Full Text

Turn on search term navigation

About the Authors:

Wei Zhang

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: National Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, National Center for Soybean Improvement, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop Production, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China

Xiliang Liao

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation

Yanmei Cui

Roles Investigation

Weiyu Ma

Roles Investigation

Xinnan Zhang

Roles Investigation

Hongyang Du

Roles Investigation

Yujie Ma

Roles Investigation

Lihua Ning

Roles Funding acquisition

Affiliation: Provincial Key Laboratory of Agrobiology, Institute of Agro-biotechnology, Jiangsu Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Nanjing, China

Hui Wang

Roles Funding acquisition

Fang Huang

Roles Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing

Hui Yang

Roles Visualization

Affiliations National Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, National Center for Soybean Improvement, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop Production, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China, School of Life Sciences, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China

Guizhen Kan

Roles Investigation, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] (GK); [email protected] (DY)

Deyue Yu

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] (GK); [email protected] (DY)

ORCID logo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7263-2750

Introduction

Soil salinity is a global ecological issue that has severely affected plant growth and development and decreased agricultural production. A high-salt environment causes various damages to crops, such as plant water loss, high osmotic stress, and homeostasis and ion imbalances in plant cells [1,2]. The cultivation of salinity-tolerant plants and improvements in their adaptability to saline-alkali soils are urgently needed. Understanding the mechanism of salt tolerance in plants is the most crucial basic knowledge needed for the breeding of salt-tolerant plants [3,4]. Soybean is a traditional edible leguminous crop that provides abundant protein, high-quality vegetable oils and a variety of physiologically active substances to human beings. In addition, soybean is a moderately salt-tolerant crop, and the yield of soybean is significantly reduced if the soil salinity exceeds 5 dS/m [5].

Plant salt tolerance is a complex quantitative trait that is affected by numerous genetic and nongenetic factors [6,7]. In recent years, both forward and reverse genetic approaches have been applied to reveal the functions of key salinity response genes in soybean. Biparental quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been used as effective and precise tools to detect QTLs associated with salt tolerance, and a number of QTLs for salt tolerance have been detected in previous studies [8–14]. For example, a major QTL was detected and mapped near the single sequence repeat (SSR) marker Sat_091 on chromosome 3, and this QTL explained 41% and 60% of the total phenotypic variation observed under greenhouse and field conditions, respectively, in an F2:5 population derived from a cross of the cultivars S-100 (salt-tolerant line) and Tokyo (salt-sensitive line) [11]. Other researchers recently confirmed this QTL in a different mapping population [8,9,13–15], and a gene at this major locus, Glyma03g32900, was identified and cloned [10,15–18].

Although the major QTLs related to salt tolerance on chromosome 3 were consistently mapped in several studies, some reports indicated that additional QTLs/genes contribute to salt tolerance in the soybean genome. For example, a previous study showed that 45 SNPs mapped on chromosomes 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 20, including 31 SNPs on chromosome 3 mapped at or near the previously reported major salt tolerance QTL, are significantly associated with salt tolerance [19]. Through both field and greenhouse experiments, other researchers identified a major salt tolerance-related QTL on chromosome 18 in F7:11 recombinant inbred lines (RILs; 184) [20]. Our previous study found that eight SNPs and 13 suggestive SNPs are associated with salt tolerance indices and verified that five candidate genes located on chromosomes 8, 9 and 19 are associated with the response to salt stress at the soybean germination stage by association mapping [21]. A novel QTL associated with the leaf sodium content (LSC), which showed a high logarithm of odds (LOD) value (4.56) and R2 (11.5%), was identified on chromosome 13 using the soybean physical map of 132 F2 plants [13].

The above studies largely focused on salt tolerance at the soybean seedling stage but rarely investigated salt tolerance at the germination stage. However, seed germination is critical for ensuring new seedlings and enhancing yield during the plant growth cycle. It has been suggested that soybean germplasms have different degrees and mechanisms of salt tolerance at different developmental stages [5]. Although QTLs for salt stress at the germination stage have been identified by linkage mapping [22,23] and association analysis [21,24], there is little information regarding the genetic mechanisms of salt tolerance at the germination stage. Understanding the genetic mechanism of salt tolerance at the seed germination stage is very important for improving the salt tolerance of soybean. In this study, linkage mapping and genome-wide association study were performed to dissect the genetic architecture of salt tolerance at the soybean seed germination stage, and a major QTL, qST-8, was found to be significantly associated with salt tolerance. Furthermore, an investigation combining whole-genome sequence, bioinformatics, and gene expression analyses as well as plant transformation demonstrated that a cation diffusion facilitator (CDF), GmCDF1, negatively regulates salt tolerance through Na+-K+ homeostasis in soybean. Additionally, haplotype and candidate-gene association analyses in 31 natural soybean varieties confirmed that GmCDF1 plays a negative regulatory role in salt tolerance.

Results

Phenotypic variation and correlation analysis

The means, standard deviations and ranges of four germination-related traits—imbibition rate (IR), germination index (GI), germination potential (GP) and germination rate (GR)—and four salt tolerance indices—the ratio of the imbibition rate under salt conditions to the imbibition rate under no-salt conditions (ST-IR), the ratio of the germination index under salt conditions to the germination index under no-salt conditions (ST-GI), the ratio of the germination potential under salt conditions to the germination potential under no-salt conditions (ST-GP) and the ratio of the germination rate under salt conditions to the germination rate under no-salt conditions (ST-GR) of RILs and natural populations—are presented (S1 Table). The mean values of the four germination-related traits obtained in the presence of 150 mM NaCl were lower than found under normal conditions, which indicated that salt stress depressed the growth and development of soybean at the germination stage. Moreover, the level of salt tolerance-related traits, with the exception of ST-IR, varied widely in both the RILs and natural populations. The mean ST-IR, ST-GI, ST-GP and ST-GR varied from 0.85 to 0.99, from 0.25 to 1.02, from 0.20 to 0.88 and from 0.41 to 1.00, respectively, in the RILs population and from 0.86 to 0.97, from 0.21 to 0.88, from 0.00 to 0.92 and from 0.24 to 1.09, respectively, in the natural population. Two parents of the RILs population, Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2, showed different tolerances to salt stress (S1 Table). The ST-GR and ST-GI of Kefeng No.1 were higher than those of Nannong 1138–2, indicating that Nannong 1138–2 was more sensitive to salt stress than Kefeng No.1 at the germination stage. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the genotype, environment and the genotype-by-environment interaction significantly influenced the four salt tolerance indices (P<0.001) in the two populations (S1 Table). In addition, significant (P<0.001) genetic variations were found for the four germination-related traits and the salt tolerance indices in the two populations across four and three environments, respectively. Moreover, the phenotypic frequencies of ST-IR, ST-GI, ST-GP and ST-GR in the two populations approximately fit a normal continuous distribution, indicating that these four salt tolerance indices are quantitative traits controlled by multiple factors (S1 Fig).

