Skip to main content
PeerJ logoLink to PeerJ
. 2024 Jun 28;12:e17684. doi: 10.7717/peerj.17684

Comprehensive identification and expression analysis of FAR1/FHY3 genes under drought stress in maize (Zea mays L.)

Dongbo Zhao 1, Peiyan Guan 2, Longxue Wei 1, Jiansheng Gao 1, Lianghai Guo 1, Dianbin Tian 3, Qingfang Li 4, Zhihui Guo 1, Huini Cui 1, Yongjun Li 1, Jianjun Guo 1,
Editor: Imren Kutlu
PMCID: PMC11216215  PMID: 38952979

Abstract

Background

FAR1/FHY3 transcription factors are derived from transposase, which play important roles in light signal transduction, growth and development, and response to stress by regulating downstream gene expression. Although many FAR1/FHY3 members have been identified in various species, the FAR1/FHY3 genes in maize are not well characterized and their function in drought are unknown.

Method

The FAR1/FHY3 family in the maize genome was identified using PlantTFDB, Pfam, Smart, and NCBI-CDD websites. In order to investigate the evolution and functions of FAR1 genes in maize, the information of protein sequences, chromosome localization, subcellular localization, conserved motifs, evolutionary relationships and tissue expression patterns were analyzed by bioinformatics, and the expression patterns under drought stress were detected by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR).

Results

A total of 24 ZmFAR members in maize genome, which can be divided into five subfamilies, with large differences in protein and gene structures among subfamilies. The promoter regions of ZmFARs contain abundant abiotic stress-responsive and hormone-respovensive cis-elements. Among them, drought-responsive cis-elements are quite abundant. ZmFARs were expressed in all tissues detected, but the expression level varies widely. The expression of ZmFARs were mostly down-regulated in primary roots, seminal roots, lateral roots, and mesocotyls under water deficit. Most ZmFARs were down-regulated in root after PEG-simulated drought stress.

Conclusions

We performed a genome-wide and systematic identification of FAR1/FHY3 genes in maize. And most ZmFARs were down-regulated in root after drought stress. These results indicate that FAR1/FHY3 transcription factors have important roles in drought stress response, which can lay a foundation for further analysis of the functions of ZmFARs in response to drought stress.

Keywords: ZmFHY3/FAR1 transcription factors, Bioinformatics, Genome-wide analysis, Spatiotemporal expression pattern, Drought stress

Introduction

As sessile organisms, plants are frequently challenged by abiotic stresses, such as drought, salt, temperature, heavy metal ions and ultraviolet radiation, which severely affect their growth and reduce their yield (Zhang et al., 2022). Meanwhile, plants are autotrophic organisms and light is the basis of photosynthesis, therefore, studying the expression patterns and functions of light-related genes in plants can improve yield-related agronomic traits. FHY3 (far-red elongated hypocotyls 3) and FAR1 (far-red-impaired response) are two homologous proteins derived from transposases, which were initially identified in Arabidopsis, as an important component of the phytochrome A (phyA)-mediated far-red light signaling pathway (Hudson et al., 1999; Wang & Deng, 2002). FHY3 and FAR1 are plant-specific transcription factors, with separable DNA-binding domain, namely N-terminal C2H2 zinc finger domain, and transcriptional activation domains, including a central putative core transposase domain and a C-terminal SWIM motif (named after SWI2/SNF and MuDR transposases), which are essential for forming homo- or heterodimers to regulate and modulate downstream gene expression (Lin et al., 2008; Makarova, Aravind & Koonin, 2002). Studies have shown that FHY3 and FAR1 have multifaceted roles in light signaling, physiological and developmental processes, as well as in response to abiotic stresses (Lin et al., 2007; Ma & Li, 2018; Tang et al., 2013; Zheng, Sun & Liu, 2023).

In Arabidopsis, FHY3 and FAR1 encode two proteins related to mutator-like transposases that co-regulate phyA nuclear accumulation, and participate in the plant light signalling response by activating the transcription of FHY1 and FHL through direct binding to the FBS motif “CACGCGC” in the promoter (Lin et al., 2007). FHY3 and FAR1 act as positive regulators of ELF4 and CCA1, which are involved in the regulation of plant biological rhythms (Li et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2020). FHY3 is the epistatic regulator of WUSCHEL (WUS) and CLAVAT3 (CLV3), two central players in the establishment and maintenance of meristems, which in turn regulate flowering time (Li et al., 2016). Besides, FHY3 binds directly to the promoter and activates the expression of ACCUMULATION AND REPLICATION OF CHLOROPLASTS5 (ARC5) and HEMB1, which regulates chloroplast development and chlorophyll biosynthesis, respectively (Ouyang et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2012). FHY3 negatively regulate age- and light-mediated leaf senescence by repressing the transcription of WRKY28 (Tian et al., 2020). In addition, FHY3/FAR1 binds to the promoter of MIPS1 to activate its expression directly, thereby promoting inositol biosynthesis to prevent light-induced oxidative stress and SA-dependent cell death (Ma et al., 2016). Moreover, FHY3 and FAR1 promotes branching and stress tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana by integrating auxin and strigolactone signalling (Liu et al., 2020; Stirnberg et al., 2012). Furthermore, FHY3 and FAR1 can also responds to ABA signaling to regulate seed germination, seedling development, and primary root growth (Tang et al., 2013), and through the transcriptional activation of starch-debranching enzyme ISOAMYLASE2 (ISA2) affects starch synthesis and starch granule formation (Ma et al., 2017).

FHY3/FAR1 family has been identified in many plant species, including Arabidopsis, tea, cucumber, peanut, walnut, and potato (Chen et al., 2023b, 2023c; Li et al., 2023; Lin & Wang, 2004; Liu et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022). FHY3/FAR1 family has been reported to be associated with plant development in Arabidopsis, peanut, and walnut. However, in tea, potato and cucumber the researchers were mainly focused on stresses. The role of FAR1 in abiotic stresses has attracted attention in recent years. In tea, CsFHY3/FAR1s were strongly expressed in leaves, and the expression of most genes were induced under salt stress, and negatively expressed under low temperature stress (Liu et al., 2021). In Arachis hypogaea, overexpression of the AhJ11-FAR1-5 can enhance tolerance to drought stress by increasing POD, SOD, and CAT scavenging (Yan et al., 2020). In Arabidopsis, fhy3 and far1 mutants are less sensitive to salt, osmotic, while more sensitive to drought than the wild type (Tang et al., 2013). In rice, FHY3/FAR1 family member TSD1 is induced by heat and highly expressed in spikelets, and specifically enhances its thermotolerance during spikelet morphogenesis (Cai et al., 2023). In potato, most StFRS genes were down-regulated by low temperature and polyethyleneglycol (PEG) treatment (Chen et al., 2023b). These results suggested that FHY3/FAR1 genes play important roles in the response to abiotic stress.

Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important cereal crops in the world, which is grown over a very wide area, between 58°N and 40°S latitude. Maize seedlings are sensitive to drought stress, especially in the early growth stage, and drought severely influence maize production. Plant roots and mesocotyl play important roles in sensing environmental water stress (Saenz Rodriguez & Cassab, 2021). Maize has a complex root system that consists of primary, secondary and aerial roots. The formation of these root types is characterized by temporal and spatial developmental variability, implying that they have specific functions during maize development (de Dorlodot et al., 2007). At the early seedling stage, roots and mesocotyls can respond sensitively to phytohormones and environmental stresses, and they are important organs as evaluators of stress tolerance (Niu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2023). Previous studies have shown that FHY3/FAR1 genes participate in response to drought stress, but their functions in maize are still unknown. It is valuable to identify the FHY3/FAR1 family members, and to clarify their functions under drought stress. In this study, we used bioinformatics analyzed the number and classification, gene structure, chromosomal localization, and tissue expression patterns of the maize FAR1/FHY3 family members. In addition, qRT-PCR was used to detect the expression patterns of the ZmFAR1s in the roots of B73 seedlings at one-leaf and three-leaf stage under drought stress, revealing the molecular characteristics of the FAR1/FHY3 genes in maize. This study will provide the basis for further research on the biological functions of the FAR1/FHY3 gene family in maize, and also has important reference value for the genetic improvement of drought-tolerant maize lines.

Materials and Methods

Plant materials and treatments

The seeds of maize inbred line B73, were cultivated in a growth chamber under long day conditions (16 h of light, 25 °C, and 8 h of darkness, 22 °C). In order to study the expression patterns of ZmFHY3/FAR1 in roots and mesocotyls under drought stress, the control was watered normally, while the experimental group without watering. The roots and mesocotyls were harvested at one-leaf (V1) stage (Tai et al., 2016). For study the expression patterns of ZmFHY3/FAR1 at three-leaf (V3) stage in root, seedlings were treated with 10% Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-6000 (w/v) and 25% PEG-6000 aqueous solution (w/v) for 6, 24 and 48 h, respectively. Six seedlings were treated per sample, and three biological replicates were conducted for each sample. The sampling parts of maize seedlings are shown in Fig. S1. All samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C for later use.

Identification and evolutionary analysis of FAR1/FHY3 gene family members

FAR1/FHY3 protein sequences of maize were obtained from Plant TFDB (https://planttfdb.gao-lab.org/). Using the Pfam (http://pfam.xfam.org/), Smart (http://smart.embl.de/), and NCBI online tools Conservative Domain Database (CDD) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cdd/) to verify FAR/FHY3 members. Protein sequence comparison was performed with MegAlign software in DNASTAR package (Lasergene, Madison, WI, USA). Protein sequences of sugarcane, and Arabidopsis were also downloaded, and phylogenetic trees were constructed using the neighbor-joining method (NJ, bootstrap = 1,000) in MEGA 7.0 software (Kumar et al., 2018). The collinearity relationship between different gene pairs was performed using MCScanX (Wang et al., 2012). Finally, the results were visualized using the Dual Systeny Plot for MCScanX package in the TBtools (Chen et al., 2023a).

The characterization of ZmFAR proteins and subcellular localization analysis

The .gff file was downloaded from Maize GDB (https://maizegdb.org/), which can query the chromosome location and structure information of FAR1/FHY3. Based on the localization in chromosome, the ZmFAR1/FHY3 genes were renamed. Protein characterization information was obtained from the ProtParam (https://web.expasy.org/protparam/) tool in Expasy. Plant-mPLoc (http://www.csbio.sjtu.edu.cn/) was used for subcellular localization analysis, and SOMPA (Institut de Biologie et Chimie de Proteines, Lyon, France), was used to predict ZmFARs protein secondary structures.

Conserved motifs and promoter analysis of ZmFARs

Motif analysis was performed using the online tool MEME (https://meme-suite.org/meme/). Firstly, the promoter sequences (2,000 bp upstream of CDS) were obtained using the .gff3 sequence extraction tool in TBtool, and then submitted to the PlantCARE website (http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/) for cis-acting element scan. And integrated for mapping by using the Gene Structure View tool in TBtools software (Chen et al., 2023a).

Expression patterns analysis of ZmFARs

The transcriptome dataset of maize genes was downloaded from the NCBI database (GSE50191) (Walley et al., 2016) and visualized using TBtools software, for tissues expression patterns analysis.

Total RNA was extracted using RNAiso Plus (TaKaRa, Shiga, Japan). The concentration and purity of nucleic acids are determined by NanoDrop2000. cDNA was obtained by reverse transcription reaction using PrimeScriptTM RT reagent Kit with gDNA Eraser (TaKaRa, Shiga, Japan). The cDNA template was diluted for 30-fold and then stored at −20 °C for later use. ZmFAR-specific primers were designed using Beacon Designer software (Table S1), and the expression level of ZmFARs was detected by CFX96 PCR instrument (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). The qRT-PCR reaction system (15 μL) consisted of 7.5 μL of 2 × TB Green Premix Ex TaqTM II (TaKaRa, Shiga, Japan), 0.45 μL upstream and downstream specific primers, 1.6 μL of ddH2O and 5 μL of cDNA template. The reaction program was 95 °C pre-denaturation for 30 s; 95 °C denaturation for 5 s, 60 °C for 30 s, 72 °C extension for 10 s, and 40 cycles. Melt curve 65 °C to 95 °C, increment 0.5 °C. Three replications were performed for each sample, and the corresponding Ct values were obtained for different samples. After homogenization of the internal reference gene Actin 1, the relative expression of genes was calculated by the 2−ΔΔCt method (Livak & Schmittgen, 2001). Finally, the data is visualized using GraphPad prism.

Results

Screening and identification of ZmFAR family members

A total of 24 putative members with typical FAR1/FHY3 structural domains were identified from maize genome, and they were encoded by 14 genes (Fig. 1). Their CDS and protein sequences are listed in Table S2. They all have N-terminal WRKY-GCM1 zinc finger domain with the conserved cysteines and histidines of the CCHH motif (Fig. S2). And a putative “DDE” catalytic triad motif (E323 is not conserved, while G305 is conserved in FHY3) that is critical for transposase/integrase function, and C-terminal SWIM zinc-finger domain of a CxCxnCXH motif were found in all ZmFARs, expect ZmFAR01.1 (Fig. S2). Based on the chromosomal distribution, they were renamed ZmFAR01.1 to ZmFAR14.1. And they were unevenly distributed on seven chromosomes of maize, mainly on Chr1, Chr5, and Chr7. Among them, Chr7 has the highest distribution with 9 members. However, no ZmFAR was present in Chr2, Chr6, and Chr8 (Fig. 1). According to the CDD website, all members contained FHY3 conserved structural domains, among which eight members contained 1–2 FAR1 structural domains, while the rest of them did not contain FAR1 domain (Fig. 2C). These results indicated that the identification of 24 FHY3/FAR1 family members in maize was accurate.

Figure 1. The location of ZmFAR family members on chromosome.

Figure 1

Chromosome numbers are on the left and ZmFARs are on the right of chromosomes. Scale bar on the left indicates chromosome length.

Figure 2. The phylogenetic, conservative motifs and gene structure analysis of ZmFARs.

Figure 2

(A) The unrooted phylogenetic tree constructed using ZmFAR protein sequences. The subtree branch lines are colored indicate the different subfamilies. (B) Motifs analysis of ZmFARs. The top eight motifs identified by the MEME are represented by the number. (C) Conservative domains analyzed by NCBI-CDD. (D) Exon-intron structures of ZmFARs. The exons are marked as blue boxes, and the introns are represented by black lines; UTRs are shown as green boxes.

Phylogenetic analysis of the ZmFARs

In order to understand the evolutionary history and phylogenetic relationship of the FAR1/FHY3 genes family, 54 FAR1/FHY3 protein sequences (24 for maize, four for sugarcane, and 26 for Arabidopsis) were compared, and a phylogenetic tree was constructed using MEGA 7.0 software. The results showed that the FAR1/FHY3 can be divided into six subfamilies based on their sequence similarity (Fig. 3). The ZmFAR family members were most distributed in three subfamilies, mainly Group2, Group4 and Group5, with a total of 21 members; Group1 and Group3 had three members (ZmFAR01.1, ZmFAR05.1 and ZmFAR13.1); In contrast, Group6 had no ZmFAR family members. Notably, FAR1/FHY3 genes from maize and sugarcane showed close pairwise relationships based on genetic distance, compared with other proteins from different species, implying that the relationship between maize and sugarcane is closer than that between maize and other species.

