each column represent 641
significant difference at P<0.05 determined by one-way ANOVA. 642
Figure 4. Na and K element analysis of WT and RNAi plants under salt 643
conditions. (A, B), WT and RNAi seedlings exposed to 200 mM (S200) and 250 mM 644
(S250) salt solutions for 4 w, respectively. Scale bar=10 cm. (C) Na+ concentration, 645
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
23
(D) Na+ content per plant, (E) Na
+ transportation rate, (F) K
+ concentration, (G) K
+ 646
content per plant and (H) K+ transportation rate of WT and RNAi plants under salt 647
stress. WT: wild type; RNAi lines: R1, R2, R3. Data used were means of four 648
replicates (n=4, ±SE). * and ** represent significant and highly significant at P<0.05 649
and P<0.01 determined by independent t-test, respectively. 650
Figure 5. Expression analysis of Na+ and K
+ transporters under salt stress. The 651
expression levels were investigated in WT and RNAi (R1 and R2) roots when 652
exposed to 200 mM NaCl for 0, 1, 2, and 3 weeks. (A) HvCaM1, (B) HvHKT1;1, (C) 653
HvHKT1;5, (D) HvNHX1, (E) HvNHX3, (F) HvNHX5, (G) HvSOS1, (H) HvSOS2 and 654
(I) HvSOS3. Data used were means of four replicates with standard deviation. 655
Figure 6. Na+ and K
+ concentrations in xylem sap of WT and RNAi plants under 656
control and salt conditions. Na+ (A, B) and K
+ (C, D) concentrations of xylem sap in 657
four-week-old WT and RNAi seedlings exposed to control, 50 mM and 100 mM NaCl 658
solutions for 2d (A,C) and 7 d (B, D) (n=4-6, ±SE). WT: wild type; RNAi lines: R1, 659
R2, R3. Different lowercase letters represent significant difference at P<0.05 660
determined by one-way ANOVA. 661
Figure 7. HvCaM1 interacts with HvCAMTA4 via specific binding sites in the 662
promoters of HKT1 genes. (A) Yeast interaction assay between HvCaM1 and 663
HvCAMTA4. (B) BiFC assay between HvCaM1 and HvCAMTA4 in barley protoplasts. 664
Scale bar=5μm. (C) The expression level of HvCAMTA4 in roots of WT and RNAi 665
under 200 mM NaCl for 3 w. * and ** represent the expression level is significant and 666
highly significant at P<0.05 and P<0.01 determined by independent t-test in roots of 667
WT and RNAi, respectively. Data used were means of four replicates with standard 668
deviation. (D) The cis-regulatory elements of CGCG-core and CGTGT-core along 3 669
kb promoter regions of HKT genes, marked as red and blue, respectively. The specific 670
sequences are enlarged in the promoter of HvHKT1;5 and HvHKT1;1. 671
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
24
Literature Cited 672
Apse MP, Aharon GS, Snedden WA, Blumwald E (1999) Salt tolerance conferred 673
by overexpression of a vacuolar Na+/H
+ antiport in Arabidopsis. Science 285: 674
1256-8 675
Athman A, Tanz SK, Conn VM, Jordans C, Mayo GM, Ng WW, Burton RA, 676
Conn SJ, Gilliham M (2014) Protocol: a fast and simple in situ PCR method for 677
localising gene expression in plant tissue. Plant Methods 10: 29 678
Al-Quraan NA, Locy RD, Singh NK (2011) Implications of paraquat and hydrogen 679
peroxide-induced oxidative stress treatments on the GABA shunt pathway in 680
Arabidopsis thaliana calmodulin mutants. Plant Biotechnol Rep 5: 225-34 681
Barragán V, Leidi EO, Andrés Z, Rubio L, De Luca A, Fernández JA, Cubero B, 682
Pardo JM (2012) Ion exchangers NHX1 and NHX2 mediate active potassium 683
uptake into vacuoles to regulate cell turgor and stomatal function in Arabidopsis. 684
Plant Cell 24: 1127-42 685
Beilstein MA, Nagalingum NS, Clements MD, Manchester SR, Mathews S (2010) 686
Dated molecular phylogenies indicate a Miocene origin for Arabidopsis thaliana. 687
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 18724-8 688
Cao YB, Zhang M, Liang XY, Li FR, Shi YL, Yang XH, Jiang CF (2020) Natural 689
variation of an EF-hand Ca2+
-binding protein coding gene confers saline-alkaline 690
tolerance in maize. Nat Commun 11: 186 691
Chen Z, Newman I, Zhou M, Mendham N, Zhang G, Shabala S (2005) Screening 692
plants for salt tolerance by measuring K+ flux: a case study for barley. Plant Cell 693
Environ 28: 1230-46 694
Chen ZH, Pottosin II, Cuin TA, Fuglsang AT, Tester M, Jha D, Zepeda-Jazo I, 695
Zhou MX, Palmgren MG, Newman IA, Shabala S (2007) Root plasma 696
membrane transporters controlling K+/Na
+ homeostasis in salt-stressed barley. 697
Plant Physiol 145: 1714-25 698
Chen ZH, Hills A, Lim CK, Blatt MR (2010) Dynamic regulation of guard cell 699
anion channels by cytosolic free Ca2+
concentration and protein phosphorylation. 700
Plant J 61: 816-25 701
Chinpongpanich A, Limruengroj K, Phean-o-pas S, Limpaseni T, Buaboocha T 702
