Physiological and Genetic Variation of Hordeum vulgare L. and Triticum aestivum L. Lines Planted in Turkey

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 4, 2498 - 2505, 15.12.2021

Emre Yörük , Esra Keleş , Semih Erlik Seçil Yıldız Gizem Kocabaş Esma Özsoy

https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.959880

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Hordeum vulgare L. (barley) and Triticum aestivum L. (wheat) are among the most valuable crops cultivated and planted in many regions including Turkey. These plants have wide range of adaptation ability and capacity; they represent high level of variation in terms of physiological, genetics and epigenetics parameters and characteristics. Physiological and genetic variations were investigated by relative water content (RWC) assays, measuring electroconductivity (EC) levels and amplification of microsatellite markers in 21 barley and 43 wheat lines. At least three drought sensitive and three drought resistant lines were detected in barley and wheat lines via RWC assays. RWC values were recorded between 0.05±0.013 and 0.55±0.003%. Similarly great variation was detected for EC values of both barley and also wheat lines. Minimum and maximum EC values were ranged from 4.00±0.06 μS cm-1 to 59.88±3.209 μS cm-1. Three microsatellite markers, Bmag0120, Bmag0306 and Bmag375, were targeted in barley genome. Similarly, Han18, Wmc506 and Wmc623 microsatellite markers were targeted in wheat genome. Among these markers only Bmag0120 and Han18 were amplified from each line’s genome by PCR and qPCR assays. In PCR and qPCR analysis homozygous and heterozygous lines were detected for Bmag0120 while each line was homozygous for Han18. Idiomorphic band size as 300 bp was detected in Han18 while it was ranged from 224 to 279 bp for
Bmac0120 marker. Results showed that homozygous lines were drought resistant ones in barley lines whereas no correlation was found for wheat lines investigated in this study.

Keywords

Drought, Hordeum vulgare L., Triticum aestivum L., PCR

References

• Atar B, 2017. Gıdamız Buğdayın, Geçmişten Geleceğe Yolculuğu. Yalvaç Akademi Dergisi, 2(1):1-12.
• Baik, BK, Ullrich, SE, 2008. Barley for food: Characteristics, improvement, and renewed interest. Journal of Cereal Science, 48(2), 233-242.
• Blake T, Blake V, Bowman J, Abdel-Haleem H, 2011. Barley: Production, Improvement and Uses. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 522–531.
• Gürel F, Öztürk NZ, Yörük E, Uçarlı C, Poyraz N, 2016. Comparison of expression patterns of selected drought-responsive genes in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) under shock-dehydration and slow drought treatments. Plant Growth Regulation, 80(2):183-193.
• Han B, Wang C, Tang Z, Ren Y, Li Y, Zhang D, Dong Y, Zhao X, 2015. Genome-wide analysis of microsatellite markers based on sequenced database in Chinese spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). PLoS One, 10(11): e0141540.
• Ivandic V, Hackett CA, Nevo E, Keith R, Thomas WT, Forster BP, 2002. Analysis of simple sequence repeats (SSRs) in wild barley from the Fertile Crescent: associations with ecology, geography and flowering time. Plant Molecular Biology, 48(5): 511-527.
• Ivandic V, Thomas WTB, Nevo E, Zhang Z, Forster BP, 2003. Associations of simple sequence repeats with quantitative trait variation including biotic and abiotic stress tolerance in Hordeum spontaneum. Plant Breeding, 122(4): 300-304.
• Jilal A, Grando S, Henry RJ, Lee LS, Rice N, Hill H, Baum M, Ceccarelli S, 2008. Genetic diversity of ICARDA’s worldwide barley landrace collection. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 55(8): 1221–1230.
• Kaya, Y, Ayranci, R, 2016. Breeding barley for quality in Turkey. Genetika, 48(1): 173-186.
• Nevo E, Fu YB, Pavlicek T, Khalifa S, Tavasi M, Beiles A, 2012. Evolution of wild cereals during 28 years of global warming in Israel. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(9): 3412–3415.
• Niu C, Kebede H, Auld DL, Woodward JE, Burow G, Wright RJ, 2008. A safe inexpensive method to isolate high quality plant and fungal DNA in an open laboratory environment. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(16):2818–2822.
• Oliver RE, Obert DE, Hu G, Bonman JM, O’Leary-Jepsen E, Jackson EW, 2010. Development of oat-based markers from barley and wheat microsatellites. Genome, 53(6): 458-471.
• Öztürk A, 1999. Kuraklığın kışlık buğdayın gelişmesi ve verimine etkisi. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 23(1): 531-540.
• Sallam A, Alqudah AM, Dawood MF, Baenziger PS, Börner A, 2019. Drought stress tolerance in wheat and barley: advances in physiology, breeding and genetics research. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20(13): 3137.
• Shewry, PR, 2009. Wheat. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60(6): 1537-1553.
• Suprunova T, Krugman T, Fahima T, Chen G, Shams I, Korol A, Nevo E, 2004. Differential expression of dehydrin genes in wild barley, Hordeum spontaneum, associated with resistance to water deficit. Plant, Cell & Environment, 27(10): 1297-1308.
• Teulat B, Monneveux P, Wery J, Borries J, Souyris I, Charrier A, This D, 1997. Relationships between relative water content and growth parameters under water stress in barley: a QTL study. New Phytologist, 137:99–107.
• Tufan F, 2020. Determining WRKY transcription factors related to salinity stress response in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 35(1): 1-7.
• Yörük E, Keleş EN, Sefer Ö, Eraslan M, 2018. Salinity and drought stress on barley and wheat cultivars planted in Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology, 39(6): 943-950.