Pearson’s correlations among the four salt tolerance indices were analyzed based on the means of two populations (S2 Table). For the two populations, ST-IR was significantly negatively correlated with ST-G, ST-GP and ST-GR (P<0.01), whereas ST-GI was significantly positively correlated with ST-GP and ST-GR, and ST-GP was strongly positively correlated with ST-GR (P<0.01).

QTLs for salt tolerance at the germination stage

Four salt tolerance indices of the RILs population in four different environments were used for QTL mapping. A total of 25 QTLs associated with four salt tolerance indices during the soybean germination stage were detected on chromosomes 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17 and 18, with LOD values ranging from 2.50 to 17.06 (Table 1). Three of the five QTLs for ST-IR, two of the four QTLs for ST-GI, three of the nine QTLs for ST-GP and two of the seven QTLs for ST-GR were significantly associated with salt tolerance and located on chromosome 8. With the exception of qSTGP-8-2, other QTLs related to salt tolerance and located on chromosome 8 (named qST-8) that showed largely overlapping confidence intervals (CIs) were considered the same QTL. This QTL closely linked with the marker Sat_162 was detected mostly for the four salt tolerance indices in E1, E2, E3, and E4, contained the physical genetic region between the markers BE820148 and AW132402 (Fig 1A) and explained 6.25%–46.82% of the phenotypic variation. The marker BE820148 was detected for ST-GR once in E1 with significant LOD (8.85) and R2 (12.84%) values close to the marker Sat_162. This result suggested that the candidate gene might be located within the region between markers BE820148 and Sat_162 or closer to marker Sat_162.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Identification of GmCDF1 through an analysis combining linkage mapping, GWAS and resequencing.

(A) qST-8 (QTL related to salt tolerance on chromosome 8) was identified in the samples of 184 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) collected from all four years and mapped to the interval between the markers BE82014 and AW132402 by linkage mapping. (B) This QTL was further narrowed down to a physical region of 560 kb between the SNPs AX-94047897 and AX-93634504 on chromosome 8 by GWAS. (C) Resequencing was performed to detect the different genes located within the region identified in (B) between the two parents of the RILs population, Kefeng No. 1 and Nannong 1138–2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.g001

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. QTLs for salt tolerance-related traits based on the mean traits of three replications in 184 recombinant inbred lines.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.t001

GWAS for salt tolerance-related traits in a natural population

A GWAS was conducted to detect SNPs associated with salt tolerance across three environments with 207,608 SNPs [minor allele frequency (MAF)>0.05] obtained from the NJAU 355K SoySNP array [25], and the Manhattan and quantile-quantile plots for the GWAS results are shown in Fig 2 and S2 Fig. The 18 SNPs significantly (with a significance threshold of -log10(P)≥5.32) associated with salt tolerance indices are listed in Table 2. In addition, 74 SNPs with suggestive thresholds (4.5≤-log10(P)<5.32) were also identified in the GWAS (S3 Table). These SNPs are located on chromosomes 1, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19, indicating that the salt tolerance of soybean at the germination stage is controlled by multiple genes. Moreover, we found that 17 out of 18 significant SNPs and 48 out of 74 suggestive SNPs were located on chromosome 8, forming a cluster flanked by the SNP markers AX-93912074 and AX-93634504 (-log10(P)≥5.32) with a physical position of 7716458–8268861 bp. Interestingly, this cluster was located in qST-8, which was identified by the previous linkage mapping in four environments (Fig 1B), indicating that this cluster is critical for salt tolerance at the germination stage of soybean and that a candidate gene for salt tolerance can likely be identified.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Manhattan plots for the GWAS results of the ST-IR, ST-GI, ST-GP, and ST-GR in three environments (E1, E2, and E3).

The three rows from the top to the bottom show the Manhattan plots for the GWAS results of the four salt tolerance indices in E1, E2 and E3, respectively. The red line indicates the significance threshold (-log10(P) = 5.32), and the blue line indicates the suggestive threshold (-log10(P) = 4.5). The abscissa axis presents the chromosomes of soybean from 1 to 20 in blue or orange.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.g002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Details of SNPs significantly associated with salt tolerance indices of soybean (with a significance threshold of -log10(P)≥5.32).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.t002

A candidate gene for salt tolerance was identified by whole-genome sequencing and expression analysis

According to gene annotation on Phytozome 12 (https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov/pz/portal.html), 70 gene models are located within the above-described cluster. For fine mapping, we performed whole-genome sequencing on Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2, which are the parents of the RILs population used in this study, and the SNP density distribution within the soybean genome is shown in S2 Fig. We compared the whole genome of Kefeng No.1 to that of Nannong 1138–2 and found that 273 SNPs were located on chromosome 8 between the SNP markers AX-93912074 and AX-93634504. Among these SNPs, 42 nonsynonymous SNPs were located in the exons of 21 genes, and 15 SNPs were located in the 2.0-kb promoter regions of 11 genes, including three identical genes (S4 Table). We performed a quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis to investigate whether the expression of these 29 genes (S4 Table) in Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2 was affected by salt stress. The results demonstrated that the expression of six genes (Glyma.08g101300, 102200, 103000, 106100, 106200 and 106400) was too low to be detected, whereas that of 16 genes did not change significantly in response to salt stress (S3 Fig), and that of seven genes could be induced by salt stress (S4 Fig) at the soybean germination stage. Among these seven genes, six were induced by salt stress in both Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2, and only Glyma.08g102000 was dramatically upregulated in Nannong 1138–2 but not in Kefeng No.1 under salt stress. In fact, the expression level of Glyma.08g102000 in Nannong 1138–2 was nearly 30-fold higher than that in Kefeng No.1 after treatment with 150 mM NaCl, whereas only a 1-3-fold change was found for the other six genes. Thus, Glyma.08g102000, which is located within the QTL qST-8 detected in our study, might be a candidate gene involved in the regulation of salt tolerance in soybean.

