Search
2024 Volume 4
Article Contents
ARTICLE   Open Access    

Comprehensive analysis provides insights into Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb.) tolerance of alkalinity stress

  • # These authors contributed equally: Chenyu Xu, Junying Cao

More Information
  • Received Date: 03 August 2023
    Accepted Date: 11 October 2023
    Published Online: 02 January 2024
    Fruit Research  4 Article number: e001 (2024)  |  Cite this article
  • Alkaline soil is one of the major problems affecting the development of the citrus industry. Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb. ex Tanaka) (Cj) is an alkalinity stress-tolerant citrus rootstock. In this study, two citrus rootstocks (Cj and Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.) (Pt)) and one navel orange scion ('Lane Late' navel orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.) (LL)) were used. The root, stem and leaf tissues of grafted materials Cj + LL and Pt + LL grown in calcareous soil were used to identify genes and pathways that are responsive to alkalinity stress using comparative transcriptomics. Seedlings of Cj and Pt cultured in nutrient solutions at three pH grades were used to perform a supplemental experiment. A comprehensive analysis of the RNA-seq data, physiology, biochemistry, agronomic traits and mineral elements of the Cj + LL, Pt + LL, Cj and Pt materials revealed several candidate pathways and genes that were highly regulated under alkalinity stress. The data suggest that the jasmonate pathway may play crucial roles in tolerance to alkalinity stress in Cj by interacting with other plant hormones, lignin biosynthesis and the ROS scavenging system. These results provide new clues for future investigations of the mechanisms underlying the tolerance of citrus to alkalinity stress.
  • 加载中
  • Supplemental Table S1 A summary of RNA-seq.
    Supplemental Table S2 The primer sequences for quantitative real-time PCR.
    Supplemental Table S3 The nutritive elements content and pH value of the soil in the Changyang orchard and the control orchard.
    Supplemental Table S4 The tree vigor and yield of Pt+LL and Cj + LL.
    Supplemental Table S5 The content of mineral elements in different tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL.Different lowercase represents statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Analysed using Student's t-test.
    Supplemental Table S6 An integration of differentially expressed genes in the root, stem and leaf tissues between Cj + LL and Pt + LL.
    Supplemental Table S7 The genes differentially expressed among three tissues between Cj + LL and Pt + LL.
    Supplemental Table S8 The enriched Gene Ontology (GO) terms of the DEGs in the root, stem and leaf tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL.
    Supplemental Table S9 The enriched KEGG pathways of the DEGs in the root, stem and leaf tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL.
  • [1]

    Xu W, Jia L, Shi W, Balu¡ka F, Kronzucker HJ, et al. 2013. The Tomato 14-3-3 protein TFT4 modulates H+ efflux, basipetal auxin transport, and the PKS5-J3 pathway in the root growth response to alkaline stress. Plant Physiology 163:1817−28

    doi: 10.1104/pp.113.224758

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2]

    Xu W, Jia L, Baluska F, Ding G, Shi W, et al. 2012. PIN2 is required for the adaptation of Arabidopsis roots to alkaline stress by modulating proton secretion. Journal of Experimental Botany 63:6105−14

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/ers259

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    Yang C, Wang P, Li C, Shi D, Wang D, et al. 2008. Comparison of effects of salt and alkali stresses on the growth and photosynthesis of wheat. Photosynthetica 46:107−14

    doi: 10.1007/s11099-008-0018-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4]

    Wu J, Cao J, Su M, Feng G, Xu Y, et al. 2019. Genome-wide comprehensive analysis of transcriptomes and small RNAs offers insights into the molecular mechanism of alkaline stress tolerance in a citrus rootstock. Horticulture Research 6:33

    doi: 10.1038/s41438-018-0116-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    Den Herder G, Van Isterdael G, Beeckman T, De Smet I. 2010. The roots of a new green revolution. Trends in Plant Science 15:600−7

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2010.08.009

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6]

    Lavenus J, Goh T, Roberts I, Guyomarc'h S, Lucas M, et al. 2013. Lateral root development in Arabidopsis: fifty shades of auxin. Trends in Plant Science 18:450−58

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.04.006

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7]

    Gifford ML, Dean A, Gutierrez RA, Coruzzi GM, Birnbaum K. 2008. Cell-specific nitrogen responses mediate developmental plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:803−8

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709559105

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    Pérez-Torres CA, López-Bucio J, Cruz-Ramírez A, Ibarra-Laclette E, Dharmasiri S, et al. 2008. Phosphate availability alters lateral root development in Arabidopsis by modulating auxin sensitivity via a mechanism involving the TIR1 auxin receptor. The Plant Cell 20:3258−72

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.108.058719

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9]

    Shin R, Burch AY, Huppert KA, Tiwari SB, Murphy AS, et al. 2007. The Arabidopsis transcription factor MYB77 modulates auxin signal transduction. The Plant Cell 19:2440−53

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.107.050963

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10]

    Fukaki H, Tameda S, Masuda H, Tasaka M. 2002. Lateral root formation is blocked by a gain-of-function mutation in the SOLITARY-ROOT/IAA14 gene of Arabidopsis. The Plant Journal 29:153−68

    doi: 10.1046/j.0960-7412.2001.01201.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11]

    Xuan W, Audenaert D, Parizot B, Möller BK, Njo MF, et al. 2015. Root cap-derived auxin pre-patterns the longitudinal axis of the Arabidopsis root. Current Biology 25:1381−88

    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.046

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12]

    Shkolnik-Inbar D, Bar-Zvi D. 2010. ABI4 mediates abscisic acid and cytokinin inhibition of lateral root formation by reducing polar auxin transport in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 22:3560−73

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.074641

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Creelman RA, Mullet JE. 1995. Jasmonic acid distribution and action in plants: regulation during development and response to biotic and abiotic stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:4114−19

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.10.4114

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14]

    Ismail A, Riemann M, Nick P. 2012. The jasmonate pathway mediates salt tolerance in grapevines. Journal of Experimental Botany 63:2127−39

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/err426

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    Javid MG, Sorooshzadeh A, Moradi F, Ali Mohammad Modarres Sanavy S, Allahdadi I. 2011. The role of phytohormones in alleviating salt stress in crop plants. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5:726−34

    Google Scholar

    [16]

    Kang DJ, Seo YJ, Lee JD, Ishii R, Kim KU, et al. 2005. Jasmonic acid differentially affects growth, ion uptake and abscisic acid concentration in salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive rice cultivars. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191:273−82

    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2005.00153.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17]

    Pedranzani H, Racagni G, Alemano S, Miersch O, Ramírez I, et al. 2003. Salt tolerant tomato plants show increased levels of jasmonic acid. Plant Growth Regulation 41:149−58

    doi: 10.1023/A:1027311319940

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18]

    Qiu Z, Guo J, Zhu A, Zhang L, Zhang M. 2014. Exogenous jasmonic acid can enhance tolerance of wheat seedlings to salt stress. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 104:202−8

    doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.03.014

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19]

    Wu H, Ye H, Yao R, Zhang T, Xiong L. 2015. OsJAZ9 acts as a transcriptional regulator in jasmonate signaling and modulates salt stress tolerance in rice. Plant Science 232:1−12

    doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2014.12.010

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20]

    Yoon JY, Hamayun M, Lee SK, Lee IJ. 2009. Methyl jasmonate alleviated salinity stress in soybean. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology 12:63−68

    doi: 10.1007/s12892-009-0060-5

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Zhu D, Li R, Liu X, Sun M, Wu J, et al. 2014. The positive regulatory roles of the TIFY10 proteins in plant responses to alkaline stress. PLoS ONE 9:e111984

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111984

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22]

    Zhu D, Cai H, Luo X, Bai X, Deyholos MK, et al. 2012. Over-expression of a novel JAZ family gene from Glycine soja, increases salt and alkali stress tolerance. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 426:273−79

    doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.08.086

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    Chen Q, Sun J, Zhai Q, Zhou W, Qi L, et al. 2011. The basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor MYC2 directly represses PLETHORA expression during jasmonate-mediated modulation of the root stem cell niche in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 23:3335−52

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.111.089870

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Raya-González J, Pelagio-Flores R, López-Bucio J. 2012. The jasmonate receptor COI1 plays a role in jasmonate-induced lateral root formation and lateral root positioning in Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Plant Physiology 169:1348−58

    doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2012.05.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    Sun J, Chen Q, Qi L, Jiang H, Li S, et al. 2011. Jasmonate modulates endocytosis and plasma membrane accumulation of the Arabidopsis PIN2 protein. New Phytologist 191:360−75

    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03713.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26]

