Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0254189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254189

Transcriptome analysis of bread wheat leaves in response to salt stress

Nazanin Amirbakhtiar 1,2, Ahmad Ismaili 1, Mohammad-Reza Ghaffari 3, Raheleh Mirdar Mansuri 3, Sepideh Sanjari 3, Zahra-Sadat Shobbar 3,*
Editor: Guangxiao Yang4
PMCID: PMC8270127  PMID: 34242309

Abstract

Salinity is one of the main abiotic stresses limiting crop productivity. In the current study, the transcriptome of wheat leaves in an Iranian salt-tolerant cultivar (Arg) was investigated in response to salinity stress to identify salinity stress-responsive genes and mechanisms. More than 114 million reads were generated from leaf tissues by the Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform. An amount of 81.9% to 85.7% of reads could be mapped to the wheat reference genome for different samples. The data analysis led to the identification of 98819 genes, including 26700 novel transcripts. A total of 4290 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were recognized, comprising 2346 up-regulated genes and 1944 down-regulated genes. Clustering of the DEGs utilizing Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) indicated that transcripts associated with phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, transporters, transcription factors, hormone signal transduction, glycosyltransferases, exosome, and MAPK signaling might be involved in salt tolerance. The expression patterns of nine DEGs were investigated by quantitative real-time PCR in Arg and Moghan3 as the salt-tolerant and susceptible cultivars, respectively. The obtained results were consistent with changes in transcript abundance found by RNA-sequencing in the tolerant cultivar. The results presented here could be utilized for salt tolerance enhancement in wheat through genetic engineering or molecular breeding.

Introduction

Plant growth and productivity are seriously threatened by abiotic stresses [1]. Among abiotic stresses, salt stress is considered a serious threat to crop yield worldwide [2]. Wheat is the third most important cereal crop in the world [3], and salinity levels of 6–8 dsm-1 cause to decline wheat yield [4]. A practical approach to minimize salinity’s impact on global wheat production is to enhance salt tolerance in wheat cultivars.

Ion toxicity, nutrient limitations, and oxidative and osmotic stresses are the adverse effects of salinity stress on crops [5]. Plant salt tolerance is achieved through integrated responses at physiological, cellular, molecular, and metabolic levels. At the molecular level, genes coding for transcription factors, ion transporters, protein kinases, and osmolytes are involved in salt tolerance [6, 7]. Some signaling pathways, including plant hormones, salt overly sensitive (SOS), calcium, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), and proline metabolism, play critical roles in salt stress tolerance, as well [812]. Salinity tolerance, as a quantitative trait, is under the control of multiple genes [13]. Thus, it is necessary to discover key components underlying the salt tolerance network to improve it through genetic engineering.

RNA-sequencing provides a much more accurate measurement of transcript levels and isoforms compared to other transcriptomic methods [14]. A few studies applied RNA-sequencing technology to inspect the transcriptome profile of shoots under salt conditions in bread wheat in recent years. Comparing the shoot expression profiling in a salinity tolerant mutant of Triticum aestivum L and its susceptible wild type exposed to salt stress resulted in discovering some salt tolerance involved genes like polyamine oxidase, arginine decarboxylase, and hormones-associated genes, which were further up-regulated in the mutant. They also succeeded in finding "Butanoate metabolism" as a novel salt stress-response pathway and indicated that oxidation-reduction (redox) homeostasis was essential for salt tolerance [15]. In another study, Mahajan et al. (2017) performed RNA-sequencing to prepare transcriptome profiling of flag leaves in the salt-tolerant cultivar of Kharcha in response to salt stress. They indicated that the up-regulated genes under salt stress were related to different biological processes like ion transport, phytohormones signaling, signal transduction, osmoregulation, flavonoid biosynthesis, and ROS homeostasis [16]. Luo et al. (2019) compared young and old leaf transcriptome of a salt-tolerant bread wheat cultivar and a high-yielding cultivar with lower salt tolerance in response to salinity. They found that the polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) metabolism was the most significant term/pathway in the salt-tolerant wheat cultivar according to the enriched GO terms and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways analysis. They suggested that PUFAs could promote salt tolerance through the photosynthetic system and JA-related pathways [17].

Zhang et al. (2016) compared root transcriptome response of a salt-tolerant and a salt-sensitive cultivar and identified two NAC transcription factors (TFs), a MYB TF (homologous to AtMYB33), a gene positively associated with root hair development (Ta.RSL4) and a gene coding for histone-lysine N-methyl transferase (homologous to Arabidopsis AtSDG16) as essential genes for salinity tolerance in Triticum aestivum [18]. Amirbakhtiar et al. (2019) evaluated transcriptome profile of a salt tolerant bread wheat cultivar in response to salinity. They identified pathways related to transporters, phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, TFs, glycosyltransferases, glutathione metabolism and plant hormone signal transduction as the most important pathways involved in salt stress response [19]. Mahajan et al. (2020) sequenced root transcriptome of a salt tolerant wheat cultivar at anthesis stage. They showed that genes involved in ROS homeostasis, ion transport, signal transduction, ABA biosynthesis and osmoregulation up-regulated in response to salt stress. They also indicated that genes coding for expansin, dehydrins, xyloglucan endotransglucosylase and peroxidases, engaged in root growth improvement, up-regulated under salt stress [20]. Despite the valuable insight discovered by recent researches about the cellular and molecular mechanisms engaged in salinity stress response and tolerance in bread wheat, many aspects are still uncovered. In the current study, considering Iran as one of the origin lands of Triticum aestivum and its wild lineages [2124], deep transcriptome sequencing was used for an Iranian salt-tolerant wheat cultivar (Arg) under normal and salinity conditions to complement the insights regarding molecular mechanisms involved in bread wheat salt-tolerance. We succeeded in providing a panel of the regulatory mechanisms at transcriptional level in the leaves of the salt-tolerant wheat cultivar (Arg) under salinity stress by identifying all differentially expressed genes, novel salt-responsive genes, and diverse metabolic pathways involved in response to salinity stress.

Materials and methods

Wheat culture conditions and salinity treatment

Seeds of the bread wheat salt-tolerant (Arg) and salt-sensitive (Moghan3) genotypes were kindly supplied by Seed and Plant Improvement Institute (SPII), Karaj, Iran. After surface sterilizing the seeds in 1% sodium hypochlorite, they were grown on moist filter paper for approximately 72 hours. The uniform germinated seeds were then selected and transferred to half-strength Hoagland’s culture solution in the greenhouse. NaCl solution (150 mM) was used to treat the three-week old plants for 12 and 72 hours. The leaves of the control and salt-stressed plants were collected separately. The number of biological replicates was four, and each replicate included three independent plants. The samples were frozen instantly in liquid nitrogen and kept at -80°C.

Measurements of Na+ and K+ concentrations

The leaves of the plants exposed to salt stress for 72 hr were harvested and dried at 70°C for 48 hr. Flame spectrophotometry method was used to measure Na+ and K+ concentrations [25].

RNA isolation and Illumina sequencing

RNA was extracted from wheat leaves with four biological replicates under normal and salinity conditions utilizing RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen). Equal quantities of the total RNA of every two biological replicates of Arg cultivar were pooled together to prepare two replicates for the RNA sequencing. Agarose gel electrophoresis, nanodrop, and Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 system (Agilent Technologies Co. Ltd., Beijing, China) were used to control the quantity, quality, and integrity of RNA. The RIN value of the samples used for sequencing was more than or equal to 6.9. cDNA library preparation and sequencing were performed using an Illumina Hiseq 2500 platform at the Novogene Bioinformatics Institute (Beijing, China). The generated reads were paired-end with 150bp size. After sequencing, adapter-containing reads, poly-N-containing reads (N > 10%), and low quality (Qscore< = 5) base-containing reads were eliminated.

Read mapping and reference-based assembly

The FastQC toolkit was used to assess the quality of raw fastq data. Tophat software with standard parameters was utilized to map the high-quality reads to the wheat reference genome (ftp://ftp.ensemblgenomes.org/pub/release-34/plants/fasta/triticum_aestivum/dna/). Cufflinks with default settings was applied to create assembly based on the Tophat mapping files. The individual assemblies were merged using Cuffmerge with default options, and a final assembly was produced. The novel transcripts were recognized via Cuffmerge [26]. For functional annotation, Blast2GO via BlastX with 1e-3 as an e-value cut-off was used to align all the transcripts against NCBI’s non-redundant protein database. This software was also utilized to obtain the gene ontology (GO) terms of transcripts with a p-value cut-off of 0.05.

Differential gene expression analysis

The gene/transcript expression was calculated using the FPKM method. Significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified applying Cuffdiff provided in the Cufflinks package based on |log2 fold change| ≥ 1 and Q-value cut off ≤ 0.01.

Functional annotation and pathway enrichment analysis of DEGs

The Online KEGG Automatic Annotation Server (KAAS), http://www.genome.jp/kegg/kaas [27], was utilized to identify metabolic pathways in which DEGs were engaged. The pathway analysis of the DEGs was performed applying Mapman (version 3.5.1; http://mapman.gabipd.org/web/guest) [28] with a p-value limit of ≤ 0.05.

