Study on Physiological Mechanism of Drought Resistance Enhanced by Proline Application at Seedling Stage of Wheat

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2024.0378

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to investigate the effects of proline （Pro） application on seedling growth of wheat under drought stress， wheat variety Bainong 207 was used as experimental material， and 4 treatments were set， including water （CK）， 20% PEG-6000 solution （PEG）， 20 mmol·L^-1 proline （PRO） and 20% PEG-6000 solution+20 mmol·L^-1 proline （PFG+PRO）. The physiological mechanism of drought resistance in wheat treated with proline at seedling stage were analyzed. The results showed that， before drought stress， there were no significant differences in SPAD value and the contents of malondialdehyde （MDA）， soluble sugar （SS） and Pro among 4 treatments. After drought stress， compared with CK， SPAD value of PEG treatment was decreased， the contents of MDA， SS， Pro were increased， and relative expressions of SOD， POD and P5CS genes increased， seedling height， stem and leaf fresh weight， stem and leaf dry weight and root dry weight in PEG treatment were significantly lower， and root to shoot ratio was significantly higher. Compared with PEG treatment， the SPAD value and the contents of SS， Pro were significantly increased， MDA content significantly decreased. After 1 d of drought stress， the relative expressions of SOD， POD and CAT genes in PEG+PRO treatment were significantly higher than those in PEG treatment. After 2 d of drought stress， the relative expressions of LEA and P5CS genes were significantly higher than those in PEG treatment. After drought stress， the plant height， stem and leaf dry weight of PEG+Pro treatment were significantly increased by 11.64% and 12.96% compared with PEG treatment. In conclusion， external application of Pro at seedling stage could reduce MDA content in leaves， increase SPAD value， the contents of SS， Pro and the relative expression levels of stress-related genes including SOD， POD， CAT， LEA and P5CS， which could improve drought resistance of wheat and lay a foundation for normal growth and development of wheat in the following stage.

Key words: winter wheat, exogenous proline, drought stress, relative gene expression

摘要：

为探究外施脯氨酸（proline，Pro）对干旱胁迫条件下小麦苗期植株生长的影响，选用小麦品种百农207为试验材料，以加清水为对照（CK），分别设置20% PEG-6000溶液模拟干旱胁迫处理（PEG）、20 mmol·L^-1脯氨酸处理（PRO）及施用20% PEG-6000溶液+20 mmol·L^-1脯氨酸处理（PFG+PRO），共计4个处理，研究小麦苗期外施脯氨酸调控其抗旱性的生理机制。结果表明，干旱胁迫前，各处理叶片的SPAD值及丙二醛（malondialdehyde，MDA）、可溶性糖（soluble sugar，SS）、Pro含量均无显著差异；干旱胁迫后，与CK相比，PEG处理的SPAD值降低，MDA、SS、Pro含量升高，SOD、POD、P5CS基因的相对表达量增加，苗高、茎叶鲜重、茎叶干重、根干重显著降低，根冠比显著升高；与PEG处理相比，PEG+PRO处理的SPAD及SS、Pro含量显著提高，MDA含量显著降低。PEG+PRO处理在干旱胁迫1 d时，SOD、POD、CAT基因的相对表达量显著高于PEG处理；在干旱胁迫2 d时，LEA与P5CS基因相对表达量显著高于PEG处理。干旱胁迫后，PEG+PRO处理的株高、茎叶干重分别较PEG处理显著增加11.64%、12.96%。综上，小麦苗期外施20 mmol·L^-1脯氨酸处理可降低叶片MDA含量，提高叶绿素、SS、Pro含量以及抗逆相关基因SOD、POD、CAT、LEA和P5CS的相对表达量，从而提高小麦抗旱性，为小麦后期正常生长发育奠定基础。

关键词: 冬小麦, 外源脯氨酸, 干旱胁迫, 基因相对表达量

CLC Number:

S512.1

Huanting SHI, Longfei YANG, Huaping TANG, Pengfei WANG, Guozhang KANG, Qiaoxia HAN. Study on Physiological Mechanism of Drought Resistance Enhanced by Proline Application at Seedling Stage of Wheat[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(11): 93-101.

师焕婷, 杨龙飞, 唐华苹, 王鹏飞, 康国章, 韩巧霞. 小麦苗期外施脯氨酸增强抗旱性的生理机制研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(11): 93-101.