    Denness L, McKenna JF, Segonzac C, Wormit A, Madhou P, et al. 2011. Cell wall damage-induced lignin biosynthesis is regulated by a reactive oxygen species- and jasmonic acid-dependent process in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 156:1364−74

    doi: 10.1104/pp.111.175737

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27]

    Pauwels L, Morreel K, De Witte E, Lammertyn F, Van Montagu M, et al. 2008. Mapping methyl jasmonate-mediated transcriptional reprogramming of metabolism and cell cycle progression in cultured Arabidopsis cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:1380−85

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0711203105

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28]

    Fuglsang AT, Guo Y, Cuin TA, Qiu Q, Song C, et al. 2007. Arabidopsis protein kinase PKS5 inhibits the plasma membrane H+-ATPase by preventing interaction with 14-3-3 protein. The Plant Cell 19:1617−34

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.105.035626

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29]

    Yang Y, Qin Y, Xie C, Zhao F, Zhao J, et al. 2010. The Arabidopsis chaperone j3 regulates the plasma membrane H+-ATPase through interaction with the PKS5 Kinase. The Plant Cell 22:1313−32

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.109.069609

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30]

    Palmgren MG. 2001. Plant plasma membrane H+-ATPases: powerhouses for nutrient uptake. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 52:817−45

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.52.1.817

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31]

    Gueta-Dahan Y, Yaniv Z, Zilinskas BA, Ben-Hayyim G. 1997. Salt and oxidative stress: similar and specific responses and their relation to salt tolerance in Citrus. Planta 203:460−69

    doi: 10.1007/s004250050215

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32]

    Koca H, Ozdemir F, Turkan I. 2006. Effect of salt stress on lipid peroxidation and superoxide dismutase and peroxidase activities of Lycopersicon esculentum and L. pennellii. Biologia Plantarum 50:745−48

    doi: 10.1007/s10535-006-0121-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Mittova V, Tal M, Volokita M, Guy M. 2003. Up-regulation of the leaf mitochondrial and peroxisomal antioxidative systems in response to salt-induced oxidative stress in the wild salt-tolerant tomato species Lycopersicon pennellii. Plant, Cell & Environment 26:845−56

    doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.2003.01016.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34]

    Demiral T, Türkan I. 2004. Does exogenous glycinebetaine affect antioxidative system of rice seedlings under NaCl treatment? Journal of Plant Physiology 161:1089−100

    doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2004.03.009

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Demiral T, Türkan İ. 2005. Comparative lipid peroxidation, antioxidant defense systems and proline content in roots of two rice cultivars differing in salt tolerance. Environmental and Experimental Botany 53:247−57

    doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2004.03.017

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36]

    Gossett DR, Millhollon EP, Lucas MC. 1994. Antioxidant response to NaCl stress in salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive cultivars of cotton. Crop Science 34:706−14

    doi: 10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183x003400030020x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37]

    Meneguzzo S, Navam-Izzo F, Izzo R. 1999. Antioxidative responses of shoots and roots of wheat to increasing NaCI concentrations. Journal of Plant Physiology 155:274−80

    doi: 10.1016/S0176-1617(99)80019-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [38]

    Koca H, Bor M, Özdemir F, Türkan İ. 2007. The effect of salt stress on lipid peroxidation, antioxidative enzymes and proline content of sesame cultivars. Environmental and Experimental Botany 60:344−51

    doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2006.12.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39]

    Yazici I, Türkan I, Sekmen AH, Demiral T. 2007. Salinity tolerance of purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) is achieved by enhanced antioxidative system, lower level of lipid peroxidation and proline accumulation. Environmental and Experimental Botany 61:49−57

    doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.02.010

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40]

    Chen J, Jiang H, Hsieh E, Chen H, Chien C, et al. 2012. Drought and salt stress tolerance of an Arabidopsis glutathione S-transferase U17 knockout mutant are attributed to the combined effect of glutathione and abscisic acid. Plant Physiology 158:340−51

    doi: 10.1104/pp.111.181875

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41]

    Cheng M, Ko K, Chang W, Kuo W, Chen G, et al. 2015. Increased glutathione contributes to stress tolerance and global translational changes in Arabidopsis. The Plant Journal 83:926−39

    doi: 10.1111/tpj.12940

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42]

    Castle WS. 1995. Rootstock as a fruit quality factor in citrus and deciduous tree crops. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 23:383−94

    doi: 10.1080/01140671.1995.9513914

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43]

    Storey R, Treeby MT. 2000. Seasonal changes in nutrient concentrations of navel orange fruit. Scientia Horticulturae 84:67−82

    doi: 10.1016/S0304-4238(99)00093-X

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44]

    Zhou G, Liu Y, Sheng O, Wei Q, Yang C, et al. 2015. Transcription profiles of boron-deficiency-responsive genes in citrus rootstock root by suppression subtractive hybridization and cDNA microarray. Frontiers in Plant Science 5:795

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00795

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45]

    Bao S. 2005. Analysis of soil agrochemical (Third edition). Beijing: China Agriculture Press. pp. 25−109.

    [46]

    Pan X, Welti R, Wang X. 2010. Quantitative analysis of major plant hormones in crude plant extracts by high-performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. Nature Protocols 5:986−92

    doi: 10.1038/nprot.2010.37

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47]

    Wu J, Xu Z, Zhang Y, Chai L, Yi H, et al. 2014. An integrative analysis of the transcriptome and proteome of the pulp of a spontaneous late-ripening sweet orange mutant and its wild type improves our understanding of fruit ripening in citrus. Journal of Experimental Botany 65:1651−71

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/eru044

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [48]

    Liu Y, Liu Q, Tao N, Deng X. 2006. Efficient isolation of RNA from fruit peel and pulp of ripening navel orange (Citrus sinensis Osbeck). Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University 25:300−4

    doi: 10.13300/j.cnki.hnlkxb.2006.03.020

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49]

    Langmead B, Trapnell C, Pop M, Salzberg SL. 2009. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biology 10:R25

    doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-r25

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [50]

    Kim D, Langmead B, Salzberg SL. 2015. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nature Methods 12:357−60

    doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3317

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51]

    Xu Q, Chen L, Ruan X, Chen D, Zhu A, et al. 2013. The draft genome of sweet orange (Citrus sinensis). Nature Genetics 45:59−66

    doi: 10.1038/ng.2472

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [52]

    Li B, Dewey CN. 2011. RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics 12:323

    doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-323

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53]

    Tarazona S, Furió-Tarí P, Turrà D, Pietro AD, Nueda MJ, et al. 2015. Data quality aware analysis of differential expression in RNA-seq with NOISeq R/Bioc package. Nucleic Acids Research 43:e140

    doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv711

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54]

    Tarazona S, García F, Ferrer A, Dopazo J, Conesa A. 2012. NOIseq: a RNA-seq differential expression method robust for sequencing depth biases. EMBnet Journal 17:18−19

    doi: 10.14806/ej.17.B.265

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55]

    Xie C, Mao X, Huang J, Ding Y, Wu J, et al. 2011. KOBAS 2.0: a web server for annotation and identification of enriched pathways and diseases. Nucleic Acids Research 39:W316−W322

    doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr483

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [56]

    Supek F, Bošnjak M, Škunca N, Šmuc T. 2011. REVIGO summarizes and visualizes long lists of gene ontology terms. PLoS ONE 6:e21800

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021800

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [57]

    Wu J, Su S, Fu L, Zhang Y, Chai L, et al. 2014. Selection of reliable reference genes for gene expression studies using quantitative real-time PCR in navel orange fruit development and pummelo floral organs. Scientia Horticulturae 176:180−88

    doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2014.06.040

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [58]

    Geng J, Liu J. 2018. The transcription factor CsbHLH18 of sweet orange functions in modulation of cold tolerance and homeostasis of reactive oxygen species by regulating the antioxidant gene. Journal of Experimental Botany 69:2677−92

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/ery065

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [59]

    Wang J, Sun P, Chen C, Wang Y, Fu X, et al. 2011. An arginine decarboxylase gene PtADC from Poncirus trifoliata confers abiotic stress tolerance and promotes primary root growth in Arabidopsis. Journal of Experimental Botany 62:2899−914

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq463

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [60]

    Wang M, Dai W, Du J, Ming R, Dahro B, et al. 2018. ERF109 of trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.) contributes to cold tolerance by directly regulating expression of Prx1 involved in antioxidative process. Plant Biotechnology Journal 17:1316−32

    doi: 10.1111/pbi.13056

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [61]

    Dence CW. 1992. The Determination of Lignin. In Methods in Lignin Chemistry. Springer Series in Wood Science, eds. Lin SY, Dence CW. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 33−61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74065-7_3