(2012) Expression analysis of calmodulin and calmodulin-like genes from rice, 703
Oryza sativa L. BMC Res Notes 5: 625 704
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
25
Cho KM, Nguyen HTK, Kim SY, Shin JS, Cho DH, Hong SB, Shin JS, Ok SH 705
(2016) CML10, a variant of calmodulin, modulates ascorbic acid synthesis. New 706
Phytol 209: 664-78 707
Colmenero-Flores JM, Martinez G, Gamba G, Vazquez N, Iglesias DJ, Brumos J, 708
Talon M (2007) Identification and functional characterization of cation-chloride 709
cotransporters in plants. Plant J 50: 278-92 710
Dai F, Wang XL, Zhang XQ, Chen ZH, Nevo E, Jin GL, Wu DZ, Li CD, Zhang 711
GP (2018) Assembly and analysis of a qingke reference genome demonstrate its 712
close genetic relation to modern cultivated barley. Plant Biotechnol J 16: 760-70 713
Davenport RJ, MUÑOZ-MAYOR AL, Jha D, Essah PA, Rus AN, Tester M (2007) 714
The Na+ transporter AtHKT1;1 controls retrieval of Na
+ from the xylem in 715
Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Environ 30: 497-507 716
DeFalco TA, Marshall CB, Munro K, Kang HG, Moeder W, Ikura M, Snedden 717
WA, Yoshioka K (2016) Multiple calmodulin-binding sites positively and 718
negatively regulate Arabidopsis CYCLIC NUCLEOTIDE-GATED 719
CHANNEL12. Plant Cell 28: 1738-51 720
Deinlein U, Stephan AB, Horie T, Luo W, Xu GH, Schroeder JI (2014) Plant 721
salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci 19: 371-9 722
Demidchik V, Shabala S, Isayenkov S, Cuin TA, Pottosin I (2018) Calcium 723
transport across plant membranes: mechanisms and functions. New Phytol 220: 724
49-69 725
Feng X, Liu WX, Qiu CW, Zeng FR, Wang YZ, Zhang GP, Chen ZH, Wu FB 726
(2020) HvAKT2 and HvHAK1 confer drought tolerance in barley through 727
enhanced leaf mesophyll H+ homeostasis. Plant Biotechnol J DOI: 728
10.1111/pbi.13332 729
Fu LB, Shen QF, Kuang LH, Yu JH, Wu DZ, Zhang GP (2018) Metabolite 730
profiling and gene expression of Na/K transporter analyses reveal mechanisms of 731
the difference in salt tolerance between barley and rice. Plant Physiol Bioch 130: 732
248-57 733
Galon Y, Finkler A, Fromm H (2010) Calcium-regulated transcription in plants. Mol 734
Plant 3: 653-69 735
Gifford JL, Jamshidiha M, Mo J, Ishida H, Vogel HJ (2013) Comparing the 736
calcium binding abilities of two soybean calmodulins: towards understanding the 737
divergent nature of plant calmodulins. Plant Cell 25: 4512-24 738
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
26
Harwood WA (2014) A protocol for high-throughput Agrobacterium-mediated barley 739
transformation. New York: Cereal genomics: methods and protocols 740
Han Y, Yin SY, Huang L, Wu XL, Zeng JB, Liu XH, Qiu L, Munns R, Chen ZH, 741
Zhang GP (2018) A sodium transporter HvHKT1;1 confers salt tolerance in 742
barley via regulating tissue and cell ion homeostasis. Plant Cell Physiol 743
59:1976-1989 744
Horie T, Karahara I, Katsuhara M (2012) Salinity tolerance mechanisms in 745
glycophytes: An overview with the central focus on rice plants. Rice 5: 11 746
Huang L, Kuang LH, Wu LY, Shen QF, Han Y, Jiang LX, Wu DZ, Zhang GP 747
(2020) The HKT transporter HvHKT1;5 negatively regulates salt tolerance. Plant 748
Physiol 182: 584-96 749
Hyten DL, Song Q, Zhu Y, Choi IY, Nelson RL, Costa JM, Specht JE, Shoemaker 750
RC, Cregan PB (2006) Impacts of genetic bottlenecks on soybean genome 751
diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 16666-71 752
Ishikawa T, Cuin TA, Bazihizina N, Shabala S (2018) Xylem ion loading and its 753
implications for plant abiotic stress tolerance. Adv Bot Res 87: 267-301 754
Ismail AM and Horie T (2017) Genomics, physiology, and molecular breeding 755
approaches for improving salt tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 68: 405-34 756
Journot-Catalino N, Somssich IE, Roby D, Kroj T (2006) The transcription factors 757
WRKY11 and WRKY17 act as negative regulators of basal resistance in 758
Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 18: 3289-302 759
Kaewneramit T, Buaboocha T, Sangchai P, Wutipraditkul N (2019) OsCaM1-1 760
overexpression in the transgenic rice mitigated salt-induced oxidative damage. 761
Biol Plantarum 63: 335 762
Kersey PJ (2019) Plant genome sequences: past, present, future. Curr Opin Plant Biol 763
48: 1-8 764
Khong GN, Pati PK, Richaud F, Parizot B, Bidzinski P, et al. (2015) OsMADS26 765
negatively regulates resistance to pathogens and drought tolerance in rice. Plant 766
Physiol 169: 2935-49 767
Kovach MJ, Calingacion MN, Fitzgerald MA, McCouch SR (2009) The origin and 768