Confirmation of RNA-sequencing results by Real-Time PCR analysis

The extracted RNAs from three biological replicates were reverse-transcribed with qScript cDNA Synthesis Kit (Quantabio, USA) for first-strand cDNA synthesis based on the manufacturer’s protocol. LightCycler® 96 Real-Time PCR System (Roche Life Science, Germany) and SYBR Premix EX TaqII (Takara Bio Inc, Japan) were utilized to perform Quantitative Real-Time PCR. Actin was used in place of an internal control gene in the RT-PCR experiment to normalize the gene expression value [17, 19, 29, 30]. Genes with log2 fold change ≥ 1 or log2 fold change ≤ -1 were considered as significant DEGs.

Specific primers for the selected genes are listed in S1 Table. Each gene’s transcript level in every genotype under control conditions was utilized as the calibrator for each time point. The 2−ΔΔCt procedure [31] was applied to calculate the relative expressions of the selected genes.

Results

Na+ and K+ content

The salt stress led to a significant increase in Na+ content and a significant decrease in the K+/Na+ ratio in the roots and leaves of both genotypes. A significant increase was observed in the K+ content of the roots in both genotypes under salinity stress, while no significant change was observed in their leaves. As expected, less Na+ content and more K+/Na+ ratio were observed in the leaves of the tolerant cultivar (Arg) compared to those of the susceptible cultivar (Moghan 3) under salinity stress. A higher accumulation and maintenance of Na+ ion in the roots than in the leaves may act as a tolerance mechanism by maintaining the essential osmotic potential for absorbing water into the root and limiting Na+ ion flux into the shoot [32]. The higher accumulation of Na+ ion in the root than in the leaf blade is a salt tolerance mechanism in the grasses, limiting the transfer of sodium ions into photosynthetic cells and active meristem tissues [33]. The higher amount of Na+ in the roots of Arg compared to those of Moghan 3 and the less amount of Na+ in the leaves of Arg compared to those of Moghan 3 under salinity stress indicate that root can be considered as an important barrier to prevent the transfer of Na+ to the leaves in Arg (S1 and S2 Figs). This result is consistent with the results obtained by Davenport et al. (2007) [34].

Sequencing statistics and reference-based analysis

A total of 114.29 million raw reads were obtained by transcriptome sequencing. After removing adapters and low-quality reads, a total of 112.6 million clean reads were produced, while more than 88.1% of clean reads had Phred-like quality scores at the Q30 level (Table 1). Accession numbers of SRR7975953, SRR7968059, SRR7968053, and SRR7920873 at the SRA (Sequence Read Achieve) of NCBI include the raw transcriptome reads generated in the current study.

Table 1. Summary of sequencing results.

Sample name Raw reads (paired end) Clean reads (paired end) Q20% Q30%
Control-rep1 27,152,094 26,623,849 96.38 91.25
Control-rep2 31,085,137 30,489,825 96.38 91.23
Salt-stressed-rep1 26,752,355 26,460,382 94.69 88.1
Salt-stressed-rep2 29,307,102 29,030,761 94.37 87.5
Total 114,296,688 112,604,817 ≥ 94.37 ≥ 87.5

Mapping the cleaned high-quality reads to the wheat reference genome (ftp://ftp.ensemblgenomes.org/pub/release-34/plants/fasta/triticum_aestivum/dna/) showed that around 81.9%-85.7% of the reads were mapped successfully to the wheat reference sequence, including 72.8%-79.3% uniquely matched (Table 2). The aligned reads were assembled using cufflinks while 187003 and 98819 transcript isoforms and genes were identified, respectively.

Table 2. Results of mapping reads to the reference genes.

Reads mapping Reads number (%)
Control-rep1 Control-rep2 Salt-stressed-rep1 Salt-stressed-rep2
Total reads 53247698 60979650 52920764 58061522
Total mapped reads 45573294(85.6%) 52244911(85.7%) 43386060(82%) 47556787(81.9%)
Unique match 42239930(79.3%) 48007353(78.7%) 40090198(75.8%) 42283991(72.8%)
Multi-position match 3333364(6.3%) 4237558(7%) 3295862(6.2%) 5272796(9.1%)
Total unmapped reads 7674404 (14.4%) 8734739(14.3%) 9534704(18%) 10504735(18.1%)

Exploration of novel transcripts via mRNA sequencing

The discovery of novel genes/transcripts is one of the main benefits of RNA- sequencing experiments [14, 35, 36]. The current study identified 27800 and 16339 novel transcript isoforms and genes, respectively. Conforming with other crops, including rice and maize [37, 38], the mean length of the novel transcripts (1609 bp) was less than that of the annotated transcripts (2304 bp). Based on the gene ontology analysis results, a putative function was assigned to more than 53.1% of the novel transcripts.

The GO analysis of the novel transcripts revealed that these novel genes would play a role in biological processes, including stimulus responses, localization, biogenesis, and biological regulation (S2 Table). Molecular function classification showed that the novel transcripts were enriched in some terms such as transferase, oxidoreductase, catalytic, and hydrolase activities; small molecule and ion binding; carbohydrate derivative binding; and organic cyclic and heterocyclic compound binding (S3 Table). The novel transcripts were also enriched in some cellular component categories, such as intracellular membrane-bounded organelle, an integral component of membrane, cytoplasm, mitochondrion, nucleus, and chloroplast (S4 Table).

Identification of DEGs involved in salt stress response

In total, 4290 genes were differentially regulated under salinity stress, of which 2346 and 1944 were up- and down-regulated genes, respectively (S5 Table). Among the DEGs, 110 and 98 genes were exclusively expressed under salt-stressed and normal conditions, respectively (S3A Fig). Some essential genes engaged in response to abiotic stresses, including LEA proteins, dehydrins, bHLH transcription factor, phosphatase 2C, peroxidase, and calcium-transporting ATPase plasma membrane-type (S6 Table), were observed among the genes exclusively expressed under salinity stress. Surveying the fold change distribution of the DEGs indicated that the most and least number of the genes had a fold change of 2–3 and 6–7, respectively (S3B Fig).

GO categorization of DEGs

The gene ontology analysis indicated that GO terms were assigned to 3594 out of 4290 genes. In biological process classification, the majority of the genes were involved in the metabolic process (23.4%) followed by cellular process (20.4%), single-organism process (17.4%), stimulus-response (6.7%), and biological regulation (6.6%). In molecular function categorization, catalytic activity (45.9%), binding (37.7%) and transporter activity (7.5%) were the most frequent terms and in the cellular component category, cell (22%), cell part (21.9%), and membrane (16.1%) were the most dominant terms (Fig 1).

Fig 1. GO classification of the DEGs in Arg cultivar.

Fig 1

Percentage of the transcripts in cellular component, molecular function, and biological process classifications are represented.

Functional identification of novel DEGs

Comparing the functional annotation of the novel salt responsive genes against NCBI’s non-redundant (nr) protein database utilizing the Blast2GO tool indicated that 320 (70%) out of the 457 novel DEGs were aligned to the NR protein database. In contrast, the rest of the genes (30%) displayed no homology to database sequences. The GO classification showed that 230 novel DEGs (50.3%) were assigned to GO terms, and 205 novel DEGs (44.9%) were grouped in significant GO terms (S4A Fig). In the cellular component category, cell part, cell, and membrane were the prevailing clusters. However, the top three classes were catalytic activity, binding, and transporter activity concerning the molecular function. In biological process categorization, most of the genes were involved in the metabolic and cellular processes followed by regulating the single-organism process, regulating the biological process and responding to a stimulus (S4B Fig).

The genes coding for Phosphatase 2C [39], Delta-1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthase [40], MYB transcription factor [41], Sodium/Calcium exchanger [42], Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase large chain [43], Late Embryogenesis Abundant protein [44], Glutahione S-trasferase [45], and cytochrome P450 monooxygenase [46] (S7 Table) with potential roles in salt stress response were observed among the novel DEGs.

KEGG pathway classification of DEGs

In an attempt to map DEGs to various biological pathways, a single-directional BLAST search showed that 1503 out of the 4290 DEGs were categorized into 227 KEGG pathways, located in the five chief KEGG classes (Fig 2A). Pathways relating to phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, transporters, transcription factors, plant hormone signal transduction, glycosyltransferases, exosome, MAPK signaling pathway, peptidases, cytochrome P450, and sucrose and starch metabolism included the highest number of DEGs (Fig 2B, S8 Table). The involvement of these pathways in environmental stress response was confirmed in previous reports [29, 47, 48].

Fig 2. KEGG categorization of the DEGs.

Fig 2

(A) Categorization of the DEGs into five chief KEGG classes. (B) The top 10 pathways with the highest gene number.

The phenylpropanoid pathway with the highest gene number is responsible for synthesizing diverse secondary metabolites in plants such as lignin, flavonoids, and coumarins playing roles in developmental and stress–associated processes [49, 50]. In the first step of this pathway, cinnamic acid is synthesized from phenylalanine by the rate-limiting enzyme of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) [51]. In this study, 29 up-regulated DEGs coding for PAL were mapped in this pathway.

Plants utilize deposition of lignin or modification of monomeric lignin composition in the cell wall to defeat salinity stress [52]. In the present study, the up-regulated DEGs coding for shikimate hydroxycinnamoyl transferase, cinnamoyl-CoA reductase, and caffeic acid 3-O-methyltransferase, which were all involved in lignification, were mapped in the phenylpropanoid pathway, while their over-expression was also reported under salinity stress in prior researches [5355].