    [62]

    Gutierrez L, Mongelard G, Floková K, Păcurar DI, Novák O, et al. 2012. Auxin controls Arabidopsis adventitious root initiation by regulating jasmonic acid homeostasis. The Plant Cell 24:2515−27

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.112.099119

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [63]

    Staswick PE, Serban B, Rowe M, Tiryaki I, Maldonado MT, et al. 2005. Characterization of an Arabidopsis enzyme family that conjugates amino acids to indole-3-acetic acid. The Plant Cell 17:616−27

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.104.026690

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [64]

    Liu J, Chen K, Hu Q, Yang M, Zhou Q, et al. 2008. Preliminary study on 'Ziyang xiangcheng' (Citrus junos Sieb. ex Tanaka), a special local citrus germplasm. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences 21:1658−60

    Google Scholar

    [65]

    Tan F, Tu H, Liang W, Long J, Wu X, et al. 2015. Comparative metabolic and transcriptional analysis of a doubled diploid and its diploid citrus rootstock (C. junos cv. Ziyang xiangcheng) suggests its potential value for stress resistance improvement. BMC Plant Biology 15:89

    doi: 10.1186/s12870-015-0450-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [66]

    Gill SS, Tuteja N. 2010. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 48:909−30

    doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [67]

    Anjum SA, Wang L, Farooq M, Khan I, Xue L. 2011. Methyl jasmonate-induced alteration in lipid peroxidation, antioxidative defence system and yield in soybean under drought. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 197:296−301

    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00468.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [68]

    Noriega G, Cruz DS, Batlle A, Tomaro M, Balestrasse K. 2012. Heme oxygenase is involved in the protection exerted by jasmonic acid against cadmium stress in soybean roots. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 31:79−89

    doi: 10.1007/s00344-011-9221-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [69]

    Piotrowska A, Bajguz A, Godlewska-Żyłkiewicz B, Czerpak R, Kamińska M. 2009. Jasmonic acid as modulator of lead toxicity in aquatic plant Wolffia arrhiza (Lemnaceae). Environmental and Experimental Botany 66:507−13

    doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.03.019

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [70]

    Shan C, Liang Z. 2010. Jasmonic acid regulates ascorbate and glutathione metabolism in Agropyron cristatum leaves under water stress. Plant Science 178:130−39

    doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.11.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [71]

    Mason MG, Mathews DE, Argyros DA, Maxwell BB, Kieber JJ, et al. 2005. Multiple type-B response regulators mediate cytokinin signal transduction in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 17:3007−18

    doi: 10.1105/TPC.105.035451

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [72]

    Riefler M, Novak O, Strnad M, Schmülling T. 2006. Arabidopsis cytokinin receptor mutants reveal functions in shoot growth, leaf senescence, seed size, germination, root development, and cytokinin metabolism. The Plant Cell 18:40−54

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.105.037796

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [73]

    Laplaze L, Benkova E, Casimiro I, Maes L, Vanneste S, et al. 2007. Cytokinins act directly on lateral root founder cells to inhibit root initiation. The Plant Cell 19:3889−900

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.107.055863

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [74]

    Moriwaki T, Miyazawa Y, Kobayashi A, Uchida M, Watanabe C, et al. 2011. Hormonal regulation of lateral root development in Arabidopsis modulated by MIZ1 and requirement of GNOM activity for MIZ1 function. Plant Physiology 157:1209−20

    doi: 10.1104/pp.111.186270

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Xu C, Cao J, Su M, Yan X, Yi H, et al. 2024. Comprehensive analysis provides insights into Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb.) tolerance of alkalinity stress. Fruit Research 4: e001 doi: 10.48130/frures-0023-0037
    Xu C, Cao J, Su M, Yan X, Yi H, et al. 2024. Comprehensive analysis provides insights into Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb.) tolerance of alkalinity stress. Fruit Research 4: e001 doi: 10.48130/frures-0023-0037

Figures(7)  /  Tables(2)

Article Metrics

Article views(1550) PDF downloads(180)

ARTICLE   Open Access    

Comprehensive analysis provides insights into Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb.) tolerance of alkalinity stress

Fruit Research  4 Article number: e001  (2024)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Alkaline soil is one of the major problems affecting the development of the citrus industry. Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb. ex Tanaka) (Cj) is an alkalinity stress-tolerant citrus rootstock. In this study, two citrus rootstocks (Cj and Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.) (Pt)) and one navel orange scion ('Lane Late' navel orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.) (LL)) were used. The root, stem and leaf tissues of grafted materials Cj + LL and Pt + LL grown in calcareous soil were used to identify genes and pathways that are responsive to alkalinity stress using comparative transcriptomics. Seedlings of Cj and Pt cultured in nutrient solutions at three pH grades were used to perform a supplemental experiment. A comprehensive analysis of the RNA-seq data, physiology, biochemistry, agronomic traits and mineral elements of the Cj + LL, Pt + LL, Cj and Pt materials revealed several candidate pathways and genes that were highly regulated under alkalinity stress. The data suggest that the jasmonate pathway may play crucial roles in tolerance to alkalinity stress in Cj by interacting with other plant hormones, lignin biosynthesis and the ROS scavenging system. These results provide new clues for future investigations of the mechanisms underlying the tolerance of citrus to alkalinity stress.

    • Most plants cannot survive under alkalinity stress. Alkalinity stress can strongly inhibit plant growth[13]. Citrus is one of the most important economic fruit crops worldwide. Alkalinity stress has serious negative effects on citrus plant growth, fruit quality and yield. Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb. ex Tanaka) (Cj) is a citrus rootstock that is tolerant to alkalinity stress[4]. Thus, in depth study of the mechanism of its alkalinity stress tolerance is warranted.

      Lateral root (LR) formation is important for the root system to cope with the uptake and transport of water and nutrients and various abiotic stresses[5,6]. Auxin acts as an integrator of numerous endogenous and exogenous LR development regulation signals, including abscisic acid (ABA), jasmonate (JA), cytokinin (CK) and nutrients[69]. For instance, the Arabidopsis slr-1/iaa14 mutant completely lacked lateral roots[10]. Overexpression of GH3.6, which functions in conjugating amino acids to IAA, in Arabidopsis severely reduces the number of prebranch sites and LRs[11]. ABA and CK inhibit LR formation by upregulating the ABI4 transcription factor through the reduction of polar auxin transport[12].

      JA is a significant phytohormone that is involved in plant responses to drought stress, salt stress, alkalinity stress, wounding and so on[4,13]. Many studies have shown that JA plays a positive role in salt and alkalinity stress responses in plants[4,1420]. However, fewer studies have examined the role of JAs in response to alkalinity stress than in response to salt stress. Several studies have shown that JAZ proteins, such as TIFY10[21] and GsJAZ2[22], play positive roles in the response to alkalinity stress. Overexpression of GsJAZ2 in Arabidopsis was found to enhance tolerance to salt and alkalinity stress[22]. Moreover, JAs are involved in regulating plant root growth. Chen et al.[23] reported that JA reduced both the cell number and cell length of the root through MYC2 by repressing the expression of PLT1 and PLT2. Several studies have shown that low concentrations of JA inhibit primary root growth and promote LR formation in Arabidopsis[24,25]. In addition, JA plays roles in regulating lignin biosynthesis. Denness et al.[26] showed that lignin biosynthesis is regulated by an ROS- and JA-dependent process. In cultured Arabidopsis thaliana cells, JAs are involved in repression of the cell cycle and the biosynthesis of phenylpropanoids[27].

      Under alkalinity stress, a high environmental pH is the main factor that affects root growth and development. Some studies have shown that plasma membrane H+-ATPase plays an important role in the adaptation of roots to alkalinity stress by mediating proton secretion[28,29]. For instance, the protein kinase PKS5 functions in inhibiting the expression of plasma membrane H+-ATPase, and thus, loss-of-function PKS5 mutant Arabidopsis plants are more tolerant to high pH stress due to the extrusion of protons into the extracellular space. In addition, chaperone J3 promotes the expression of plasma membrane H+-ATPase by repressing PKS5, and J3. Arabidopsis plants are hypersensitive to alkalinity stress. Under abiotic stress, numerous factors are involved in the regulation of plasma membrane H+-ATPase[30]. Auxin is one of these factors, and it also plays a role in regulating the activity of plasma membrane H+-ATPase. For example, PIN2, an auxin efflux transporter, is required for the acclimation of roots to alkalinity stress by regulating H+ secretion in the root tip and maintaining primary root elongation[2].