Glyma.08g102000 encodes a CDF and shows differential expression in tolerant and susceptible soybeans under salt stress

Glyma.08g102000 encodes an 817-amino-acid protein, has a length of 2457 bp and is a member of the CDF family (named GmCDF1). A phylogenetic analysis indicated a close relationship between Glyma.08g102000 and AtMTP12 (S6A Fig). The TMHMM program (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/TMHMM/) predicted that GmCDF1 possesses 14 transmembrane domains (TMs) with cytosolic N and C termini, similarly to AtMTP12 (S6B Fig). A previous report showed that AtMTP12 forms a functional complex with AtMTP5t1 to transport Zn into the Golgi and thereby increases tolerance to Zn stress in Arabidopsis [26]. However, another study found that in rice, Os08g32650 and Os01g03914, two homologous genes of GmCDF1, are responsive to salt stress, and the expression levels of these two genes are lower in two salt-tolerant mutant lines of rice than in sensitive wild-type plants under salt stress [27]. These results suggest that GmCDF1 might encode a cation diffusion facilitator and respond to salt stress.

We performed a qRT-PCR analysis to explore the expression pattern of GmCDF1 in six representative soybean accessions, including three salt-tolerant accessions (Kefeng No.1, NJAU_C051 and NJAU_C204) and three salt-sensitive accessions (Nannong 1138–2, NJAU_C071 and NJAU_C136), at the germination stage under normal and salt stress conditions (Fig 3A and 3B). As shown in Fig 3C, the expression of GmCDF1 in Kefeng No.1 was not significantly enhanced after exposure to salt stress. In contrast, the expression of GmCDF1 in NJAU_C051 and NJAU_C204, the other two salt-tolerant soybean accessions, was upregulated from 48 h and reached a peak value at 72 h. In Nannong 1138–2 and NJAU_C136, the expression of GmCDF1 was upregulated after NaCl treatment for 24 h and reached a peak value at 48 h, and in NJAU_C071, GmCDF1 was upregulated after NaCl treatment for 24 h and reached a peak value at 72 h. Interestingly, higher fold-changes in the expression of GmCDF1 after treatment with salt for 48 and 96 h were observed in the salt-sensitive accessions than in the salt-tolerant accessions (Fig 3C).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 3. Germination of six soybean cultivars and expression of GmCDF1 under normal or salt stress conditions.

(A) The salt-tolerant soybean cultivars (Kefeng No.1, NJAU_C051 and NJAU_C204) performed better than the salt-sensitive cultivars (Nannong 1138–2, NJAU_C071 and NJAU_C136) under salt stress. (B) The ST-GR values of the salt-sensitive soybean cultivars (Nannong 1138–2, NJAU_C071 and NJAU_C136) were lower than those of the salt-tolerant cultivars (Kefeng No.1, NJAU_C051 and NJAU_C204). Different letters at the top of each column indicate significant differences, as determined by ANOVA (p < 0.05). The data are presented as the means±SEs. (C) Expression analysis of GmCDF1 in soybean cultivars (Kefeng No. 1, NJAU_C051, NJAU_C204, Nannong 1138–2, NJAU_C071 and NJAU_C136) after treatment with 150 mM NaCl for 24 h, 48 h, 72 h and 96 h at the germination stage. The data are presented as the means±SEs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.g003

To further confirm the candidate gene, we investigated the expression patterns of GmCDF1 in different soybean tissues, and our results showed that GmCDF1 was expressed constitutively in most soybean tissues. The highest level of GmCDF1 transcript was detected in flowers, seeds and roots, whereas GmCDF1 was weakly expressed in leaves, pods and stems (S7 Fig). The high expression level found in roots suggests that the function of GmCDF1 could be investigated using the soybean hairy root transformation system [28].

Overexpression of GmCDF1 depresses salt tolerance in soybeans

To investigate the role of GmCDF1 under salt stress, two constructs (pMDC83-GmCDF1 and pBI-GmCDF1) were generated for overexpression (GmCDF1-OE) and RNA interference (GmCDF1-RNAi) analyses, respectively. Transgenic soybean hairy roots were produced using to the Agrobacterium rhizogenes-mediated hairy root transformation system [28]. The average expression level of GmCDF1 in GmCDF1-OE hairy roots was 31.8-fold higher than that in the wild-type strain K599-generated (harboring the empty vector pMDC83) control hairy roots (Control 1), whereas the expression level of GmCDF1 in the GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots was 53% lower compared with that in the control hairy roots (Control 2) generated by strain K599 [harboring the empty vector pB7GWIWG2(II)] (S8A and S8B Fig).

In the presence of 0 mM NaCl, no apparent difference was found between the transgenic hairy roots and their controls, indicating that the overexpression or silencing of GmCDF1 had little impact on the growth of soybean hairy roots under normal conditions (Fig 4A). However, after exposure to 75 mM NaCl for four days, obvious differences were observed between the transgenic plants and their controls. The GmCDF1-OE plants exhibited more sensitivity to salt stress than the Control 1 plants (Fig 4A). The average fresh weight of the Control 1 hairy roots and shoots was significantly heavier than that of the GmCDF1-OE hairy roots (Fig 4B and 4C). The GmCDF1-OE plants exhibited unhealthier leaves with lower average chlorophyll contents (soil plant analysis development, SPAD) than the Control 1 plants (Fig 4D). Moreover, the expression of GmCDF1 was higher in the GmCDF1-OE hairy roots than in the Control 1 roots after treatment with NaCl for four days (S8A Fig).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 4. Performance of GmCDF1 transgenic hairy roots under salt stress.