Figures/Tables 6

References 44

[1]	袁浩,王继唯,李赟虹,等.氮肥基追比对小麦产量、土壤水氮分布及利用的影响[J].水土保持学报, 2020, 34(5): 299-307.
	YUAN H, WANG J W, LI Y H, et al.. Effects of the ratio of base-topdressing nitrogen on wheat yield, distribution and utilization of water and nitrogen in soil [J]. J. Soil Water Conserv., 2020, 34(5): 299-307.
[2]	YUAN B B, WANG S D, GUO L H. Drought vulnerability assessment of winter wheat using an improved entropy-comprehensive fuzzy evaluation method: a case study of Henan province in China [J/OL]. Atmosphere, 2023, 14(5):779 [2024-04-15]. .
[3]	DUAN H Y, ZHU Y Q, LI J Y, et al.. Effects of drought stress on growth and development of wheat seedlings [J]. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 2017, 19(5): 1119-1124.
[4]	张军,魏国,彭彦珉,等. 8份强筋小麦品种抗旱性评价[J].麦类作物学报, 2024, 44(4): 442-452.
	ZHANG J, WEI G, PENG Y M, et al.. Drought resistance evaluation of eight strong gluten wheat varieties [J]. J. Triticeae Crops, 2024, 44(4): 442-452.
[5]	陈天青,王伟,杨康林,等.小麦萌发期耐旱性材料的筛选与评价[J].种子,2014,33(10):81-84.
	CHEN T Q, WANG W, YANG K L, et al.. The analysis and screening of drought tolerance materials of wheat at germination stage [J]. Seed, 2014, 33(10):81-84.
[6]	王凯悦,陈芳泉,黄五星.植物干旱胁迫响应机制研究进展[J].中国农业科技导报,2019,21(2):19-25.
	WANG K Y, CHEN F Q, HUANG W X.Research advance on drought stress response mechanism in plants [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2019, 21(2):19-25.
[7]	李静静,任永哲,白露,等. PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫下不同基因型小麦品种萌发期抗旱性的综合鉴定[J].河南农业大学学报,2020,54(3):368-377.
	LI J J, REN Y Z, BAI L, et al.. Comprehensive identification and evaluation of drought tolerance of different genotypic wheat varieties at germination stage by PEG-6000 simulated drought stress [J]. J. Henan Agric. Univ., 2020, 54(3):368-377.
[8]	武仙山,昌小平,景蕊莲.小麦灌浆期抗旱性鉴定指标的综合评价[J].麦类作物学报,2008,28(4):626-632.
	WU X S, CHANG X P, JING R L.Screening indexes for drought resistance of wheat at grain-filling stage [J]. J. Triticeae Crops, 2008, 28(4):626-632.
[9]	冉文星,王冀川,王璞.小麦水分高效利用研究进展[J].中国农业科技导报,2016,18(1):103-111.
	RAN W X, WANG J C, WANG P.Research progress on high efficient water utilization of wheat [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2016, 18(1):103-111.
[10]	SHAH K, KUMAR R G, VERMA S, et al.. Effect of cadmium on lipid peroxidation,superoxide anion generation and activities of antioxidant enzymes in growing rice seedlings [J]. Plant Sci., 2001, 161(6):1135-1144.
[11]	全先庆,张渝洁,单雷,等.高等植物脯氨酸代谢研究进展[J].生物技术通报,2007(1):14-18.
	QUAN X Q, ZHANG Y J, SHAN L, et al.. Advances in proline metabolism researches of higher plants [J]. Biotechnol. Bull., 2007(1):14-18.
[12]	颜志明,孙锦,郭世荣.外源脯氨酸对盐胁迫下甜瓜幼苗硝酸还原的影响[J].植物科学学报,2011,29(1):118-123.
	YAN Z M, SUN J, GUO S R. Effects of exogenous proline on nitrate reduction in melon seedlings under salt stress [J]. Plant Sci. J., 2011, 29(1):118-123.
[13]	张烈,沈秀瑛,孙彩霞.脯氨酸对玉米抗旱性影响的研究[J].华北农学报,1999,14(1):38-41.
	ZHANG L, SHEN X Y, SUN C X.Studies on effects of proline on drought resistance in maize [J]. Acta Agric.Boreali-Sin., 1999, 14(1):38-41.
[14]	马鹏图,苏世平,李毅,等.外源脯氨酸对自然干旱下白刺叶片渗透调节与抗氧化酶活性的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2020,55(4):121-127, 136.
	MA P T, SU S P, LI Y, et al.. Effects of exogenous proline on osmotic adjustment and antioxidant enzymes in the leaves of Nitraria tangutorum under natural drought stress [J]. J. Gansu Agric. Univ., 2020, 55(4):121-127, 136.
[15]	刘书仁,郭世荣,程玉静,等.外源脯氨酸对高温胁迫下黄瓜幼苗叶片AsA-GSH循环和光合荧光特性的影响[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(2):309-316.