      Abiotic stress is known to induce oxidative stress. The formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as superoxides and hydroxy and peroxy radicals, in excess can disturb normal metabolism through oxidative damage to lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. To defend against oxidative stress, plants detoxify ROS by the induction of antioxidative enzymes, such as peroxidase (POD), glutathione (GSH), ascorbate peroxidas (APX), catalase (CAT) and superoxide dismutase (SOD). The positive role of ROS scavengers in environmental stress tolerance has been reported in several plant species, such as citrus[31], wild tomato[32,33], rice[34,35], cotton[36], wheat[37], sesame[38] and purslane[39]. Recent reports have shown that the application of exogenous reduced GSH or increasing endogenous GSH confers tolerance to both drought and salt stress in Arabidopsis[40,41].

      Grafting is the most important reproductive mode for citrus cultivation. Rootstocks can influence multiple aspects of scions in citrus (such as fruit quality, canopy size, and resistance)[42]. Cj is widely used as an alkalinity-tolerant citrus rootstock in areas of China with calcareous soils. However, Pt, the most widely used rootstock in China, is sensitive to alkalinity stress. Scions grafted onto Pt show nutritional deficiency and growth retardation phenotypes in calcareous soil. In this study, the scion cultivar Lane Late navel orange was grafted onto Cj and Pt, respectively. The grafted materials Cj + LL and Pt + LL planted in calcareous soil were used to perform comparative analyses, including assessments of the transcriptome and metabolites.

    • Two citrus rootstocks, Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb. ex Tanaka) (Cj) and Poncirus trifoliata (Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.) (Pt), and one navel orange scion, 'Lane Late' navel orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.) (LL), were used in this study. LL was grafted separately onto Cj and Pt. The grafted materials Cj + LL and Pt + LL (rootstock + scion) were planted in 2009, a total of approximately 1,520 trees (approximately 800 Cj + LL trees and approximately 720 Pt + LL trees, of which 80 trees died) were alternately planted in the orchard (Fig. 1a). The 'Lane Late' navel orange orchard located in Yuxiakou Town, Changyang City, Hubei Province, China, situated 1,500 meters below sea level in the Qingjiang River Basin, with a subtropical monsoon climate and an average annual sunshine duration of over 1,500 h. The spacing between single plants and rows was 3 m × 4 m, materials in the same column were consistent, Cj + LL and Pt + LL were planted alternately. For the experiments, we first evaluated the growth status of two materials, which represented consistency, the Cj + LL showed stronger nutritional growth ability than Pt + LL. Thirty trees were selected from the central sunny area and every five trees constituted one biological replicate, three biological replicates were considered sufficient. Fruits of the same size without pests and diseases was collected from the middle and lower parts of the tree. All samples were harvested in 2015, which was the third year these trees bore fruits. Root, stem and leaf samples were harvested at 140 DAF (days after flowering). After harvesting, these samples were separated into two portions. One portion was packaged in a Kraft envelope for mineral element measurements; the other portion was frozen rapidly in liquid nitrogen and kept at −80 °C for RNA sequencing and measurement of biochemical indices. The fruit samples were harvested at 140, 210, 240, 270 and 300 DAF. Two representative fruits were sampled from each tree at each developmental stage. Hence, 30 fruits were sampled for each grafted material at each developmental stage.

      Figure 1. 

      The planting mode and different performance of (a) trees and (b) fruits of Cj + LL and Pt + LL, and (c) the fruit quality data of peel color parameters, single fruit weight, total soluble solid and titratable acid of Cj + LL and Pt + LL at five different development stages. Cj + LL: Ziyang xiangcheng + Lane Late navel orange; Pt + LL: Poncirus trifoliate + Lane Late navel orange. DAF: days after flowering. Bars represent the standard error (n = 3). A single asterisk (*) represents statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Analyzed using t test.

      A laboratory simulation experiment was designed and performed. Seeds of Cj and Pt were used in this experiment. According to the method described in our previous study[4], the plants were cultured with nutrient solution for 8 weeks. The pH values of the nutrient solutions were adjusted with 0.1 M NaOH and HCl. Three different pH gradients (6.5, 8.0 and 9.5) were set up. The roots, stems and leaves of the seedlings were sampled.

    • The plant mineral element concentrations were measured as described in previous studies[43,44] with some modifications. Briefly, fresh samples were placed into a forced air oven at 105 °C for 30 min and then at 75 °C until a constant weight was reached to determine the sample dry weight. All the dried samples were ground into fine powder. Then, 0.50 g of each sample was dry-ashed in a muffle furnace at 200 °C for 1 h, 300 °C for 1 h and 500 °C for 8 h, followed by dissolution in 10 mL 0.1 N HCl, and the mineral elements (except nitrogen) were determined using inductively coupled plasma atomic spectroscopy (ICP‒AES; Thermo, Inc., IRIS Advan, USA). The total nitrogen content of the plant samples, the pH of the soil samples and the soil mineral element concentrations were measured using the methods described by Bao[45]. Each sample was assayed using three replicates.

    • The root, stem and leaf tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL were used for hormone assays as described by Pan et al.[46] with slight modifications and each sample was characterized using four replicates[4,47]. The experimental method is as follows: Weigh approximately 0.2 g of fresh samples and grind with liquid nitrogen. After grinding, transfer the powder into a 10 mL centrifuge tube. Add 2 mL of prechilled buffer and mix thoroughly. Sequentially add 10, 0.2, 0.2 μL of ABA, IAA, and JA internal standard working solutions (d6-ABA (Icon Isotopes, cat. no. ID1001), d5IAA (Aldrich, cat. no. 492817), and H2JA (dihydrojasmonic acid, OlChemim, cat. no. 0145324, Sigma). Stir at 200 rpm on ice for 30 min. Then, add 4 mL of dichloromethane and stir at 200 rpm on ice for another 30 min. Centrifuge at 4 °C, 2,500 rpm for 15 min, and carefully extract the supernatant to a total volume of 10 mL in a centrifuge tube. Dry it with nitrogen gas. Resuspend the sample in 200 μL of methanol, filter it through a 0.22 μm organic membrane filter, and transfer it into a sample vial for HPLC – ESI – MS / MS analysis (ABI 4000 QTRAP, Applied Biosystems).

    • Total RNA isolation was performed as described previously[48]. The root, stem and leaf samples of Cj + LL and Pt + LL were subjected to RNA-seq analysis using BGISEQ-500 at Beijing Genomics Institute (Shenzhen) in 2015. Each sample included two biological replicates. The sequencing data have been submitted to NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), and the accession number is GSE98996. Briefly, 6 μg of the total RNA of each sample was used to enrich mRNA, to construct cDNA libraries and sequencing analysis. Clean reads (high-quality reads) were filtered from raw reads by removing low-quality reads with ambiguous nucleotides and adaptor sequences, and Bowtie2[49] and HISAT[50] were used to map clean reads to reference genes and the reference genome, respectively (Supplemental Table S1). The Citrus sinensis genome[51] was used as the reference genome; gene expression levels were calculated by the fragments per kilobase of transcript per million mapped reads (FPKM) method using the RSEM tool[52]. Differential expression analysis was performed using the NOISeq R package[53,54]. Fold change and probability (Prob.) were combined to determine the significance of the final transcript expression. An absolute fold change value ≥ 1.0 with a Prob. > 0.8 was defined as a significant difference.

      Gene annotation was conducted using the Blastp search against the nr database in NCBI, and Blast KOALA was used to annotate the KOs of the KEGG ORTHOLOGY database. The protein sequences of genes were aligned against the GO database(Gene Ontology database)and KEGG(Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) pathway database using KOBAS 2.0 (http://kobas.cbi.pku.edu.cn/)[55] to perform the enrichment analysis. A corrected p value < 0.05 was set as a cutoff for enrichment. REVIGO[56] was used to visualize and summarize the biological process, cell component and molecular function terms identified by KOBAS 2.0.

    • Real-time quantitative PCR was performed to confirm the expression of candidate genes with three biological replicates according to our previous study[47], and CsActin was used as the endogenous reference gene[57]. The primers are listed in Supplemental Table S2. Data are presented as the means ± standard errors (SE) (n = 3).

    • The vitamin E, GSH, malondialdehyde (MDA) and H2O2 contents were measured using the vitamin E assay kit (colorimetric method), reduced GSH assay kit (spectrophotometric method), MDA assay kit (TBA method) and hydrogen peroxide assay kit (Nanjing Jiancheng Bioengineering Institute, China), respectively. Sample processing was performed in accordance with the kit instructions. Anti-O2· measurement and total protein concentration measurement were performed according to Geng and Liu[58]. Histochemical staining with 3,3'-diaminobenzidine (DAB) and nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT) was used to examine the in situ accumulation of H2O2 and O2·, respectively[59]. Chlorophyll fluorescence imaging was performed using an IMAGINGPAM chlorophyll fluorimeter, and Fv/Fm ratios were calculated using Imaging WinGigE software (Walz, Germany)[60].