(A) Growth of transgenic hairy roots and non-transgenic shoots treated with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for four days. More than 60 samples were analyzed, and three typical lines were selected. GmCDF1-OE: soybean hairy roots overexpressing GmCDF1 Control 1: soybean hairy roots with the empty vector pMDC83; GmCDF1-RNAi: soybean hairy roots in which GmCDF1 is silenced; Control 2: soybean hairy roots with the empty vector pB7GWIWG2(II). (B) Fresh weight of GmCDF1-OE and Control 1 hairy roots, (C) fresh weight of GmCDF1-OE and Control 1 shoots, and (D) SPAD values of their non-transgenic leaves treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥5). (E) Fresh weight of GmCDF1-RNAi and Control 2 hairy roots, (F) fresh weight of GmCDF1-RNAi and Control 2 shoots and (G) SPAD values of their non-transgenic leaves treatedwith 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥5). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (**P<0.01, ***P<0.001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.g004

Both the fresh weight of the hairy roots and shoots and the average SPAD value of the leaves of the GmCDF1-RNAi plants were higher than those of the Control 2 plants after treatment with 75 mM NaCl for four days (Fig 4E–4G). Under salt stress, the expression of GmCDF1 was substantially suppressed in the GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots compared with that in the Control 2 plants (S8B Fig). These overexpression and silencing experimental results suggest that GmCDF1 negatively regulates salt tolerance in soybean.

GmCDF1 participates in maintaining ion homeostasis of Na+ and K+

Excessive accumulation of salt usually leads to ion toxicity, which disrupts the metabolism of plants under salt stress. To assess the potential differences in the ion contents between the transgenic hairy roots and their corresponding control hairy roots, the ion contents of Na+ and K+ were determined by ICP-OES in this study. The results showed that in the absence of salt stress, the transgenic hairy roots showed little variation in the average Na+ and K+ contents compared with the corresponding control hairy roots, and the non-transgenic shoots exhibited similar results (Fig 5A–5D). However, after treatment with 75 mM NaCl for four days, the average Na+ contents in the GmCDF1-OE hairy roots and non-transgenic shoots were significantly higher than those found in the Control 1 hairy roots and shoots (Fig 5A), whereas the GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots and non-transgenic shoots accumulated less Na+ than the Control 2 hairy roots and shoots (Fig 5C). Moreover, the GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots accumulated less K+ than the Control 1 roots under salt stress (Fig 5B), whereas the GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots accumulated more K+ than the Control 2 roots (Fig 5D).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 5. Distribution of Na+ and K+ in soybean hairy roots and shoots under salt stress.

(A) Na+ contents of GmCDF1-OE hairy roots and their non–transgenic shoots compared with those of Control 1 plants after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥5). (B) K+ contents of GmCDF1-OE hairy roots and their non–transgenic shoots compared with those of Control 1 plants after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥5). (C) Na+ contents of GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots and their non–transgenic shoots compared with those of Control 2 plants after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥5). (D) K+ contents of GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots and their non–transgenic shoots compared with those of Control 2 plants after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥5). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (*P<0.05, **P<0.01).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.g005

Expression of two salt tolerance-related genes is affected significantly by GmCDF1 in transgenic hairy roots

To further investigate the role of GmCDF1 in salt stress adaptation in soybean, we analyzed the expression levels of salt stress-related genes with or without NaCl treatment. The relative expression of GmSOS1 in the GmCDF1-OE hairy roots was significantly lower than that in the Control 1 hairy roots, under both normal and salt stress conditions. Similar to GmSOS1, the expression of GmNHX1 in the GmCDF1-OE hairy roots was significantly lower than that in the Control 1 hairy roots under both normal and salt stress conditions (Fig 6B). In contrast, higher transcript levels of GmSOS1 and GmNHX1 were found in the GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots compared with their control hairy roots, regardless of the presence of salt stress (Fig 6C and 6D). These results suggest that the overexpression or silencing of GmCDF1 might affect the expression of GmSOS1 and GmNHX1 in soybean.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 6. Relative expression levels of GmSOS1 and GmNHX1 in soybean hairy roots.

(A) Relative expression levels of GmSOS1 in Control 1 and GmCDF1-OE hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (B) Relative expression levels of GmNHX1 in Control 1 and GmCDF1-OE hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The values are the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (C) Relative expression levels of GmSOS1 in Control 2 and GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (D) Relative expression levels of GmNHX1 in Control 2 and GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (*P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.g006

Polymorphisms of GmCDF1 are associated with salt tolerance in soybean

Because the expression level of GmCDF1 in Nannong 1138–2 was nearly 30-fold higher than that in Kefeng No.1 after treatment with 150 mM NaCl for 48 h, differences might exist between the promoter regions of GmCDF1 in Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2. Thus, the 2.0-kb promoter regions of GmCDF1 upstream of the start codon were cloned and sequenced, and the results showed that the promoter of GmCDF1 in Kefeng No.1 was 747 bp shorter than that in Nannong 1138–2. In fact, seven deletions were identified in the promoter region of GmCDF1 in Kefeng No.1, and these were located at -130 bp, -315~-319 bp, -736~-962 bp, -968~-985 bp, -994~-1318 bp, -1311~-1463 bp and -1469~-1686 bp (upstream of the start codon). These deletions in the promoter regions of GmCDF1 might be the reason for the dramatic upregulation of GmCDF1 in Nannong 1138–2 but not in Kefeng No.1 under salt stress.

We also sequenced the GmCDF1 gene, an approximately 4.6-kb genomic region including the 2.0-kb promoter region of GmCDF1 upstream of the start codon and the 2.6-kb region of GmCDF1 from the 5'-UTR to 3'-UTR, in a subset of 31 soybean accessions representing varieties with high salt tolerance, moderate salt tolerance and low salt tolerance. The sequencing analysis identified 11 indels and 15 SNPs (MAF>0.05) (S5 Table) that were retained for the subsequent association analysis. After sequencing, five of the 15 SNPs and three of the 11 indels were identified as nonsynonymous mutations, and the remaining 10 SNPs and eight indels were found to be synonymous mutations (S5 Table). Furthermore, these 11 indels and 15 SNPs exhibited strong linkage disequilibrium (LD) and could form three LD blocks, as demonstrated by a LD analysis (Fig 7A). Furthermore, a GmCDF1-based association analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between the allelic variation of GmCDF1 and salt tolerance. The results showed that only two SNPs, S-671 (located 671 bp upstream of the start codon) and S605 (located 605 bp downstream of the start codon), were significantly associated with ST-GR (Fig 7A), contributing to 20.17% and 32.50% of the phenotypic variations for ST-GR in the representative subset, respectively. The sequencing of GmCDF1 revealed that S-671 and S605 are located in the promoter region and exon of GmCDF1, respectively.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 7. Natural variations in GmCDF1 are significantly associated with salt tolerance indices in 31 soybean accessions.