evolution of fragrance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 769
14444-9 770
Kushwaha R, Singh A, Chattopadhyay S (2008) Calmodulin7 plays an important 771
role as transcriptional regulator in Arabidopsis seedling development. Plant Cell 772
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
27
20: 1747-59 773
Leebens-Mack JH, Barker MS, Carpenter EJ, Deyholos MK, Gitzendanner MA, 774
Graham SW, Grosse I, Li Z, Melkonian M, et al. (2019) One thousand plant 775
transcriptomes and the phylogenomics of green plants. Nature 574: 679 776
Lin HX, Du WM, Yang YQ, Schumaker KS, Guo Y (2014) A calcium-independent 777
activation of the Arabidopsis SOS2-like protein kinase24 by its interacting 778
SOS3-like calcium binding protein1. Plant Physiol 164: 2197-206 779
Liu H, Li HF, Hao CY, Wang K, Wang YM, Lin Q, An DG, Li T, Zhang XY (2020) 780
TaDA1, a conserved negative regulator of kernel size, has an additive effect with 781
TaGW2 in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Biotech J 18: 1330-42 782
Long LZ, Persson DP, Duan FY, Jorgensen K, Yuan LX, Schjoerring JK, Pedas 783
PR (2018) The iron-regulated transporter 1 plays an essential role in uptake, 784
translocation and grain-loading of manganese, but not iron, in barley. New 785
Phytol 217: 1640-53 786
Mahi HE, Pérez-Hormaeche J, De Luca A, Villalta I, et al. (2019) A critical role of 787
sodium flux via the plasma membrane Na+/H
+ exchanger SOS1 in the salt 788
tolerance of rice. Plant Physiol 180: 1046-65 789
Mascher M, Gundlach H, Himmelbach A, Beier S, Twardziok SO, Wicker T, et al. 790
(2017) A chromosome conformation capture ordered sequence of the barley 791
genome. Nature 544: 427-433Miki D, Shimamoto K (2004) Simple RNAi 792
vectors for stable and transient suppression of gene function in rice. Plant Cell 793
Physiol 45: 490-5 794
Miki D, Itoh R, Shimamoto K (2005) RNA silencing of single and multiple 795
members in a gene family of rice. Plant Physiol 138: 1903-13 796
Munns R (2005) Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together. New Phytol 167: 797
645-63 798
Munns R and Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant 799
Biol 59: 651-81 800
Munns R, Day DA, Fricke W, Watt M, Arsova B, Barkla BJ, Bose J, Byrt CS, 801
Chen ZH, Foster KJ, Gilliham M, et al. (2020) Energy costs of salt tolerance 802
in crop plants. New Phytol 225: 1072-90 803
Nevo E and Chen GX (2010) Drought and salt tolerances in wild relatives for wheat 804
and barley improvement. Plant Cell Environ 33: 670-85 805
Rao SS, El-Habbak MH, Havens WM, Singh A, Zheng DM, Vaughn L, 806
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
28
Haudenshield JS, Hartman GL, Korban SS, Ghabrial SA (2014) 807
Overexpression of GmCaM4 in soybean enhances resistance to pathogens and 808
tolerance to salt stress. Mol Plant Pathol 15: 145-60 809
Reddy ASN, Ali GS, Celesnik H, Day IS (2011) Coping with stresses: roles of 810
calcium- and calcium/calmodulin-regulated gene expression. Plant Cell 23: 811
2010-32 812
Shabala S (2013) Learning from halophytes: physiological basis and strategies to 813
improve abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Ann Bot 112: 1209-21 814
Shabala S and Cuin TA (2008) Potassium transport and plant salt tolerance. Physiol 815
Plantarum 133: 651-69 816
Shabala S, Shabala S, Cuin TA, Pang JY, Percey W, Chen ZH, Conn S, Eing C, 817
Wegner LH (2010) Xylem ionic relations and salinity tolerance in barley. Plant J 818
61: 839-53 819
Shabala S, Chen G, Chen ZH, Pottosin I (2020) The energy cost of the tonoplast 820
futile sodium leak. New Phytol 225: 1105-10 821
Shen CJ, Yang YJ, Du LQ, Wang HZ (2015) Calmodulin-binding transcription 822
activators and perspectives for applications in biotechnology. App Microbiol Biot 823
99: 10379-85 824
Shen QF, Fu LB, Dai F, Jiang LX, Zhang GP, Wu DZ (2016) Multi-omics analysis 825
reveals molecular mechanisms of shoot adaption to salt stress in Tibetan wild 826
barley. BMC Genomics 17: 889 827
Shen QF, Fu LB, Qiu L, Feng X, Zhang GP, Wu DZ (2017) Time-course of ionic 828
responses and proteomic analysis of a Tibetan wild barley at early stage under 829
salt stress. Plant Growth Regul 81: 11-21 830
Shen QF, Yu JH, Fu LB, Wu LY, Dai F, Jiang LX, Wu DZ, Zhang GP (2018) 831
Ionomic, metabolomic and proteomic analyses reveal molecular mechanisms of 832
root adaption to salt stress in Tibetan wild barley. Plant Physiol Bioch 123: 833
319-30 834
Shi H, Ishitani M, Kim C, Zhu JK (2000) The Arabidopsis thaliana salt tolerance 835
gene SOS1 encodes a putative Na+/H