Figure 3. Evolutionary relationships of FAR1/FHY3 transcription factors in maize, sugarcane, and Arabidopsis.

Figure 3

Zm indicates Zea maize (red dots), Sof indicates Saccharum officinarum (black dots), At indicates Arabidopsis thaliana. These FAR1/FHY3 proteins were divided into six groups, and were represented by different colors, respectively.

Collinearity analysis of ZmFARs

Collinearity analysis can elucidate the evolutionary history of genomes and gene families (Wang et al., 2012). To investigate the molecular mechanism of ZmFARs evolution, we analyzed the co-linearity of ZmFAR members among maize and other species by using MCScanX. Five monocots (Sorghum bicolor, Oryza sativa, Oryza indica, Saccharum spontaneum, and Hordeum vulgare), and four dicots (Arabidopsis thaliana, Solanum tuberosum, Solanum lycopersicum, and Glycine max) were applied for the co-linearity analyses. Surprisingly, there was no orthologous genes were identified in maize (Fig. S3), and dicots (Fig. S4). However, a total of 14, 12, 11, 16, and eight FAR1 paralogous gene pairs were identified in Sorghum bicolor, Oryza sativa, Oryza indica, Saccharum spontaneum, and Hordeum vulgare, respectively (Fig. 4 and Table S3). Notably, six ZmFAR members (ZmFAR03.2, ZmFAR02.2, ZmFAR01.1, ZmFAR07.2, ZmFAR12.1, and ZmFAR09.2) had syntenic pairs throughout all five monocots, which were further indicated in bold in Table S4. While, ZmFAR08.1 had one syntenic pair with sugarcane, indicating that they have a common ancestor (Abrouk et al., 2010). These results suggest that FAR1 genes evolved after the differentiation of monocots and dicots plants.

Figure 4. Synteny analysis of ZmFARs between maize and other five monocots, including Sorghum bicolor, Oryza sativa, Oryza indica, Saccharum spontaneum, and Hordeum vulgare.

Figure 4

Gray lines represent the collinear blocks between two plants in their genome. Syntenic FAR1/FHY3 gene pairs are represented by the marked red lines.

Protein characterization and subcellular localization analysis of the ZmFARs

The individual characteristics- including their physiological and biochemical properties, and cellular location are summarized in Table 1. The protein sequences and physicochemical properties of different ZmFAR transcription factors varied greatly, with amino acid lengths ranged from 648aa (ZmFAR12.2) to 1202aa (ZmFAR02.2), molecular weights ranged from 73.27 kDa (ZmFAR01.1) to 135.849 kDa (ZmFAR02.2), theoretical isoelectric points ranged from 5.31 (ZmFAR04.1) to 8.99 (ZmFAR08.1). There are seventeen basic proteins and seven acidic proteins, respectively. The grand average of hydropathicity of all ZmFAR proteins were less than 0, indicating that they all belonged to hydrophilic proteins. The instability index of ZmFAR06.1 was 39.68, which was the only stable protein in the ZmFAR family, while the rest members with instability indexes greater than 40, which belonged to unstable proteins. Plant-mPLoc localization analysis revealed that ZmFAR proteins were not only found in the nucleus, but also distributed in chloroplast, mitochondrion, vacuole, and cell wall, suggesting the evolution of potentially new functions in these locations for these proteins.

Table 1. Basic information of maize FAR1/FHY3 transcription factor family members.

ID Gene name Number of amino acids Molecular weight Theoretical pI Instability index Grand average of hydropathicity Subcellular localization
ZmFAR01.1 GRMZM2G001663 666 73,270.02 7.83 53.37 −0.477 Nucleus
ZmFAR02.1 GRMZM2G463730 1,198 135,289.47 6.37 53.39 −0.653 Chloroplast. Mitochondrion. Nucleus
ZmFAR02.2 GRMZM2G463730 1,202 135,849.03 6.14 52.73 −0.664 Chloroplast. Mitochondrion
ZmFAR03.1 GRMZM2G155980 863 97,236.72 5.76 41.19 −0.356 Nucleus
ZmFAR03.2 GRMZM2G155980 870 98,009.58 5.81 40.98 −0.365 Chloroplast. Nucleus.
ZmFAR04.1 GRMZM2G034868 817 94,179.37 5.31 47.83 −0.665 Nucleus
ZmFAR04.2 GRMZM2G034868 772 89,257.18 5.46 47.97 −0.614 Nucleus
ZmFAR05.1 GRMZM2G302323 850 96,714.61 6.77 51.62 −0.427 Chloroplast. Nucleus.
ZmFAR06.1 GRMZM2G043250 687 78,325.27 6.26 39.68 −0.572 Nucleus
ZmFAR07.1 GRMZM2G117108 879 100,616.89 6.08 45.16 −0.573 Chloroplast
ZmFAR07.2 GRMZM2G117108 883 101,135.51 6.08 44.66 −0.567 Chloroplast
ZmFAR08.1 GRMZM2G106653 805 91,773.36 8.99 55.30 −0.383 Chloroplast
ZmFAR09.1 GRMZM2G406651 855 94,584.69 7.02 52.79 −0.378 Chloroplast
ZmFAR09.2 GRMZM2G406651 855 94,584.69 7.02 52.79 −0.378 Chloroplast
ZmFAR10.1 GRMZM2G048987 690 79,156.85 6.29 40.42 −0.634 Chloroplast. Nucleus. Vacuole
ZmFAR10.2 GRMZM2G048987 779 88,945.87 6.47 44.02 −0.631 Cell wall
ZmFAR10.3 GRMZM2G048987 779 88,945.87 6.47 44.02 −0.631 Cell wall
ZmFAR11.1 GRMZM2G129311 956 107,796.18 6.15 42.91 −0.431 Cell wall. Nucleus
ZmFAR11.2 GRMZM2G129311 899 101,760.36 6.35 44.47 −0.455 Cell wall. Nucleus
ZmFAR12.1 GRMZM2G114461 704 80,279.66 7.79 48.05 −0.434 Nucleus
ZmFAR12.2 GRMZM2G114461 648 74,258.86 8.50 47.52 −0.435 Nucleus
ZmFAR13.1 GRMZM2G148940 673 76,583.46 8.89 43.22 −0.329 Chloroplast. Nucleus
ZmFAR14.1 GRMZM2G104268 1,023 115,820.99 6.03 48.53 −0.408 Nucleus
ZmFAR14.2 GRMZM2G104268 1,047 118,413.75 5.94 48.49 −0.414 Nucleus

Note:

Protein characterization information (Number of amino acids, Molecular weight, Theoretical pI, Instability index, Grand average of hydropathicity) was obtained from the ProtParam (https://web.expasy.org/protparam/). Plant-mPLoc (http://www.csbio.sjtu.edu.cn/) was used for subcellular localization analysis.

The secondary structure and conserved structural domains analysis of ZmFARs proteins

The secondary structure of ZmFARs were analyzed by SOMPA online software. The results showed that all ZmFAR members contained four conformations, with the highest proportion of α-helical and random coil structures, accounting for more than 80%. The second highest proportion is extended strand, accounting for 11.46–15.32%. And the lowest proportion is β-turned structures, accounting for only 3.00–6.84%. All proteins do not contain a beta sheet structure (Table S5).