(A) GmCDF1-based association mapping and pairwise LD analysis (bottom) for GmCDF1. The red solid line represents the significance threshold (−log10(P) = 1.32). The blue dots above the red solid line represent significant variants for ST-GR (P < 0.05), and these are connected to the pairwise LD diagram with a black dashed horizontal line. The inverted triangle is the linkage disequilibrium (LD) plot between the GmCDF1 SNPs. The physical position of each SNP is shown above the plot. The magnitude of LD indexed by the D’ statistic is shown. (B) Haplotypes of GmCDF1 in a subset of 31 soybean accessions. An approximately 4.6-kb genomic region, including the 2.0-kb promoter region of GmCDF1 upstream of the start codon and the 2.6-kb region of GmCDF1 from the 5'-UTR to the 3'-UTR, was used for the haplotype analysis. The haplotypes are displayed as a linear combination of alleles, and ten haplotypes were identified. The major alleles on each polymorphic site are highlighted in black. (C) Comparison of the ST-GR between haplotypes Hap1 and Hap2. n denotes the genotype number of the two haplotypes. Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (D) Comparison of the relative expression of GmCDF1 between haplotypes Hap1 and Hap2. n denotes the genotype number of the two haplotypes. Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.g007

Based on these 11 indels and 15 SNPs, the 31 soybean genotypes were classified into ten haplotypes (Hap1-Hap10) (Fig 7B). Haplotype 1 (Hap1, n = 12) formed the largest group, Hap2 (n = 8) was the second largest group, and the other eight haplotype classes constituted minor groups, each comprising one or two soybean accessions (Fig 7A). The soybeans carrying Hap1 had significantly smaller ST-GR values than those carrying Hap2 (p = 8.4×10−4) (Fig 7C), which indicated that Hap1 was more sensitive to salt stress than Hap2. With the comparison of these two haplotypes, only two different SNPs, S-671 and S605, which are located in the promoter region and exon of GmCDF1, respectively (Fig 7B). However, S605 did not result in an amino acid change. As it is known, the promoter always plays a central role in transcriptional regulation, and the relative expressions of GmCDF1 were detected in seeds from these 31 soybean accessions treated or not treated with 150 mM NaCl for 48 h. Association mapping was performed using the relative expressions of GmCDF1, and 15 polymorphic sites were significantly associated with the relative expressions of GmCDF1 in these 31 soybean accessions (S7 Table). Except S605, S-671 was the most significant polymorphic sites explaining 21.16% of the phenotypic variation among these polymorphic sites. Moreover, the soybean accessions carrying Hap1 showed higher GmCDF1 expression than those carrying Hap2 (Fig 7D). These results suggested that S-671, might be the SNP responsible for the difference in relative expressions of GmCDF1, leading to different salt tolerance in soybean eventually. Additionally, it was found that the expression of GmCDF1 was negatively correlated with ST-GR in these 31 soybean accessions (r = -0.56, P < 0.01). All these results suggested that the expression of GmCDF1 can partially explain the phenotypic variation in soybean salt tolerance.

Discussion

Land and water productivities are seriously affected by salt stress, which obviously reduces the food production of major crops, such as rice, wheat and soybean [17,29,30]. Knowledge of the salt tolerance mechanisms in plants is an effective strategy to enhance crop tolerance to salt stress. Whole-genome sequencing was recently shown to be a useful approach for dissecting the genetic architecture of salt tolerance in soybean [15,16]. Here, whole-genome sequencing was employed to refine the QTL for salt tolerance in soybean detected in an analysis combining linkage mapping and GWAS. A series of experiments were then performed to confirm that GmCDF1 is a negative factor for soybean salt tolerance.

GmCDF1 negatively regulates salt tolerance in soybean and is different from its homologs in adaptation to metal stress in plants

Genes encoding members of the CDF family have been cloned from bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals [31–35] and play critical roles in cation accumulation, cation tolerance, signal transduction cascades and oxidative stress resistance [36–39]. In addition, plant CDF transporters usually play an important role in metal homeostasis and tolerance [40]. AtMTP1 overexpression enhances zinc resistance and accumulation in Arabidopsis [41], and AtMTP3 and AtMTP11 enhances zinc tolerance and manganese tolerance, respectively [42,43]. In rice, OsMTP8.1 and OsMTP11 are involved in the uptake and translocation of manganese [38,44]. Two Beta vulgaris MTP members, BmMTP10 and BmMTP11, and a cucumber CsMTP8 have also been identified as manganese transporters that confer increased tolerance to manganese [45,46]. Obviously, these above-mentioned studies of CDF/MTP proteins mainly focused on metal tolerance, such as Zn or Mn tolerance, in plants. In contrast to CDF proteins that are known to improve resistance to metal stress in plants, GmCDF1 overexpression led to sensitivity to salt stress, whereas the silencing of GmCDF1 enhanced tolerance to salt stress in soybean. As shown in the present study, GmCDF1 negatively contributes to the salt adaptation of soybean. To the best of our knowledge, this study provides the first demonstration that GmCDF1 is negatively associated with salt tolerance in soybean. Notably, the results showed a slight increase in the Zn2+ concentration of the GmCDF1-OE transgenic soybean hairy roots and a significant reduction in the Zn2+ concentration of GmCDF1-RNAi transgenic soybean hairy roots compared with their control roots under normal conditions (S9A and S9D Fig), indicating that GmCDF1 might be involved in Zn2+ transport in soybean. In addition, Mn is not involved in GmCDF1-regulated salt tolerance because no significant differences in the Mn concentration were found between the transgenic soybean hairy root and non-transgenic soybean hairy roots under either normal or salt stress conditions (S9B and S9E Fig).