Functional analysis of salt-regulated genes using Mapman

The putative function of the salt-regulated genes was searched utilizing Mapman to visualize salt-induced alterations in diverse metabolic processes. Metabolic pathway overviews based on the results of mapping salt-responsive genes indicated that photosynthesis and cell wall biosynthesis pathways were among the enriched pathways (Fig 3, S9 Table). Most of the genes encoded chlorophyll-binding proteins in the photosynthesis pathway, showing down-regulation under salt stress. The decrease in photosynthesis efficiency under abiotic stresses was reported in previous studies [56, 57].

Fig 3. Metabolic pathway overview of the DEGs in Arg cultivar under salinity stress utilizing Mapman.

Fig 3

The down- and up-regulated genes are shown in red and blue, respectively.

Mapping the DEGs to the cellular pathways indicated that the misc pathway, including genes regarding abiotic stress-related various enzyme families, was enriched under salt stress (S5 Fig., S9 Table). Most of the misc pathway genes are Germin-like proteins (GLPs), which code for ubiquitous plant glycoproteins and belong to the cupin superfamily. One of the main roles of the proteins mentioned above is triggering the abiotic stress-tolerance in many plant species. Li et al. (2016) revealed that GLP transcripts were plentiful after treatment with high salinity, PEG6000, abscisic acid, and methyl viologen in soybean. Arabidopsis plants overexpressing a GLP from soybean indicated enhanced drought, salt, and oxidative tolerance [58]. Furthermore, Arabidopsis transgenic plants, which overexpressed genes encoding peanut GLPs, showed increased tolerance to salinity. Complementary studies also showed that PR-defense genes and antioxidant coding genes, which can increase salt tolerance, showed up-regulation in transgenic plants [59].

Investigating the secondary metabolite pathways revealed that the genes playing roles in terpenoid, lignin, phenols, isoflavonoid, and wax metabolic pathways were significantly enriched under salt stress (S6 Fig, S9 Table). Furthermore, the stress response pathways showed that the transcription regulators and peroxidases and the genes relating to brassinosteroid signaling pathways were enriched in Arg cultivar under salt stress (S7 Fig., S9 Table).

Confirmation of gene expression patterns by qRT-PCR

The expression pattern of nine candidate salt-regulated genes was examined by qRT-PCR to validate the RNA-sequencing results (Fig 4). The high consistency between qRT-PCR and RNA sequencing results was observed (R2 = 0.98), confirming the identified DEGs in the present research. The candidate genes’ expression profile was assessed in the two salt contrasting genotypes to obtain further insight. Based on the obtained results, Ta.bHLH35, Ta.CIPK23, and Ta.P5CS were up-regulated significantly in the tolerant cultivar after 12 hr of salt stress, while the increase in the expression of these genes was much less in the sensitive cultivar than in the tolerant cultivar and was not significant (Fig 4A, 4B and 4F). Ta.ERF061 showed significant up-regulation after 12 hr of exposure to salt stress in both cultivars. However, at the time point of 72 hr, a more severe decrease in expression was observed in the tolerant cultivar compared to the sensitive cultivar, which can be related to the quicker response of the tolerant cultivar to salt stress. (Fig 4C). For Ta.HSFB1 at the time point of 12 hr, while the tolerant cultivar indicated up-regulation, the sensitive cultivar showed down-regulation (Fig 4D). For another transcription factor, Ta.NAC, significant up-regulation was observed in both cultivars at the two-time points, and there was no significant difference between the cultivars (Fig 4E). For the gene encoding salt response protein, while the tolerant cultivar showed up-regulation at the two-time points, the sensitive cultivar indicated up-regulation after 12 hr of exposure to salt treatment and down-regulation after 72 hr of exposure to salinity (Fig 4G). Furthermore, for the gene coding for RUBISCO small chain involved in photosynthesis, a more severe decrease was observed in the tolerant cultivar compared to the sensitive cultivar (Fig 4H). The decrease in this gene expression may be due to the need to change the energy flow from the biosynthesis of photosynthesis-engaged macromolecules toward respiratory paths to supply the energy needed to overcome stress. A regulatory gene called phosphoglycerate kinase, with a possible negative effect on stress tolerance, showed more severe down-regulation in the tolerant cultivar than in the sensitive cultivar after 12 hr of exposure to salt stress (Fig 4I).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Validation of the candidate genes by qRT-PCR including bHLH transcription factor 35 (A), calcineurin B-like protein (CBL)-interacting protein kinase 23 (B), ethylene responsive factor 061 (C), heat shock transcription factor B1 (D), NAC transcription factor (E), pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase (F), salt response protein (G), Ribuluse biphosphate carboxylase small chain (H), and Phosphoglycerate Kinase (I). Refer to S1 Table to find the gene ensemble IDs.

Discussion

Next-generation sequencing technologies with the ability to characterize transcriptome profiles of different organisms under different conditions can reveal the molecular basis of salt stress response in plants. In general, genes engaged in salt stress response can be divided into three classes, comprising stress sensing and signaling-related genes, transcriptional regulators, and salinity-stress associated genes [60].

Signal transduction paths play crucial roles in the response of plants to different stresses. Variation in cytosol’s calcium concentration is one of the early responses to various stimuli, and calcium transporting elements actively maintain this flux and homeostasis [61]. In the current research, two genes encoding calcium-transporting ATPases were up-regulated under salt stress. One of them is a novel gene (represented as Ta.ACA7 in Fig 5 and S10 Table), expressed only under salt stress. Orthologous of the forenamed gene in rice, Os.ACA7 (Os10g0418100), is activated by calmodulin (CaM) [61]. Ca2+-ATPases are involved in maintaining Ca2+ homeostasis [61], and the up-regulation of them has been observed in different plant species, including tomato, tobacco, Arabidopsis, and soybean, in response to salinity stress [6265]. Genes coding for glutamate receptors (GLRs), known as non-selective cation channels that can be engaged in Ca+2 transport [61], were also observed among the DEGs in this study (Fig 5, S10 Table). Glutamate receptors are responsive to abiotic stresses based on the previous reports [66, 67]. After an increase in the Ca2+ concentration under salinity, CBL-interacting protein kinases (CIPKs) [68] with the ability to transduce the signal to downstream protein activity and gene transcription may become activated [69]. Among the DEGs, 13 genes coding for CIPKs were discovered. One gene coding for CaM was up-regulated in response to salinity (Fig 5, S10 Table). CaM, known as a Ca2+-sensing protein, is involved in the transduction of Ca2+signals. Conformational changes occur in CaM after interacting with Ca2+, and then, CaM influences the activities of the proteins which bind to it. Several CaM-binding proteins are engaged in plant responses to salinity stress, showing that CaM plays a central role in stress adaptation in plants [70]. A differentially expressed CaM-binding gene in the current study is Ta.MLO (Fig 5, S10 Table), encoding a plant-specific seven-transmembrane domain protein. A study on the MLO family in rice concluded that environmental stresses might provoke alteration in the H2O2 level via interaction between MLO and CaM. The resulting H2O2 might act as a messenger to stimulate the responsive genes’ expression to acclimatize to the stress [71]. CBP60, a CaM-binding transcription factor, was up-regulated under salinity stress in the present study (Fig 5, S10 Table). It has been shown that the overexpression of CBP60 (At5g26920) in Arabidopsis resulted in increased defense response, hypersensitivity to ABA, and drought tolerance, possibly through activating salicylic acid accumulation [72].

Fig 5. The model proposed for a response to salinity stress in Arg cultivar.

Fig 5

Dark blue and purple colors were used to exhibit stress sensing and signaling-related genes and transcription factors, respectively. Light blue, light green, and pink colors were utilized to depict genes involved in the reaction to osmotic, ionic, and oxidative stresses caused by salinity, respectively.

Previous reports indicated that the overexpression of GDSL esterase lipases (GLIPs) could release fatty acids acting as hormone signal transduction molecules [73]. It has also been reported that excessive GLIPs exhibited improved salinity stress tolerance in Oryza sativa and Arabidopsis thaliana [74, 75]. Five genes coding for Ta.GLIPs were up-regulated under salinity stress in the present study (Fig 5, S10 Table).

Receptor-like kinases (RLKs), as the largest gene family in plants, play crucial roles in signaling networks [76]. Wall-associated kinases (WAKs), as a subfamily of RLKs, function as a signaling linker between the cytoplasm and the extracellular region [77]. It has been reported that WAKs are engaged in regulating plant adaptation to abiotic stresses. Arabidopsis plants overexpressing AtWAK1 showed increased aluminum tolerance [78], and Arabidopsis plants with the impaired expression of AtWAKL4 indicated more hypersensitivity to excessive Na+, K+, Cu+2, and Zn+2 [79]. In the current study, six genes coding for WAKs were up-regulated under salt stress (Fig 5, S10 Table). LecRLKs, another subfamily of RLKs, can be engaged in salinity tolerance, including a plasma membrane-localized LecRLK from Pisum sativum. Tobacco plants overexpressing PsLecRLK showed enhanced salt tolerance by increasing ROS scavenging activity and activating water channels, leading to reduced ROS accumulation and enhanced water uptake [80]. In the present research, three genes coding for LecRLKs were up-regulated in response to salinity stress (Fig 5, S10 Table).

