Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
  • KSBS
  • E-Submission

Plant Breed. Biotech. : Plant Breeding and Biotechnology

OPEN ACCESS
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICIES
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Articles

Research Article

Overexpression of AtSZF2 from Arabidopsis Showed Enhanced Tolerance to Salt Stress in Soybean

Plant Breeding and Biotechnology 2017;5(1):1-15.
Published online: March 1, 2017

1Biotechnology Institute, Nongwoo Bio Co., LTD, Yeoju 49315, Korea

2Department of Genetic Engineering, College of Natural Resources and Life Science, Dong-A University, Busan 12655, Korea

3Genomine Advanced Biotechnology Research Institute, Genomine Inc., Pohang 37668, Korea

*Corresponding author: Young-Soo Chung, chungys@dau.ac.kr, Tel: +82-51-200-7510, Fax: +82-51-200-6536

These authors contributed equally to this work as co-first author.

• Received: February 3, 2017   • Revised: February 7, 2017   • Accepted: February 7, 2017

Copyright © 2017 The Korean Society of Breeding Science

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 15 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 19 Crossref
next

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Resilient soybeans for a changing climate: analyzing traditional and emerging new plant breeding technologies to combat abiotic stresses
    Bareera Nasir, Saleem Ur Rahman, Abdaal Ali, Ehtisham Shafique, Nighat Zia, Niaz Ahmad, Ghulam Raza, Rubina Bukhari
    Acta Physiologiae Plantarum.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • CRISPR/Cas9-mediated simultaneous targeting of GmP34 and its homologs produces T-DNA-free soybean mutants with reduced allergenic potential
    Dongwon Baek, Byung Jun Jin, Mi Suk Park, Ye Jin Cha, Tae Hee Han, Ye Na Jang, Su Bin Kim, Sang In Shim, Jong-Il Chung, Hyun Jin Chun, Min Chul Kim
    Frontiers in Plant Science.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Soybean Molecular Breeding Through Genome Editing Tools: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives
    Chan Yong Kim, Sivabalan Karthik, Hyeran Kim
    Agronomy.2025; 15(8): 1983.     CrossRef
  • Influence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on morpho-biochemical characteristics, nutrient uptake, and transcriptomic profile of Solanum melongena L. plant
    Subhesh Saurabh Jha, L. S. Songachan
    3 Biotech.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • A novel PGPR strain, Streptomyces lasalocidi JCM 3373T, alleviates salt stress and shapes root architecture in soybean by secreting indole‐3‐carboxaldehyde
    Liang Lu, Ning Liu, Zihui Fan, Minghao Liu, Xiaxia Zhang, Juan Tian, Yanjun Yu, Honghui Lin, Ying Huang, Zhaosheng Kong
    Plant, Cell & Environment.2024; 47(6): 1941.     CrossRef
  • RL-WG26 mediated salt stress tolerance in rice seedlings: A new insight into molecular mechanisms
    Lei Ren, Yi Zhang, John L. Zhou, Guan Wang, Yujian Mo, Yu Ling, Yongxiang Huang, Yueqing Zhang, Hanqiao Hu, Yanyan Wang
    Plant Stress.2024; 11: 100306.     CrossRef
  • Halotolerant endophytes promote grapevine regrowth after salt-induced defoliation
    Salvadora Navarro-Torre, Sara Ferrario, Ana D. Caperta, Gonçalo Victorino, Marion Bailly, Vicelina Sousa, Wanda Viegas, Amaia Nogales
    Journal of Plant Interactions.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Environmental Risk Assessment of Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) : Responses to Cyprinus carpio fed on herbicide resistant transgenic rapeseed
    Sung-Dug Oh, Kyunglyung Baek, Seok-Ki Min, Joon Ki Hong, Doh-Won Yun, Seong-Kon Lee, Ancheol Chang
    Journal of the Korean Society of International Agriculture.2023; 35(4): 278.     CrossRef