The conserved motifs analysis of ZmFAR members were performed using MEME online software. Eight conserved motifs were set for testing. The sequence of conserved motifs was shown in Fig. S5. Noticeably, motifs composition and arrangement were in good agreement with the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2B). The ZmFAR01.1 protein of Group1 differed from the other ZmFAR family proteins greatly, and it contained only Motif4 and Motif7, indicating that the C-terminal of ZmFAR01.1 is very different from other proteins, which is consistent with the result of MegAlign comparison of protein sequences (Fig. S2). The motifs position and number of the remaining ZmFAR proteins were highly conserved and similar, indicating these genes might have similar biological functions. However, ZmFAR09.1 and ZmFAR09.2 in Group2 did not contain Motif7. Members in Group4 did not contain Motif7 except for ZmFAR14.1 and ZmFAR14.2 (Fig. 2B), suggesting ZmFAR14 may have different biological functions from ZmFAR3, ZmFAR8, and ZmFAR7.

The genes structures and promoter analysis of ZmFARs

Analyzing gene structure, especially the distribution and number of introns and exons, is very important for studying gene’s function. Therefore, we investigated the genes structures of ZmFHY3/FAR1 members. The results showed that ZmFAR01.1 in Group1 contained 4 introns; members in Group2 contained a large variation in the number of introns, containing 1–7 introns; Group3 had no introns; members in Group4 contained 4–10 introns; and members in Group5 contained 0–3 introns (Fig. 2D). UTR plays important roles in gene regulation and mRNA stability (Barrett, Fletcher & Wilton, 2012). The ZmFAR08.1 gene did not contain UTR, and the rest of the ZmFARs contained either 5’UTR or 3’UTR (Fig. 2D). It can be seen that the gene structures of the subfamilies are significantly different. Interestingly, ZmFAR family members in the same group revealed a high degree of similarity in the arrangement and distribution of exons, indicating that they might have similar biological functions. It is worth noting that nine of the fourteen genes have alternative splicing forms, and they encode at least two variations, indicating ZmFAR1s may function through variable splicing to increase the functional complexity of genes under certain conditions.

Cis-acting elements in the promoter often determine the expression and function of genes (Hernandez-Garcia & Finer, 2014). In order to explore the ZmFARs expression patterns, we analyzed its promoter by PlantCare website. There are abundant tissue-specific expression response elements, stress response elements, and hormone response elements in the promoter regions (Fig. 5). The stress response elements included high temperature (STRE), low temperature (LTR), temperature (TCA), drought (CCAAT-box, DRE core, DRE1, MBS, MRE, Myb, MYB recognition site, Myb-binding site, MYB-like sequence), anaerobic (ARE and GC-motif), damage (WRE3, W box and WUN-motif), defense and stress response (TC-rich repeats), etc. Noticeably, the drought stress response elements contained nine kinds. Hormone response elements included gibberellins (P-box, TATC-box, and GARE-motif), jasmonic acid (MYC, Myc, and JERE), methyl jasmonate (CGTCA-motif, TGACG-motif, and as-1), auxin (TGA-element, TGA-box, and AuxRR-core) salicylic acid (TCA-element, and SARE), abscisic acid (AAGAA-motif, ABRE, ABRE2, ABRE3a, and ABRE4), ethylene (ERE), and others. Especially, ABA response elements are abundant in type and number. The presence of these elements on the promoter implies that the ZmFARs may be involved in abiotic stress response in maize.

Figure 5. Cis-acting elements in promoters of ZmFARs.

Figure 5

(A) The unrooted phylogenetic tree of ZmFARs. (B) Cis-elements on promoters associated with stress response. (C) Cis-elements on promoters associated with hormone response. Boxes with different colors represent different cis-element identified by the PlantCARE, and each colored box representing a different motif, shown in the right.

Analysis of tissue expression patterns of ZmFARs

In order to elucidate the expression patterns of ZmFARs in various tissue during maize development, we analyzed the transcriptome data downloaded from the NCBI. As shown in Fig. 6, ZmFARs displayed different expression patterns in different tissues. Most ZmFARs were highly expressed in the primordium, germinatin kernel, embryo, meristem, leaf, and internode. However, the expression levels in mature pollen, silk, root, endosperm and pericarp/aleurone were low. The expression of ZmFARs varied in different tissues, with ZmFAR01 in Group1 being the most different from the other members. The highest expression of ZmFAR01 was found in mature leaf 8, while all other ZmFARs had lower expression. This result indicated that ZmFAR01 played more important roles in mature leaf than the other genes. The expression levels of ZmFAR members in Group5 were high at all tissues, and especially ZmFAR04 was most highly expressed in the primordium. The above results suggested that ZmFARs may play vital roles in different tissues during maize development.

Figure 6. The expression profiles of ZmFARs in various tissues of maize growth stage.

Figure 6

Expression analysis of ZmFARs under drought stress

The ZmFARs promoter contains many drought stress response elements, so we suppose that the ZmFARs might be involved in drought stress response in maize. At the early seedling stage, root system and mesocotyls are critical for the early vigour of maize seedlings (Peter et al., 2009; Saenz Rodriguez & Cassab, 2021). The expression level of ZmFARs in primary roots, seminal roots, lateral roots and mesocotyls of B73 seedlings before and after drought stress treatment were detect by qRT-PCR. The results showed that most ZmFARs were down-regulated in root and mesocotyls after drought stress (Fig. 7). ZmFAR01 was significantly down-regulated in primary roots, lateral roots and mesocotyls, and its expression level decrease about 2/3 under drought stress than under normal conditions (Fig. 7A). ZmFAR04, ZmFAR13, and ZmFAR14 were significantly down-regulated in primary root, seminal root, and mesocotyl, but the fold change was not large (Figs. 7D, 7M, and 7N). ZmFAR02, and ZmFAR05 were significantly down-regulated in mesocotyl (Figs. 7B, and 7E). ZmFAR03, ZmFAR08, and ZmFAR09 were significantly down-regulated in primary root (Figs. 7C, 7H, and 7I). ZmFAR07 were significantly down-regulated in primary root and seminal root (Fig. 7G), while ZmFAR10 down-regulated in primary root and lateral root (Fig. 7J). ZmFAR06, ZmFAR11, and ZmFAR12 were down-regulated in mesocotyl after drought stress (Figs. 7F, 7K, and 7L).

Figure 7. At the early seedling stage, the expression patterns of ZmFARs in root system and mesocotyls under water deficit.

Figure 7

The bars indicate the mean ± SD of three replicates (Student’s t test, *p < 0.05).