+ antiporter. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 836
6896-901 837
Shi H, Quintero FJ, Pardo JM, Zhu JK (2002) The putative plasma membrane 838
Na+/H
+ antiporter SOS1 controls long-distance Na
+ transport in plants. Plant Cell 839
14: 465-77 840
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
29
Shkolnik D, Finkler A, Pasmanik-Chor M, Fromm H (2019) 841
CALMODULIN-BINDING TRANSCRIPTION ACTIVATOR 6: A key regulator 842
of Na+ homeostasis during germination. Plant Physiol 180: 1101-18 843
Wang R, Jing W, Xiao LY, Jin TK, Shen LK, Zhang WH (2015) The rice 844
high-affinity potassium transporter1;1 is involved in salt tolerance and regulated 845
by an MYB-type transcription factor. Plant Physiol 168(3): 1076-90 846
Whalley HJ and Knight MR (2013) Calcium signatures are decoded by plants to 847
give specific gene responses. New Phytol 197: 690-93 848
Wu DZ, Shen QF, Qiu L, Han Y, Ye LZ, Jabben Z, Shu QY, Zhang GP (2014) 849
Identification of proteins associated with ion homeostasis and salt tolerance in 850
barley. Proteomics 14: 1381-92 851
Wu DZ, Yamaji N, Yamane M, Kashino M, Sato K, Ma JF (2016) The HvNramp5 852
transporter mediates uptake of cadmium and manganese, but not iron. Plant 853
Physiol 172: 1899-910 854
Wu HH, Shabala L, Zhou MX, Su N, Wu Q, UI-Haq T, Zhu J, Mancuso S, 855
Azzarello E, Shabala S (2019) Root vacuolar Na+ sequestration but not 856
exclusion from uptake correlates with barley salt tolerance. Plant J 100: 55-67 857
Xi J, Qiu YJ, Du LQ, Poovaiah BW (2012) Plant-specific trihelix transcription 858
factor AtGT2L interacts with calcium/calmodulin and responds to cold and salt 859
stresses. Plant Sci 185: 274-80 860
Xu XW, Liu M, Lu L, He M, Qu WQ, Xu Q, Qi XH, Chen XH (2015) 861
Genome-wide analysis and expression of the calcium-dependent protein kinase 862
gene family in cucumber. Mol Genet Genomics 290: 1403-14 863
Yang T and Poovaiah BW (2002) A calmodulin-binding/CGCG box DNA binding 864
protein family involved in multiple signaling pathways in plants. J Biol Chem 865
277: 45049-58 866
Ye LZ, Wang Y, Long LZ, Luo H, Shen QF, Sue B, Wu DX, Shu XL, Dai F, Li CD, 867
Zhang GP (2019) A trypsin family protein gene controls tillering and leaf shape 868
in barley. Plant Physiol DOI: 10.1104/pp.19.00717 869
Yoo JH, Park CY, Kim JC, Heo WD, Cheong MS, Park HC, et al. (2005) Direct 870
interaction of a divergent CaM isoform and the transcription factor, MYB2, 871
enhances salt tolerance in Arabidopsis. J Biol Chem 280: 3697-706 872
Zahra J, Nazim H, Cai SG, Han Y, Wu DZ, Zhang BL, Haider SI, Zhang GP 873
(2014) The influence of salinity on cell ultrastructures and photosynthetic 874
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
30
apparatus of barley genotypes differing in salt stress tolerance. Acta Physiologiae 875
Plantarum 36: 1261-9 876
Zhang H, Han B, Wang T, Chen S, Li HY, Zhang YH, Dai SJ (2012) Mechanisms 877
of plant salt response: insights from proteomics. J Proteome Res 11: 49-67 878
Zhang HX and Blumwald E (2001) Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants 879
accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit. Nature Biotech 19: 765-8 880
Zhang W, Zhou RG, Gao YJ, Zheng SZ, Xu P, Zhang SQ, Sun DY (2009) 881
Molecular and genetic evidence for the key role of AtCaM3 in heat-shock signal 882
transduction in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 149: 1773-84 883
Zhao CC, Wang YY, Chan KX, Marchant DB, Franks PJ, Randall D, Tee EE, 884
Chen G, et al. (2019) Evolution of chloroplast retrograde signaling facilitates 885
green plant adaptation to land. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116(11): 5015-20 886
Zhou S, Jia LX, Chu HY, Wu D, Peng X, Liu X, Zhang JJ, Zhao JF, Chen KM, 887
Zhao LQ (2016) Arabidopsis CaM1 and CaM4 promote nitric oxide production 888
and salt resistance by inhibiting S-nitrosoglutathione reductase via direct binding. 889
PLoS Genet 12: e1006255 890
Zhu JK (2002) Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu Rev Plant 891
Biol 53: 247-73 892
Zhu JK (2016) Abiotic stress signaling and responses in plants. Cell 167: 313-324 893
Zhu XY, Dunand C, Snedden W, Galaud JP (2015) CAM and CML emergence in 894
the green lineage. Trends Plant Sci 20: 483-9895
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
1
896
897
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Parsed CitationsApse MP, Aharon GS, Snedden WA, Blumwald E (1999) Salt tolerance conferred by overexpression of a vacuolar Na+/H+ antiport inArabidopsis. Science 285: 1256-8