	LIU S R, GUO S R, CHENG Y J, et al.. Effects of exogenous proline on the ascorbat-glutahione cycle and photosynthetic fluorescence characteristics in leaves of cucumber seedlings under high temperature stress [J]. Acta Bot. Bor-Occid. Sin., 2010, 30(2):309-316.
[16]	左师宇.脯氨酸提高玉米耐低温胁迫的生理机理研究[D].哈尔滨:东北农业大学, 2022.
	ZUO S Y. Physiological mechanism of proline improving maize tolerance to low temperature stress [D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2022.
[17]	胡文成.水杨酸、脯氨酸、γ-氨基丁酸对盐胁迫下水稻抗氧化系统的调控效应[D].哈尔滨:东北农业大学,2017.
	HU W C. Regulation effect of combined application of SA, proline and GABA on the antioxidant system of rice under salt stress [D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2017.
[18]	高彦强.外源脯氨酸对芹菜盐胁迫的缓解效应[D].兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2023.
	GAO Y Q. Mitigating effect of exogenous proline on salt stress in celery [D]. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2023.
[19]	雍晓宇,张奥深,韩巧霞,等.外源施用脯氨酸缓解拔节期冬小麦冻害效应分析[J/OL].分子植物育种,2024:1-9 [2024-04-15]..
	YONG X Y, ZHANG A S, HAN Q X, et al.. Effect of exogenous proline application on alleviating freezing injury of winter wheat at jointing stage [J/OL]. Mol. Plant Breed., 2024:1-9 [2024-04-15]. .
[20]	魏良迪,李宁,杨进文,等.山西省主推小麦品种芽期及苗期的抗旱性评价[J].生态学杂志,2022,41(5):873-879.
	WEI L D, LI N, YANG J W, et al.. Drought resistance of major wheat varieties in Shanxi province at germination and seedling stages [J]. Chin. J. Ecol., 2022, 41(5):873-879.
[21]	高俊凤.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006: 210-211.
[22]	SHI H, WANG B, YANG P, et al.. Differences in sugar accumulation and mobilization between sequential and non-sequential senescence wheat cultivars under natural and drought conditions [J/OL]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(11):e0166155 [2024-04-15]. .
[23]	张以顺,黄霞,陈云凤.植物生理学实验教程[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2009:1-180.
[24]	张奥深,雍晓宇,韩巧霞,等.外施2,4-表油菜素内酯缓解冬小麦拔节期冻害胁迫效应[J].华北农学报,2022,37(2):78-83.
	ZHANG A S, YONG X Y, HAN Q X, et al.. Alleviating effect of external application of 2,4-epbrassinolide on freezing stress in winter wheat at jointing stage [J]. Acta Agric. Boreali-Sin., 2022, 37(2):78-83.
[25]	SALLAM A, ALQUDAH A M, DAWOOD M F A, et al.. Drought stress tolerance in wheat and barley:advances in physiology,breeding and genetics research [J/OL]. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 2019, 20(13):3137 [2024-04-15]. .
[26]	LIANG X, ZHANG L, NATARAJAN S K, et al.. Proline mechanisms of stress survival [J]. Antioxid. Redox Signal., 2013, 19(9):998-1011.
[27]	梁新华,许兴,徐兆桢,等.干旱对春小麦旗叶叶绿素a荧光动力学特征及产量间关系的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2001,19(3):72-77.
	LIANG X H, XU X, XU Z Z, et al.. Study on the relation between the effects of water stress on the flag leaf chlorophyll a fluorescence induction kinetics and the yields of spring wheat genotypes in late growth season [J]. Agric. Res. Arid Areas, 2001, 19(3):72-77.
[28]	苏世平,李毅,刘小娥,等.外源脯氨酸对缓解红砂干旱胁迫的机理研究[J].草业学报, 2022, 31(6): 127-138.
	SU S P, LI Y, LIU X E, et al.. A study of the mechanism of drought stress alleviation by exogenous proline applied to Reaumuria soongorica [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2022, 31(6): 127-138.
[29]	杨志莹,张海良,王胜,等.盐胁迫下丁香叶绿素含量与SPAD值相关性分析[J].山东农业科学,2021,53(9):8-12.
	YANG Z Y, ZHANG H L, WANG S, et al.. Correlation analysis between chlorophyll content and SPAD value of Syringa under salt stress [J]. Shandong Agric. Sci., 2021, 53(9):8-12.
[30]	尚永胜,孙思维,杨文瑾,等.平欧杂交榛叶片叶绿素含量与SPAD值相关性研究[J].林业科技, 2021, 46(4): 15-17.
