Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34178001›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2021

Physiological and Proteomic Analysis of Different Molecular Mechanisms of Sugar Beet Response to Acidic and Alkaline pH Environment.

Gui Geng, Gang Wang, Piergiorgio Stevanato, Chunhua Lv, Qiuhong Wang, Lihua Yu, Yuguang Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. pH sensors in the plant apoplast: aFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Molecular and Physiological Responses ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gui GengNational Sugar Crop Improvement Centre, College of Advanced Agriculture and Ecological Environment, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China.
Gang WangCollege of Life Sciences, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China.
Piergiorgio StevanatoDAFNAE, Dipartimento di Agronomia, Animali, Alimenti, Risorse Naturali e Ambiente, Università degli Studi di Padova, Padova, Italy.
Chunhua LvNational Sugar Crop Improvement Centre, College of Advanced Agriculture and Ecological Environment, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China.
Qiuhong WangNational Sugar Crop Improvement Centre, College of Advanced Agriculture and Ecological Environment, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China.
Lihua YuNational Sugar Crop Improvement Centre, College of Advanced Agriculture and Ecological Environment, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China.
Yuguang WangNational Sugar Crop Improvement Centre, College of Advanced Agriculture and Ecological Environment, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China.
Heilongjiang University · CNUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soil pH is a major constraint to crop plant growth and production. Limited data are available on sugar beet growth status under different pH conditions. In this study, we analyzed the growth status and phenotype of sugar beet under pH 5, pH 7.5, and pH 9.5. It was found that the growth of sugar beet was best at pH 9.5 and worst at pH 5. The activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) in leaves and roots increased as pH decreased from 9.5 to 5. Moreover, compared with pH 9.5, the levels of soluble sugar and proline in leaves increased significantly at pH 5. To explore the mechanisms of sugar beet response to different soil pH environments, we hypothesized that proteins play an important role in plant response to acidic and alkaline pH environment. Thus, the proteome changes in sugar beet modulated by pH treatment were accessed by TMT-based quantitative proteomic analysis. A total of three groups of differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) (pH 5 vs. pH 7.5, pH 9.5 vs. pH7.5 and pH 5 vs. pH 9.5) were identified in the leaves and roots of sugar beet. Several key proteins related to the difference of sugar beet response to acid (pH 5) and alkaline (pH 9.5) and involved in response to acid stress were detected and discussed. Moreover, based on proteomics results, QRT-PCR analysis confirmed that expression levels of three N transporters (

Indexed as

acid stressproteomicssoil pHsugar beetTMT

Identifiers

PMID34178001
PMCPMC8220161
OpenAlexW3168555717

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.