    • The lignin content was as determinated by Dence[61] with slight modification. The Klason and ultraviolet spectrophotometry methods were combined to determine the content of lignin. In short, the sample tissues used for determining the lignin content were dried in a lyophilizer (Heto Lyolab 3000, Thermo Scientific, Laughborough, UK). The lignin content was calculated using the following formula: Lignin % = Abs × Liters × 100% / (Wsample × Astandard). Each sample was assayed using four replicates.

    • Cj and Pt seedlings of a uniform size were cultured with 4 L nutrient solution in a phytotron. The seedlings of Cj were cultured in nutrient solutions at pH 8.0 and pH 8.5. For the Cj group (pH 8.0), three final treatment concentrations of JA (0.5, 2 and 5 μM) in the nutrient solution were set up, and the seedlings were cultured for 8 weeks. For the Cj group (pH 8.5) seedlings cultured at pH 8.5, we set up the MeJA (1 μM), naphthylacetic acid (NAA) (2.69 μM), salicylhydroxamic acid (SHAM, a JA biosynthesis inhibitor) (100 μM), MeJA + NAA (1 μM + 2.69 μM) and SHAM + NAA (100 μM + 2.69 μM) five treatment groups, and the seedlings were cultured for 10 weeks. The solution was replaced every week.

    • The grafted materials Cj + LL and Pt + LL were alternately planted in the same orchard (Fig. 1a). The soil of this orchard is calcareous soil. Therefore, in this orchard, the calcium level (7,075.27 mg/kg) and pH value (7.88) of the soil were higher than in the control orchard, and the levels of mineral elements (Fe, Zn, Cu, Mg and Mn) in the soil were lower than in the control orchard soil (Supplemental Table S3). In particular, the content of Fe was very low at only approximately 1/22 of that in the control orchard. In calcareous soil, there were large differences in phenotype between Cj + LL and Pt + LL. As shown in Fig. 1a & Supplemental Table S4, the tree height and canopy volume of Cj + LL were much larger than those of Pt + LL by approximately 1.5 times and 3.8 times, respectively. In addition, the yield of Cj + LL was 3 times higher than that of Pt + LL. In addition, the fruit performance also differed between Cj + LL and Pt + LL. As shown in Fig. 1b & c, the coloring time, single fruit weight and TSS (total soluble solid) were different between Cj + LL and Pt + LL. The color transition time of the fruits of Cj + LL occurred approximately 20 d later than that of Pt + LL. In addition, the fruit size of Cj + LL was much larger than that of Pt + LL. The single fruit weight of Cj + LL was approximately 1.5 times heavier than that of Pt + LL. However, the fruit of Pt + LL tasted better than that of Cj + LL due to its higher TSS content.

      It is known that mineral elements and plant hormones are important for plant growth and fruit development. Therefore, the contents of mineral elements in the root, stem and leaf of Cj + LL and Pt + LL were determined. As shown in Fig. 2a & Supplemental Table S5, we observed that the contents of macroelements (including N, P, K, S and Ca) showed little difference between Cj + LL and Pt + LL. However, the contents of microelements (including Fe, Cu, Zn and B) and Mg showed significant differences in some tissues between Cj + LL and Pt + LL. Overall, the contents of mineral elements in the root, stem and leaf of Cj + LL were higher than those in the root, stem and leaf of Pt + LL (Fig. 2a & Supplemental Table S5). Notably, the Cu content in Cj + LL was higher than that in Pt + LL in all measured tissues. In one-year-old branch and new leaf samples, the content of Fe in Cj + LL was higher than that in Pt + LL.

      Figure 2. 

      The content of several mineral elements in different tissues of (a) Cj + LL and Pt + LL and (b) the content of ABA and IAA in the root, stem and leaf tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL. Cj + LL: Ziyang xiangcheng + Lane Late navel orange; Pt + LL: Poncirus trifoliate + Lane Late navel orange. Bars represent the standard error (n = 3). A single asterisk (*) represents statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Analyzed using Student's t test.

      Due to the differences in tree size and fruit development between Cj + LL and Pt + LL, the contents of ABA and IAA were measured (Fig. 2b). In the stem tissue, there was no significant difference in the contents of ABA and IAA between Cj + LL and Pt + LL. In the root and leaf tissues, the ABA content was significantly higher in Pt + LL than in Cj + LL. Compared with Pt + LL, the content of IAA in Cj + LL was higher in the root and lower in the leaf. This result indicated that plant hormones may play important roles between the rootstock and scion.

    • To investigate the underlying molecular changes that accompany the morphological and physiological changes described above, we used RNA-seq to generate transcriptome profiles for the root, stem and leaf tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL. In the root tissue, 3,431 DEGs (differentially expressed genes) were identified between Cj + LL_root and Pt + LL_root (Fig. 3a & Supplemental Table S6). For the stem and leaf tissues, only 274 and 403 DEGs were identified, respectively (Fig. 3a & Supplemental Table S6). A Venn diagram was used to reveal unique or commonly differentially expressed genes among the root, stem and leaf tissues (Fig. 3b). Only 20 DEGs were common among all three tissues (Fig. 3b). Most of these 20 DEGs were upregulated in the root of Cj + LL and downregulated in the leaf of Cj + LL compared with Pt + LL (Fig. 3c & Supplemental Table S7). This result indicates that the difference between Cj + LL_root and Pt + LL_root is the major differential resource for Cj + LL and Pt + LL.

      Figure 3. 

      Global analysis of gene expression in different tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL. (a) The number of differentially expressed genes in the root, stem and leaf tissues. (b) Venn diagram showing the number of commonly and uniquely expressed genes in the root, stem and leaf tissues. (c) Heatmap showing the genes differentially expressed in the root, stem and leaf tissues. DEG: differentially expressed gene.

      To further elucidate the difference in root, stem and leaf tissues between Cj + LL and Pt + LL at the transcript level, GO-based term classification and KEGG-based pathway enrichment analyses were performed. In the root tissue, 112 biological processes, 23 molecular functions and 17 cellular components were shown to be enriched in the DEGs (Supplemental Table S8). In biological processes, several hubs were significantly enriched, including response to inorganic substance, secondary metabolic process, flavonoid biosynthetic and metabolic processes, and other processes (Fig. 4a & Supplemental Table S8). Notably, several enriched GO terms were related to plant development, nutrient element uptake and stress response, such as response to hormone, ion transport, response to metal ion, lignin biosynthetic process and glutathione metabolic process (Supplemental Table S8). According to the KEGG pathway enrichment analysis (Fig. 4d & Supplemental Table S9), our attention was attracted by several enriched pathways, such as flavonoid biosynthesis (15 DEGs), glutathione metabolism (31), phenylpropanoid biosynthesis (45), alpha-linolenic acid metabolism (13), carotenoid biosynthesis (10) and plant hormone signal transduction (54) were in accordance with the results of GO enrichment analysis. In the stem tissue, the DEGs were enriched in 38 biological processes and two molecular functions (Supplemental Table S8). Among the biological processes, several hub processes were identified, including response to chitin, flavonoid biosynthesis and metabolism, and response to stimulus (Fig. 4b). In the leaf tissue, 58 biological processes, three cell components and 12 molecular functions were enriched in the DEGs (Supplemental Table S8). Response to inorganic substance was the most enriched hub biological process, which was in accordance with the results of the root tissue GO enrichment analysis (Fig. 4a & c). The KEGG pathways enriched with the DEGs in the stem and leaf tissues were also identified (Supplemental Table S9). Several common pathways were identified in both stem and leaf tissues, such as alpha-linolenic acid metabolism, flavonoid biosynthesis, phenylpropanoid biosynthesis and diterpenoid biosynthesis (Supplemental Table S9).

      Figure 4. 

      Treemap showing the Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis and the enriched KEGG pathways of the DEGs in the (a), (d) root tissue, (b) stem tissue and (c) leaf tissue of Cj + LL and Pt + LL. (a)−(c), biological processes; (d) KEGG pathways. Each rectangle is a single cluster representative. The representatives are joined into 'superclusters' of loosely related terms, visualized with different colors. The size of the rectangles may be adjusted to reflect either the p value or the frequency of the GO term in the underlying GO database. KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes.