As a non-permeable, non-ionic osmoticum, polyethyleneglycol (PEG) 6000 cannot enter the pores of plant cell wall space (Oertli, 1985), and many early studies also used PEG-6000 solution to induce drought stress (Liu et al., 2024; Suslov, Daminova & Egorov, 2024). It is a better choice for imposing low water potential, causing a drought stress. To further investigate the expression of ZmFARs in maize roots at the three-leaf stage under drought conditions, 10% (w/v) and 25% (w/v) PEG-6000 aqueous solution were used to treat B73 seedlings. qRT-PCR was performed to detect the expression of ZmFARs after 6, 24, and 48 h of treatment, respectively. The results showed that the expression of ZmFARs were mostly down-regulated in root after PEG-6000 treatment (Fig. 8), which was consistent with the expression patterns in root at the early seedling stage. Compared with control, the expression patterns of ZmFAR01, ZmFAR03, ZmFAR05, ZmFAR06, ZmFAR09, ZmFAR12, ZmFAR13, and ZmFAR14 showed a continuous decrease tendency from 6 to 48 h treatments. All of them were significantly down-regulated, but the fold changes were slightly different. The remaining ZmFARs showed inconsistent expression trends under different concentrations of PEG-6000 treatments. For example, after 10% PEG treatment, the expression of ZmFAR02 showed a decreasing trend after 6 h, an increasing trend after 24 h, and a decreasing trend after 48 h. Whereas, ZmFAR02 was significantly down-regulated after 25% PEG treatment for all time detected (Fig. 8B). The expression of ZmFAR04 and ZmFAR10 showed up-regulation after 10% PEG-6000 treatment, but not significantly (Figs. 8D and 8J). These results suggested that ZmFARs may be functional redundancy and play negatively roles in the regulation of target genes expression by altering its own expression in root of maize under drought stress conditions.

Figure 8. The expression patterns of ZmFARs in root under different concentrations of PEG-6000 treatment.

Figure 8

Seedlings with no treatment as control. The bars indicate the mean ± SD of three replicates (Student’s t test, *p < 0.05).

Discussion

In this study, we identified 24 ZmFAR members encoded by 14 genes (Fig. 1), which all contain the FHY3 structural domain (Fig. 2B). FAR1/FHY3 proteins contain three functional structural domains, including the C2H2-type zinc finger domain with DNA-binding activity, the putative core transposase domain, and the SWIM zinc finger domain with transcriptional activation activity (Lin et al., 2008). All ZmFAR members have conserved CCHH motif in N-terminal (Fig. S2). The “DDE” catalytic triad motif in the middle position, as well as the SWIM zinc-finger domain at the C-terminal with conserved CxCxnCXH motif, are essential for their homodimerization or heterodimerization with other FAR1 (Lin et al., 2008). Evolutionary relationships and conserved motifs analyses revealed that the protein sequence of ZmFAR01 differs significantly from the other ZmFARs (Figs. 2 and 3), indicating ZmFAR01 may function differently from the other proteins, although its expression pattern is similar to that of the other genes after drought treatment in root (Figs. 7 and 8). Compared to other tissues, ZmFAR01 is highly expressed in mature leaves, suggesting that ZmFAR01 functions mainly in mature leaves. But what it functions? To regulate leaf response to light, to regulate leaf growth and development (leaf senescence), to regulate chloroplast synthesis in leaves, or to regulate leaf response to drought stress similar to the function in roots, all of which need to be verified.

FAR1/FHY3 play multiple roles in a wide range of cellular processes, including light signal transduction, photomorphogenesis, regulation of the biological clock and flowering time, stem meristem and flower development, chloroplast division, chlorophyll biosynthesis, starch synthesis, abscisic acid response, oxidative stress response, plant immunity, and low-phosphorus response, etc (Ma & Li, 2018). Many transcription factors, proteins involved in cell wall extension, and related to redox balance control reduced responsiveness in fhy3 (Hudson, Lisch & Quail, 2003). Subcellular localization analysis showed that ZmFARs were distributed in nucleus, chloroplast, mitochondrion, vacuole, and cell wall (Table 1). In Arabidopsis, FRS1, FRS8, and FRS9 are targeted into the nucleus despite their lack of predicted NLSs (Lin & Wang, 2004). In tea plants, CsFRS1, CsFRS7, CsFRS14, CsFRS16, CsFRS18, and CsFRS23 are predicted to target other cellular components besides the nucleus (Liu et al., 2021). This suggested that ZmFAR1s might enter the nucleus by interacting with other members of ZmFAR1s to form a homologous or heterodimers to regulate target genes expression under certain specific conditions. But the subcellular localization of ZmFAR1 needs further experimental verification.

Previous reports FAR1 family members exhibit different tissue-specific expression patterns in species. For example, in Arabidopsis, the AtFAR1s were expressed in leaves, stems, and flowers (Lin & Wang, 2004). In cotton, most genes were highly expressed in leaves and only a few genes were expressed in the stem, petal, and torus (Yuan et al., 2018). About 36.2% of AhFAR1s specific expression in flower, peg, leaf, root, and stem, 34.1% of genes were specifically expressed in shells and seeds (Lu et al., 2022). We found that most of the ZmFARs were expressed in high levels at sites of vigorous growth, such as primordium, germinatin kernel, embryo, meristem, leaf, and internode (Fig. 6), suggesting that ZmFARs plays an important role in regulating the growth and development of maize.

Improvement of root system architecture has been the goal of modern breeding programs to produce drought-tolerant varieties (Ranjan et al., 2022). Many transcription factors families have been identified participating in gene expression regulation or having an impact on root development under drought stress conditions (Janiak, Kwasniewski & Szarejko, 2016). The enrichment of the ZmFARs promoter regions with drought stress-responsive cis-acting elements predicts that the ZmFAR family members may be involved in drought stress response in maize. At early growth and development of B73 seedlings, most of the ZmFARs were down-regulated in primary roots, lateral roots and mesocotyls (Fig. 7). This is consistent with the results of different concentration of PEG simulated drought treatment of B73 seedlings in root at the three-leaf stage (Fig. 8). However, some ZmFARs were also up-regulated, such as ZmFAR04 and ZmFAR10. In barley, some HvFRF genes were significantly upregulated in response to drought stress, and HvFRF9 overexpression could enhance drought resistance in Arabidopsis (He et al., 2024). MYB96 reduces lateral root growth and enhances drought tolerance in plants by integrating ABA and auxin pathways (Seo et al., 2009). It has been found that root growth was not or only slightly affected at −0.2 MPa for short-term (Sharp et al., 2004), and lower water potentials −0.8 MPa can significantly reduce primary root elongation (Opitz et al., 2014; Sharp et al., 2004). Both concentrations of 10% (about −0.15 MPa) and 25% PEG-6000 (about −0.15 MPa) taken in this study to simulate drought (Michel & Kaufmann, 1973), root growth was affected and root hairs were significantly reduced. After 48 h of treatment, partial necrosis had appeared at the root tip site (Fig. S1). There is an epistatic role of FAR1/FHY3 family genes, which regulate the expression of other transcription factors and essential for plant growth and development (Li et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2007). We speculate that ZmFARs regulates plant drought stress resistance, may integrate ABA signalling and may regulate ABI5. It is also possible that ROS signalling may be integrated. This conjecture needs to be subsequently verified. In addition to involvement in drought, the ZmFAR1 family also has potential applications in inflorescence development (Tang et al., 2024).

Conclusions

In short, we performed a systematic identification and analysis of the FAR1/FHY3 family genes in maize. A total of twenty-four ZmFAR members, named ZmFAR01-14, were identified in the maize through a genome-wide study. ZmFARs can be divided into five subgroups based on their phylogenic relationships, and the protein and gene structures of each subfamily varied greatly. The promoter regions of ZmFARs contained abundant stress-responsive and hormone-responsive cis-elements, especially drought-responsive cis-elements. ZmFARs were expressed in all tissues of maize, but the expression level varies greatly. Most ZmFARs were down-regulated in primary roots, seminal roots, lateral roots and mesocotyls of maize under drought stress, implying that the FAR1/FHY3 family has important roles in plant growth and development, and drought stress response. FAR1/FHY3 family may negatively regulate drought stress resistance in maize. These results lay the foundation for analysis of the functions of ZmFARs in response to abiotic stresses, and also provide potential genetic resources for the genetic improvement of drought-tolerant maize lines.