Many TFs were observed among the DEGs, indicating their crucial roles in salt stress response. They regulate the expression of downstream genes liable for salinity stress tolerance in plants. ERFs, bZIPs, Zn-fingers, NACs, MYBs, and WRKYs were found among the differentially expressed TFs, and some of them were discussed here.

MYB TFs are known as one of the largest and most diverse families of TFs in plants [81, 82]. The involvement of MYB TFs in salt tolerance has been reported in previous studies [83, 84]. Twenty-seven genes coding for MYBs were observed among the DEGs in the present research (Fig 5, S10 Table).

Plant basic leucine zipper (bZIP) TFs are involved in regulating abiotic stress signaling pathways mediated by abscisic acid (ABA) in plants [85]. Tomato SlbZIP38 regulates drought and salinity tolerance negatively via regulating ABA signaling [86]. The overexpression of cotton GhABF2, encoding a bZIP TF, significantly increased tolerance to drought and salinity in Arabidopsis and cotton [87]. Two genes coding for bZIPs were differentially expressed in the current study (Fig 5, S10 Table).

Four families of zinc finger proteins (ZFP), including C2H2, CCCH, C3HC4, and C4, have crucial roles in regulating phytohormone and stress response in plants [88]. The engagement of zinc finger TFs in salt tolerance has been reported in previous studies. Transgenic rice overexpressing OsZFP213 indicated improved salt tolerance via enhancing ROS scavenging ability [89]. Tobacco plants overexpressing GhZFP1, a CCCH-type zinc finger protein from cotton, showed increased tolerance to salinity stress and resistance to Rhizoctonia solani [90]. In the present study, around 17 differentially expressed zinc finger TFs were identified (Fig 5, S10 Table).

TIFY proteins are engaged in regulating many plant processes, including response to stresses. JAZ proteins, working as the jasmonic acid signaling pathway’s key regulators, are the best-characterized sub-group of TIFY proteins. Two genes coding for TIFY were found among the DEGs (Fig 5, S10 Table). The involvement of TIFY TFs in wheat salt tolerance was reported in a previous study [91].

In the present study, 31 genes coding for WRKY TFs were differentially expressed under salt stress, among which only one gene showed down-regulation (S10 Table). WRKY TFs are engaged in increasing salinity tolerance in plants via regulating stomatal conductance, ROS levels, and auxin and ABA signaling [92].

In addition, 28 NAC domain-containing genes were differentially regulated under salt stress in the current study, among which only four genes were down-regulated (Fig 5, S10 Table). NAC TFs take part in complicated signaling networks related to stress response in plants [93]. Rice OsNAC022, induced by drought, high salinity, and ABA, enhanced drought and salinity stress tolerance via regulating an ABA-dependent pathway in transgenic plants [94]. TsNAC1 from a halophyte called Thellungiella halophila targeted positive ion transportation regulators and improved salt tolerance in both T. halophila and Arabidopsis [95].

Some ethylene response factors (ERFs) bind to dehydration-responsive elements, function as a central regulatory hub, and incorporate ethylene, abscisic acid, jasmonate, and redox signaling in abiotic stress response in plants [96]. In the present study, 15 genes relating to ERF transcription factors were differentially expressed under salinity stress (S10 Table). Previous studies have shown that the overexpression of ERFs by increasing salt-responsive genes’ expression leads to salt tolerance in plants [97, 98].

We also identified transcripts encoding homeodomain-containing transcription factors (HOX) 7 and 22, which were significantly up-regulated under salt stress (Fig 5, S10 Table). According to the previous reports, the HOX family members as regulators of plant growth and development were remarkably enriched in NaCl-induced transcripts in Oryza sativa [99, 100]. It has also been reported that ABA, GA, SA, and auxin enhance the transcript levels of some HOXs [99].

A high ratio of cytosolic K+/Na+ is necessary to keep ionic homeostasis under stress and increases salinity tolerance in wheat (Oyiga et al., 2016). Plants utilize various methods at different levels to retain this ratio in the cytosol. One selected approach in plants is sending out Na+ from the roots. SOS1, a plasma membrane Na+/H+ antiporter, drives Na+ out from the root. Evaluating the transcriptome response of the root in Arg cultivar under salt stress showed the up-regulation of SOS1 under salinity stress [19]. Sustaining a high ratio of K+/Na+ in the cell cytoplasm can also be performed by sequestrating Na+ into the vacuoles of root cells done by the tonoplast Na+/H+ antiporter (NHX1). Hexokinase1 phosphorylates NHX1 and increases its stability [101]. Transcriptome response analysis of the root in Arg cultivar under salt stress showed a significant increase in the expression of hexokinase1 [19]. Evaluating the transcriptome response of leaves to salt stress showed that 22 genes involved in transporting sodium, potassium, or both significantly responded to salt stress. Among the up-regulated sodium transporters in leaves, a gene indicated severe up-regulation under salt stress (represented as Ta.HKT1 in Fig 5 and S10 Table). An orthologue of the mentioned gene in Arabidopsis, At4g10310, encodes the sodium transporter HKT1. This transporter shows a central role in plant tolerance to salinity. It loads Na+ into the phloem sap in shoots and unloads it in roots, leading to eliminating large quantities of Na+ from the shoot [102]. The other sodium transporter is represented as Ta.HKT4 in Fig 5 and S10 Table. The orthologue of the forenamed gene in rice is Os04g0607500 that encodes for the cation transporter HKT4. OsHKT4 acts as a low-affinity sodium transporter and is possibly engaged in regulating K+/Na+ homeostasis [103]. Seven genes, coding for potassium transporters, were differentially expressed under salinity stress. Among the potassium transporters, we can refer to a gene represented as Ta.KT in Fig 5 and S10 Table. The orthologue in Arabidopsis, At2g30070, encodes AtKT1 and acts as a high-affinity potassium transporter [104].

In order to deal with the osmotic stress caused by salinity, the genes encoding for LEA proteins (Ta.LEA) and dehydrins (Ta.Dhn) as well as the genes involved in biosynthesis of organic osmolytes like proline (pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthase; Ta.P5CS) and glycine betaine (betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase; Ta.BADH) were up-regulated under salinity stress (Fig 5, S10 Table).

Furthermore, peroxiredoxin (Ta.PRX), peroxidases (Ta.POX), Cytochrome P450 (Ta.CYP450), and Glutathione-S- transferases (Ta.GST) were differentially regulated in reaction to oxidative stress arising from salinity (Fig 5, S10 Table). Cytochrome P450 (CYP) includes a superfamily of heme-containing proteins that take part in redox homeostasis and numerous biosynthetic pathways [105]. Eight genes belonging to the CYP71 family, as the largest CYP family in plants, were up-regulated in the present research. This result is in line with those obtained by another study on transcriptome response of wheat leaf to salinity stress [16], indicating the CYP71 family might play a role in salinity stress tolerance.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Comparison of means for changes in Na+ content (a), K+ content (b) and K+/Na+ ratio (c) in the leaves of Arg and Moghan3 under the normal and salt stressed conditions at the probability level of 5%.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Comparison of means for changes in Na+ content (a), K+ content (b) and K+/Na+ ratio (c) in the roots of Arg and Moghan3 under the normal and salinity treated conditions at the probability level of 5%.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Survey of DEGs observed between the control and salt treated samples (cut off p-value: 0.01).

(a) Out of 4290 DEGs, 110 and 98 genes were exclusively expressed under the salt stress (STL) and control (CL) conditions, respectively (b) Fold change distribution of 4082 DEGs present in both normal and salt treated samples.

(DOCX)

S4 Fig

(a) Annotation statistics of the novel DEGs. (b) GO classification of the novel DEGs under salt stress.

(DOCX)

S5 Fig. Cellular pathway overview of DEGs in T. aestivum under salinity stress using Mapman.

Blue: up-regulated genes and red: down-regulated genes.

(DOCX)

S6 Fig. Secondary metabolite pathway overview of the DEGs in T. aestivum under salinity stress using Mapman.

Blue: up-regulated genes and red: down-regulated genes.

(DOCX)

S7 Fig. Stress response pathways overview of the DEGs in T. aestivum under salinity stress using Mapman.

Blue: up-regulated genes and red: down-regulated genes.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. The primers used for Real Time PCR.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Biological process classification of the novel transcripts.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Molecular function classification of the novel transcripts.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. Cellular component classification of the novel transcrips.

(XLSX)

S5 Table. List of the differentially expressed genes.

(XLSX)

S6 Table. List of the genes exclusively expressed under salt stress.

(XLSX)

S7 Table. List of the novel differentially expressed genes.

(XLSX)

S8 Table. KEGG pathway classification of the DEGs.

(XLSX)

S9 Table. Results of functional analysis of the salt-regulated genes using Mapman.

(XLSX)

S10 Table. The genes applied in the model.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Seed and Plant Improvement Institute (SPII) for providing the seeds, Miss. Saeedeh Asari for her technical assistance and Mr. Mohammad Jedari to help in creating the artworks.

