Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32678202›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Comparative physiological and root proteome analyses of two sorghum varieties responding to water limitation.

Tatenda Goche, Nemera G Shargie, Ian Cummins, Adrian P Brown, Stephen Chivasa, Rudo Ngara

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Sorghum as a monocot model for drought research.Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tatenda GocheDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of the Free State, Qwaqwa Campus, P. Bag X13, Phuthaditjhaba, South Africa.
Nemera G ShargieAgricultural Research Council-Grain Crops Institute, P. Bag X1251, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa.
Ian CumminsDepartment of Biosciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.
Adrian P BrownDepartment of Biosciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.
Stephen ChivasaDepartment of Biosciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK. stephen.chivasa@durham.ac.uk.
Rudo NgaraDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of the Free State, Qwaqwa Campus, P. Bag X13, Phuthaditjhaba, South Africa. NgaraR@ufs.ac.za.
Durham University · GBUniversity of the Free State · ZAAgricultural Research Council of South Africa · ZA

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/MO28429/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/N012623/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When exposed to drought stress many plants reprogram their gene expression to activate adaptive biochemical and physiological responses for survival. However, most of the well-studied adaptive responses are common between drought-sensitive and drought-tolerant species, making it difficult to identify the key mechanisms underpinning successful drought tolerance in crops. We developed a sorghum experimental system that compares between drought-sensitive (ICSB338) and enhanced drought-tolerant (SA1441) varieties. We show that sorghum activates a swift and robust stomatal shutdown to preserve leaf water content when water stress has been sensed. Water uptake is enhanced via increasing root cell water potential through the rapid biosynthesis of predominantly glycine betaine and an increased root-to-shoot ratio to explore more soil volume for water. In addition to stomatal responses, there is a prompt accumulation of proline in leaves and effective protection of chlorophyll during periods of water limitation. Root and stomatal functions rapidly recover from water limitation (within 24 h of re-watering) in the drought-tolerant variety, but recovery is impaired in the drought-sensitive sorghum variety. Analysis of the root proteome revealed complex protein networks that possibly underpin sorghum responses to water limitation. Common and unique protein changes between the two sorghum varieties provide new targets for future use in investigating sorghum drought tolerance.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, PlantStress, PhysiologicalAdaptation, PhysiologicalBetaineDroughtsGene OntologyMolecular Sequence AnnotationOsmoregulationPlant LeavesPlant ProteinsPlant RootsPlant StomataProlineProteomeSorghumWaterBetainePlant ProteinsProlineProteomeWater

Identifiers

PMID32678202
PMCPMC7366710
OpenAlexW3043518640

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.