Supplemental Information

Supplemental Information 1. Supplemental figures and tables.

Fig. S1: The morphology of maize seedlings before and after drought treatment. (A) and (B) represents the maize seedlings at the early seedling stage with normal growth and drought treatment, respectively. The red arrow indicates the site of the root taking. ME represents mesocotyl, SR represents seminal root, LR represents lateral root, and PR represents primary root. (C), (D), and (E) represents the morphology of maize seedlings at the three-leaf stage treated for 6, 24 and 48 h, respectively. R represents roots. I, II and III represents control, 10% PEG-6000 and 25% PEG-6000 treated maize seedlings, respectively. (F) represents morphology of maize seedlings after 48 h of PEG-6000 treatment. (G), (H) and (I) represents primary root tip enlargement after 48 h of treatment with 0, 10%, and 25% PEG-6000, respectively.

Fig. S2: Amino acid sequences alignment of ZmFARs using MegAlin. indicates the comparison of 23 proteins (except ZmFAR01), and (B) indicates the comparison of the all 24 ZmFARs. N-terminal WRKY-GCM1 zinc finger domain with the conserved CCHH amino acids, a central putative core transposase domain with the conserved DDG amino acids, and C-terminal SWIM zinc-finger domain of a CxCxnCXH motif are indicated, respectively. Black triangles represent conserved amino acids and red triangles represent amino acids not conserved at the site.

Fig. S3: Synteny analysis of ZmFARs in maize genome. The collinearity relationship between different gene pairs was performed using MCScanX. Finally, the results were visualized using the the Dual Systeny Plot for MCScanX package in the TBtools.

Fig. S4: The collinearity analysis of the ZmFAR family members between zea mays and four dicots, including Arabidopsis thaliana, Solanum tuberosum, Solanum lycopersicum, and Glycine max. Gray lines represent the collinear blocks between two plants in their genome. The MCScanX program was used to determine the covariance between different gene pairs and the results were visualized using the Dual Systeny Plot for MCScanX package in TBtools.

Fig. S5: Motif sequences identified for ZmFARs proteins. Motif analysis was performed using the online tool MEME (http://memesuite.org/). Eight conserved motifs were set for testing.

Table S1: Primers used for qRT-PCR.

Table S2: The CDS and protein sequences of 24 ZmFARs. These sequences were downloaded from Maize GDB (https://maizegdb.org/).

Table S3: Gene pairs between maize and Sorghum bicolor, Oryza sativa, Oryza indica, Saccharum spontaneum, and Hordeum vulgare, respectively. Chr indicates chromosome, and ID indicates gene name.

Table S4: The number of gene pairs between maize and other five monocots, including Sorghum bicolor, Oryza sativa, Oryza sativa, Saccharum spontaneum, and Hordeum vulgare.

Table S5: Secondary structures of ZmFAR proteins. Protein secondary structure was obtained using SOMPA online analysis software (https://npsa-prabi.ibcp.fr/cgi-bin/npsa_automat.pl?page=npsa_sopma.html).

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17684/supp-1
Supplemental Information 2. Raw data.
peerj-12-17684-s002.zip (373.3KB, zip)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17684/supp-2
Supplemental Information 3. Raw qRT-PCR data.
peerj-12-17684-s003.xlsx (69.8KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17684/supp-3
Supplemental Information 4. MIQE checklist.
peerj-12-17684-s004.xls (36.5KB, xls)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17684/supp-4

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Agricultural Variety Improvement Project of Shandong Province (No. 2022LZGC019-3); the Shandong Agricultural Industry Technology System (No. SDAIT-02-19); the China Agriculture Research System (No. CARS-02); National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 32201714); the Shandong Province Higher Educational Science and Technology Program (No. 2023KJ270); and the Dezhou University Innovation Team Program (No. DZUQC202301). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Dongbo Zhao conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Peiyan Guan performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Longxue Wei performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Jiansheng Gao analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Lianghai Guo analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Dianbin Tian analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Qingfang Li analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Zhihui Guo analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Huini Cui analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Yongjun Li analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Jianjun Guo conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Raw data are available in the Supplemental Files.