  • Mutation of GmIPK1 Gene Using CRISPR/Cas9 Reduced Phytic Acid Content in Soybean Seeds
    Ji Hyeon Song, Gilok Shin, Hye Jeong Kim, Saet Buyl Lee, Ju Yeon Moon, Jae Cheol Jeong, Hong-Kyu Choi, In Ah Kim, Hyeon Jin Song, Cha Young Kim, Young-Soo Chung
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2022; 23(18): 10583.     CrossRef
  • A Review of Recent Advances and Future Directions in the Management of Salinity Stress in Finger Millet
    Wilton Mbinda, Asunta Mukami
    Frontiers in Plant Science.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Overexpression of Arabidopsis thaliana blue-light inhibitor of cryptochromes 1 gene alters plant architecture in soybean
    Hyun Suk Cho, Yoon Jeong Lee, Hye Jeong Kim, Moon-Young Park, Wan Woo Yeom, Ji Hyeon Song, In Ah Kim, Seong-Hyeon Kim, Jeong-Il Kim, Young-Soo Chung
    Plant Biotechnology Reports.2021; 15(4): 459.     CrossRef
  • Improved salt tolerance of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. contributed by Pseudomonas sp. strain M30-35
    Deyu Cai, Ying Xu, Fei Zhao, Yan Zhang, Huirong Duan, Xiaonong Guo
    PeerJ.2021; 9: e10702.     CrossRef
  • Morphological, physiological, and biochemical responses of Tunisian Urtica pilulifera L. under salt constraint
    Ghazouani Soumaya, Hannachi Hédia, Ben Nasri- Ayachi Mouhiba
    South African Journal of Botany.2021; 142: 124.     CrossRef
  • Serratia marcescens BM1 Enhances Cadmium Stress Tolerance and Phytoremediation Potential of Soybean Through Modulation of Osmolytes, Leaf Gas Exchange, Antioxidant Machinery, and Stress-Responsive Genes Expression
    Mohamed A. El-Esawi, Amr Elkelish, Mona Soliman, Hosam O. Elansary, Abbu Zaid, Shabir H. Wani
    Antioxidants.2020; 9(1): 43.     CrossRef
  • Overexpression of AtYUCCA6 in soybean crop results in reduced ROS production and increased drought tolerance
    Jin Sol Park, Hye Jeong Kim, Hyun Suk Cho, Ho Won Jung, Joon-Young Cha, Dae-Jin Yun, Seon-Woo Oh, Young-Soo Chung
    Plant Biotechnology Reports.2019; 13(2): 161.     CrossRef
  • Co‐expression of Arabidopsis AtAVP1 and AtNHX1 to Improve Salt Tolerance in Soybean
    Nga T. Nguyen, Hop T. Vu, Trang T. Nguyen, Lan-Anh T. Nguyen, Minh-Chanh D. Nguyen, Khang L. Hoang, Khanh T. Nguyen, Truyen N. Quach
    Crop Science.2019; 59(3): 1133.     CrossRef
  • Salinity stress response and ‘omics’ approaches for improving salinity stress tolerance in major grain legumes
    Uday Chand Jha, Abhishek Bohra, Rintu Jha, Swarup Kumar Parida
    Plant Cell Reports.2019; 38(3): 255.     CrossRef
  • Serratia liquefaciens KM4 Improves Salt Stress Tolerance in Maize by Regulating Redox Potential, Ion Homeostasis, Leaf Gas Exchange and Stress-Related Gene Expression
    Mohamed A. El-Esawi, Ibrahim A. Alaraidh, Abdulaziz A. Alsahli, Saud M. Alzahrani, Hayssam M. Ali, Aisha A. Alayafi, Margaret Ahmad
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2018; 19(11): 3310.     CrossRef
  • Bacillus firmus (SW5) augments salt tolerance in soybean (Glycine max L.) by modulating root system architecture, antioxidant defense systems and stress-responsive genes expression
    Mohamed A. El-Esawi, Ibrahim A. Alaraidh, Abdulaziz A. Alsahli, Saud A. Alamri, Hayssam M. Ali, Aisha A. Alayafi
    Plant Physiology and Biochemistry.2018; 132: 375.     CrossRef

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Overexpression of AtSZF2 from Arabidopsis Showed Enhanced Tolerance to Salt Stress in Soybean
Plant Breed. Biotech.. 2017;5(1):1-15.   Published online March 1, 2017
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Overexpression of AtSZF2 from Arabidopsis Showed Enhanced Tolerance to Salt Stress in Soybean
Plant Breed. Biotech.. 2017;5(1):1-15.   Published online March 1, 2017
Close