GmCDF1 regulates salt tolerance through ion homeostasis

The maintenance of ion homeostasis is an important salt tolerance mechanism in soybean. In fact, maintaining an adequate K+ concentration and a high K+/Na+ ratio has been shown to be necessary for plant survival and growth under salt stress [47]. The salt overly sensitive (SOS) signaling pathway has been well characterized for salt tolerance, and AtSOS1 is indispensable for driving Na+ efflux from xylem parenchyma cells to root xylem under salt stress to maintain a relatively low Na+ concentration [48]. The overexpression of GmSOS1 in A. thaliana reduces Na+ accumulation in both the roots and shoots and enhanced tolerance to salt stress at the seed germination and seedling stages [49]. In addition, it has been reported that A. thaliana Na+/H+ exchanger 1 (AtNHX1) is a Na+, K+/H+ antiporter in Arabidopsis [50,51]. In tomato, the overexpression of AtNHX1 induces the accumulation of K+ in vacuoles as well as the transport of K+ from roots to shoots [52,53]. Moreover, the overexpression of GmNHX1 in Lotus corniculatus results in lower Na+ and K+ contents, a higher K+/Na+ ratio, and a higher salt tolerance compared with those of wild-type plants under salt stress [54]. The above-mentioned genes are all positively associated with salt tolerance in plants. However, we found a novel gene, GmCDF1, that negatively regulated salt tolerance through Na+-K+ homeostasis in soybean. The overexpression of GmCDF1 enhanced Na+ absorption and depressed the accumulation of K+ under salt stress, which led to a higher Na+ content and lower K+ content in soybean hairy roots compared with those found in the Control 1 roots (Fig 4A and 4B), and the opposite results were obtained with the silencing of GmCDF1 in soybean hairy roots (Fig 4C and 4D). These results suggest that GmCDF1 might facilitate the accumulation of Na+ and depress the absorption of K+, ultimately increasing the ionic toxicity caused by salt stress.

Crosstalk between GmCDF1 and two salt tolerance-related genes, GmSOS1 and GmNHX1

Soybean salt tolerance is a complex quantitative trait affected by numerous genetic and non-genetic factors. GmSOS1 and GmNHX1 indirectly contribute to soybean tolerance to salt stress [49,54]. Moreover, the silencing of SlSOS1 in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) results in hypersensitivity to salt stress [55], and the nhx1 mutation reduces the establishment of A. thaliana seedlings compared with the wild-type protein under salt stress, indicating that salt tolerance is depressed if SOS1 or NHX1 expression is reduced in plants. However, a qRT-PCR analysis of for ion homeostasis-associated genes in transgenic hairy roots showed a negative correlation between the expression of GmCDF1 and two genes, GmSOS1 and GmNHX1. GmSOS1 and GmNHX1 exhibited lower expression in the Control 1 roots than these in the GmCDF1-OE hairy roots under salt stress, respectively (Fig 6A and 6B). In contrast, the expression levels of GmSOS1 and GmNHX1 were 1.8-fold and 2.0-fold higher, respectively, in the GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots than in the Control 2 hairy roots under salt stress (Fig 6C and 6D). These results suggest that the existence of crosstalk between GmCDF1 and two salt tolerance-related genes, GmSOS1 and GmNHX1, and the gene expression data indicate that GmCDF1 negatively regulates salt tolerance in soybean. In addition to GmSOS1 and GmNHX1, other salt tolerance-related genes, such as GmSALT3, GmHKT1;4 and GmNcl, were detected in soybean hairy roots under normal and salt conditions, and no significant differences were detected in the expression of these three genes in the GmCDF1-OE hairy roots or in the GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots when exposed to salt stress (S10 Fig). Thus, these three genes might not be affected by GmCDF1.

In addition, published experimental evidence proves the importance of Ca2+ for salt adaptation [56,57]. In this study, the Ca2+ concentration in transgenic soybean hairy roots and non-transgenic shoots was not significantly changed compared with that of the control plants under either normal or salt stress conditions (S9C and S9D Fig), indicating that GmCDF1 might not affect the transportation of Ca2+ in soybean. However, the mechanism through which GmCDF1 regulates the Na+-K+ balance directly remains to be elucidated in future studies. In recent years, CRISPR/Cas9 technology has been widely used to introduce targeted mutations for studying gene function in plants [58–60], and this powerful tool will be used to explore this gene in our future study.

Materials and methods

Plant materials and salt tolerance evaluation

The linkage mapping population consisting of 184 RILs (designated as NJRIKY) was derived from a cross between Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2 and was developed by single-seed descent at the National Center for Soybean Improvement of China [61,62]. A natural population including 211 cultivated soybean accessions was used for the GWAS (S1 Table). Seeds of the RILs population were collected from four environments: the Jiangpu Experimental Station of the Nanjing Agricultural University (32.12° N 118.37° E), Nanjing, China, in 2012 (E1), 2013 (E2) and 2014 (E3) and the Experimental Farm of the Jiangsu Yanjiang Institute of Agricultural Sciences (31.58° N 120.53° E), Nantong, China, in 2015 (E4). The seeds used for the GWAS were obtained from the following three environments: the Jiangpu Experimental Station of Nanjing Agricultural University (32.12°N 118.37°E) in Nanjing, China, in 2012 and 2013 (E1 and E2, respectively) and the Experimental Farm of the Jiangsu Yanjiang Institute of Agricultural Sciences (31.58°N 120.53°E) in Nantong, China, in 2015 (E4).

Prior to germination, the seeds were sterilized with a chlorine gas atmosphere to minimize the danger of microbial contamination and infection. Forty uniform healthy weighed seeds were then placed on two sheets of filter paper (in sterilized Petri dishes) and treated with 15 mL of water or 150 mM NaCl. The seeds were incubated in a growth chamber at 25±1°C in the dark for 6 days. Twenty-four hours later, the imbibed seeds were weighed to calculate the seed IR. Subsequently, the seeds were placed into new dishes with filter paper, and 5 mL of NaCl solution (0 or 150 mM) was added. After the seeds were rinsed, the number of germinated seeds was counted to calculate the GI, germination potential and GR every day for the next 5 days. Soybean seeds were considered to be germinated when the radicle and plumule length of the soybean seed were greater than the seed length. Three replications were conducted in this study.