Data Availability

Data Availability The raw transcriptome reads generated in the current study are available in the SRA (Sequence Read Achieve) of NCBI (Accession numbers of SRR7975953, SRR7968059, SRR7968053, and SRR7920873). All the rest of relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

Z-S.S. received the grant from Iran National Science Foundation (INSF Grant Number: 96000095) and Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII Grant Number: 24-05-05-010-960594). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Maurel C, Boursiac Y, Luu D-T, Santoni V, Shahzad Z, Verdoucq L. Aquaporins in plants. Physiological reviews. 2015;95(4):1321–58. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00008.2015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kong W, Zhong H, Gong Z, Fang X, Sun T, Deng X, et al. Meta-analysis of salt stress transcriptome responses in different rice genotypes at the seedling stage. Plants. 2019;8(3):64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.F.A.O. FAO cereal supply and demand brief. http://wwwfaoorg/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/. 2015.
  • 4.Royo A, Abió D. Salt tolerance in durum wheat cultivars. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 2003;1(3):27–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shrivastava P, Kumar R. Soil salinity: a serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Saudi journal of biological sciences. 2015;22(2):123–31. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2014.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kasuga M, Liu Q, Miura S, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K. Improving plant drought, salt, and freezing tolerance by gene transfer of a single stress-inducible transcription factor. Nature biotechnology. 1999;17(3):287–91. doi: 10.1038/7036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tuteja N. Mechanisms of high salinity tolerance in plants. Methods in enzymology. 428: Elsevier; 2007. p. 419–38. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(07)28024-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Danquah A, de Zelicourt A, Colcombet J, Hirt H. The role of ABA and MAPK signaling pathways in plant abiotic stress responses. Biotechnology advances. 2014;32(1):40–52. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ji H, Pardo JM, Batelli G, Van Oosten MJ, Bressan RA, Li X. The Salt Overly Sensitive (SOS) pathway: established and emerging roles. Molecular plant. 2013;6(2):275–86. doi: 10.1093/mp/sst017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kishor PK, Sangam S, Amrutha R, Laxmi PS, Naidu K, Rao K, et al. Regulation of proline biosynthesis, degradation, uptake and transport in higher plants: its implications in plant growth and abiotic stress tolerance. Curr Sci. 2005;88(3):424–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Knight H. Calcium signaling during abiotic stress in plants. International review of cytology. 195: Elsevier; 1999. p. 269–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhu J-K. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annual review of plant biology. 2002;53(1):247–73. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.091401.143329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chinnusamy V, Jagendorf A, Zhu J-K. Understanding and improving salt tolerance in plants. Crop Science. 2005;45(2):437–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M. RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nature reviews genetics. 2009;10(1):57–63. doi: 10.1038/nrg2484 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Xiong H, Guo H, Xie Y, Zhao L, Gu J, Zhao S, et al. RNAseq analysis reveals pathways and candidate genes associated with salinity tolerance in a spaceflight-induced wheat mutant. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mahajan MM, Goyal E, Singh AK, Gaikwad K, Kanika K. Transcriptome dynamics provide insights into long-term salinity stress tolerance in Triticum aestivum cv. Kharchia Local. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2017;121:128–39. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2017.10.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Luo Q, Teng W, Fang S, Li H, Li B, Chu J, et al. Transcriptome analysis of salt-stress response in three seedling tissues of common wheat. The Crop Journal. 2019;7(3):378–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zhang Y, Liu Z, Khan AA, Lin Q, Han Y, Mu P, et al. Expression partitioning of homeologs and tandem duplications contribute to salt tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Scientific reports. 2016;6(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Amirbakhtiar N, Ismaili A, Ghaffari MR, Nazarian Firouzabadi F, Shobbar Z-S. Transcriptome response of roots to salt stress in a salinity-tolerant bread wheat cultivar. PloS one. 2019;14(3):e0213305. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mahajan MM, Goyal E, Singh AK, Gaikwad K, Kanika K. Shedding light on response of Triticum aestivum cv. Kharchia Local roots to long-term salinity stress through transcriptome profiling. Plant Growth Regulation. 2020;90(2):369–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Aghaei MJ, Mozafari J, Taleei AR, Naghavi MR, Omidi M. Distribution and diversity of Aegilops tauschii in Iran. Genetic resources and crop evolution. 2008;55(3):341–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dudnikov AJ, Kawahara T. Aegilops tauschii: genetic variation in Iran. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 2006;53(3):579–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.NAKAI Y. Isozyme variations in Aegilops and Triticum, IV. The origin of the common wheats revealed from the study on esterase isozymes in synthesized hexaploid wheats. The Japanese Journal of Genetics. 1979;54(3):175–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.TSUNEWAKI K. Comparative gene analysis of common wheat and its ancestral species. II. Waxiness, growth habit and awnedness. Jpn J Bot. 1966;19:175–229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lachica M, Aguilar A, Yañez J. Foliar analysis: Analytical methods used in the Estacion Experimental del Zaidin. iI. An Edafol Agribiol. 1973. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Trapnell C, Roberts A, Goff L, Pertea G, Kim D, Kelley DR, et al. Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks. Nature protocols. 2012;7(3):562–78. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2012.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Moriya Y, Itoh M, Okuda S, Yoshizawa AC, Kanehisa M. KAAS: an automatic genome annotation and pathway reconstruction server. Nucleic acids research. 2007;35(suppl_2):W182–W5. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Thimm O, Bläsing O, Gibon Y, Nagel A, Meyer S, Krüger P, et al. MAPMAN: a user-driven tool to display genomics data sets onto diagrams of metabolic pathways and other biological processes. The Plant Journal. 2004;37(6):914–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313x.2004.02016.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Goyal E, Amit SK, Singh RS, Mahato AK, Chand S, Kanika K. Transcriptome profiling of the salt-stress response in Triticum aestivum cv. Kharchia Local. Scientific reports. 2016;6(1):1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ma X, Gu P, Liang W, Zhang Y, Jin X, Wang S, et al. Analysis on the transcriptome information of two different wheat mutants and identification of salt-induced differential genes. Biochemical and biophysical research communications. 2016;473(4):1197–204. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.04.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2− ΔΔCT method. methods. 2001;25(4):402–8. doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Renault S, Croser C, Franklin JA, Zwiazek JJ. Effects of NaCl and Na2SO4 on red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera Michx) seedlings. Plant and soil. 2001;233(2):261–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA, Zhu J-K, Bohnert HJ. Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Annual review of plant biology. 2000;51(1):463–99. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.51.1.463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Davenport RJ, MUÑOZ-MAYOR A, Jha D, Essah PA, Rus A, Tester M. The Na+ transporter AtHKT1; 1 controls retrieval of Na+ from the xylem in Arabidopsis. Plant, cell & environment. 2007;30(4):497–507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jain M. Next-generation sequencing technologies for gene expression profiling in plants. Briefings in functional genomics. 2011;11(1):63–70. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elr038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sun J, Jiang H, Xu Y, Li H, Wu X, Xie Q, et al. The CCCH-type zinc finger proteins AtSZF1 and AtSZF2 regulate salt stress responses in Arabidopsis. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2007;48(8):1148–58. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcm088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lu X, Chen D, Shu D, Zhang Z, Wang W, Klukas C, et al. The differential transcription network between embryo and endosperm in the early developing maize seed. Plant physiology. 2013;162(1):440–55. doi: 10.1104/pp.113.214874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Shankar R, Bhattacharjee A, Jain M. Transcriptome analysis in different rice cultivars provides novel insights into desiccation and salinity stress responses. Scientific reports. 2016;6:23719. doi: 10.1038/srep23719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Singh A, Jha SK, Bagri J, Pandey GK. ABA inducible rice protein phosphatase 2C confers ABA insensitivity and abiotic stress tolerance in Arabidopsis. PloS one. 2015;10(4):e0125168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Karthikeyan A, Pandian SK, Ramesh M. Transgenic indica rice cv. ADT 43 expressing a Δ 1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase (P5CS) gene from Vigna aconitifolia demonstrates salt tolerance. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC). 2011;107(3):383–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Yang A, Dai X, Zhang W-H. A R2R3-type MYB gene, OsMYB2, is involved in salt, cold, and dehydration tolerance in rice. Journal of experimental botany. 2012;63(7):2541–56. doi: 10.1093/jxb/err431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wang P, Li Z, Wei J, Zhao Z, Sun D, Cui S. A Na+/Ca2+ exchanger-like protein (AtNCL) involved in salt stress in Arabidopsis. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2012;287(53):44062–70. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M112.351643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Yang L, Ma C, Wang L, Chen S, Li H. Salt stress induced proteome and transcriptome changes in sugar beet monosomic addition line M14. Journal of plant physiology. 2012;169(9):839–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2012.01.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jia F, Qi S, Li H, Liu P, Li P, Wu C, et al. Overexpression of Late Embryogenesis Abundant 14 enhances Arabidopsis salt stress tolerance. Biochemical and biophysical research communications. 2014;454(4):505–11. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.10.136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Qi Y, Liu W, Qiu L, Zhang S, Ma L, Zhang H. Overexpression of glutathione S-transferase gene increases salt tolerance of Arabidopsis. Russian journal of plant physiology. 2010;57(2):233–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wang C, Yang Y, Wang H, Ran X, Li B, Zhang J, et al. Ectopic expression of a cytochrome P450 monooxygenase gene PtCYP714A3 from Populus trichocarpa reduces shoot growth and improves tolerance to salt stress in transgenic rice. Plant biotechnology journal. 2016;14(9):1838–51. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12544 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zhang F, Zhou Y, Zhang M, Luo X, Xie J. Effects of drought stress on global gene expression profile in leaf and root samples of Dongxiang wild rice (Oryza rufipogon). Bioscience Reports. 2017;37(3):11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zhou Y, Yang P, Cui F, Zhang F, Luo X, Xie J. Transcriptome analysis of salt stress responsiveness in the seedlings of Dongxiang wild rice (Oryza rufipogon Griff.). PloS one. 2016;11(1):e0146242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Baxter HL, Stewart CN Jr. Effects of altered lignin biosynthesis on phenylpropanoid metabolism and plant stress. Biofuels. 2013;4(6):635–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Vogt T. Phenylpropanoid biosynthesis. Molecular plant. 2010;3(1):2–20. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssp106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hisano H, Nandakumar R, Wang Z-Y. Genetic modification of lignin biosynthesis for improved biofuel production. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant. 2009;45(3):306–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Neves G, Marchiosi R, Ferrarese M, Siqueira-Soares R, Ferrarese-Filho O. Root growth inhibition and lignification induced by salt stress in soybean. Journal of Agronomy and crop science. 2010;196(6):467–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Fernandez-Garcia N, Lopez-Perez L, Hernandez M, Olmos E. Role of phi cells and the endodermis under salt stress in Brassica oleracea. New Phytologist. 2009;181(2):347–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02674.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ghosh R, Choi B, Cho B-K, Lim H-S, Park S-U, Bae H-J, et al. Characterization of developmental-and stress-mediated expression of cinnamoyl-CoA reductase in kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.). The scientific world journal. 