Figure

  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Overexpression of AtSZF2 from Arabidopsis Showed Enhanced Tolerance to Salt Stress in Soybean
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the T-DNA of the recombinant binary vector pB2GW7.0-AtSZF2 containing AtSZF2 and Bar used for soybean transformation. LB/RB, left/right T-DNA border sequences; p35S/T35S, CaMV (cauliflower mosaic virus) 35S promoter/terminator; Bar, coding region of the DL-phosphinothricin resistance gene. The probe region used for genomic Southern blot analysis presented in Fig. 5 is indicated with solid line. The AflII and HindIII restriction enzyme sites are also marked.
Fig. 2 Production of soybean transgenic plants with AtSZF2 via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. (a) Half seed explants right after infection (left) and at five day after inoculation (right); (b) Shoot induction medium without PPT; (c) Shoot induction medium containing 10 mg/L PPT for bar selection for another 14 days; (d) Shoot elongation medium with 5 mg/L PPT; (e) Rooting medium; (f) Acclimation of putative transgenic plant in a small pot; (g) Transgenic plant in a large pot in a greenhouse; (h) Non-transgenic plant was sensitive (left) and T0 transgenic plant was resistant (right) at five day after PPT leaf painting.
Fig. 3 Confirmation of AtSZF2 transformants using PCR amplification of genomic DNA samples extracted from T0 transgenic leaf tissues. (a) AtSZF2; (b) Bar; (c) the DNAs between left border (LB) and Bar; (d) the DNAs between AtSZF2 and right border (RB); NT, non-transgenic plant as a negative control; PC, binary vector carrying AtSZF2 and Bar as a positive control; EV, transformed with empty vector carrying only Bar; #1~#16, T0 AtSZF2 transgenic lines.
Fig. 4 Expression of AtSZF2 and Bar in T0 transgenic plant. Total RNA was extracted from T0 plants, and then analyzed by RT-PCR with 18S rRNA as a quantitative control. NT, non-transgenic plant; #1~#16, T0 AtSZF2 transgenic lines.
Fig. 5 Genomic Southern blot analysis of AtSZF2 transgenic soybean plants. Three micrograms of genomic DNAs from leaf tissues were digested with AflII and HindIII, and hybridized with probe AtSZF2. The DNA molecular size markers are indicated on the right. NT, non-transgenic plant; #4, #6, #13 and #15, T1 AtSZF2 transgenic lines.
Fig. 6 Salt tolerance analysis of the detached leaves in NT and AtSZF2 T2 transgenic plants (#4 and #6). (a) Comparison of NT, EV and transgenic plants exposed to salt stress. Plants were grown until vegetative stage 2 on wetted rock wool under 16 hours of light and 8 hours of darkness at 24°C and then 1-node leaves were floated on 200 mM NaCl solution for 16 days. The photographs showed representative leaves at indicated days after salt treatment. (b) The chlorophyll contents were measured using the 1-node leaves of NT, EV and transgenic plants after 16 day of salt stress. NT, non-transgenic plant; EV, transformed with empty vector carrying only Bar; #4 and #6; T2 transgenic lines, DAS; day after salt stress. Error bars indicated mean±standard deviation. Asterisks indicated significant differences compared to the NT plant (*P<0.05; **P<0.01).
Fig. 7 Salt tolerance analysis of the whole plant in NT and AtSZF2 T2 transgenic plants (#4 and #6). (a) Comparison of NT, EV and transgenic plants exposed to salt stress. Plants were grown until vegetative stage 2 (V2) on wetted rock wool under 16 hours of light and 8 hours of darkness at 24°C and then V2 plants were soaked in 200 mM NaCl solution for 10 days. The photographs were taken at 5 and 10 day after salt treatment. (b, c) Ion leakage and chlorophyll contents were measured using 2-node leaves of NT, EV and transgenic plants at the indicated day after salt treatment. NT, non-transgenic plant; EV, transformed with empty vector carrying only Bar; #4 and #6; T2 transgenic lines, DAS; day after salt treatment. Error bars indicated mean±standard deviation. Asterisks indicated significant differences compared to the NT plant (*P<0.05; **P<0.01).
Fig. 8 Drought tolerance analysis of the whole plants in NT and AtSZF2 T2 transgenic plants. (a) Comparison of NT, EV and transgenic plants exposed to drought stress. Plants were grown until vegetative stage 2 (V2) on wetted rock wool under 16 hours of light and 8 hours of darkness at 24°C and then V2 plants were poured 40 mL of 20% PEG solution into the rock wool every three days for 21 days. The photographs were taken at 7 and 21 day after 20% PEG treatment. (b, c) Ion leakage and chlorophyll contents were measured using 2-node leaves of NT, EV and transgenic plants at the indicated day after 20% PEG treatment. NT, non-transgenic plant; EV, transformed with empty vector carrying only Bar; #4 and #6; T2 transgenic lines, DAP; day after 20% PEG treatment. Error bars indicated mean ± standard deviation. Asterisks indicated significant differences compared to the NT plant (*P<0.05; **P<0.01).
Fig. 9 Expression of abiotic stress-responsive genes in NT and T2 AtSZF2 transgenic plants (#4 and #6) using RT-PCR (left) and qRT-PCR (right). NT, non-transgenic plant; EV, transformed with empty vector carrying only Bar; #4 and #6 T2 transgenic lines. The soybean 18S rRNA and Actin11 were used as quantitative controls.
Overexpression of AtSZF2 from Arabidopsis Showed Enhanced Tolerance to Salt Stress in Soybean