The evaluated germination traits included IR [IR (%) = (W2–W1)/W1×100%, where W1 represents the dry seed weight before imbibition and W2 represents the seed weight after imbibition for 24 h], GI [GI = Σ(Gt/Dt), where Gt is the accumulated number of germinated seeds on day t and Dt indicates the time corresponding to Gt in days], GP [GP(%) = N3/N*100, where N3 indicates the number of germinated seeds on day 3 and N represents the total number of experimental seeds], and GR [GR (%) = Nt/N*100%, where Nt indicates the number of germinated seeds on day t and N represents the total number of experimental seeds]. The ST was defined as the ratio of the germination-related traits (IR, GI, GR and GP) under salt conditions to the same traits under salt-free conditions [21].

Phenotypic data analysis

The mean values of all phenotypic data obtained for the RILs population in the four environments and for the natural population in the three environments were utilized for descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. ANOVAs for all traits were performed using SAS 9.0 software (SAS Institute 1999), and Pearson’s correlations between traits were assessed using SPSS 20 software (SPSS Statistics 20). The frequency histograms of the four salt tolerance indices were generated with Origin 8.0 software.

QTL mapping for salt tolerance

A genetic linkage map was constructed from the 184 F7:11 lines of RILs using 221 SSR markers, three EST-SSRs and one R gene (resistance to soybean mosaic virus) [61]. The constructed linkage map covered 2,625.9 cM of the soybean genome with an average distance of 11.8 cM between markers. Composite interval mapping (CIM) was employed for QTL mapping with WinQTLCart version 2.5_011 (http://statgen.ncsu.edu/qtlcart/). The control marker number and window size were set to 5 and 10 cM, respectively. The forward and backward regression method was selected, and empirical thresholds were computed using permutation test analyses (1000 permutations, overall error level of 5%) [63]. The QTLs considered to be significant were those with LOD peaks that exceeded the genome-wide threshold of 2.5 [64]. Confidence intervals were defined as the map interval corresponding to a 1-LOD decline on either side of the LOD peak.

GWAS for salt tolerance

We employed 207,608 SNPs with MAF>5% acquired from the NJAU 355 K SoySNP array to genotype the 211 soybean accessions used in the GWAS performed in this study [25]. The LD decay rate, defined as the chromosomal distance where the LD decays to half of its maximum value, was 130 kb in the 211 cultivated soybeans [25].

The mean values of all phenotypic data from E1, E2, and E3 were used for the GWAS. The GWAS was conducted with an R package called Genome Association and Prediction Integrated Tool (GAPIT) [65] using a compressed mixed linear model (CMLM) and controlling for relatedness and population structure [66]. The threshold for a significant association was set to 1/n (n is the number of markers, P≤4.82×10−6 or -log10(P)≥5.32) [67]. In addition, SNPs within the threshold of 4.5≤-log10(P)<5.32 were defined as suggestive SNPs [64].

Whole-genome sequencing of two parents and filtering of candidate genes

Whole-genome sequencing was performed on the two parents of the 184 RILs population, Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2, using the Illumina HiSeq 4000 sequencing platform. The genome of the cultivated soybean Williams 82 was used as a reference sequence. Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) was used for SNP calling to genotype these two soybean accessions.

After obtaining nucleotide polymorphism information from Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2, we screened the SNPs to obtain candidate genes for salt tolerance. A gene model was considered a candidate gene for salt tolerance if the gene satisfied the following conditions: (1) the SNP was located within a QTL that was found to be significantly associated with salt tolerance in this study and (2) the SNP was located within the coding region of the gene model and resulted in an amino acid exchange or was located in the promoter region of the gene model.

Agrobacterium rhizogenes-mediated transformation of soybean hairy roots

The coding sequence of GmCDF1 was cloned from NJAU_204, which is tolerant to salt stress, and subsequently subcloned into the vector pMDC83 (containing double CaMV 35S promoter) to produce the pMDC83-GmCDF1 overexpression vector. Specific primers were employed to amplify a 365-bp fragment from cDNA of NJAU_204 to be ligated into the vector pB7GWIWG2(II), and this ligation yielded the pBI-GmCDF1 RNAi vector. The primers used to construct these vectors are listed in S4 Table.

pMDC83-GmCDF1, pBI-GmCDF1-RNAi and their respective empty vectors were independently transformed into Agrobacterium rhizogenes strain K599 for hairy root transformation [28]. One-week-old seedlings were injected with transformed K599 and transferred to a temperature-controlled germination chamber with a 12-h light/12-h dark cycle, a day/night temperature of 28°C/25°C and high humidity. Approximately two to three weeks later, specifically when the hairy roots were approximately 2–10 cm near the infection site where the hairy roots formed, the primary root was cut off. The hairy roots of the seedlings were immersed in 1/2 Hoagland nutrient solution for five days and then treated with water or 75 mM NaCl for four days. In addition, the chlorophyll concentrations of the top secondary fully expanded leaves were measured three times using a chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta SPAD502) and are expressed as SPAD values, and the fresh weights of the hairy roots from all the transgenic line were noted prior to PCR confirmation. Subsequently, the soybean hairy roots and shoots were harvested separately and used for gene expression or ICP-OES analysis. Negative soybean hairy roots and their respective shoots were discarded as soon as their phenotypic data were collected, and the samples for ICP-OES analysis were rinsed three times with deionized water.

Quantitative RT-PCR for determining the expression level of genes

To analyze the expression of candidate genes, seeds of 31 soybean accessions including the two parents (Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2) of the RILs population were sterilized with a chlorine gas atmosphere to minimize the danger of microbial contamination and infection and treated with 0 or 150 mM NaCl as in the above-described seed germination experiment. After treatment with or without salt stress for 48 h, 15 quarters of the embryos from three replications were sampled and stored at -80°C for the isolation of total RNA.

To analyze the expression of GmCDF1 in different soybean tissues, we sampled different tissues from the roots, stems, leaves, and flowers during the full-blossom period, pod walls on the 15th day after flowering (DAF), and seeds at 15 DAF.