2014;2014:10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kim J, Choi B, Cho B-K, Lim H-S, Kim JB, Natarajan S, et al. Molecular cloning, characterization and expression of the caffeic acid O-methyltransferase (COMT) ortholog from kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus). Plant Omics. 2013;6(4):246. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Moradi F, Ismail AM. Responses of photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and ROS-scavenging systems to salt stress during seedling and reproductive stages in rice. Annals of botany. 2007;99(6):1161–73. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Munns R. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant, cell & environment. 2002;25(2):239–50. doi: 10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00808.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Li Y, Zhang D, Li W, Mallano AI, Zhang Y, Wang T, et al. Expression study of soybean germin-like gene family reveals a role of GLP7 gene in various abiotic stress tolerances. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 2016;96(2):296–304. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wang T, Chen X, Zhu F, Li H, Li L, Yang Q, et al. Characterization of peanut germin-like proteins, AhGLPs in plant development and defense. PLos one. 2013;8(4):e61722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zhang X, Zhen J, Li Z, Kang D, Yang Y, Kong J, et al. Expression profile of early responsive genes under salt stress in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Molecular Biology Reporter. 2011;29(3):626–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Singh A, Kanwar P, Yadav AK, Mishra M, Jha SK, Baranwal V, et al. Genome-wide expressional and functional analysis of calcium transport elements during abiotic stress and development in rice. The FEBS journal. 2014;281(3):894–915. doi: 10.1111/febs.12656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Chung WS, Lee SH, Kim JC, Do Heo W, Kim MC, Park CY, et al. Identification of a calmodulin-regulated soybean Ca2+-ATPase (SCA1) that is located in the plasma membrane. The Plant Cell. 2000;12(8):1393–407. doi: 10.1105/tpc.12.8.1393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Geisler M, Frangne N, Gomes E, Martinoia E, Palmgren MG. The ACA4 gene of Arabidopsis encodes a vacuolar membrane calcium pump that improves salt tolerance in yeast. Plant physiology. 2000;124(4):1814–27. doi: 10.1104/pp.124.4.1814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Perez-Prat E, Narasimhan ML, Binzel ML, Botella MA, Chen Z, Valpuesta V, et al. Induction of a putative Ca2+-ATPase mRNA in NaCl-adapted cells. Plant physiology. 1992;100(3):1471–8. doi: 10.1104/pp.100.3.1471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Wimmers LE, Ewing NN, Bennett AB. Higher plant Ca (2+)-ATPase: primary structure and regulation of mRNA abundance by salt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1992;89(19):9205–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.19.9205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kang J, Mehta S, Turano FJ. The putative glutamate receptor 1.1 (AtGLR1. 1) in Arabidopsis thaliana regulates abscisic acid biosynthesis and signaling to control development and water loss. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2004;45(10):1380–9. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pch159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Meyerhoff O, Müller K, Roelfsema MRG, Latz A, Lacombe B, Hedrich R, et al. AtGLR3. 4, a glutamate receptor channel-like gene is sensitive to touch and cold. Planta. 2005;222(3):418–27. doi: 10.1007/s00425-005-1551-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Weinl S, Kudla J. The CBL–CIPK Ca2+-decoding signaling network: function and perspectives. New Phytologist. 2009;184(3):517–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Deinlein U, Stephan AB, Horie T, Luo W, Xu G, Schroeder JI. Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends in plant science. 2014;19(6):371–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Virdi AS, Singh S, Singh P. Abiotic stress responses in plants: roles of calmodulin-regulated proteins. Frontiers in plant science. 2015;6:809. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Nguyen VN, Vo KT, Park H, Jeon J-S, Jung K-H. A systematic view of the MLO family in rice suggests their novel roles in morphological development, diurnal responses, the light-signaling pathway, and various stress responses. Frontiers in plant science. 2016;7:1413. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Wan D, Li R, Zou B, Zhang X, Cong J, Wang R, et al. Calmodulin-binding protein CBP60g is a positive regulator of both disease resistance and drought tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant cell reports. 2012;31(7):1269–81. doi: 10.1007/s00299-012-1247-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Chaires M, Gupta D, Joshee N, Cooper KK, Basu C. RNA-seq analysis of the salt stress-induced transcripts in fast-growing bioenergy tree, Paulownia elongata. Journal of Plant Interactions. 2017;12(1):128–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Mansuri RM, Shobbar Z-S, Jelodar NB, Ghaffari MR, Nematzadeh G-A, Asari S. Dissecting molecular mechanisms underlying salt tolerance in rice: a comparative transcriptional profiling of the contrasting genotypes. Rice. 2019;12(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s12284-019-0273-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Naranjo MA, Forment J, RoldÁN M, Serrano R, Vicente O. Overexpression of Arabidopsis thaliana LTL1, a salt-induced gene encoding a GDSL-motif lipase, increases salt tolerance in yeast and transgenic plants. Plant, cell & environment. 2006;29(10):1890–900. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2006.01565.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Ye Y, Ding Y, Jiang Q, Wang F, Sun J, Zhu C. The role of receptor-like protein kinases (RLKs) in abiotic stress response in plants. Plant cell reports. 2017;36(2):235–42. doi: 10.1007/s00299-016-2084-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Kanneganti V, Gupta AK. Wall associated kinases from plants—an overview. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants. 2008;14(1–2):109–18. doi: 10.1007/s12298-008-0010-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Sivaguru M, Ezaki B, He Z-H, Tong H, Osawa H, Baluška F, et al. Aluminum-induced gene expression and protein localization of a cell wall-associated receptor kinase in Arabidopsis. Plant physiology. 2003;132(4):2256–66. doi: 10.1104/pp.103.022129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Hou X, Tong H, Selby J, DeWitt J, Peng X, He Z-H. Involvement of a cell wall-associated kinase, WAKL4, in Arabidopsis mineral responses. Plant physiology. 2005;139(4):1704–16. doi: 10.1104/pp.105.066910 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Vaid N, Pandey P, Srivastava VK, Tuteja N. Pea lectin receptor-like kinase functions in salinity adaptation without yield penalty, by alleviating osmotic and ionic stresses and upregulating stress-responsive genes. Plant Molecular Biology. 2015;88(1–2):193–206. doi: 10.1007/s11103-015-0319-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Riechmann JL, Heard J, Martin G, Reuber L, Jiang C-Z, Keddie J, et al. Arabidopsis transcription factors: genome-wide comparative analysis among eukaryotes. Science. 2000;290(5499):2105–10. doi: 10.1126/science.290.5499.2105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Rosinski JA, Atchley WR. Molecular evolution of the Myb family of transcription factors: evidence for polyphyletic origin. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 1998;46(1):74–83. doi: 10.1007/pl00006285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Zhang P, Wang R, Yang X, Ju Q, Li W, Lü S, et al. The R2R3-MYB transcription factor AtMYB49 modulates salt tolerance in Arabidopsis by modulating the cuticle formation and antioxidant defense. Plant, Cell & Environment. 2020;43:1925–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Zhang X, Chen L, Shi Q, Ren Z. SlMYB102, an R2R3-type MYB gene, confers salt tolerance in transgenic tomato. Plant Science. 2020;291:110356. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2019.110356 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Wang Z, Yan L, Wan L, Huai D, Kang Y, Shi L, et al. Genome-wide systematic characterization of bZIP transcription factors and their expression profiles during seed development and in response to salt stress in peanut. BMC genomics. 2019;20(1):1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Pan Y, Hu X, Li C, Xu X, Su C, Li J, et al. SlbZIP38, a tomato bZIP family gene downregulated by abscisic acid, is a negative regulator of drought and salt stress tolerance. Genes. 2017;8(12):402. doi: 10.3390/genes8120402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Liang C, Meng Z, Meng Z, Malik W, Yan R, Lwin KM, et al. GhABF2, a bZIP transcription factor, confers drought and salinity tolerance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Scientific reports. 2016;6(1):1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Li W-T, He M, Wang J, Wang Y-P. Zinc finger protein (ZFP) in plants-A review. Plant Omics. 2013;6(6):474. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Zhang Z, Liu H, Sun C, Ma Q, Bu H, Chong K, et al. A C2H2 zinc-finger protein OsZFP213 interacts with OsMAPK3 to enhance salt tolerance in rice. Journal of plant physiology. 2018;229:100–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2018.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Guo YH, Yu YP, Wang D, Wu CA, Yang GD, Huang JG, et al. GhZFP1, a novel CCCH-type zinc finger protein from cotton, enhances salt stress tolerance and fungal disease resistance in transgenic tobacco by interacting with GZIRD21A and GZIPR5. New Phytologist. 2009;183(1):62–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02838.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Ebel C, BenFeki A, Hanin M, Solano R, Chini A. Characterization of wheat (Triticum aestivum) TIFY family and role of Triticum Durum TdTIFY11a in salt stress tolerance. PloS one. 2018;13(7):e0200566. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200566 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Phukan UJ, Jeena GS, Shukla RK. WRKY transcription factors: molecular regulation and stress responses in plants. Frontiers in plant science. 2016;7:760. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Puranik S, Sahu PP, Srivastava PS, Prasad M. NAC proteins: regulation and role in stress tolerance. Trends in plant science. 2012;17(6):369–81. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Hong Y, Zhang H, Huang L, Li D, Song F. Overexpression of a stress-responsive NAC transcription factor gene ONAC022 improves drought and salt tolerance in rice. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7:4. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Liu C, Wang B, Li Z, Peng Z, Zhang J. TsNAC1 is a key transcription factor in abiotic stress resistance and growth. Plant physiology. 2018;176(1):742–56. doi: 10.1104/pp.17.01089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Müller M, Munné-Bosch S. Ethylene response factors: a key regulatory hub in hormone and stress signaling. Plant physiology. 2015;169(1):32–41. doi: 10.1104/pp.15.00677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Rong W, Qi L, Wang A, Ye X, Du L, Liang H, et al. The ERF transcription factor Ta ERF 3 promotes tolerance to salt and drought stresses in wheat. Plant biotechnology journal. 2014;12(4):468–79. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Wang X, Hou C, Zheng K, Li Q, Chen S, Wang S. Overexpression of ERF96, a small ethylene response factor gene, enhances salt tolerance in Arabidopsis. Biologia Plantarum. 2017;61(4):693–701. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Bhattacharjee A, Khurana JP, Jain M. Characterization of rice homeobox genes, OsHOX22 and OsHOX24, and over-expression of OsHOX24 in transgenic Arabidopsis suggest their role in abiotic stress response. Frontiers in plant science. 2016;7:627. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00627 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Mirdar Mansuri R, Shobbar Z-S, Babaeian Jelodar N, Ghaffari MR, Nematzadeh G-A, Asari S. Dissecting molecular mechanisms underlying salt tolerance in rice: a comparative transcriptional profiling of the contrasting genotypes. Rice (19398425). 2019;12(1). doi: 10.1186/s12284-019-0273-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Sun M-H, Ma Q-J, Hu D-G, Zhu X-P, You C-X, Shu H-R, et al. The glucose sensor MdHXK1 phosphorylates a tonoplast Na+/H+ exchanger to improve salt tolerance. Plant physiology. 2018;176(4):2977–90. doi: 10.1104/pp.17.01472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Berthomieu P, Conéjéro G, Nublat A, Brackenbury WJ, Lambert C, Savio C, et al. Functional analysis of AtHKT1 in Arabidopsis shows that Na+ recirculation by the phloem is crucial for salt tolerance. The EMBO journal. 2003;22(9):2004–14. doi: 10.1093/emboj/cdg207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Garciadeblás B, Senn ME, Bañuelos MA, Rodríguez-Navarro A. Sodium transport and HKT transporters: the rice model. The Plant Journal. 2003;34(6):788–801. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2003.01764.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Kim EJ, Kwak JM, Uozumi N, Schroeder JI. AtKUP1: an Arabidopsis gene encoding high-affinity potassium transport activity. The Plant Cell. 1998;10(1):51–62. doi: 10.1105/tpc.10.1.51 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Long W, Zou X, Zhang X. Transcriptome analysis of canola (Brassica napus) under salt stress at the germination stage. PloS one. 2015;10(2):e0116217. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Guangxiao Yang