Gene-specific primers used for RT-PCR.

Gene name Primer sequence (5′ to 3′)
AtSZF2 (AT2G40140) Forward: GCAGACGGGTCGGGTCTAAGAAGA
Reverse: CTTGTCTCTACTCGCTGCACCATT
Bar Forward: CATGTAATGCTGCTCAAGGTACGC
Reverse: CATGTAATGCTGCTCAAGGTACGC
GmDREB2 (DQ054363) Forward: ATGGAAGAAGCGGGTTTAGGAGAT
Reverse: CTAATCTTCAGGTTTGGGATACTC
GmGT-2A (EF221753) Forward: AAGAGGAAGCTGACGCAGTTTCTG
Reverse: CCAAGATCCACCTTCTTAGGCTTC
GmGT-2B (EF221754) Forward: CCTGAACAAATTCTCAGCCACTAC
Reverse: ACAAGTTCTTGAGTCAAGGGACCT
GmbZIP62 (DQ787039) Forward: GCAACCATTGATTCTCAGTCATCG
Reverse: GTCGAGTGGCCAAATAGTTCCACA
GmWRKY54 (DQ322698) Forward: GATGAAGGACGACACAAGACTAAG
Reverse: GTGCTGCTGCTGATACTGGGATAA
GmERF3 (EU681278) Forward: AACGTTCCAAGGTAAATCCACAGG
Reverse: AGCTCCCTTCAAGATAAGGCATCT
GmPHD2 (DQ973807) Forward: AACAGGTTTTCCGGGACTTCAAGG
Reverse: GCTCCTCGTCATCTTCTTCATCCA
GmOLPb (AB370233) Forward: TGCGGCAAACTTCGAGATCGTCAA
Reverse: TTACTGGTGGGCGGTACTAGCAGG
Gm18SrRNA (X02623) Forward: GCATGGGATAACACCACAGGA
Reverse: GGTCGGCATCGTTTATGGTTG

Gene-specific primers used for qRT-PCR.

Gene name Primer sequence (5′ to 3′)
AtSZF2 (AT2G40140) Forward: AAGTGCCTCCTTCGGCATTCATGG
Reverse: CTTGTCTCTACTCGCTGCACCATT
GmDREB2 (DQ054363) Forward: AGAAGCGAAAGCAGCAGCACCAA
Reverse: ACCCAGCCAGATCCTCGAACG
GmGT-2A (EF221753) Forward: ACGAGTTGAAGCCTGAGGAGCTGT
Reverse: TGCATCTCTTGTTGCTGTTGCTGT
GmGT-2B (EF221754) Forward: ACTCCACCTGATCAGAATCCCGAG
Reverse: AGGTACCTGCTGTTGCTGAACACT
GmbZIP62 (DQ787039) Forward: TCGGCACCAGCTCCCTATTCT
Reverse: TCGGACTCCGTCGTTGTCGT
GmWRKY54 (DQ322698) Forward: GCCCAGTTATGCCTCGCTCAGTT
Reverse: ATGGTGCTGCTGCGTATACTGGG
GmERF3 (EU681278) Forward: CCGCCTGACCGCCGATTACC
Reverse: GGCGGCGAAAGCAAAGGGCT
GmPHD2 (DQ973807) Forward: GGACGAGGAGGAAGAGGTACTGG
Reverse: CCCACATGCCCCACACAAGGTC
GmOLPb (AB370233) Forward: GGCACCTGGGGGATGCAACA
Reverse: GGCCCACAGCTTCCTTGCCC
Actin11 (BW652479) Forward: ATCTTGACTGAGCGTGGTTATTCC
Reverse: GCTGGTCCTGGCTGTCTCC
Table 1 Gene-specific primers used for RT-PCR.
Table 2 Gene-specific primers used for qRT-PCR.