    • In this study, 54 DEGs in the roots of Cj + LL and Pt + LL and seven DEGs in the leaves of Cj + LL and Pt + LL were enriched in plant hormone signal transduction (Fig. 4d & Supplemental Table S9). The DEGs in the JA, auxin and cytokinin signal transduction pathways were also verified in the roots of Cj and Pt, which showed distinct expression between Cj_root and Pt_root (Fig. 5). As shown in Table 1, there were 14, 7, 6 and 5 DEGs distributed in the auxin, ABA, CK and JA signal transduction pathways, respectively. In the JA biosynthesis and signal transduction pathway, several key DEGs were identified, and in the root tissue, most of these DEGs were upregulated in Cj + LL_root (Table 1). As shown in Fig. 5a & Table 1, the key genes for JA biosynthesis were upregulated in Cj + LL_root and Cj_root, such as PKT (Cs9g05210), ACX (Cs6g08630) and LOX2 (orange1.1t04376). Therefore, we measured the content of JA in the root and leaf of Cj + LL and Pt + LL. As shown in Fig. 6a, the content of JA in the root and leaf of Cj + LL was much higher than that in Pt + LL. Moreover, six DEGs were identified in the JA signal transduction pathway. The expression levels of JAZs (Cs1g17210, Cs1g17220 and Cs7g02820), repressors of MYC2, in Cj + LL_root was higher than those in Pt + LL_root, while this three JAZs gene continuously be a low expression level at 6.5 < pH < 8 in Cj_root, then rapidly reached to the similar expression level (Cs1g17210 and Cs7g02820) or significantly higher (Cs1g17220) than Pt_root at pH = 9.5. However, the expression levels of COI1 (Cs7g31600) and MYC2 (orange1.1t01021) in Cj + LL_root and Cj_root were lower than those in Pt + LL_root and Pt_root at pH ≤ 8.0, and quickly rose when pH increased (Fig. 5a & Table 1). This result revealed that COI1-mediated JA signaling in the root of Cj + LL or Cj was weaker than in the root of Pt + LL or Pt under moderately alkaline stress conditions and strengthened while its exacerbated. In the auxin signal transduction pathway, the gene GH3.6 (Cs5g32030) attracted our attention due to its expression pattern in the roots of Cj and Pt. The expression of GH3.6 in the roots of Cj was approximately 150-fold higher than that in the roots of Pt under pH 6.5 and 8.0 conditions (Fig. 5c). At pH 9.5, the expression of GH3.6 was largely increased (approximately 2-fold) in the roots of Cj, but it showed little change in Pt (Fig. 5c). In previous studies[62,63], GH3.6 was shown to play an important role in auxin and JA homeostasis. In the CK signal transduction pathway, the genes were all downregulated in the roots of Cj + LL (Table 1). In the ABA biosynthesis pathway, the expression of ABA 8'-hydroxylase (Cs6g19380) in Cj + LL_root was approximately 9-fold higher than that in Pt + LL_root, and the expression of NCED1 (Cs5g14370), a key gene in ABA biosynthesis, was lower in Cj_root than in Pt_root (Table 1 & Fig. 5b). These differences may explain why the ABA content in the roots of Cj + LL was lower than that in the roots of Pt + LL (Fig. 2b). In addition, the PYR/PYL genes and ABA receptors were also downregulated in the roots of Cj + LL (Table 1).

      Table 1.  A list of some of the important differentially expressed genes in the root tissue between Cj + LL and Pt + LL.

      Gene IDFPKMlog2 Ratio
      (Cj + LL_root/Pt + LL_root)
      ProbabilityGene name
      Pt + LL_rootCj + LL_root
      H+-transporting ATPase
      Cs6g0349013.806.03−1.200.83ATPase 4
      Cs5g0436032.3512.96−1.320.86ATPase 11
      Cs5g083700.627.443.600.89ATPase
      Cs2g13550320.97115.17−1.480.89F-type H+-transporting ATPase subunit beta
      Cs7g145200.624.642.900.82V-type H+-transporting ATPase subunit H
      Cs3g255506.750.85−2.990.86V-type H+-transporting ATPase subunit a
      Cs3g2556012.035.59−1.110.81V-type H+-transporting ATPase subunit a
      Aquaporin
      Cs7g25610125.6652.03−1.270.87Aquaporin PIP 2-1
      Cs7g31410148.7722.09−2.750.92Aquaporin PIP 1-1
      Cs6g1167010.041.80−2.480.87Aquaporin PIP 2-2
      Cs6g1170014.955.82−1.360.84Aquaporin PIP2-1
      Cs5g0871015.092.82−2.420.89Aquaporin TIP2-2
      Cs7g28650447.9551.70−3.120.93Aquaporin TIP1-1
      Cs8g1790011.522.95−1.970.86Aquaporin TIP1-3
      Cs2g043704.2820.432.250.89Aquaporin NIP1-2
      JA biosynthesis and signal transduction
      Cs9g0521015.71133.923.090.93PKT
      Cs5g1788024.2352.721.120.86OPR2
      Cs5g1792038.68125.161.690.90OPR2
      Cs6g0863013.0448.651.900.90ACX
      Cs1g1738043.1290.511.070.86LOX3
      orange1.1t0377337.65113.441.590.89LOX2
      orange1.1t0437621.70114.642.400.92LOX2
      orange1.1t0046422.5346.721.050.85JAR1
      Cs1g17210153.01442.861.530.89JAZ
      Cs1g1722070.18182.711.380.88JAZ
      Cs7g02820232.46521.601.170.87JAZ10
      Cs7g3160031.2717.16−0.870.81COI1
      ABA biosynthesis and signal transduction
      Cs1g226206.4032.662.350.91ABA1
      Cs6g140307.3720.571.480.86ABA2
      Cs6g1938055.00495.163.170.94ABA 8'-hydroxylase
      Cs8g1914013.735.495−1.320.84HAI2
      Cs9g180205.2912.541.250.824PP2C
      orange1.1t00478136.2236.88−1.890.904PYL9
      orange1.1t0102662.7821.28−1.560.894PYR1
      Cs1g1938037.8714.395−1.400.87SnRK2.5
      Cs4g059900.012.127.730.807SnRK2
      Cs1g1991011.74532.31.460.87SnRK2
      Auxin signal transduction
      Cs4g0452012.7129.771.230.86ARF7
      Cs4g0702033.1514.08−1.240.86ARF19
      Cs3g2586027.1511.37−1.260.86ARF5
      Cs2g054405.551.43−1.9640.80ARF3
      Cs1g1396018.2567.951.900.90IAA15
      Cs9g0810018.6658.731.650.89IAA22B
      Cs4g182408.7751.102.540.91IAA29
      Cs6g0799047.9919.56−1.290.87AUX1
      Cs1g221401.246.172.320.84GH3.1
      Cs5g320309.9027.821.490.87GH3.6
      Cs4g1272043.5417.55−1.310.87SAUR72
      Cs7g0303029.7813.75−1.110.85SAUR
      orange1.1t0255020.2152.501.380.87SAUR
      Cs5g3250014.396.51−1.140.82TIR1
      Cytokinin signal transduction
      Cs5g3214039.7516.12−1.300.87AHP
      orange1.1t0185060.9215.39−1.980.90ARR-A
      Cs7g0794056.7013.82−2.040.91ARR-A
      Cs9g0276016.876.64−1.350.85ARR-B
      Cs7g0618020.059.22−1.120.84ARR-B
      Cs2g1976010.393.45−1.590.84CRE1
      Phenylpropanoid biosynthesis (lignin biosynthesis)
      orange1.1t02755199.8975.86−1.400.88CCR1
      Cs7g2494032.0881.541.350.88PAL4
      Cs6g11940263.56143.15−0.880.83PAL1
      Cs8g1588016.645.42−1.620.874CL
      orange1.1t02041308.63637.331.050.86Peroxidase 15
      Cs2g2811042.0914.10−1.580.89Peroxidase 4
      orange1.1t029474.35574.874.100.96OMT1
      orange1.1t0368670.367.03−3.320.94OMT1
      Cs1g1266019.9494.942.250.91CCOAMT
      Cs1g2245074.5434.48−1.110.86CCOAMT
      Vitamin E biosynthesis
      Cs7g175607.8016.061.040.82PDS1
      Cs7g1525036.259.42−1.940.89G-TMT
      Cs9g178401.899.442.320.87HPT1
      Cs3g0392010.382.98−1.800.85HPT1
      Cs9g195201.6718.183.450.92HPT1
      orange1.1t053520.7112.254.110.93HPT1
      Glutathione metabolism
      Cs5g32800416.341032.871.310.88GST
      Cs1g0237022.367.25−1.620.88GGT
      Cs5g03830169.05659.591.960.90GPX
      Cs6g1931094.55217.631.200.87G6PD
      orange1.1t0266534.8313.39−1.380.87GR

      Figure 6. 