	SHANG Y S, SUN S W, YANG W J, et al.. Study on the correlation between chlorophyll content and SPAD value in Corylus heterophylla×avellana leaf [J]. For. Sci. Technol., 2021, 46(4): 15-17.
[31]	陈少裕.膜脂过氧化对植物细胞的伤害[J].植物生理学通讯, 1991 (2): 84-90.
	CHEN S Y. Injury of membrane lipid peroxidation to plant cells [J]. Plant Physiol. Comm., 1991 (2): 84-90.
[32]	梁太波,张景玲,田雷,等.干旱胁迫下外源甜菜碱和脯氨酸对烤烟抗氧化代谢的影响[J].烟草科技, 2013 (2): 68-71.
	LIANG T B, ZHANG J L, TIAN L, et al.. Effects of exogenous glycine betaine and proline on antioxidant metabolism of flue-cured tobacco under drought stress [J]. Tob. Sci. Technol., 2013 (2): 68-71.
[33]	邢晓琳.外源脯氨酸和水杨酸对盐碱胁迫下紫花苜蓿生理特性及抗氧化酶基因表达的影响[D].沈阳:辽宁大学, 2020.
	XING X L. Effects of exogenous proline and salicylic acid on physiological characteristics and antioxidant enzyme gene expression of Alfalfa under salt-alkali stress [D]. Shenyang: Liaoning University, 2020.
[34]	LI H, LIU Y, ZHEN B, et al.. Proline spray relieves the adverse effects of drought on wheat flag leaf function [J]. Plants (basel switz.), 2024, 13(7):957-968.
[35]	裴斌,张光灿,张淑勇,等.土壤干旱胁迫对沙棘叶片光合作用和抗氧化酶活性的影响[J].生态学报,2013,33(5):1386-1396.
	PEI B, ZHANG G C, ZHANG S Y, et al.. Effects of soil drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics and antioxidant enzyme activities in Hippophae rhamnoides Linn.seedings [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2013, 33(5):1386-1396.
[36]	胡小文,王彦荣, 武艳培.荒漠草原植物抗旱生理生态学研究进展[J].草业学报,2004,13(3):9-15.
	HU X W, WANG Y R, WU Y P.Research progress on eco-physiological responses of desert grassland plants to drought conditions [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2004, 13(3):9-15.
[37]	刘聪,董腊嫒,林建中,等.逆境胁迫下植物体内活性氧代谢及调控机理研究进展[J].生命科学研究,2019,23(3):253-258.
	LIU C, DONG L A, LIN J Z, et al.. Research advances on regulation mechanism of reactive oxygen species metabolism under stresses [J]. Life Sci. Res., 2019, 23(3):253-258.
[38]	宋敏,徐文竞,彭向永,等.外源脯氨酸对镉胁迫下小麦幼苗生长的影响[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(1):129-134.
	SONG M, XU W J, PENG X Y, et al.. Effects of exogenous proline on the growth of wheat seedlings under cadmium stress [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2013, 24(1):129-134.
[39]	白桦,王玉国.外源脯氨酸对盐胁迫下大豆愈伤组织SOD和POD活性的影响[J].华北农学报,2002,17(3):37-40.
	BAI H, WANG Y G. Effect of exogenous proline on SOD and POD activity for soybean callus under salt stress [J]. Acta Agric. Boreali-Sin., 2002, 17(3):37-40.
[40]	柯媛媛,陈翔,倪芊芊,等.低温逆境胁迫下小麦ROS代谢及调控机制研究进展[J].大麦与谷类科学,2021,38(1):1-6, 21.
	KE Y Y, CHEN X, NI Q Q, et al.. Research progress of the metabolism of reactive oxygen species and its regulation mechanisms in wheat under low temperature stress [J]. Barley Cereal Sci., 2021, 38(1):1-6, 21.
[41]	TÓTH B, JUHÁSZ C, LABUSCHAGNE M, et al.. The influence of soil acidity on the physiological responses of two bread wheat cultivars [J/OL]. Plants (basel switz.), 2020, 9(11):1472 [2024-04-15]..
[42]	MHAMDI A, QUEVAL G, CHAOUCH S, et al.. Catalase function in plants:a focus on Arabidopsis mutants as stress-mimic models [J]. J. Exp. Bot., 2010, 61(15):4197-4220.
[43]	闵东红,赵月,陈阳,等.小麦胁迫相关基因TaLEAL3的克隆及分子特性分析[J].作物学报,2012,38(10):1847-1855.
	MIN D H, ZHAO Y, CHEN Y, et al.. Isolation and molecular characterization of stress-related TaLEAL3 gene in wheat [J]. Acta Agron. Sin., 2012, 38(10):1847-1855.
[44]	SU M, LI X F, MA X Y, et al.. Cloning two P5CS genes from bioenergy sorghum and their expression profiles under abiotic stresses and MeJA treatment [J]. Plant Sci., 2011, 181(6): 652-659.