22 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-06731

Transcriptome analysis of bread wheat leaves in response to salt stress

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shobbar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all the points raised by reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Guangxiao Yang, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

  1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a copy of Table 1 which you refer to in your text on page 7.

  1. Please include a copy of Table 2 which you refer to in your text on page 8.

  1. Please include a copy of Table 11 which you refer to in your text on page 19.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors studied two varieties of wheat plant under salt stress using physiological and molecular (deep sequencing and qRT-PCR) aspects. The studied varieties are extreme considering their tolerance to salinity. They found several differentially expressed genes in salt tolerance variety. Enriched biological pathways of stress responsive genes are studied in the current study. Finally, authors confirmed deep sequencing outputs using real-time PCR. There are some comments that authors should consider:

1. Why deep transcriptome sequencing not studied for Moghan variety while evaluated physiologically and also by real-time PCR.

2. Please describe in the material and methods that which variety is utilized for deep sequencing.

3. It is not described in the material and methods that how Na and K content are measured.

4. Please clarify in the in the material and methods that how you found significant DEGs in real-time PCR.

5. It is not clear why Actin is used as an internal control gene. Dose it previously used for salt stress in wheat or other plants? Reference is required.

6. TopHat software description should be explained in material and methods instead of results (page 8 )

7. Are you sure that mentioned Gene Ensembl Id (column 2 of Table S1) are belonged to Ensembl? I could not found them at Ensembl.

8. It is not clarified in the S2, S3 and S4 tables that which GOs are enriched in salinity or normal conditions.

9. Gene Accession Id is necessary for S2, S3 and S4 tables. Please add this column.

10. Column 1 of Table S10 is not clear. If sequences are aligned after blast use “aligned” term instead of “Blasted”.

11. Some values of log(Fc) of table S10 are obscure. Please check rows 25, 47, 93 and … . likely some values of description column are not clear ([Hordeum vulgare vulgare], ---NA---).

12. Ven diagram is not appropriate choice for showing DEGs in Fig S3(a). if you are insisted on showing your data using Ven diagram then remove “4082”. But it is better to use another type of graphs.

13. Fig S3(b) is ambiguous for common values. Use > or < signs along with values.

14. Please use the correct terms instead of “Blasted” and “No Blast” in Fig S4A. Additionally, terms of manuscript (page 11, paragraph 1) are not coincided with FigS4A.

Reviewer #2: COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Transcriptome analysis of bread wheat leaves in response to salt stress

The manuscript is well written and presents new insights regarding the wheat leaves transcriptome exposed to salinity. Minor corrections are suggested.

In introduction, wheat transcriptome analysis of other plant tissues in salinity besides leaves can also be cited to make it comprehensive. Abbreviations, when used for the first time in text, should be given in brackets with the complete forms. A few suggestions are given as under.

Page 2, line 16: The word “Soil” may be removed. It is better to begin the sentence with salinity.

Page 3, line 37: The first paragraph of “Introduction” needs improvement due to the repetition of words like yield and salinity.

Page 9, line 196-199: Revise the statement.

In figures, please use an appropriate font size to make the text more visible especially the X and Y axis in curves are not clear.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Behnam Bakhshi

Reviewer #2: Yes: Fariha Khan

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0254189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254189.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Jun 2021

Dear Dr. Guangxiao Yang,

Respected Academic Editor of PLOS ONE,

Thanks to you and the respected reviewers for the time and fruitful comments. We revised the manuscript “PONE-D-21-06731” and carefully addressed issues raised by the reviewers, as you may find in the following and in the revised manuscript with track change.

I hope the manuscript would be accepted for publication in this revised version.

Best regards

Zahra-Sadat Shobbar

Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII)

Seed and Plant Improvement Institutes Campus

P. O. Box: 31535-1897

Mahdasht Road, Karaj, Iran

Phone: +98 26 32703536

Fax: +98 26 32704539

1. Why deep transcriptome sequencing not studied for Moghan variety while evaluated physiologically and also by real-time PCR.

Response 1. Actually, we were interested to do deep transcriptome sequencing for both varieties, but unfortunately our country (Iran) is under international sanctions and our research budget is very limited, so we didn’t succeed to do transcriptome sequencing for the sensitive genotype, however in order to be able to compare the salinity response of the two genotypes to some extent, physiological analysis and Real Time PCR for some important genes were done.

2. Please describe in the material and methods that which variety is utilized for deep sequencing.

Response 2. It was described in the material and methods that which variety was utilized for deep sequencing.

3. It is not described in the material and methods that how Na and K content are measured.

Response 3. The method used for measuring Na+ and K+ content was described in the materials and methods.

4. Please clarify in the material and methods that how you found significant DEGs in real-time PCR.

Response 4. Genes with log2 fold change ≥ 1 or log2 fold change ≤-1 were considered as significant DEGs and it was mentioned in the material and methods.

5. It is not clear why Actin is used as an internal control gene. Dose it previously used for salt stress in wheat or other plants? Reference is required.

Response 5. Yes, Actin has been used as an internal control gene in other studies conducted on gene expression in wheat under salt stress [1-4]. Some references were added to the manuscript.

