ArticleBMC plant biology2025
Genotypic difference in response to copper stress in upland cotton as revealed by physiological and molecular expression analyses.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCotton is a non-edible fiber crop with considerable potential for the remediation of copper-polluted soil. However, the Cu toxicity tolerance mechanism in cotton remains largely obscure. To address the issue, we first identified two cotton lines contrasting in response to Cu toxicity by examining 12 morphological and physiological attributes of 43 origin scattered cotton genotypes under Cu excess. Then both lines were subjected to a comprehensive comparative study, aiming to unravel the cotton Cu tolerance mechanism through integrated morphological, physio-biochemical, Cu uptake and distribution, and related molecular expression analyses.
resultsBased on the phenotypic values and corresponding tolerance indexes of 12 parameters, A2304 and A1415 were identified as Cu-tolerant and -sensitive, respectively. Compared to A1415, A2304 exhibited significantly higher antioxidant enzyme activities and non-enzymatic antioxidant levels, producing fewer amounts of reactive oxygen species and a lower level of malonyldialdehyde. On Cu excess, A2304 accumulated lower concentrations of Cu ions in various plant parts and subcellular components, and fewer Cu ions were presented in active chemical forms. However, the total Cu uptake amount per plant did not differ between both lines due to larger plant biomass with A2304. In contrast to A1415, Cu stress activated or increased the expressions of Cu homeostasis regulator (GhSPL7) and genes responsible for Cu delivery (GhCCS, GhCOX17), chelation (GhMT2), and compartmentation into vacuoles (GhHMA5), while inactivating or decreasing the expressions of genes accounting for Cu uptake (GhCOPT1) and Cu exporting from vacuoles (GhCOPT5) in the root cell with A2304. Additionally, A2304 may impede the root cell wall from binding Cu ions by enhancing the pectin methylesterification degree by up-regulating GhPMEI3 and GhPMEI9 encoding pectin methylesterase inhibitor and stabilizing the cell wall organization by down-regulating GhPLY8 and GhPLY20 encoding pectate lyases.
conclusionsTo cope with Cu toxicity, the Cu-tolerant genotype activates its antioxidative defense system, immobilizing chemically active Cu ions, and lowering the Cu uptake, bioavailability and immigration within cells by regulating the expressions of genes related to Cu uptake, transport, delivery and cell wall metabolism. This comprehensive comparison study provides insights into breeding Cu-tolerant cotton cultivars that can be utilized for the phytoremediation of Cu-contaminated soils.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.