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Athman A, Tanz SK, Conn VM, Jordans C, Mayo GM, Ng WW, Burton RA, Conn SJ, Gilliham M (2014) Protocol: a fast and simple in situPCR method for localising gene expression in plant tissue. Plant Methods 10: 29
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Al-Quraan NA, Locy RD, Singh NK (2011) Implications of paraquat and hydrogen peroxide-induced oxidative stress treatments on theGABA shunt pathway in Arabidopsis thaliana calmodulin mutants. Plant Biotechnol Rep 5: 225-34
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Barragán V, Leidi EO, Andrés Z, Rubio L, De Luca A, Fernández JA, Cubero B, Pardo JM (2012) Ion exchangers NHX1 and NHX2mediate active potassium uptake into vacuoles to regulate cell turgor and stomatal function in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 24: 1127-42
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Beilstein MA, Nagalingum NS, Clements MD, Manchester SR, Mathews S (2010) Dated molecular phylogenies indicate a Miocene originfor Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 18724-8
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Cao YB, Zhang M, Liang XY, Li FR, Shi YL, Yang XH, Jiang CF (2020) Natural variation of an EF-hand Ca2+-binding protein coding geneconfers saline-alkaline tolerance in maize. Nat Commun 11: 186
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Chen Z, Newman I, Zhou M, Mendham N, Zhang G, Shabala S (2005) Screening plants for salt tolerance by measuring K+ flux: a casestudy for barley. Plant Cell Environ 28: 1230-46
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Chen ZH, Pottosin II, Cuin TA, Fuglsang AT, Tester M, Jha D, Zepeda-Jazo I, Zhou MX, Palmgren MG, Newman IA, Shabala S (2007) Rootplasma membrane transporters controlling K+/Na+ homeostasis in salt-stressed barley. Plant Physiol 145: 1714-25
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Chen ZH, Hills A, Lim CK, Blatt MR (2010) Dynamic regulation of guard cell anion channels by cytosolic free Ca2+ concentration andprotein phosphorylation. Plant J 61: 816-25
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Chinpongpanich A, Limruengroj K, Phean-o-pas S, Limpaseni T, Buaboocha T (2012) Expression analysis of calmodulin and calmodulin-like genes from rice, Oryza sativa L. BMC Res Notes 5: 625
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Cho KM, Nguyen HTK, Kim SY, Shin JS, Cho DH, Hong SB, Shin JS, Ok SH (2016) CML10, a variant of calmodulin, modulates ascorbicacid synthesis. New Phytol 209: 664-78
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Colmenero-Flores JM, Martinez G, Gamba G, Vazquez N, Iglesias DJ, Brumos J, Talon M (2007) Identification and functionalcharacterization of cation-chloride cotransporters in plants. Plant J 50: 278-92
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Dai F, Wang XL, Zhang XQ, Chen ZH, Nevo E, Jin GL, Wu DZ, Li CD, Zhang GP (2018) Assembly and analysis of a qingke referencegenome demonstrate its close genetic relation to modern cultivated barley. Plant Biotechnol J 16: 760-70
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Davenport RJ, MUÑOZ-MAYOR AL, Jha D, Essah PA, Rus AN, Tester M (2007) The Na+ transporter AtHKT1;1 controls retrieval of Na+from the xylem in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Environ 30: 497-507
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
DeFalco TA, Marshall CB, Munro K, Kang HG, Moeder W, Ikura M, Snedden WA, Yoshioka K (2016) Multiple calmodulin-binding sitespositively and negatively regulate Arabidopsis CYCLIC NUCLEOTIDE-GATED CHANNEL12. Plant Cell 28: 1738-51 www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from
Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Deinlein U, Stephan AB, Horie T, Luo W, Xu GH, Schroeder JI (2014) Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci 19: 371-9Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Demidchik V, Shabala S, Isayenkov S, Cuin TA, Pottosin I (2018) Calcium transport across plant membranes: mechanisms and functions.New Phytol 220: 49-69
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Feng X, Liu WX, Qiu CW, Zeng FR, Wang YZ, Zhang GP, Chen ZH, Wu FB (2020) HvAKT2 and HvHAK1 confer drought tolerance inbarley through enhanced leaf mesophyll H+ homeostasis. Plant Biotechnol J DOI: 10.1111/pbi.13332
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Fu LB, Shen QF, Kuang LH, Yu JH, Wu DZ, Zhang GP (2018) Metabolite profiling and gene expression of Na/K transporter analysesreveal mechanisms of the difference in salt tolerance between barley and rice. Plant Physiol Bioch 130: 248-57