References

  • Abrouk et al. (2010).Abrouk M, Murat F, Pont C, Messing J, Jackson S, Faraut T, Tannier E, Plomion C, Cooke R, Feuillet C, Salse J. Palaeogenomics of plants: synteny-based modelling of extinct ancestors. Trends in Plant Science. 2010;15(9):479–487. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2010.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Barrett, Fletcher & Wilton (2012).Barrett LW, Fletcher S, Wilton SD. Regulation of eukaryotic gene expression by the untranslated gene regions and other non-coding elements. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2012;69(21):3613–3634. doi: 10.1007/s00018-012-0990-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cai et al. (2023).Cai Z, Wang G, Li J, Kong L, Tang W, Chen X, Qu X, Lin C, Peng Y, Liu Y, Deng Z, Ye Y, Wu W, Duan Y. Thermo-sensitive spikelet defects 1 acclimatizes rice spikelet initiation and development to high temperature. Plant Physiology. 2023;191(3):1684–1701. doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiac576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Chen et al. (2023c).Chen S, Chen Y, Liang M, Qu S, Shen L, Zeng Y, Hou N. Genome-wide identification and molecular expression profile analysis of FHY3/FAR1 gene family in walnut (Juglans sigillata L.) development. BMC Genomics. 2023c;24(1):673. doi: 10.1186/s12864-023-09629-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Chen et al. (2023b).Chen Q, Song Y, Liu K, Su C, Yu R, Li Y, Yang Y, Zhou B, Wang J, Hu G. Genome-wide identification and functional characterization of FAR1-RELATED SEQUENCE (FRS) family members in potato (Solanum tuberosum) Plants. 2023b;12(13):2575. doi: 10.3390/plants12132575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Chen et al. (2023a).Chen C, Wu Y, Li J, Wang X, Zeng Z, Xu J, Liu Y, Feng J, Chen H, He Y, Xia R. TBtools-II: A “one for all, all for one” bioinformatics platform for biological big-data mining. Molecular Plant. 2023a;16(11):1733–1742. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2023.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • de Dorlodot et al. (2007).de Dorlodot S, Forster B, Pages L, Price A, Tuberosa R, Draye X. Root system architecture: opportunities and constraints for genetic improvement of crops. Trends in Plant Science. 2007;12(10):474–481. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • He et al. (2024).He X, He Y, Dong Y, Gao Y, Sun X, Chen W, Xu X, Su C, Lv Y, Ren B, Yin H, Zeng J, Ma W, Mu P. Genome-wide analysis of FRF gene family and functional identification of HvFRF9 under drought stress in barley. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2024;15:1347842. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1347842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hernandez-Garcia & Finer (2014).Hernandez-Garcia CM, Finer JJ. Identification and validation of promoters and cis-acting regulatory elements. Plant Science. 2014;217-218:109–119. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2013.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hudson, Lisch & Quail (2003).Hudson ME, Lisch DR, Quail PH. The FHY3 and FAR1 genes encode transposase-related proteins involved in regulation of gene expression by the phytochrome A-signaling pathway. The Plant Journal. 2003;34(4):453–471. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2003.01741.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hudson et al. (1999).Hudson M, Ringli C, Boylan MT, Quail PH. The FAR1 locus encodes a novel nuclear protein specific to phytochrome A signaling. Genes & Development. 1999;13(15):2017–2027. doi: 10.1101/gad.13.15.2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Janiak, Kwasniewski & Szarejko (2016).Janiak A, Kwasniewski M, Szarejko I. Gene expression regulation in roots under drought. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2016;67(4):1003–1014. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kumar et al. (2018).Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2018;35(6):1547–1549. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Li et al. (2016).Li D, Fu X, Guo L, Huang Z, Li Y, Liu Y, He Z, Cao X, Ma X, Zhao M, Zhu G, Xiao L, Wang H, Chen X, Liu R, Liu X. FAR-RED ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL3 activates SEPALLATA2 but inhibits CLAVATA3 to regulate meristem determinacy and maintenance in Arabidopsis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2016;113:9375–9380. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1602960113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Li et al. (2023).Li X, Li Y, Qiao Y, Lu S, Yao K, Wang C, Liao W. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of FAR1/FHY3 gene family in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) Agronomy. 2023;14:50. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14010050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Li et al. (2011).Li G, Siddiqui H, Teng Y, Lin R, Wan XY, Li J, Lau OS, Ouyang X, Dai M, Wan J, Devlin PF, Deng XW, Wang H. Coordinated transcriptional regulation underlying the circadian clock in Arabidopsis. Nature Cell Biology. 2011;13(5):616–622. doi: 10.1038/ncb2219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lin et al. (2007).Lin R, Ding L, Casola C, Ripoll DR, Feschotte C, Wang H. Transposase-derived transcription factors regulate light signaling in Arabidopsis. Science. 2007;318(5854):1302–1305. doi: 10.1126/science.1146281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lin et al. (2008).Lin R, Teng Y, Park HJ, Ding L, Black C, Fang P, Wang H. Discrete and essential roles of the multiple domains of Arabidopsis FHY3 in mediating phytochrome A signal transduction. Plant Physiology. 2008;148(2):981–992. doi: 10.1104/pp.108.120436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lin & Wang (2004).Lin R, Wang H. Arabidopsis FHY3/FAR1 gene family and distinct roles of its members in light control of Arabidopsis development. Plant Physiology. 2004;136(4):4010–4022. doi: 10.1104/pp.104.052191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu et al. (2021).Liu Z, An C, Zhao Y, Xiao Y, Bao L, Gong C, Gao Y. Genome-wide identification and characterization of the CsFHY3/FAR1 gene family and expression analysis under biotic and abiotic stresses in tea plants (Camellia sinensis) Plants. 2021;10:570. doi: 10.3390/plants10030570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu et al. (2020).Liu Y, Ma M, Li G, Yuan L, Xie Y, Wei H, Ma X, Li Q, Devlin PF, Xu X, Wang H. Transcription factors FHY3 and FAR1 regulate light-induced CIRCADIAN CLOCK ASSOCIATED1 gene expression in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell. 2020;32(5):1464–1478. doi: 10.1105/tpc.19.00981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu et al. (2024).Liu Z, Wang L, Li Y, Zhu J, Li Z, Chen L, Li H, Shi T, Yao P, Bi Z, Sun C, Bai J, Zhang J, Liu Y. Genome-wide analysis of the U-box E3 ligases gene family in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and overexpress StPUB25 enhance drought tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. BMC Genomics. 2024;25(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s12864-023-09890-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Livak & Schmittgen (2001).Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods. 2001;25(4):402–408. doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lu et al. (2022).Lu Q, Liu H, Hong Y, Liang X, Li S, Liu H, Li H, Wang R, Deng Q, Jiang H, Varshney RK, Pandey MK, Chen X. Genome-wide identification and expression of FAR1 gene family provide insight into pod development in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Frontiers in Plant Science. 2022;13:893278. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.893278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ma & Li (2018).Ma L, Li G. FAR1-RELATED SEQUENCE (FRS) and FRS-RELATED FACTOR (FRF) Family Proteins in Arabidopsis Growth and Development. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018;9:692. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ma et al. (2016).Ma L, Tian T, Lin R, Deng XW, Wang H, Li G. Arabidopsis FHY3 and FAR1 regulate light-induced myo-inositol biosynthesis and oxidative stress responses by transcriptional activation of MIPS1. Molecular Plant. 2016;9(4):541–557. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2015.12.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ma et al. (2017).Ma L, Xue N, Fu X, Zhang H, Li G. Arabidopsis thaliana FAR-RED ELONGATED HYPOCOTYLS3 (FHY3) and FAR-RED-IMPAIRED RESPONSE1 (FAR1) modulate starch synthesis in response to light and sugar. New Phytologist. 2017;213(4):1682–1696. doi: 10.1111/nph.14300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Makarova, Aravind & Koonin (2002).Makarova KS, Aravind L, Koonin EV. SWIM, a novel Zn-chelating domain present in bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. Trends in Biochemical Sciences. 2002;27(8):384–386. doi: 10.1016/S0968-0004(02)02140-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Michel & Kaufmann (1973).Michel BE, Kaufmann MR. The osmotic potential of polyethylene glycol 6000. Plant Physiology. 1973;51(5):914–916. doi: 10.1104/pp.51.5.914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Niu et al. (2020).Niu L, Hao R, Wu X, Wang W, Tuberosa R. Maize mesocotyl: role in response to stress and deep-sowing tolerance. Plant Breeding. 2020;139(3):466–473. doi: 10.1111/pbr.12804. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Oertli (1985).Oertli JJ. The response of plant cells to different forms of moisture stress. Journal of Plant Physiology. 1985;121(4):295–300. doi: 10.1016/S0176-1617(85)80022-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Opitz et al. (2014).Opitz N, Paschold A, Marcon C, Malik WA, Lanz C, Piepho HP, Hochholdinger F. Transcriptomic complexity in young maize primary roots in response to low water potentials. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1):741. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ouyang et al. (2011).Ouyang X, Li J, Li G, Li B, Chen B, Shen H, Huang X, Mo X, Wan X, Lin R, Li S, Wang H, Deng XW. Genome-wide binding site analysis of FAR-RED ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL3 reveals its novel function in Arabidopsis development. The Plant Cell. 2011;23(7):2514–2535. doi: 10.1105/tpc.111.085126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Peter et al. (2009).Peter R, Eschholz TW, Stamp P, Liedgens M. Early growth of flint maize landraces under cool conditions. Crop Science. 2009;49(1):169–178. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2007.10.0538. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Ranjan et al. (2022).Ranjan A, Sinha R, Singla-Pareek SL, Pareek A, Singh AK. Shaping the root system architecture in plants for adaptation to drought stress. Physiol Plantarum. 2022;174(2):e13651. doi: 10.1111/ppl.13651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Saenz Rodriguez & Cassab (2021).Saenz Rodriguez MN, Cassab GI. Primary root and mesocotyl elongation in maize seedlings: two organs with antagonistic growth below the soil surface. Plants (Basel) 2021;10(7):1274. doi: 10.3390/plants10071274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Seo et al. (2009).Seo PJ, Xiang F, Qiao M, Park JY, Lee YN, Kim SG, Lee YH, Park WJ, Park CM. The MYB96 transcription factor mediates abscisic acid signaling during drought stress response in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 2009;151(1):275–289. doi: 10.1104/pp.109.144220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sharp et al. (2004).Sharp RE, Poroyko V, Hejlek LG, Spollen WG, Springer GK, Bohnert HJ, Nguyen HT. Root growth maintenance during water deficits: physiology to functional genomics. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2004;55(407):2343–2351. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erh276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Stirnberg et al. (2012).Stirnberg P, Zhao S, Williamson L, Ward S, Leyser O. FHY3 promotes shoot branching and stress tolerance in Arabidopsis in an AXR1-dependent manner. The Plant Journal. 2012;71(6):907–920. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.05038.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Suslov, Daminova & Egorov (2024).Suslov M, Daminova A, Egorov J. Real-time dynamics of water transport in the roots of intact maize plants in response to water stress: the role of aquaporins and the contribution of different water transport pathways. Cells. 2024;13(2):154. doi: 10.3390/cells13020154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tai et al. (2016).Tai H, Lu X, Opitz N, Marcon C, Paschold A, Lithio A, Nettleton D, Hochholdinger F. Transcriptomic and anatomical complexity of primary, seminal, and crown roots highlight root type-specific functional diversity in maize (Zea mays L.) Journal of Experimental Botany. 2016;67(4):1123–1135. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tang et al. (2013).Tang W, Ji Q, Huang Y, Jiang Z, Bao M, Wang H, Lin R. FAR-RED ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL3 and FAR-RED IMPAIRED RESPONSE1 transcription factors integrate light and abscisic acid signaling in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 2013;163(2):857–866. doi: 10.1104/pp.113.224386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tang et al. (2024).Tang H, Jing D, Liu C, Xie X, Zhang L, Chen X, Li C. Genome-wide identification and expression analyses of the FAR1/FHY3 gene family provide insight into inflorescence development in maize. Current Issues in Molecular Biology. 2024;46(1):430–449. doi: 10.3390/cimb46010027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tang et al. (2012).Tang W, Wang W, Chen D, Ji Q, Jing Y, Wang H, Lin R. Transposase-derived proteins FHY3/FAR1 interact with PHYTOCHROME-INTERACTING FACTOR1 to regulate chlorophyll biosynthesis by modulating HEMB1 during deetiolation in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell. 2012;24(5):1984–2000. doi: 10.1105/tpc.112.097022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tian et al. (2020).Tian T, Ma L, Liu Y, Xu D, Chen Q, Li G. Arabidopsis FAR-RED ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL3 integrates age and light signals to negatively regulate leaf senescence. The Plant Cell. 2020;32(5):1574–1588. doi: 10.1105/tpc.20.00021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Walley et al. (2016).Walley JW, Sartor RC, Shen Z, Schmitz RJ, Wu KJ, Urich MA, Nery JR, Smith LG, Schnable JC, Ecker JR, Briggs SP. Integration of omic networks in a developmental atlas of maize. Science. 2016;353(6301):814–818. doi: 10.1126/science.aag1125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang & Deng (2002).Wang H, Deng XW. Arabidopsis FHY3 defines a key phytochrome A signaling component directly interacting with its homologous partner FAR1. The EMBO Journal. 2002;21(6):1339–1349. doi: 10.1093/emboj/21.6.1339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang et al. (2012).Wang Y, Tang H, Debarry JD, Tan X, Li J, Wang X, Lee TH, Jin H, Marler B, Guo H, Kissinger JC, Paterson AH. MCScanX: a toolkit for detection and evolutionary analysis of gene synteny and collinearity. Nucleic Acids Research. 2012;40(7):e49. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr1293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Yan et al. (2020).Yan CL, Sun C, Zhang Q, Wang H, Yuan J, Shan C, Zhao S, X Cloning and function analysis of FAR1-5 transcription factor in peanut. Peanut Science. 2020;49:16–20. doi: 10.14001/j.issn.1002-4093.2020.02.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Yuan et al. (2018).Yuan NW, Liu T, Yang T, Guo Y, Liu Y, Zhang D, Du B, J Genome-wide analysis of the FAR1/FHY3 gene family in cotton. Cotton Science. 2018;14:1–11. doi: 10.11963/1002-7807.yndjc.20171214. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang et al. (2023).Zhang H, Mu Y, Zhang H, Yu C. Maintenance of stem cell activity in plant development and stress responses. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2023;14:1302046. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1302046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang et al. (2022).Zhang H, Zhu J, Gong Z, Zhu JK. Abiotic stress responses in plants. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2022;23(2):104–119. doi: 10.1038/s41576-021-00413-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zheng, Sun & Liu (2023).Zheng Y, Sun Y, Liu Y. Emerging roles of FHY3 and FAR1 as system integrators in plant development. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2023;64(10):1139–1145. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcad068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Information 1. Supplemental figures and tables.