基因名称 Gene name	登录号 Genebank ID	上游引物 Forward primer （5’-3’）	下游引物 Reverse primer （5’-3’）
TaSOD	XM_020344830.1	CATTGTCGATAGCCAGATTCCTTT	AGTCTTCCACCAGCATTTCCAGTA
TaPOD	AF387866.1	GCCACAGCCACAGCCAGATAAC	CCACGAGCACCACCAGAGAAATG
TaCAT	D86327.1	CCACCACAACAACCACTACGA	GTTGATGAATCGCTCTTGCCT
TaP5CS	AF022914.1	CCTGCAGCATGCAATGTTAT	GTCAATCGCTGACTGCACAT
TaLEA	AF255053.1	GATGCCACCAAGGAGAAGTC	TCACTTGTCTCCTCCCATCC
Actin	AB181991	AGCGGTCGAACAACTGGTA	AAACGAAGGATAGCATGAGGA

基因名称 Gene name	登录号 Genebank ID	上游引物 Forward primer （5’-3’）	下游引物 Reverse primer （5’-3’）
TaSOD	XM_020344830.1	CATTGTCGATAGCCAGATTCCTTT	AGTCTTCCACCAGCATTTCCAGTA
TaPOD	AF387866.1	GCCACAGCCACAGCCAGATAAC	CCACGAGCACCACCAGAGAAATG
TaCAT	D86327.1	CCACCACAACAACCACTACGA	GTTGATGAATCGCTCTTGCCT
TaP5CS	AF022914.1	CCTGCAGCATGCAATGTTAT	GTCAATCGCTGACTGCACAT
TaLEA	AF255053.1	GATGCCACCAAGGAGAAGTC	TCACTTGTCTCCTCCCATCC
Actin	AB181991	AGCGGTCGAACAACTGGTA	AAACGAAGGATAGCATGAGGA

处理 Treatment	苗高 SH/cm	最大根长 MRL/cm	茎叶鲜重 SFW/mg	茎叶干重 SDW/mg	根鲜重 RFW/mg	根干重 RDW/mg	根冠比 R/S
CK	14.18±0.19 a	13.52±0.60 a	120.00±4.00 a	21.00±1.00 a	40.00±1.00 a	11.00±1.00 a	331.00±12.70 c
PEG	12.32±0.28 b	11.96±0.44 a	70.00±6.00 b	16.00±0.00 c	34.00±3.00 a	7.00±0.00 b	517.00±45.00 a
PEG+PRO	13.75±0.08 a	12.72±0.19 a	80.00±2.00 b	18.00±0.00 b	37.00±3.00 a	8.00±1.00 b	466.00±44.00 ab
PRO	14.25±0.15 a	13.14±0.29 a	110.00±8.00 a	20.00±0.00 a	43.00±4.00 a	11.00±1.00 a	387.00±44.00 bc

处理 Treatment	苗高 SH/cm	最大根长 MRL/cm	茎叶鲜重 SFW/mg	茎叶干重 SDW/mg	根鲜重 RFW/mg	根干重 RDW/mg	根冠比 R/S
CK	14.18±0.19 a	13.52±0.60 a	120.00±4.00 a	21.00±1.00 a	40.00±1.00 a	11.00±1.00 a	331.00±12.70 c
PEG	12.32±0.28 b	11.96±0.44 a	70.00±6.00 b	16.00±0.00 c	34.00±3.00 a	7.00±0.00 b	517.00±45.00 a
PEG+PRO	13.75±0.08 a	12.72±0.19 a	80.00±2.00 b	18.00±0.00 b	37.00±3.00 a	8.00±1.00 b	466.00±44.00 ab
PRO	14.25±0.15 a	13.14±0.29 a	110.00±8.00 a	20.00±0.00 a	43.00±4.00 a	11.00±1.00 a	387.00±44.00 bc