6. TopHat software description should be explained in material and methods instead of results (page 8 )

Response 6. Description about TopHat software was deleted from the results. It was already explained in the material and methods.

7. Are you sure that mentioned Gene Ensembl Id (column 2 of Table S1) are belonged to Ensembl? I could not found them at Ensembl.

Response 7. We used the previous reference genome of Triticum aestivum, TGACv1, which was the reference genome available in ensembl plants at the time we analyzed our data, but now it is available in Ensembl plants archive and it is accessible to it using the following address http://oct2017-plants.ensembl.org/Triticum_aestivum/Info/Index

8. It is not clarified in the S2, S3 and S4 tables that which GOs are enriched in salinity or normal conditions.

Response 8. The mentioned (S2, S3 and S4) tables present the Gene ontology of all the novel transcripts (regardless of their expression pattern). In fact, in this study we succeeded to find 187003 transcripts (related to 98819 genes) in the assembly, among which 27800 transcripts (related to 16339 genes) were novel. As there were no annotation for the novel genes, we were going to annotate these novel genes through GO analysis. We used GO analysis to find what biological processes, molecular functions and cellular components the discovered novel genes are involved in. These novel transcripts might be expressed under normal or stressed conditions or both of them. Identification of all novel transcripts available in an assembly and assigning GO terms to them regardless of their expression profile has been conducted in other studies [1, 5, 6].

9. Gene Accession Id is necessary for S2, S3 and S4 tables. Please add this column.

Response 9. Given that the transcripts presented in these tables are novel transcripts, they have no accession Id, but their position on the chromosome is known and the corresponding position was presented for each transcript.

10. Column 1 of Table S10 is not clear. If sequences are aligned after blast use “aligned” term instead of “Blasted”.

Response 10. The term "Blasted" was given by the blast2go software, however, the term "Blasted" was changed to "aligned" in column 1, based on the respectful reviewer’s opinion. Additionally, we should apologize for the mistake in numbering table S10, so we changed its number to S5 to be in accordance with the text.

11. Some values of log(Fc) of table S10 are obscure. Please check rows 25, 47, 93 and … . likely some values of description column are not clear ([Hordeum vulgare vulgare], ---NA---).

Response 11. Log2 FC is calculated by cuffdiff package; when the expression is observed exclusively under the stressed condition and expression value under normal condition is 0, Log2 FC is displayed by inf and conversely, when the expression is observed only under normal condition and expression value under stressed condition is 0, Log2 FC is displayed by #NAME?. Description about inf and #NAME? was added at the bottom of the table. In addition, unclear descriptions in the description column were corrected but" ---NA---" in this column means that the related sequence doesn’t code a protein and no result has been obtained for that sequence using blastx. In addition, as it was mentioned in the response 10, we should make an apology for the mistake in numbering table S10, so we changed its number to S5 to be in accordance with the text.

12. Ven diagram is not appropriate choice for showing DEGs in Fig S3(a). if you are insisted on showing your data using Ven diagram then remove “4082”. But it is better to use another type of graphs.

Response 12. In Fig S3(a), we are going to show how many DEGs are expressed in common under both normal and salt stressed conditions (4082 ) and how many DEGs are exclusively expressed under normal (98) or salt stressed (110) conditions. We would appreciate if the respected reviewer let us know which type of diagram might be appropriate choice for this aim rather than Venn diagram. Using Venn diagrams for such a purpose has been observed in other studies [1, 2].

13. Fig S3(b) is ambiguous for common values. Use > or < signs along with values.

Response 13. Necessary changes were made.

14. Please use the correct terms instead of “Blasted” and “No Blast” in Fig S4A. Additionally, terms of manuscript (page 11, paragraph 1) are not coincided with FigS4A.

Response 14. In fact, the terms "Blasted" and "No Blast" are the terms given by the software used for blasting against non redundant protein database of NCBI, Blast2go. However, based on the respected reviewer’s suggestion and in order to apply a more suitable term having more accordance with the text, the terms "Blasted" and "No Blast" were replaced by "Aligned" and "No Homology" terms in FigS4A.

15. In introduction, wheat transcriptome analysis of other plant tissues in salinity besides leaves can also be cited to make it comprehensive.

Response 15. Based on the respected reviewer’s suggestion, studies conducted on transcriptome analysis of other tissues of wheat were also added.

16. Abbreviations, when used for the first time in text, should be given in brackets with the complete forms

Response 16. Necessary changes were made.

17. Page 2, line 16: The word “Soil” may be removed. It is better to begin the sentence with salinity.

Response 17. Yes, the respected reviewer is right. It is done.

18. Page 3, line 37: The first paragraph of “Introduction” needs improvement due to the repetition of words like yield and salinity.

Response 18. Necessary changes were made.

19. Page 9, line 196-199: Revise the statement.

Response 19. The statement was revised.

20. In figures, please use an appropriate font size to make the text more visible especially the X and Y axis in curves are not clear.

Response 20. Necessary changes were made.

21. Please include a copy of Table 11, which you refer to in your text on page 19.

Response 21. Please excuse us for a mistake in nomination of "Table 11". In fact, "Table 11" must be "Table S10", so we corrected "Table 11"to "Table S10" in the manuscript.

References

1. Amirbakhtiar N, Ismaili A, Ghaffari MR, Nazarian Firouzabadi F, Shobbar Z-S. Transcriptome response of roots to salt stress in a salinity-tolerant bread wheat cultivar. PloS one. 2019;14(3):e0213305.

2. Goyal E, Amit SK, Singh RS, Mahato AK, Chand S, Kanika K. Transcriptome profiling of the salt-stress response in Triticum aestivum cv. Kharchia Local. Scientific reports. 2016;6(1):1-14.

3. Luo Q, Teng W, Fang S, Li H, Li B, Chu J, et al. Transcriptome analysis of salt-stress response in three seedling tissues of common wheat. The Crop Journal. 2019;7(3):378-92.

4. Ma X, Gu P, Liang W, Zhang Y, Jin X, Wang S, et al. Analysis on the transcriptome information of two different wheat mutants and identification of salt-induced differential genes. Biochemical and biophysical research communications. 2016;473(4):1197-204.

5. Mansuri RM, Shobbar Z-S, Jelodar NB, Ghaffari MR, Nematzadeh G-A, Asari S. Dissecting molecular mechanisms underlying salt tolerance in rice: a comparative transcriptional profiling of the contrasting genotypes. Rice. 2019;12(1):1-13.

6. Shankar R, Bhattacharjee A, Jain M. Transcriptome analysis in different rice cultivars provides novel insights into desiccation and salinity stress responses. Scientific reports. 2016;6(1):1-15.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Guangxiao Yang

22 Jun 2021

Transcriptome analysis of bread wheat leaves in response to salt stress

PONE-D-21-06731R1

Dear Dr. Shobbar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Guangxiao Yang, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Authors have revised the manuscript carefully by addressing comments and suggestions. The revised manuscript is acceptable.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Behnam Bakhshi

Reviewer #2: Yes: Fariha Khan

Acceptance letter

Guangxiao Yang

28 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-06731R1

Transcriptome analysis of bread wheat leaves in response to salt stress

Dear Dr. Shobbar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Guangxiao Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Comparison of means for changes in Na+ content (a), K+ content (b) and K+/Na+ ratio (c) in the leaves of Arg and Moghan3 under the normal and salt stressed conditions at the probability level of 5%.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Comparison of means for changes in Na+ content (a), K+ content (b) and K+/Na+ ratio (c) in the roots of Arg and Moghan3 under the normal and salinity treated conditions at the probability level of 5%.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Survey of DEGs observed between the control and salt treated samples (cut off p-value: 0.01).

    (a) Out of 4290 DEGs, 110 and 98 genes were exclusively expressed under the salt stress (STL) and control (CL) conditions, respectively (b) Fold change distribution of 4082 DEGs present in both normal and salt treated samples.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig

    (a) Annotation statistics of the novel DEGs. (b) GO classification of the novel DEGs under salt stress.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Fig. Cellular pathway overview of DEGs in T. aestivum under salinity stress using Mapman.

    Blue: up-regulated genes and red: down-regulated genes.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Fig. Secondary metabolite pathway overview of the DEGs in T. aestivum under salinity stress using Mapman.

    Blue: up-regulated genes and red: down-regulated genes.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Fig. Stress response pathways overview of the DEGs in T. aestivum under salinity stress using Mapman.

    Blue: up-regulated genes and red: down-regulated genes.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. The primers used for Real Time PCR.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Biological process classification of the novel transcripts.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Molecular function classification of the novel transcripts.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. Cellular component classification of the novel transcrips.

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table. List of the differentially expressed genes.

    (XLSX)

    S6 Table. List of the genes exclusively expressed under salt stress.

    (XLSX)

    S7 Table. List of the novel differentially expressed genes.

    (XLSX)

    S8 Table. KEGG pathway classification of the DEGs.

    (XLSX)

    S9 Table. Results of functional analysis of the salt-regulated genes using Mapman.

    (XLSX)

    S10 Table. The genes applied in the model.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data Availability The raw transcriptome reads generated in the current study are available in the SRA (Sequence Read Achieve) of NCBI (Accession numbers of SRR7975953, SRR7968059, SRR7968053, and SRR7920873). All the rest of relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES