Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Native Plants to Arid Areas: A Genetic Reservoir for Drought-Tolerant Crops

Written By

Ricardo Trejo-Calzada, Aurelio Pedroza-Sandoval, Jesus G. Arreola-Avila and Fabian García-González

Submitted: 11 December 2018 Reviewed: 24 April 2019 Published: 30 May 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.86485

From the Edited Volume

Drought - Detection and Solutions

Edited by Gabrijel Ondrasek

Chapter metrics overview

997 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Droughts are common in arid areas. These cause important losses in crop production, while the increasing population demands more food and goods. Cultivars able to produce under drought conditions are required to avoid or reduce production losses. Plants have evolved different mechanisms to face drought, and many genes have been already discovered in model and cultivated plants that are involved in this trait. Some of these genes have been successfully transformed into cultivated plants for drought tolerance. Plants native to arid lands may possess variants of drought tolerance mechanisms as compared to mesophytic or model plants. Also, different drought-related genes can be revealed. Studies using high-throughput and bioinformatic tools may allow to discover new genes and give new insights on the mechanisms involved in drought tolerance. However, still scarce studies in plants native to arid lands show that there are many drought-related genes that have not been already characterized and potentially they may be novel genes. These novel genes may be used to improve crops for drought tolerance. Therefore, more physiological, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic studies are needed on plants native to the deserts.

Keywords

  • abiotic stress
  • water stress
  • drought-related genes
  • genetic diversity
  • deserts
  • vegetation
  • drought-tolerance mechanisms
  • oxidative stress
  • osmotic adjustment
  • differentially expressed genes

1. Introduction

Arid lands are defined by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) based on the ratio of average annual precipitation and potential evapotranspiration or aridity index (AI). Arid lands are those with an AI lower than 0.65 [1]. Arid lands are widely spread around the world. They include around 41% of the earth’s land surface [2]. These areas include hyperarid (1 billion ha), arid, semiarid, and dry subhumid (5.1 billion ha) regions distributed across virtually all the continents [3]. Arid lands are often affected by droughts, which disturb natural and managed ecosystems and cause less biomass production, biodiversity loss, poverty, and insecurity [2, 4].

Droughts are one of the main environmental factors that prevent plants from reaching their full genetic potential and strongly reduce plant growth and productivity of native populations and in agricultural systems of arid and semiarid areas [5, 6]. Droughts are increasing in frequency and intensity on large regions of the world due to desertification processes. Desertification as a result of greater world’s population, extensive agricultural practices, and the effects of the global climate changes has become a serious problem [7]. Droughts are not unusual when viewed from a geological or evolutionary perspective. Therefore, they represent a permanent, strong, and increasing factor for biological, ecological, agronomic, and economic processes [8].

Plants as sessile organisms are under strong selective pressure to adapt to their environment. Along the entire life cycle, plants are frequently subject to a combination of different biotic and abiotic stresses [9]. Drought is one of the major environmental factors that reduce the yield of crops by limiting water availability for plants’ growth [10, 11]. Water deficit is one of the most important abiotic stresses that affect development and productivity of crop plants [12]. Water stress induces stomatal closure, restricts gas exchange, and reduces photosynthesis in plants [13]. Plants must cope with their environment through physiological acclimation and evolutionary adaptation. As a result, plants have evolved extraordinary mechanisms to perceive, respond, and survive some abiotic stresses and especially with water stress [8].

Most of the cultivated plants are very sensitive to drought and water stress [14, 15]. Thus, agricultural production is seriously limited by drought, while world population is continuously and increasingly demanding for food [16]. New cultivars that can keep or increase yields while using less water are needed in order to reduce the risk of grave yield losses and to reach the world food requirement [17, 18].

Some plant species have evolved morphological, physiological, and biochemical mechanisms that allow them to survive, grow, and reproduce in areas where drought is a common event. Plants may deal with water stress through escape, avoidance, and tolerance strategies [19, 20]. Escape is reached through plastic shifts in phenology in such a way that critical growth periods do not coincide with periods of water deficit. Avoidance includes adaptive responses to keep plant water status during drought. Tolerance strategies protect plant cells, tissues, and organs from water stress letting recovery after periods of water deficit and drought. These strategies are not mutually exclusive and may have different functions depending on species and duration, intensity, and timing of water stress [21, 22].

Native plants to arid lands must deal with extreme environmental factors such as high temperatures, high evaporation, low precipitation, salinity and high light intensity, and low soil moisture [23, 24]. These plants have evolved numerous mechanisms to survive drought. Some of those mechanisms have been described for model and cultivated plants [25]. However, wild populations frequently contain large pools of genetic and phenotypic diversity that can be useful for identifying new molecular strategies involved in drought tolerance. Detecting and understanding the roles of novel genes in drought tolerance may be the basis to improve or develop cultivars tolerant to drought [26, 27]. In this chapter we review some of the findings about drought-responsive genes in plants native to arid lands.

Advertisement

2. Drought tolerance genes

Plants’ drought tolerance is a quantitative trait that is controlled by many genes with additive effects [28, 29]. In native plants to arid areas such as Cynanchum komarovii and Prunus mongolica Maxim, more than 3000 differentially expressed genes (DEG) under drought stress have been found [30, 31]. These genes and/or their products participate in at least two pathways involved in drought tolerance: ABA-dependent and ABA-independent pathways [25, 32]. According to their roles, these genes have been grouped into two groups: (i) genes that code for regulatory proteins involved in signal transduction (transcription factors, protein kinases, ABA biosynthesis) and (ii) genes that code for functional proteins such as water and ion channels, detoxification enzymes, protective proteins (late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins, chaperones), proteins involved in osmolyte biosynthesis, and proteases [25, 33].

2.1 Regulatory proteins

Plants must deal with drought by activating a complex signaling network that produces a variety of physiological responses and defense systems [34, 35]. The signaling pathways include a group of stress sensors, cellular signal transduction, and transcriptionally regulated networks. In order to respond to water stress, it must be perceived by specific receptors which transmit the stress signal into the cell and may trigger a series of signal transduction steps. [36]. The signal transduction in ABA-dependent pathways increasing ABA concentrations is sensed by receptors such as GTG1, GTG2, Mg protoporphyrin IX chelatase H subunit (CHLH/ABAR), and pyrabactin resistance 1/PYR1-like/regulatory component of ABA response 1 (PYR/PYL/RCARs) [37]. Once ABA binds to its receptor, ABI1 (ABA insensitive 1) phosphatase activity is blocked causing autophosphorylation and activation of an open serine-threonine kinase (open stomata 1, OST1). Then, transcription factors (TFs) known as ABA-responsive element-binding proteins (ABFs/AREBPs) are phosphorylated and activated by OST1. Besides OST1, calcium-dependent kinases (CDPKs) similarly activate SLAC1 and SLAH3 [38]. Afterwards, ABFs bind to DNA at specific ABA-responsive elements (ABREs). Finally, ABA-dependent gene expression is induced [39].

Gene expression at the transcriptomic level is strongly regulated by transcription factors [40]. TFs can be grouped into several families according to their structure and binding domains [41]. Several TFs belonging to MYB, MYC, NAC, bZIP, HD-ZIP, DREB, and WRKY families are involved in modulation of gene expression of plants in response to drought stress through ABA-dependent or ABA-independent pathways [42]. Even though many TF families have been found in several models and cultivated plants [43, 44], novel TFs are being described from plants native to arid lands. They may be used as a powerful tool for practical approaches for engineering drought stress tolerance in plants. For example, in the desert legume Eremosparton songoricum, a novel DREB2B (EsDREB2B) gene was identified. The transcript of EsDREB2B was upregulated by different abiotic stresses, among them drought stress [45]. Other novel DREBs from a desiccation tolerant moss (Syntrichia caninervis Mitt.) were isolated and used to transform yeast. The ScDREB enhanced stress tolerance to yeast [46]. In Larrea tridentata, a bush native and widely distributed to Northern American deserts, the LtWRKY21 transcription factor that functions downstream of ABI1 to control ABA-dependent expression of genes was found [47]. The PeDREB2L gene from the desert tree Populus euphratica Oliva was isolated and transformed into Arabidopsis thaliana. Transgenic plants showed an improved tolerance to drought and freeze [48]. Moreover, in Sophora moorcroftiana, an endemic Leguminosae shrub species native to arid and semiarid regions of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, a total of 1534 TFs were identified. Those TFs were classified into 23 different common families. The major group of TFs was the bZIP family (160, 10.43%), followed by MYB (115, 7.5%), bHLH (107, 6.98%), zinc finger (103, 6.71%), and WRKY (103, 6.71%) [49].

2.2 Functional proteins

Drought stress affects many processes in the plants and cause a variety of physiological and biochemical changes. Some of these changes include loss of cellular turgor, changes in membrane fluidity and composition, changes in osmotic potential, and protein-protein interaction [10]. Cell turgor loss is perhaps the most evident indicator of water stress which affects integrity of cells, metabolism, and whole plant performance [50]. Maintaining cell turgor is critical for surviving and growth of plants. The changes in osmotic potential play a relevant role for that purpose. Loss of cell turgor, among other effects, may cause stomata closure and limitations of gas exchange which in turn decreases CO2 supply for RuBisCo. Photosynthesis decreases, and the reducing power production exceeds the rate of its use by the Calvin cycle [51]. Consequently, overproduction and accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) alter the redox status [52, 53]. ROS damage all major cell biomolecules impairing their function [53]. Plants may respond to these effects by activating several defense mechanisms that involve participation of numerous proteins such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins, osmoprotectants, chaperons, detoxifying enzymes, and various proteases [25, 54].

2.2.1 Late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins

A relatively well-known family of drought-responsive genes is the late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) gene family. LEAs are proteins that accumulate at late stage of development of many plant seeds. LEA proteins also accumulate in vegetative parts of plants as a response to water and osmotic stresses and ABA application [55]. It has been proposed that LEA proteins have an important role protecting cellular structures from water deficit [56]. LEA proteins have been grouped into at least eight different groups according to their amino acid sequence similarities and repeated sequence motifs (LEA1 to LEA6, dehydrins, and seed maturation protein). Most LEA proteins are highly hydrophilic, glycine-rich, and low-complexity proteins. They have a strongly disordered conformation in the hydrated state [57]. LEA genes are highly diverse and have been found in a wide range of plant species [58]. Up to 242 LEA genes have been found in Gossypium hirsutum [57]. The LEA genes have several stress-responsive cis-acting regulatory elements in the promoter region such as ABRE, DRE/CRT, MYBS, and LTRE [59]. The expression of LEA proteins is associated with acquisition of drought stress tolerance [60, 61]. The specific cellular role of LEA proteins is not well known. However, different studies have shown that LEA proteins may function in scavenging free radicals and ions; stabilization of enzymes, proteins, and membranes; interactions with RNA and DNA; and water retention during drought and other abiotic stresses [61].

Several novel LEA genes have been found in plants native to arid lands, and they have been successfully applied to transform plants for drought stress tolerance. For example, [62] cloned a LEA gene from Tamarix androssowii, a shrub that grows in arid or saline environments. The cloned LEA gene was transformed into tobacco. The transgenic plants showed less ion leakage and MDA content under drought than nontransgenic plants. Also, transgenic plants had a greater growth and lower number of wilted leaves. Also [63] use a Tamarix androssowii LEA gene (TaLEA) to obtain transgenic lines of Populus simonii × P. nigra which were compared to nontransgenic plants under salt and drought stress. They found that the constitutive expression of TaLEA in transgenic poplars improved salt and drought tolerance, which was attributed to the protection of cell membranes from damage. Moreover, [64] transformed a dehydrin protein from the desert grass Cleistogenes songorica (CsLEA) into alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Transgenic plants grew more than wild-type plants under drought stress. Moreover, transgenic plants were able to return to normal after rewatering. Identification of novel LEA genes in plants adapted to arid lands may be useful for improving drought tolerance of cultivated plants.

2.2.2 Osmoprotectants

Some plants respond to drought stress via organic and/or inorganic solute accumulation. Osmolytes or compatible solutes are produced in plants under drought or saline stress. They are small and neutral and do not affect plant metabolism even at relatively high concentrations [21]. These compounds are also called osmoprotectants and are included into three major chemical groups: amino acids (e.g., proline), polyols (e.g., mannitol, trehalose, fructans), and quaternary amines (e.g., glycine betaine and polyamines) [65]. Active accumulation of osmoprotectants may help plants to endure water stress by maintaining the fluidity of cell membranes, protecting and stabilizing proteins and macromolecular structures, detoxification of free radicals, and osmotic adjustment. Osmotic adjustment is a mechanism that allows plants to keep a flow of water to the cells. A greater concentration of osmolytes reduces the osmotic potential of cells, which in turn produces water movement to the cells, which allows maintenance of turgor. Osmotic adjustment also involves lowering of toxic concentrations of Na+ by limiting influx, sequestration, or exclusion [66]. Therefore, cell activities take place at approximately normal speed for better growth and development of plants [67].

Several genes associated with synthesis of osmoprotectants have been identified, isolated, and clonated from a variety of plant species including those native to arid lands [68]. For example, the pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthase (P5CS) gene involved in proline synthesis was characterized in Calotropis procera from de novo assembled transcriptome contigs of a high-throughput sequencing dataset [69]. Also, [70] transformed wheat plants with a P5CS gene from Vigna aconitifolia a legume grown in arid and semiarid regions of India. They found that transgenic wheat acquired drought tolerance by proline accumulation, which may have protected plants against oxidative stress. A betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase (BADH) gene from Atriplex canescens, a perennial bush native to arid lands of Northern America, was introduced into a soybean cultivar. The expression of AcBADH increased after drought treatment of transgenic plants. Besides glycine betaine, proline content also increased, and transgenic soybean lines yielded up to 8.8% more than control plants under drought treatments [71]. A plasma membrane intrinsic protein (PIP) gene (ScPIP1) from Simmondsia chinensis, a typical desert shrub, was cloned and overexpressed in Arabidopsis thaliana. ScPIP1 conferred drought and salt tolerance probably by reducing membrane damage and increasing osmotic adjustment [72].

2.2.3 Detoxifying enzymes

Drought as other kinds of abiotic and biotic stresses may produce oxidative stress. The oxidative stress is caused by at least two processes: (i) an imbalance of production and detoxification of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and (ii) de novo ROS biosynthesis as a response for defense and adaptation to environment. These processes produce significant variations in the general cellular redox state [53, 73]. The term ROS includes substances with one or more activated atoms of oxygen that can be radicals. Some free radicals do not contain oxygen atoms. The key ROS are triplet oxygen, singlet oxygen, superoxide anion radical, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radical [53]. Oxidative stress causes lipid peroxidation that impairs membranes and induces loss of their barrier function, and consequently a breakdown of organelles occurs [74]. Plants have evolved defense systems against excess of ROS. Those systems include nonenzymatic and enzymatic responses. The enzymatic system consists of several enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), glutathione reductase (GR), and others that eliminate or scavenge ROS [75].

Plants native to arid lands may have antioxidant defense systems to limit the deleterious effects of ROS. For example, in Oudneya africana, a Saharan plant, water deficit caused variations in enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants, differentially affecting the concentration of SOD and POX [76]. Transgenic poplar expressing the eukaryote translation initiation factor 5A (TaeIF5A1) from Tamarix androssowii showed greater superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) activities, lower electrolyte leakage, and improved tolerance to abiotic stresses [77]. Six plant species from semiarid Loess Hilly Region of China showed significant differences in SOD and POD activities when subject to drought along 3 months. Also there were significant interactions of SOD, CAT, and POD activities and MDA content between months and species [78]. A transcriptomic study under drought stress showed that Prunus mongolica Maxim, a species widely distributed in the Gobi Desert, increased transcription of iron superoxide dismutase and manganese superoxide dismutase which promoted drought stress tolerance [31].

Advertisement

3. Findings of novel genes in native plants from arid land areas

The development of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies offers opportunities for genome-wide transcription analysis of non-model plants and especially of desert plants and discovery of novel pathways and genes related to drought tolerance. These novel genes may be useful to improve drought tolerance in cultivated plants. Even though there are not many studies in plants native to arid regions, the results of some of the research that different groups have carried out allow insights over the abundance of potential novel genes for drought tolerance.

By using the analysis of subtracted expressed sequence tags (ESTs) in horse gram (Macrotyloma uniflorum (Lam.) Verdc.), 531 unigenes were found as upregulated by drought. Among these unigenes 366 showed significant similarity to known sequences in the database. Approximately 30% of the ESTs had no similarity to known proteins in the GenBank database. Those are considered as novel. Also, according to the functional classification, the most abundant ESTs were those related to stress responses (12%), DNA processing and nucleotide metabolism (10%), photosynthesis and electron transport (9%), and transcription factors (5%). There was redundancy in several known stress-responsive clones in dehydrated sample. The most prominent were metallothionein, glutathione S-transferase, RabGAP/TBC domain-containing protein, lipoxygenase, translationally controlled tumor protein, chaperon, lipid transfer protein, cysteine proteinase, calmodulin, calmodulin-binding protein, and sterol 24-C-methyltransferase [79]. Moreover, a protein-protein interactome study carried out in M. uniflorum showed that the highest number of PIPs occurred in shoot (416) and root (2228) tissues of a drought-tolerant genotype as compared to shoot (136) and root (579) tissues of a sensitive genotype. The PIPs most responsive to drought stress were kinase and transferase activities involved in signal transduction, cellular processes, nucleocytoplasmic transport, protein ubiquitination, and localization of molecules. These PIPs could be enclosed in mechanisms of drought tolerance of M. uniflorum. Also, they could provide new understandings of mechanisms involved in drought tolerance [80].

A transcriptomic analysis of the roots of Ammopiptanthus mongolicus, an endemic species to the Gobi Desert, allowed to identify 27 drought-responsive genes. These genes were grouped into the GO categories of response to osmotic stress, response to oxidative stress, response to hormone stimulus, and response to light stimulus. A total of 9771 (34%) out of 29,056 ESTs matched to known proteins recorded in the PlantGDB database. This means that many ESTs could be novel drought-responsive genes [81]. Another study of comprehensive transcriptome of A. mongolicusidentified up to 6102 DEGs under drought stress at 3 points of exposure. A group of 2028 DEGs were common for the 3 points. Among them 779 DEGs were upregulated and 1185 were downregulated by drought. The upregulated DEGs included a heavy representation of genes encoding ripening-related proteins, LEA proteins, peroxidases, transporters, enzymes of flavonoid biosynthetic pathways, protein kinases, ethylene receptors, and transcription factors. About 17.2% of the common DEGs had no homology to known functional proteins [82]. Similarly, Pang et al. [83] identified 1620 DEGs, including 1106 upregulated DEGs and 514 downregulated DEGs.

In Cynanchum komarovii, a xerophytic plant species, up to 3134 unigenes were found as differentially expressed genes (DEGs) under drought stress. A total of 601 unigenes were induced, while 2533 unigenes were repressed. The most abundant upregulated DEGs were into the following GO groups: “oxidation-reduction process” with 120 DEGs, “single-organism metabolic process” with 185 DEGs, and “oxidoreductase activity” with 113 DEGs. The most downregulated genes were grouped into the following GO terms: “metabolic process,” “cellular component organization or biogenesis,” “cellular response to stimulus,” “macromolecular complex,” “cytoplasm,”, “protein binding,” and “hydrolase activity.” KEGG pathway analysis allowed to identify that DEGs involved in “cutin, suberine, and wax biosynthesis” changed significantly, which may be due to the important role of this pathway for this plant species protection when exposed to drought [30].

Reaumuria soongorica is an extreme xerophyte shrub from Gobi and marginal loess of central Asia. A transcriptomic analysis identified 123 unigenes potentially associated with drought adaptation. A total of 46 unigenes were related to drought escape mechanisms, while 40 unigenes were potentially involved in drought avoidance. Also, 32 unigenes had identity to genes involved in ABA-dependent, while 8 unigenes had homology to some genes involved in ABA-independent pathways of drought tolerance. There was a 7.96% of unigenes that did not match any homologous genes in the known plant species [84]. Another study identified 1325 DEGs, including 379 upregulated DEGs and 946 downregulated DEGs under drought stress. Among DEGs, 20 genes encoded for kinases, and 14 encoded for transcription factors such as WRKY, NAC, MYC, TCP, and bZIP. Also 13 DEGs encoding for functional proteins such as LEA proteins, small heat shock proteins, and aquaporin (AQP) and proline transporter were identified. Moreover, 14 DEGs were found encoding for low-temperature-induced protein, dehydration-induced protein, defensing precursor, resistance protein, universal stress protein, and protein involved in protein kinase [85].

Haloxylon ammodendron (C.A.Mey) is a desert tree distributed in Middle and Central Asia. By doing a transcriptomic analysis in this species, up to 1060 unigenes were identified as DEGs for drought stress. Among them, 356 DEGs were upregulated and 704 DEGs were downregulated. A total of 469 (44%) of DEGs did not show homology to genes in NCBI database. Approximately 12.1% of DEGs with homology to known genes were associated with nitrogen metabolism, starch and sucrose metabolism, and fatty acid metabolism. Also, 35 DEGs encoded known or putative transcription factors such as WRKY, MYB, and ethylene-responsive [86].

The expression of drought-responsive genes may depend on the stress intensity. A study in Sophora moorcroftiana revealed that more genes were differentially expressed under severe water stress than mild stress. Up to 5648 unigenes were differentially expressed between control and severe stress plants. Around 601 unigenes were common for mild and severe water stress. Eleven out of 1534 TFs were selected for expression analysis. Among these, seven were drought-responsive. Those encoding for DREB, zinc-finger protein (ZnF), zinc-finger protein kinase (ZFPK), MYB, NAC, and WRKY were upregulated, while ERB was downregulated. Three selected aquaporins (AQPs) and one sugar transporter (SUT) genes were upregulated by drought. Genes encoding for scavenging reactive oxygen species such as POD, PRX, and GPDH were induced by drought stress [49].

Prunus mongolica is a plant native to the Gobi Desert. In this species a total of 3365 differentially expressed transcripts (DETs) for water stress were identified, counting 1876 transcripts upregulated and 1489 transcripts downregulated. Among these, 42 transcripts coding for 5 aquaporin subfamilies were found. Also, 15 potential plasma membrane intrinsic proteins (PIPs) were upregulated and 1 downregulated. Interestingly, 177 transcripts related to ROS scavenging were identified. Approximately 28% of them were predicted as SOD. Several significant pathways were identified to be related to drought tolerance of P. mongolica. These pathways included transcription factors and plant hormone signal transduction, starch and sucrose metabolism, and cysteine and methionine metabolism [31].

Artemisia sphaerocephala is a species found in sand dunes in the deserts of Northwest China. A transcriptomic analysis in this species identified 108 unigenes related to drought stress tolerance. These had homology to 17 kinases, 2 potential chaperones, 52 enzymes, 6 transporters and channels, and 3 aquaporins. Even though, transcription factor were not identified, 25 out of the 108 unigenes were among the 1000 most highly expressed genes [87].

Zygophyllum xanthoxylum is a succulent halophythe adapted to arid environments. In this plant a total of 1723 DEGs were identified as upregulated in leaves of plants under osmotic stress (−0.5 MPa) during 24 h. Up to 53 DEGs related to ROS scavenging were also identified as upregulated, most of them encoded for glutathione S-transferase (GST) and peroxidases (POD). Also, 31 DEGs homologous to transporters were upregulated in the roots under salt and osmotic stress. However, 23 DEGs related to photosynthesis were downregulated under osmotic stress [88].

Cleistogenes songorica is a C4 xerophyte widely distributed in the arid regions of Northwest China. A mining study for LEA genes identified at least 44 putative LEA proteins. They were named CsLEA1 to CsLEA44 and classified into eight subfamilies. These LEAs were characterized, and two unusual LEA stress-related domains, water stress and hypersensitive response (WHy), and LEA14-like desiccation-related proteins were detected. Most LEAs within the same family showed similar structures and properties. All the CsDehydrin proteins contained the YKS segments which are essential for keeping the capacity to adjust their conformation and maintain cellular homeostasis under stress conditions. Among the cis-regulatory elements of the LEA genes, more than three G-Boxes were registered for each dehydrin, LEA_2, and SMP genes and more than two MBS for dehydrin and LEA_2 subfamily gene [89].

Prosopis juliflora is a species native to arid lands of Mexico and widely distributed in arid and semiarid regions of Central and South America. In this species 6874 DEGs were found under salt and drought stress. Approximately 42.6% (2932 DEGs) had homology to genes with GO annotation. Among these, 1339 DEGs were upregulated, while 1596 were downregulated. More DEGs under salt and drought stress were found in roots than those of leaves. Under drought stress, there was more upregulation than downregulation in leaves, while in roots there was more downregulation. A total of 30 unigenes were recognized as exclusively responsive to drought stress. One of these genes encoding for Arabidopsis ortholog ABR1 was downregulated. Two upregulated genes encoded for transcription factors involved in diminishing intracellular H2O2 levels. Also, three highly upregulated DEGs encoded for “pq-loop repeat family protein transmembrane family protein” which has been assigned with a potential role in stress tolerance. Many drought-responsive genes were tissue specific. For example, 1040 genes were specifically expressed in root tissues. Up to 805 genes were commonly regulated by drought and salt stress in root tissue. Upregulated genes included those coding for dehydration-responsive protein rd22, pectinesterase-2, LEA protein, and POD. Moreover, 74 DEGs were commonly upregulated in leaf tissues and 16 were downregulated. The induced genes included pectinesterase-2, non-specific lipid-transfer protein, delta-1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthase, and ras-related protein rabc2a [90].

Advertisement

4. Conclusions

Drought stress tolerance is a complex quantitative trait that involves several mechanisms and multiple genes to produce the defense responses of the plants for dealing with environmental conditions of drought. Studies in model plants have found some of the main mechanisms, genes, and proteins that are activated upon drought stress. However, not enough studies have been carried out in plants native to arid lands. The new sequencing technologies and bioinformatic tools applied to some plants native to desert areas have allowed to identify many of the already characterized genes and proteins involved in drought stress tolerance. The most important is that this kind of studies has shown that myriads of drought-related transcripts are not characterized and may belong to novel genes. These may be part of the already known pathways of plants responses to drought or may participate in novel ways to tolerate drought, and after further studies may be used to improve drought tolerance in crops.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors of this work declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). World Atlas of Desertification. London: Edward Arnold; 1992
  2. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Global Guidelines for the Restoration of Degraded Forests and Landscapes in Drylands: Building Resilience and Benefiting Livelihoods. Forestry Paper No. 175. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2015
  3. 3. Middleton N, Thomas D. World Atlas of Desertification. London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1997
  4. 4. MEA. Chapter 22: Millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends. In: Bartlett Millennium Ecosytem Assessment (MEA). Vol. 1. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2005
  5. 5. Zhu JK. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2002;53:247-273
  6. 6. Martínez JP, Ledent JF, Jajji M, Kinet JM, Lutts S. Effect of water stress on growth, Na+ and K+ accumulation and water use efficiency in relation to osmotic adjustment in two populations of Atriplex halimus L. Plant Growth Regulation. 2003;41:63-73
  7. 7. Dai A. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3:52-58
  8. 8. Juenger TE. Natural variation and genetic constraints on drought tolerance. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2013;16:274-281. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbi.2013.02.001
  9. 9. Tuskan GA, Difazio S, Jansson S, et al. Genome of black cottonwood, Populus trichocarpa (Torr. & Gray). Science. 2006;313:1596-1604
  10. 10. Chaves MM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS. Understanding plant responses to drought—From genes to the whole plant. Functional Plant Biology. 2003;30(3):239-264
  11. 11. Salekdeh GH, Reynolds M, Bennett J, Boyer J. Conceptual framework for drought phenotyping during molecular breeding. Trends in Plant Science. 2009;14:488-496
  12. 12. Okcu G, Kaya MD, Atak M. Effects of salt and drought stresses on germination and seedling growth of pea (Pisumsativum L.). Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2005;29:237-242
  13. 13. Lawson T, Oxborough K, Morison JIL, Baker NR. The responses of guard and mesophyll cell photosynthesis to CO2, O2, light, and water stress in a range of species are similar. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2003;54:1743-1752
  14. 14. Tuberosa R, Salvi S. Genomics-based approaches to improve drought tolerance of crops. Trends in Plant Science. 2006;11:405-412
  15. 15. Shabala S. Learning from halophytes: Physiological basis and strategies to improve abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Annual Reviews. 2013;112:1209-1221
  16. 16. Mir RR, Zaman-Allah M, Sreenivasulu N, Trethowan R, Varshney RK. Integrated genomics, physiology and breeding approaches for improving drought tolerance in crops. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2012;125:625-645
  17. 17. Barnabas B, Jager K, Feher A. The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant, Cell & Environment. 2008;31:11-38
  18. 18. Fleury D, Jefferies S, Kuchel H, Langridge P. Genetic and genomic tools to improve drought tolerance in wheat. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2010;61:3211-3222
  19. 19. Levitt J. Response of Plants to Environmental Stresses. New York: Academic Press; 1972
  20. 20. Ludlow MM. Strategies of response to water stress. In: Kreeb KH, HRTM H, editors. Structural and Functional Responses to Environmental Stresses. The Hague: SPB Academic; 1989. pp. 269-281
  21. 21. Bartels D, Sunkar R. Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 2005;24:23-58
  22. 22. Chaves MM. Oliveira: Mechanisms underlying plant resilience to water deficits: Prospects for water-saving agriculture. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2004;55:2365-2384
  23. 23. McNeely JA. Biodiversity in arid regions: Values and perceptions. Journal of Arid Environments. 2003;4(1):61-70
  24. 24. Yates SA, Chernukhin I, Alvarez-Fernandez R, Bechtold U, Baeshen M, Baeshen N, et al. The temporal foliar transcriptome of the perennial C3 desert plant Rhazya stricta in its natural environment. BMC Plant Biology. 2014;14:2
  25. 25. Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K. Gene networks involved in drought stress response and tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2007;58:221-227
  26. 26. Kooyers NJ. The evolution of drought escape and avoidance in natural herbaceous populations. Plant Science. 2015;234:155-162
  27. 27. Zhan L, Shu H, Zhang AY, Liu BL, Xing GF, Xue JA, et al. Foxtail millet WRKY genes and drought stress. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2017;155:777-790. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859616000873
  28. 28. Mohammadi M, Taleei A, Zeinali H, Naghavi MR, Ceccareli S, Baum G. M: QTL analysis for phenologic traits in doubled haploid populations of barley. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2005;5:820-823
  29. 29. Fan XD, Wang JQ , Yang N, Dong YY, Liu L, Wang FW, et al. Gene expression profiling of soybean leaves and roots under salt, saline-alkali and drought stress by high-throughput Illumina sequencing. Gene. 2013;512:392-402
  30. 30. Ma X, Wang P, Zhou S, Sun Y, Liu N, Li X, et al. De novo transcriptome sequencing and comprehensive analysis of the drought-responsive genes in the desert plant Cynanchum komarovii. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:753. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-015-1873-x
  31. 31. Wang J, Zheng R, Bai S, Gao X, Liu M, Yan W. Mongolian almond (Prunus mongolica maxim): The morpho-physiological, biochemical and transcriptomic response to drought stress. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124442. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124442
  32. 32. Xiong LM, Schumaker KS, Zhu JK. Cell signaling during cold, drought, and salt stress. Plant Cell. 2002;14:S165-S183
  33. 33. Seki M, Kameiy A, Yamaguchi-Shinozakiz K, Shinozaki K. Molecular responses to drought, salinity and frost: Common and different paths for plant protection. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2003;14:194-199
  34. 34. Shanker AK, Maheswari M, Yadav SK, Desai S, Bhanu D, Attal NB, et al. Drought stress responses in crops. Functional and Integrative Genomics. 2014;14(1):11-22
  35. 35. Golldack D, Li C, Mohan H, Probst N. Tolerance to drought and salt stress in plants: Unraveling the signaling networks. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2014;5:151
  36. 36. Wei K, Wang Y, Zhong X, Pan S. Protein kinase structure, expression and regulation in maize drought signaling. Molecular Breeding. 2014;34:583-602. DOI: 10.1007/s11032-014-0059-6
  37. 37. Park SY, Fun P, Nishimura N, Jensen DR, Fujii H, Zhao Y, et al. Cuttler SRAbscisic acid inhibits type 2C protein phosphatases via the PYR/PYL family of START proteins. Science. 2009;324:1068-1071
  38. 38. Geiger D, Maierhofer T, Al-Rasheid KA, Scherzer S, Mumm P, Liese A, et al. Stomatal closure by fast abscisic acid signaling is mediated by the guard cell anion channel SLAH3 and the receptor RCAR1. Science Signaling. 2011;4:ra32
  39. 39. Raghavendra AS, Gonugunta VK, Christmann A, Grill E. ABA perception and signaling. Trends in Plant Science. 2010;15:595-401
  40. 40. Chen WQJ, Zhu T. Networks of transcription factors with roles in environmental stress response. Trends in Plant Science. 2004;9:591-596. DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2004.10.007
  41. 41. Gosal SS, Wani SH, Kang MS. Biotechnology and drought tolerance. Journal of Crop Improvement. 2009;23:19-54
  42. 42. Gahlaut V, Jaiswal V, Kumar A, Gupta PK. Transcription factors involved in drought tolerance and their possible role in developing drought tolerant cultivars with emphasis on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2016;129:2019-2042. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-016-2794-z
  43. 43. Fujita Y, Nakashima K, Yoshida T, Katagiri T, Kidokoro S, et al. Three SnRK2 protein kinases are the main positive regulators of abscisic acid signaling in response to water stress in Arabidopsis. Plant & Cell Physiology. 2009;50:2123-2132
  44. 44. Mizoi J, Ohori T, Moriwaki T, Kidokoro S, Todaka D, Maruyama K, et al. GmDREB2A;2, a canonical dehydration-responsive element-binding protein2-type transcription factor in soybean, is posttranslationally regulated and mediates dehydration-responsive element-dependent gene expression. Plant Physiology. 2013;161(1):346-361
  45. 45. Li X, Zhang D, Li H, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Wood AJ. EsDREB, a novel truncated DREB2-type transcription factor in the desert legume Eremosparton songoricum enhances tolerance to multiple abiotic stresses in yeast and transgenic tobacco. BMC Plant Biology. 2014;14:44. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-14-44
  46. 46. Li H, Zhang D, Li X, Guan K, Yang H. Novel DREB A-5 subgroup transcription factor from desert moss (Syntrichia caninervis) confers multiple abiotic stress tolerance to yeast. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2016;194:45-53
  47. 47. Zou X, Seemann JR, Neuman D, Shen QJ. A WRKY gene from creosote bush encodes an activator of the abscisic acid signaling pathway. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2004;279(53):55770-55779
  48. 48. Chen J, Xia X, Yin W. A poplar DRE-binding protein gene, PeDREB2L, is involved in regulation of defense response against abiotic stress. Gene. 2011;483:36-42
  49. 49. Li H, Yao W, Fu Y, Li S, Guo Q. De novo assembly and discovery of genes that are involved in drought tolerance in Tibetan Sophora moorcroftiana. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e111054. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111054
  50. 50. McDowell NG. Mechanisms linking drought, hydraulics, carbon metabolism, and vegetation mortality. Plant Physiology. 2011;155(3):1051-1059
  51. 51. Chaves MM, Flexas J, Pinheiro C. Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: Regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Annals of Botany. 2009;103:551-560
  52. 52. Van Breusegem F. L-10 plant oxidative stress signaling: Towards the proteome and beyond. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 2018;120(supplement 1):S8
  53. 53. Demidchick V. Mechanisms of oxidative stress in plants: From classical chemistry to cell biology. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2015;109:212-228
  54. 54. Bray EA. Classification of genes differentially expressed during water-deficit stress in Arabidopsis thaliana: An analysis using microarray and differential expression data. Annals of Botany. 2002;89:803-811
  55. 55. Siddiqui NU, Chung H-J, Thomas TL, Drew MC. Abscisic acid-dependent and independent expression of the carrot late-embryogenesis-abundant-class gene Dc3 in transgenic tobacco seedlings. Plant Physiology. 1998;118:1181-1190
  56. 56. Colmenero-Flores JM, Moreno LP, Smith CE, Covarrubias AA. Pvlea-18, a member of a new late-embryogenesis-abundant protein family that accumulates during water stress in the growing regions of well-irrigated bean seedlings. Plant Physiology. 1999;120:93-103
  57. 57. Magwanga RO, Lu P, Kirungu JN, Lu H, Wang X, Cai X, et al. Characterization of the late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins family and their role in drought stress tolerance in upland cotton. BMC Genetics. 2018;19:6. DOI: 10.1186/s12863-017-0596-1
  58. 58. Gao J, Lan T. Functional characterization of the late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) protein gene family from Pinus tabuliformis (Pinaceae) in Escherichia coli. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:19467. DOI: 10.1038/srep19467
  59. 59. Pedrosa AM, Martins CPS, Gonçalves LP, Costa MGC. Late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) constitutes a large and diverse family of proteins involved in development and abiotic stress responses in sweet orange (Citrus sinensis L Osb.). PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0145785. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145785
  60. 60. Hand SC, Menze MA, Toner M, Boswell L, Moore DLEA. Proteins during water stress: Not just for plants anymore. Annual Review of Physiology. 2011;73:115-134
  61. 61. Dang NX, Popova AV, Hundertmark M, Hincha DK. Functional characterization of selected LEA proteins from Arabidopsis thaliana in yeast and in vitro. Planta. 2014;240(2):325-336
  62. 62. Wang Y, Jiang J, Zhao X, Liu G, Yang C, Zhan L. A novel LEA gene from Tamarix androsowii confers drought tolerance in transgenic tobacco. Plant Science. 2006;171:655-662
  63. 63. Gao W, Bai S, Li Q , Gao C, Liu G, Li G, et al. Overexpression of TaLEA gene from Tamarix androsowii improves salt and drought tolerance in transgenic poplar (Populus simonii x P. nigra). PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67462. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067462
  64. 64. Zhang J, Duan Z, Zhang D, Zhang J, Di H, Wu F, et al. Co-transforming bar and CsLEA enhanced tolerance to drought and salt stress in transgenic alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 2016;472:75-82
  65. 65. Kahn MS, Ahmad D, Kahn MA. Utilization of genes encoding osmoprotectants in transgenic plants for enhanced abiotic stress tolerance. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. 2015;18:257-266
  66. 66. Gagneu D, Amouche A, Duhaze C, Lugan R, Larher FR, Bouchereau A. A reassessment of the function of the so-called compatible solutes in the halophytic Plumbaginaceae limonium latifolium. Plant Physiology. 2007;144:1598-1611
  67. 67. Rabbani G, Choi I. Roles of osmolytes in protein folding and aggregation in cells and their biotechnological applications. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2018;109:483-491
  68. 68. Scholz FG, Bucci SJ, Arias N, Meinzer FC, Goldstein G. Osmotic and elastic adjustments in cold desert shrubs differing in rooting depth: Coping with drought and subzero temperatures. Oecologia. 2012;170:885-897. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-012-2368-y
  69. 69. Ramadan AM, Hassanein SE. Characterization of P5CS gene in Calotropis procera plant from the de novo assembled transcriptome contigs of the high-throughput sequencing dataset. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 2014;337:683-690
  70. 70. Vendruscoloa CG, Schusterb I, Pileggic M, Scapimd CA, Correa Molinarie HB, Marure CJ, et al. Stress-induced synthesis of proline confers tolerance to water deficit in transgenic wheat. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2007;164:1367-1376
  71. 71. Quin D, Zhao C-L, Liu X-Y, Wang P-W. Transgenic soybeans expressing betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase from Atriplex canescens show increased drought tolerance. Plant Breeding. 2017;136:699-709. DOI: 10.1111/pbr.12518
  72. 72. Wang X, Gao F, Bing J, Sun W, Feng X, Ma X, et al. Overexpression of the jojoba aquaporin gene, ScPIP1, enhances drought and salt tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2019;20:153. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20010153
  73. 73. Noctor G, Lelarge-Trouverie C, Mhamdi A. The metabolomics of oxidative stress. Phytochemistry. 2015;112:33-53
  74. 74. Farmer EE, Mueller MJ. ROS-mediated lipid peroxidation and RES-activated signaling. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2013;64:429-450
  75. 75. Das SK, Patra JK, Thatoi H. Antioxidative response to abiotic and biotic stresses in mangrove plants. A review. International Review of Hydrobiology. 2016;101:3-19. DOI: 10.1002/iroh.201401744
  76. 76. Talbi S, Romero-Puertas MC, Hernández A, Terrón L, Ferchichi A, Sandalio LM. Drought tolerance in a saharian plant oudneya africana: Role of antioxidant defences. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2015;111:114-126
  77. 77. Wang L, Xu C, Wang C, Wang Y. Characterization of a eukaryotic translation initiation factor 5A homolog from Tamarix androssowii involved in plant abiotic stress tolerance. BMC Plant Biology. 2012;12:118. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/12/118
  78. 78. Du F, Shi H, Zhang X, Xu X. Responses of reactive oxygen scavenging enzymes, proline and malondialdehyde to water deficits among six secondary successional seral species in loess plateau. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e98872. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098872
  79. 79. Reddy PCO, Sairanganayukulu G, Thippeswamy M, Reddy PS, Reddy MK, Sudhakar C. Identification of stress-induced genes from the drought tolerant semi-arid legume crop horse gram (Macrotyloma uniflorum (lam.) verdc) through analysis of subtracted expressed sequence tags. Plant Science. 2008;175:372-384
  80. 80. Bhardwaj J, Gangwar I, Panzade G, Shankar R, Yadav SK. Global de novo protein-protein interactome elucidates interactions of drought proteins in horse gram (Macrotyloma uniflorum). Journal of Proteome Research. 2016;15:1794-1809. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b01114
  81. 81. Zhou Y, Fei G, Ran L, Feng J, Li H. De novo sequencing and analysis of root transcriptome using 454 pyrosequencing to discover putative genes associated with drought tolerance in Ammopiptanthus mongolicus. BMC Genomics. 2012;13(7):1-17
  82. 82. Wu Y, Wei W, Pang X, Wang X, Zhang H, Dong B, et al. Comparative transcriptome profiling of a desert evergreen shrub, Ammopiptanthus mongolicus, in response to drough and cold stresses. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:671
  83. 83. Pang T, Guo L, Shim D, Cannon N, Tang S, Chen J, et al. Characterization of the transcriptome of the xerophyte Ammopiptanthus mongolicus leaves under drought stress by 454 pyrosequencing. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0136495. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136495
  84. 84. Shi Y, Yan X, Zhao P, Yin H, Zhao X, Xiao H, et al. Transcriptomic analysis of a tertiary relict plant, extreme xerophyte Reaumuria soongorica to identify genes related to drought adaptation. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63993. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063993
  85. 85. Liu Y, Liu M, Li X, Cao B, Ma X. Identification of differentially expressed genes in leaf of Reaumuria soongorica under PEG-induced drought stress by digital gene expression profiling. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94277. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094277
  86. 86. Long Y, Zhang J, Tian X, Wu S, Zhang Q , Zhang J, et al. De novo assembly of the desert tree Haloxylon ammodendron (C.A. Mey.) based on RNA-Seq data provides insight into drought response, gene discovery and marker identification. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:1111. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-1111
  87. 87. Zhang L, Hu X, Miao X, Chen X, Nan S, Fu H. Genome-scale transcriptome analysis of the desert shrub Artemisia sphaerocephala. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0154300. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154300
  88. 88. Ma Q , Bao A-K, Chai W-W, Wang W-Y, Zhang J-L, Li Y-X, et al. Transcriptomic analysis of the succulent xerophyte Zygophyllum xanthoxylum in response to salt treatment and osmotic stress. Plant and Soil. 2016;402:343-361
  89. 89. Muvunyi BP, Yan Q , Wu F, Min X, Yan ZZ, Kanzana G, et al. Mining late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) family genes in Cleistogenes songorica, a xerophyte perennial desert plant. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2018;19:3430. DOI: 10.3390/ijms19113430
  90. 90. George S, Manoharan D, Li J, Britton M, Parida A. Transcriptomic responses to drought and salt in desert tree Prosopis juliflora. Plant Gene. 2017;12:114-122

Written By

Ricardo Trejo-Calzada, Aurelio Pedroza-Sandoval, Jesus G. Arreola-Avila and Fabian García-González

Submitted: 11 December 2018 Reviewed: 24 April 2019 Published: 30 May 2019