Fig. S1: The morphology of maize seedlings before and after drought treatment. (A) and (B) represents the maize seedlings at the early seedling stage with normal growth and drought treatment, respectively. The red arrow indicates the site of the root taking. ME represents mesocotyl, SR represents seminal root, LR represents lateral root, and PR represents primary root. (C), (D), and (E) represents the morphology of maize seedlings at the three-leaf stage treated for 6, 24 and 48 h, respectively. R represents roots. I, II and III represents control, 10% PEG-6000 and 25% PEG-6000 treated maize seedlings, respectively. (F) represents morphology of maize seedlings after 48 h of PEG-6000 treatment. (G), (H) and (I) represents primary root tip enlargement after 48 h of treatment with 0, 10%, and 25% PEG-6000, respectively.

Fig. S2: Amino acid sequences alignment of ZmFARs using MegAlin. indicates the comparison of 23 proteins (except ZmFAR01), and (B) indicates the comparison of the all 24 ZmFARs. N-terminal WRKY-GCM1 zinc finger domain with the conserved CCHH amino acids, a central putative core transposase domain with the conserved DDG amino acids, and C-terminal SWIM zinc-finger domain of a CxCxnCXH motif are indicated, respectively. Black triangles represent conserved amino acids and red triangles represent amino acids not conserved at the site.

Fig. S3: Synteny analysis of ZmFARs in maize genome. The collinearity relationship between different gene pairs was performed using MCScanX. Finally, the results were visualized using the the Dual Systeny Plot for MCScanX package in the TBtools.

Fig. S4: The collinearity analysis of the ZmFAR family members between zea mays and four dicots, including Arabidopsis thaliana, Solanum tuberosum, Solanum lycopersicum, and Glycine max. Gray lines represent the collinear blocks between two plants in their genome. The MCScanX program was used to determine the covariance between different gene pairs and the results were visualized using the Dual Systeny Plot for MCScanX package in TBtools.

Fig. S5: Motif sequences identified for ZmFARs proteins. Motif analysis was performed using the online tool MEME (http://memesuite.org/). Eight conserved motifs were set for testing.

Table S1: Primers used for qRT-PCR.

Table S2: The CDS and protein sequences of 24 ZmFARs. These sequences were downloaded from Maize GDB (https://maizegdb.org/).

Table S3: Gene pairs between maize and Sorghum bicolor, Oryza sativa, Oryza indica, Saccharum spontaneum, and Hordeum vulgare, respectively. Chr indicates chromosome, and ID indicates gene name.

Table S4: The number of gene pairs between maize and other five monocots, including Sorghum bicolor, Oryza sativa, Oryza sativa, Saccharum spontaneum, and Hordeum vulgare.

Table S5: Secondary structures of ZmFAR proteins. Protein secondary structure was obtained using SOMPA online analysis software (https://npsa-prabi.ibcp.fr/cgi-bin/npsa_automat.pl?page=npsa_sopma.html).

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17684/supp-1
Supplemental Information 2. Raw data.
peerj-12-17684-s002.zip (373.3KB, zip)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17684/supp-2
Supplemental Information 3. Raw qRT-PCR data.
peerj-12-17684-s003.xlsx (69.8KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17684/supp-3
Supplemental Information 4. MIQE checklist.
peerj-12-17684-s004.xls (36.5KB, xls)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17684/supp-4

Data Availability Statement

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Raw data are available in the Supplemental Files.


Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc

RESOURCES