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Galon Y, Finkler A, Fromm H (2010) Calcium-regulated transcription in plants. Mol Plant 3: 653-69Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Gifford JL, Jamshidiha M, Mo J, Ishida H, Vogel HJ (2013) Comparing the calcium binding abilities of two soybean calmodulins: towardsunderstanding the divergent nature of plant calmodulins. Plant Cell 25: 4512-24
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Harwood WA (2014) A protocol for high-throughput Agrobacterium-mediated barley transformation. New York: Cereal genomics:methods and protocols
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Han Y, Yin SY, Huang L, Wu XL, Zeng JB, Liu XH, Qiu L, Munns R, Chen ZH, Zhang GP (2018) A sodium transporter HvHKT1;1 conferssalt tolerance in barley via regulating tissue and cell ion homeostasis. Plant Cell Physiol 59:1976-1989
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Horie T, Karahara I, Katsuhara M (2012) Salinity tolerance mechanisms in glycophytes: An overview with the central focus on riceplants. Rice 5: 11
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Huang L, Kuang LH, Wu LY, Shen QF, Han Y, Jiang LX, Wu DZ, Zhang GP (2020) The HKT transporter HvHKT1;5 negatively regulatessalt tolerance. Plant Physiol 182: 584-96
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Hyten DL, Song Q, Zhu Y, Choi IY, Nelson RL, Costa JM, Specht JE, Shoemaker RC, Cregan PB (2006) Impacts of genetic bottleneckson soybean genome diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 16666-71
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Ishikawa T, Cuin TA, Bazihizina N, Shabala S (2018) Xylem ion loading and its implications for plant abiotic stress tolerance. Adv BotRes 87: 267-301
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Ismail AM and Horie T (2017) Genomics, physiology, and molecular breeding approaches for improving salt tolerance. Annu Rev PlantBiol 68: 405-34
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Journot-Catalino N, Somssich IE, Roby D, Kroj T (2006) The transcription factors WRKY11 and WRKY17 act as negative regulators ofbasal resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 18: 3289-302
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kaewneramit T, Buaboocha T, Sangchai P, Wutipraditkul N (2019) OsCaM1-1 overexpression in the transgenic rice mitigated salt-induced oxidative damage. Biol Plantarum 63: 335
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from
Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Kersey PJ (2019) Plant genome sequences: past, present, future. Curr Opin Plant Biol 48: 1-8Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Khong GN, Pati PK, Richaud F, Parizot B, Bidzinski P, et al. (2015) OsMADS26 negatively regulates resistance to pathogens anddrought tolerance in rice. Plant Physiol 169: 2935-49
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kovach MJ, Calingacion MN, Fitzgerald MA, McCouch SR (2009) The origin and evolution of fragrance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). ProcNatl Acad Sci USA 106: 14444-9
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kushwaha R, Singh A, Chattopadhyay S (2008) Calmodulin7 plays an important role as transcriptional regulator in Arabidopsis seedlingdevelopment. Plant Cell 20: 1747-59
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Leebens-Mack JH, Barker MS, Carpenter EJ, Deyholos MK, Gitzendanner MA, Graham SW, Grosse I, Li Z, Melkonian M, et al. (2019)One thousand plant transcriptomes and the phylogenomics of green plants. Nature 574: 679
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lin HX, Du WM, Yang YQ, Schumaker KS, Guo Y (2014) A calcium-independent activation of the Arabidopsis SOS2-like proteinkinase24 by its interacting SOS3-like calcium binding protein1. Plant Physiol 164: 2197-206
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Liu H, Li HF, Hao CY, Wang K, Wang YM, Lin Q, An DG, Li T, Zhang XY (2020) TaDA1, a conserved negative regulator of kernel size, hasan additive effect with TaGW2 in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Biotech J 18: 1330-42
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Long LZ, Persson DP, Duan FY, Jorgensen K, Yuan LX, Schjoerring JK, Pedas PR (2018) The iron-regulated transporter 1 plays anessential role in uptake, translocation and grain-loading of manganese, but not iron, in barley. New Phytol 217: 1640-53