      The contents of (a) JA, (b) lignin, (c) GSH, (d) MDA and (e) H2O2 in Cj + LL and Pt + LL. JA: jasmonate; GSH: glutathione; ABA: abscisic acid; IAA: indole-3-acetic acid. A single asterisk (*) represents statistically significant differences (p < 0.05), and double asterisks (**) represent highly statistically significant differences (p < 0.01). Analyzed using Student's t test.

    • Many DEGs related to lignin biosynthesis were identified in the root, stem and leaf tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL (Tables 1 & 2). Among these DEGs, several key genes for lignin biosynthesis were all downregulated in Cj + LL_root, including CCR1 (orange1.1t02755) and 4CL (Cs8g15880), which were also verified in Cj_root and Pt_root by qRT‒PCR (Table 1 & Fig. 5d). Other DEGs displayed a mixed expression pattern (contained both upregulated and downregulated genes) and showed distinct expression patterns between Cj_root and Pt_root. (Tables 1, 2 & Fig. 5d). To further investigate the different changes in lignin in the cell wall between Cj + LL and Pt + LL, we determined the content of lignin in the root and leaf of Cj + LL and Pt + LL. As shown in Fig. 6b, the content of lignin in Cj + LL was significantly lower than that in Pt + LL in both the root and leaf tissues, which was in accordance with the results of gene expression analysis.

      Table 2.  List of some of the important differentially expressed genes in the stem and leaf tissues between Cj + LL and Pt + LL.

      Gene IDStem (FPKM)Leaf (FPKM)Gene
      name
      Pt + LL
      _stem
      Cj + LL
      _stem
      log2 Ratio
      (Cj + LL_stem /
      Pt + LL_stem)
      ProbabilityPt + LL
      _leaf
      Cj + LL
      _ leaf
      log2 Ratio
      (Cj + LL_leaf /
      Pt + LL_leaf)
      Probability
      Phenylpropanoid biosynthesis
      Cs1g1178024.5656.531.200.8722.3674.581.740.90HCT
      Cs4g019307.5216.541.140.80HCT
      Cs1g1266020.3462.341.620.89CCoAOMT
      Cs6g1194072.42157.961.130.87PAL
      Cs6g209508.000.12−6.060.9014.820.08−7.530.96OMT1
      orange1.1t052186.3924.561.940.88OMT1
      orange1.1t0535428.118.83−1.670.88OMT1
      Cs8g0497027.459.07−1.600.87CAD
      orange1.1t020362.8710.971.940.83Peroxidase15
      orange1.1t020412.6114.312.450.87Peroxidase15
      orange1.1t0204416.2643.461.420.87Peroxidase15
      alpha-Linolenic acid metabolism
      Cs1g1738015.0745.381.590.89LOX3
      Cs2g2100029.4995.151.690.90HPL1
      orange1.1t0437626.9211.80−1.190.8415.3535.871.220.85LOX2
      ABA biosynthesis
      Cs5g1437013.5835.271.380.87NCED1
      Cs8g1878018.0747.401.390.87ABA 8'-hydroxylase
      Cs8g059401.809.712.430.84ABA 8'-hydroxylase
      Cs6g1938043.574.88−3.160.93ABA 8'-hydroxylase
      Plant hormone signal transduction
      Cs1g1583032.4914.61−1.150.84IAA26
      Cs1g1396037.5997.301.370.88IAA15
      Cs2g178606.2116.411.400.83CRE1
      Cs3g2312016.0334.301.100.84Cyclin D3
      orange1.1t0185013.8146.121.740.89ARR-A
      Cs5g048108.0432.932.030.89ARR5
      Cs4g153606.9817.241.310.82PP2C
    • The formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) can disturb normal metabolism when they are produced in excess. Glutathione (GSH) is an important ROS scavenger. In this study, several DEGs of Cj + LL_root and Pt + LL_root were enriched in the glutathione metabolism pathway (Table 1 & Fig. 5e). In addition, we measured the contents of GSH, MDA and H2O2 in Cj + LL and Pt + LL. As shown in Fig. 6c, d & e, the contents of MDA and H2O2 in the root and leaf tissues of Pt + LL were significantly higher than those in the root and leaf tissues of Cj + LL, and the GSH content in the root tissue of Cj + LL was higher than that in the root tissue of Pt + LL. In addition, as shown in Table 1, for H+-transporting ATPase genes, the expression levels of most of these genes were downregulated in Cj + LL_root, and 7/10 of H+-transporting ATPase genes were downregulated in Cj_root compared with Pt_root under alkaline conditions (Fig. 5f).

    • In our previous study[4], JA plus auxin analog treatment enhanced the tolerance of Pt seedlings to alkalinity stress, while the application of JA had little effect on improving the tolerance of Pt seedlings to alkalinity stress. In this study, we demonstrated that exogenous JA application to Cj seedlings cultured at pH 8.0 significantly reduced the contents of MDA and H2O2 in the root tissue and increased the number of LRs (Fig. 7). Notably, the content of H2O2 was significantly reduced in stem and leaf tissues, and a higher concentration of exogenous JA resulted in a lower content of H2O2 and more generation of LRs (Fig. 7a, c & d). However, the application of JA had little effect on MDA in stem and leaf tissue (Fig. 7b). Furthermore, we designed another treatment experiment using MeJA, SHAM and NAA to treat Cj seedlings at pH 8.5 (Fig. 8). After 10 weeks of culture, the growth status of the MeJA treatment group was the best, generating the largest number of LRs and had the highest photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm) of photosystem II (Fig. 8a, b, d & e). The status of the SHAM and SHAM+NAA treatment groups were not good, and leaf yellowing and root necrosis were serious (Fig. 8a). Moreover, as shown in Fig. 8, NAA had little effect on improving the tolerance of Cj seedlings to alkalinity stress.

      Figure 7. 

      Exogenous JA treatment of Cj seedlings with different concentrations under alkalinity stress. (a) Phenotypes of Cj seedlings; (b)−(c) contents of MDA and H2O2 in the root, stem and leaf tissues; (d) number of LRs of Cj seedlings. In this figure, the treatment groups are named 'C=concentration'. C = 0.5 indicates that the JA treatment concentration was 0.5 μM. Lowercase and capital letters represent statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) and highly statistically significant differences (p < 0.01), respectively. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA.

      Figure 8. 

      Exogenous MeJA, SHAM and NAA treatment of Cj seedlings under alkalinity stress. (a) Phenotypes of Cj seedlings; (b) Number of LRs of Cj seedlings; (c) In situ accumulation of H2O2 and anti-O2· examined by histochemical staining with DAB and NBT in leaf tissue and the contents of MDA, H2O2 and anti-O2· in the root, stem and leaf tissues; (d) chlorophyll fluorescence imaging; (e) Fv/Fm ratios. Lowercase and capital letters represent statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) and highly statistically significant differences (p < 0.01), respectively. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA.

    • Two citrus rootstocks, Cj and Pt, and one navel orange scion, LL, were used in this study. Cj has been reported to be a rootstock with tolerance to iron deficiency and alkalinity stress[64, 65]. However, little is known about its genetic background and molecular regulatory mechanism. In this study, its performance and response to alkalinity stress, together with Pt, an alkalinity stress-sensitive rootstock, were investigated. In our previous study[4], the root, stem and leaf were affected under alkalinity stress in both Cj and Pt, but the impact on Pt was more serious than that on Cj in every part of the plants, especially in the root tissues. The contents of mineral elements were dramatically influenced by alkalinity stress in both Cj and Pt, and they also showed differences between Cj and Pt[4]. In the present study, similar results were also obtained in 'Lane Late' navel orange grafted onto these two rootstocks (Cj and Pt) (Figs 1 & 2). In calcareous soil, Pt + LL was dramatically inhibited in growth and yield and was more sensitive to drought and iron deficiency, whereas no significant effect was found on Cj + LL (Figs 1 & 2). These results indicated that Cj was more tolerant to alkalinity stress than Pt.

    • Previous studies have shown that JA is closely related to salt and alkalinity stress. For instance, Pedranzani et al.[17] showed that salt-tolerant tomato cultivars have higher levels of JAs than salt-sensitive cultivars. A similar result was also obtained by Kang et al.[16], who reported that higher endogenous JA levels accumulated in salt-tolerant cultivar crops compared with the salt-sensitive cultivar, and the application of exogenous JA effectively reduced sodium ions in salt-tolerant rice. In this study, the key genes involved in JA biosynthesis were all upregulated in Cj + LL, such as PKT, OPR2, ACX and LOX (Table 1 & Fig. 5). The JA level in Cj + LL was higher than that in Pt + LL (Fig. 6a). In addition, JA treatment has been found to enable recovery from the salt-induced defects in seedling development and photosynthetic activity or to enhance salt stress tolerance in several crop cultivars[15,18,20]. In this study, under alkalinity stress, exogenous JA treatment significantly reduced the levels of MDA and H2O2 in Cj, and an appropriate concentration of JA promoted lateral root generation (Figs 7 & 8). In our previous study, an appropriate concentration of JA with auxin could remarkably enhance the tolerance of Pt to alkalinity stress[4]. These results showed a positive role of JA in alkalinity stress responses in citrus.

