Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25859656›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Physiological and comparative proteomic analysis reveals different drought responses in roots and leaves of drought-tolerant wild wheat (Triticum boeoticum).

Hui Liu, Muhammad Abdul Rab Faisal Sultan, Xiang Li Liu, Jin Zhang, Fei Yu, Hui Xian Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Proteomic and Peptidomic Response of Wheat (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Impact of Water Deficit Stress onPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hui LiuCollege of Life Sciences, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, P.R. China.
Muhammad Abdul Rab Faisal SultanCollege of Life Sciences, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, P.R. China.
Xiang Li LiuCollege of Life Sciences, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, P.R. China; State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology in Arid Areas, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China.
Jin ZhangCollege of Life Sciences, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, P.R. China; State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology in Arid Areas, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China.
Fei YuCollege of Life Sciences, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, P.R. China; State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology in Arid Areas, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China.
Hui Xian ZhaoCollege of Life Sciences, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, P.R. China; State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology in Arid Areas, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To determine the proteomic-level responses of drought tolerant wild wheat (Triticum boeoticum), physiological and comparative proteomic analyses were conducted using the roots and the leaves of control and short term drought-stressed plants. Drought stress was imposed by transferring hydroponically grown seedlings at the 3-leaf stage into 1/2 Hoagland solution containing 20% PEG-6000 for 48 h. Root and leaf samples were separately collected at 0 (control), 24, and 48 h of drought treatment for analysis. Physiological analysis indicated that abscisic acid (ABA) level was greatly increased in the drought-treated plants, but the increase was greater and more rapid in the leaves than in the roots. The net photosynthetic rate of the wild wheat leaves was significantly decreased under short-term drought stress. The deleterious effects of drought on the studied traits mainly targeted photosynthesis. Comparative proteomic analysis identified 98 and 85 differently changed protein spots (DEPs) (corresponding to 87 and 80 unique proteins, respectively) in the leaves and the roots, respectively, with only 6 mutual unique proteins in the both organs. An impressive 86% of the DEPs were implicated in detoxification and defense, carbon metabolism, amino acid and nitrogen metabolism, proteins metabolism, chaperones, transcription and translation, photosynthesis, nucleotide metabolism, and signal transduction. Further analysis revealed some mutual and tissue-specific responses to short-term drought in the leaves and the roots. The differences of drought-response between the roots and the leaves mainly included that signal sensing and transduction-associated proteins were greatly up-regulated in the roots. Photosynthesis and carbon fixation ability were decreased in the leaves. Glycolysis was down-regulated but PPP pathway enhanced in the roots, resulting in occurrence of complex changes in energy metabolism and establishment of a new homeostasis. Protein metabolism was down-regulated in the roots, but enhanced in the leaves. These results will contribute to the existing knowledge on the complexity of root and leaf protein changes that occur in response to drought, and also provide a framework for further functional studies on the identified proteins.

Indexed as

DroughtsProteomicsAbscisic AcidElectrophoresis, Gel, Two-DimensionalPhotosynthesisPlant LeavesPlant ProteinsPlant RootsProteomeSeedlingsSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationTriticumAbscisic AcidPlant ProteinsProteome

Identifiers

PMID25859656
PMCPMC4393031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.