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Mahi HE, Pérez-Hormaeche J, De Luca A, Villalta I, et al. (2019) A critical role of sodium flux via the plasma membrane Na+/H+exchanger SOS1 in the salt tolerance of rice. Plant Physiol 180: 1046-65
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Mascher M, Gundlach H, Himmelbach A, Beier S, Twardziok SO, Wicker T, et al. (2017) A chromosome conformation capture orderedsequence of the barley genome. Nature 544: 427-433Miki D, Shimamoto K (2004) Simple RNAi vectors for stable and transientsuppression of gene function in rice. Plant Cell Physiol 45: 490-5
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Miki D, Itoh R, Shimamoto K (2005) RNA silencing of single and multiple members in a gene family of rice. Plant Physiol 138: 1903-13Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Munns R (2005) Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together. New Phytol 167: 645-63Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Munns R and Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59: 651-81Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Munns R, Day DA, Fricke W, Watt M, Arsova B, Barkla BJ, Bose J, Byrt CS, Chen ZH, Foster KJ, Gilliham M, et al. (2020) Energy costs ofsalt tolerance in crop plants. New Phytol 225: 1072-90
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Nevo E and Chen GX (2010) Drought and salt tolerances in wild relatives for wheat and barley improvement. Plant Cell Environ 33: 670-85
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Rao SS, El-Habbak MH, Havens WM, Singh A, Zheng DM, Vaughn L, Haudenshield JS, Hartman GL, Korban SS, Ghabrial SA (2014)Overexpression of GmCaM4 in soybean enhances resistance to pathogens and tolerance to salt stress. Mol Plant Pathol 15: 145-60 www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from
Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Reddy ASN, Ali GS, Celesnik H, Day IS (2011) Coping with stresses: roles of calcium- and calcium/calmodulin-regulated geneexpression. Plant Cell 23: 2010-32
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shabala S (2013) Learning from halophytes: physiological basis and strategies to improve abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Ann Bot112: 1209-21
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shabala S and Cuin TA (2008) Potassium transport and plant salt tolerance. Physiol Plantarum 133: 651-69Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shabala S, Shabala S, Cuin TA, Pang JY, Percey W, Chen ZH, Conn S, Eing C, Wegner LH (2010) Xylem ionic relations and salinitytolerance in barley. Plant J 61: 839-53
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shabala S, Chen G, Chen ZH, Pottosin I (2020) The energy cost of the tonoplast futile sodium leak. New Phytol 225: 1105-10Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shen CJ, Yang YJ, Du LQ, Wang HZ (2015) Calmodulin-binding transcription activators and perspectives for applications inbiotechnology. App Microbiol Biot 99: 10379-85
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shen QF, Fu LB, Dai F, Jiang LX, Zhang GP, Wu DZ (2016) Multi-omics analysis reveals molecular mechanisms of shoot adaption to saltstress in Tibetan wild barley. BMC Genomics 17: 889
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shen QF, Fu LB, Qiu L, Feng X, Zhang GP, Wu DZ (2017) Time-course of ionic responses and proteomic analysis of a Tibetan wildbarley at early stage under salt stress. Plant Growth Regul 81: 11-21
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shen QF, Yu JH, Fu LB, Wu LY, Dai F, Jiang LX, Wu DZ, Zhang GP (2018) Ionomic, metabolomic and proteomic analyses revealmolecular mechanisms of root adaption to salt stress in Tibetan wild barley. Plant Physiol Bioch 123: 319-30
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shi H, Ishitani M, Kim C, Zhu JK (2000) The Arabidopsis thaliana salt tolerance gene SOS1 encodes a putative Na+/H+ antiporter. ProcNatl Acad Sci USA 97: 6896-901
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shi H, Quintero FJ, Pardo JM, Zhu JK (2002) The putative plasma membrane Na+/H+ antiporter SOS1 controls long-distance Na+transport in plants. Plant Cell 14: 465-77
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shkolnik D, Finkler A, Pasmanik-Chor M, Fromm H (2019) CALMODULIN-BINDING TRANSCRIPTION ACTIVATOR 6: A key regulator ofNa+ homeostasis during germination. Plant Physiol 180: 1101-18
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Wang R, Jing W, Xiao LY, Jin TK, Shen LK, Zhang WH (2015) The rice high-affinity potassium transporter1;1 is involved in salt toleranceand regulated by an MYB-type transcription factor. Plant Physiol 168(3): 1076-90
