Skip to main content
. 2023 May 4;21(8):1560–1576. doi: 10.1111/pbi.14057

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Effects of proline metabolism on the drought response of WT, MdPRP6, and MdRAD23D1 transgenic apple plants. (a) The free proline content in WT and MdPRP6‐Ri apple plants under drought stress. (b) The free proline content in WT and MdPRP6 transgenic apple calli. (c–e) The free proline content (c), phenotypes analyses (d), and fresh weight (e) in WT and MdPRP6‐cRi calli supplied with or without proline under 200 mm mannitol treatment. (f) The free proline content in WT and MdRAD23D1‐Ri apple plants under drought stress. (g–j) The free proline content (g), phenotypes analyses (h), electrolyte leakage (i), and MDA content (j) in WT and MdRAD23D1‐Ri plants supplied with or without proline under drought stress. The scale bar = 5 cm in (h). WT in (a) and (f–j), wild type, here we used GL‐3 apple (Malus domestic), which was also used as explants in generating transgenic apple plants; MdPRP6‐Ri1/2/3, transgenic apple plants with suppressed expression of MdPRP6 via RNA interference; MdRAD23D1‐Ri18/22/23: transgenic apple plants with suppressed expression of MdRAD23D1 via RNA‐interference. WT in (b–e), wild type, here we used ‘Orin’ apple calli (Malus domestica), which was also used as explants in generating transgenic apple calli; MdPRP6‐cOE, transgenic apple calli expressed 35S::MdPRP6Flag; MdPRP6‐cRi, transgenic apple calli with suppressed expression of MdPRP6 via RNA‐interference. Data are shown as the means ± SD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between WT and transgenic materials exposed to the same treatment (*, P < 0.05).