      When plants are exposed to stress conditions, reactive oxygen species (ROS) are generated[66]. Several studies have shown that exogenous JA treatment of soybean significantly increases the activities of SOD, POD, APX and CAT under salt or drought stress, and the increase in these antioxidant activities is essential for salt tolerance in soybean[67,68]. Qiu et al.[18] reported that exogenous JA enhanced the tolerance of wheat seedlings to salt stress by enhancing the activities and concentrations of antioxidants, including GSH, SOD, POD, CAT and APX. Moreover, exogenous application of JA can also significantly increase the content of GSH in Wolffia arrhizal and Agropyron cristatum under lead or water stress[69,70]. Similarly, the results of this study showed that the GSH concentration was higher in Cj + LL, which contained a higher level of JA (Fig. 6c). Moreover, under alkalinity stress, exogenous JA treatment could significantly reduce the levels of MDA and H2O2 in both Cj (Figs 7 & 8) and Pt[4]. Taken together, these results indicated that JA can effectively scavenge ROS by enhancing the concentration of antioxidant compounds to increase the ability of Cj to resist alkalinity stress.

      In this study, the genes involved in lignin biosynthesis were significantly affected by alkalinity stress in both Cj and Pt (Fig. 5d). In calcareous soil, numerous genes in lignin biosynthesis were differentially expressed between Cj + LL and Pt + LL, and those key genes (such as CCR and 4CL) were all downregulated in Cj + LL (Table 1). In addition, the content of lignin in Cj + LL was much lower than that in Pt + LL (Fig. 6b). These results indicated that alkalinity stress has a significant influence on lignin biosynthesis in plants and can cause lignification of root tip cells. Denness et al.[26] has shown that lignin biosynthesis was regulated by an ROS- and JA-dependent process. JA and ROS have opposite effects on lignin deposition. JA functions as a repressor of lignin production, while ROS are required for lignin biosynthesis. Thus, in this study, alkalinity stress-induced lignin production may have occurred by inducing the generation of ROS. It is known that the ligneous cells of root tips will lose absorption and division functions. An excess of lignin production can lead to the loss of root absorption capacity[44]. Therefore, this difference may be an important factor in the greater tolerance of Cj than Pt to alkalinity stress.

    • The auxin pathway controls the development of LRs in various steps from priming to initiation, patterning, and emergence[6]. In our previous study[4], the expression of the genes in the auxin pathway was largely changed in both Cj and Pt under alkalinity stress, and the LR development of Cj and Pt was closely related to the content of IAA. In this study, the genes in which the auxin signal transduction pathway were enriched were also differentially expressed between the root tissue of Cj + LL and Pt + LL (Table 1). Under pH 9.5 conditions, treatment with exogenous JA and auxin analogs on Pt seedlings could significantly increase the number of LRs[4]. However, in this study, under conditions of pH 8.5, treatment of Cj seedlings with NAA had little effect on LR generation (Fig. 8). In our previous study[4], we found that the content of IAA largely decreased under pH 9.5 conditions in Cj but showed no change under pH 8.0 conditions in Cj; however, the content of IAA largely decreased in response to conditions of pH 8.0 in Pt. In addition, the content of IAA in the roots of Cj + LL was much higher than that in the roots of Pt + LL (Fig. 2b). Therefore, the endogenous IAA level, which is higher in Cj and has little change under nonextreme alkalinity stress, may be the reason that NAA treatment had little effect or a negative effect on Cj LR generation. On the other hand, the IAA content is largely decreased in Pt under alkalinity stress, and added exogenous auxin could promote LR generation[4]. Therefore, we think that exogenous auxin promoting LR generation in citrus under alkalinity stress may depend on the change in endogenous auxin content.

    • In this study, the DEGs enriched in the CK signaling pathway were all downregulated in the roots of Cj + LL or Cj (Table 1 & Fig. 5c). Previous studies have shown that plants negatively affected in CK signal transduction or perception have more LRs[71,72]. Laplaze et al.[73] reported that CKs inhibit LR formation by repressing several auxin efflux carriers of PIN proteins to reduce auxin accumulation in LR founder cells. Moreover, Moriwaki et al.[74] showed that CKs inhibit LR formation by upregulating the MIZ1 gene, a gene involved in hydrotropism, to reduce IAA accumulation in the root. In this study, CK signal transduction was downregulated in the roots of Cj + LL/Cj and may play a negative role in LR development in citrus under alkalinity stress by crosstalk with the auxin pathway.

      In this study, a number of H+-transporting ATPase genes were differentially expressed between Cj + LL and Pt + LL (Table 1) and were also differentially expressed between Cj and Pt under alkalinity stress (Fig. 5f). Moreover, the number of upregulated genes in Pt + LL or Pt was greater than that in Cj + LL or Cj. This result indicates that Pt may be able to release more protons from the roots than Cj releases. In addition, the expression of most H+-transporting ATPase genes was upregulated under extreme alkalinity stress (pH value 9.5) in both Cj and Pt (Fig. 5f), which indicated that the citrus rootstock could upregulate the expression of H+-transporting ATPase genes to release more protons to neutralize alkali in the rhizosphere and to enhance tolerance to alkalinity stress. Pt is able to release more protons from the roots than Cj, probably because Pt is more sensitive to alkalinity stress.

    • In this study, we comprehensively analyzed the transcriptomes, mineral elements, plant hormones and metabolites of Cj + LL and Pt + LL. The differential performance of Cj + LL and Pt + LL was associated with a number of metabolic pathways. Our data strongly indicate that jasmonate and its signal transduction pathway play crucial roles in tolerance to alkalinity stress in citrus. We propose that JA is involved in regulating LR formation, lignin biosynthesis and ROS scavenging. The differences in the contents of plant hormones (IAA, JA and ABA) and the expression of genes and their signaling pathways underlie the differential performance between Cj + LL and Pt + LL during alkalinity stress.

    • The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: manuscript writing, polishing and submission: Xu C, Wu J; data analysis: Xu C, Wu J; project conception and design: Wu J, Yi H; sample collection and experimentation: Cao J, Su M, Yan X, Yang H. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

    • All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

      • This research was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (32072541), National Modern Citrus Industry System (CARS-26), Collection, Utilization and Innovation of Germplasm Resources by Research Institutes and Enterprises of Chongqing (cqnyncw-kqlhtxm) and Hubei Province Technology Innovation Project (2023BEB025). We thank Wei Qin (a faculty of Agricultural Bureau of Changyang) and Changzao Li (the manager of Changyang orchard) for material collection.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • # These authors contributed equally: Chenyu Xu, Junying Cao

      • Supplemental Table S1 A summary of RNA-seq.
      • Supplemental Table S2 The primer sequences for quantitative real-time PCR.
      • Supplemental Table S3 The nutritive elements content and pH value of the soil in the Changyang orchard and the control orchard.
      • Supplemental Table S4 The tree vigor and yield of Pt+LL and Cj + LL.
      • Supplemental Table S5 The content of mineral elements in different tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL.Different lowercase represents statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Analysed using Student's t-test.
      • Supplemental Table S6 An integration of differentially expressed genes in the root, stem and leaf tissues between Cj + LL and Pt + LL.
      • Supplemental Table S7 The genes differentially expressed among three tissues between Cj + LL and Pt + LL.
      • Supplemental Table S8 The enriched Gene Ontology (GO) terms of the DEGs in the root, stem and leaf tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL.
      • Supplemental Table S9 The enriched KEGG pathways of the DEGs in the root, stem and leaf tissues of Cj + LL and Pt + LL.
      • Copyright: © 2024 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (7)  Table (2) References (74)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Xu C, Cao J, Su M, Yan X, Yi H, et al. 2024. Comprehensive analysis provides insights into Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb.) tolerance of alkalinity stress. Fruit Research 4: e001 doi: 10.48130/frures-0023-0037
    Xu C, Cao J, Su M, Yan X, Yi H, et al. 2024. Comprehensive analysis provides insights into Ziyang xiangcheng (Citrus junos Sieb.) tolerance of alkalinity stress. Fruit Research 4: e001 doi: 10.48130/frures-0023-0037

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return