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Whalley HJ and Knight MR (2013) Calcium signatures are decoded by plants to give specific gene responses. New Phytol 197: 690-93Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Wu DZ, Shen QF, Qiu L, Han Y, Ye LZ, Jabben Z, Shu QY, Zhang GP (2014) Identification of proteins associated with ion homeostasisand salt tolerance in barley. Proteomics 14: 1381-92
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Wu DZ, Yamaji N, Yamane M, Kashino M, Sato K, Ma JF (2016) The HvNramp5 transporter mediates uptake of cadmium and manganese,but not iron. Plant Physiol 172: 1899-910
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Wu HH, Shabala L, Zhou MX, Su N, Wu Q, UI-Haq T, Zhu J, Mancuso S, Azzarello E, Shabala S (2019) Root vacuolar Na+ sequestrationbut not exclusion from uptake correlates with barley salt tolerance. Plant J 100: 55-67
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Xi J, Qiu YJ, Du LQ, Poovaiah BW (2012) Plant-specific trihelix transcription factor AtGT2L interacts with calcium/calmodulin andresponds to cold and salt stresses. Plant Sci 185: 274-80
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Xu XW, Liu M, Lu L, He M, Qu WQ, Xu Q, Qi XH, Chen XH (2015) Genome-wide analysis and expression of the calcium-dependentprotein kinase gene family in cucumber. Mol Genet Genomics 290: 1403-14
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Yang T and Poovaiah BW (2002) A calmodulin-binding/CGCG box DNA binding protein family involved in multiple signaling pathways inplants. J Biol Chem 277: 45049-58
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Ye LZ, Wang Y, Long LZ, Luo H, Shen QF, Sue B, Wu DX, Shu XL, Dai F, Li CD, Zhang GP (2019) A trypsin family protein gene controlstillering and leaf shape in barley. Plant Physiol DOI: 10.1104/pp.19.00717
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Yoo JH, Park CY, Kim JC, Heo WD, Cheong MS, Park HC, et al. (2005) Direct interaction of a divergent CaM isoform and thetranscription factor, MYB2, enhances salt tolerance in Arabidopsis. J Biol Chem 280: 3697-706
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zahra J, Nazim H, Cai SG, Han Y, Wu DZ, Zhang BL, Haider SI, Zhang GP (2014) The influence of salinity on cell ultrastructures andphotosynthetic apparatus of barley genotypes differing in salt stress tolerance. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 36: 1261-9
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhang H, Han B, Wang T, Chen S, Li HY, Zhang YH, Dai SJ (2012) Mechanisms of plant salt response: insights from proteomics. JProteome Res 11: 49-67
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhang HX and Blumwald E (2001) Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit. Nature Biotech 19:765-8
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhang W, Zhou RG, Gao YJ, Zheng SZ, Xu P, Zhang SQ, Sun DY (2009) Molecular and genetic evidence for the key role of AtCaM3 inheat-shock signal transduction in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 149: 1773-84
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhao CC, Wang YY, Chan KX, Marchant DB, Franks PJ, Randall D, Tee EE, Chen G, et al. (2019) Evolution of chloroplast retrogradesignaling facilitates green plant adaptation to land. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116(11): 5015-20
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhou S, Jia LX, Chu HY, Wu D, Peng X, Liu X, Zhang JJ, Zhao JF, Chen KM, Zhao LQ (2016) Arabidopsis CaM1 and CaM4 promote nitricoxide production and salt resistance by inhibiting S-nitrosoglutathione reductase via direct binding. PLoS Genet 12: e1006255
Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhu JK (2002) Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 53: 247-73Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhu JK (2016) Abiotic stress signaling and responses in plants. Cell 167: 313-324Pubmed: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhu XY, Dunand C, Snedden W, Galaud JP (2015) CAM and CML emergence in the green lineage. Trends Plant Sci 20: 483-9Pubmed: Author and Title www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from
Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Google Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
www.plantphysiol.orgon September 28, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2020 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.