Total RNA was isolated using the RNAsimple Total RNA Kit (TIANGEN Beijing, China), and first-strand cDNA was reverse-transcribed using a TaKaRa Primer Script RT reagent kit with gDNA Eraser. Gene expression was determined by RT-PCR using an ABI 7500 system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) with the SYBR Green Real-time Master Mix (Toyobo), and the data were analyzed using ABI 7500 Sequence Detection System (SDS) software version 1.4.0. The normalized expression was calculated for each sample as ΔΔCT = (CT, Target-CT, Tubulin)genotype-(CT, Target-CT, Tubulin)calibrator, and the fold change was calculated as 2-ΔΔCT [68]. The transcript level of tubulin (GenBank accession number: AY907703) was used as a quantitative control. The primers used in the present study are listed in S2 Table.

ICP-OES analysis

Samples of hairy roots and shoots were dried at 105°C for 60 min and then dried at 65°C for 72 h in a forage dryer. Then, 50–100 mg of each dry sample was weighed, and 2 mL of HNO3 and 8 mL of deionized water were added. The mixtures were digested at 200°C for 10 min using an Ethos Microwave Digestion Labstation (Milestone Rrl., Sorisole, Italy). After cooling, the digested samples were diluted to 50 mL with distilled water. The contents of Na+, Ca2+, K+ Zn2+ and Mn2+ were then detected using an Optima 8000 DV Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer (ICP-OES) system (PerkinElmer Inc., Waltham, MA, USA).

GmCDF1-based association analysis

The genome sequence of GmCDF1 from 31 soybean genotypes (S5 Table) was amplified using the specific primers described in S2 Table. The sequences were assembled and aligned using ContigExpress in Vector NTI Advance 10 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and MEGA version 6 [69], respectively. Polymorphisms with MAF>0.05, including SNPs and indels, were identified among these genotypes, and their association with salt tolerance indices was calculated with Tassel 5.0 [70]. The analysis of GmCDF1 haplotypes and the pairwise LD analysis were performed with Haploview 4.2 [71]. Markers were defined as being significantly associated with the phenotype based on the significant association thresholds of -log10(P)>1.30 and P<0.05.

Supporting information

S1 Fig.

Frequency distributions of four salt tolerance indices (ST-IR, ST-GI, ST-GP and ST-GR) in recombinant inbred lines (RILs) (left column) and natural populations (right column) based on the means of the traits obtained in four and three environments, respectively.

(A) and (E) ST-IR: ratio of the imbibition rate under salt conditions to the imbibition rate under no-salt conditions;

(B) and (F) ST-GI: ratio of the germination index under salt conditions to the germination index under no-salt conditions;

(C) and (G) ST-GP: ratio of the germination potential under salt conditions to the germination index under no-salt conditions;

(D) and (H) ST-GR: ratio of the germination rate under salt conditions to the germination rate under no-salt conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. SNP density within the soybean genome.

The SNP distribution is mapped to the reference genome Williams 82. Outermost circle: 20 chromosomes of soybean; second circle: indel distribution; third circle: distribution of SNPs between the parental lines (Kefeng No.1 and Nannong 1138–2); fourth circle: distribution of GC-skew within the soybean genome; innermost circle: distribution of GC content.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Quantile-quantile plots of the GWAS results for the ST-IR, ST-GI, ST-GP, and ST-GR in three environments (E1, E2, and E3).

The three rows from the top to the bottom show the quantile-quantile plots of the GWAS results for the four salt tolerance indices in E1, E2 and E3, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s003

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Relative expression of 16 genes in the parents of the RILs population, Kefeng No.1 (tolerant) and Nannong 1138–2 (sensitive), after salt treatment for 48 h.

The Y-axis denotes the gene expression levels. The qRT-PCR results were normalized with to the tubulin reference gene. The error bars indicate the SEs of three replicates. Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s004

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Relative expression of seven genes in the parents of the RILs population, Kefeng No.1 (tolerant) and Nannong 1138–2 (sensitive), after salt treatment for 48 h.

(gene annotations: Glyma.102000, cation efflux family protein; Glyma.102800, protein of unknown function; Glyma.104500, protein of unknown function; Glyma.08g105200, calmodulin-binding transcription activator 4-like; Glyma.08g105800, MAC/perforin domain-containing protein; Glyma.08g106000, amidase family protein; and Glyma.08g106000, ribosomal protein S19). The Y-axis denotes the gene expression level. The qRT-PCR results were normalized to the tubulin reference gene. The error bars show the SEs of three replicates. Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s005

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Bioinformatics analyses of GmCDF1 nucleotide and amino acid sequences.

(A) Phylogenetic tree of the MTP family from rice and Arabidopsis and GmCDF1. The tree was constructed using MEGA 6.0 with the neighbor-joining method. The Arabidopsis MTP amino acid sequences were obtained from (www.tigr.org): AtMTP1, At2g46800; AtMTP2, At3g61940; AtMTP3, At3g58810; AtMTP4, At2g29410; AtMTP5, At3g12100; AtMTP6, At2g47830; AtMTP7, At1g51610; AtMTP8, At3g58060; AtMTP9, At1g79520; AtMTP10, At1g16310; AtMTP11, At2g39450; AtMTP12, At2g04620.

The rice MTP amino acid sequences were downloaded from (http://rice.plantbiology.msu.edu/): OsMTP1, Os05g03780; OsMTP5, Os02g58580; OsMTP6, Os03g22550; OsMTP7, Os04g23180; OsMTP8, Os02g53490; OsMTP8.1, Os03g12580; OsMTP9, Os01g03914; OsMTP11, Os01g62070; OsMTP11.1, Os05g38670; OsMTP12, Os08g32680.

The amino acid sequence of GmCDF1 (Glma.08g102000) was downloaded from phytozome (https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov/pz/portal.html).

(B) Amino acid alignment of GmCDF1 and AtMTP12. The amino acid sequences of 14 predicted transmembrane (TM) segments are underlined. The amino acid residues with red shading indicate those conserved in two protein sequences.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s006

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Relative expression of GmCDF1 in different soybean tissues.

The bars represent the standard errors from three technical replicates of three biological replicates. The qRT-PCR results were normalized to the tubulin reference gene.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s007

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Relative expression of GmCDF1 in soybean hairy roots.

(A) Relative expression of GmCDF1 in GmCDF1–OE hairy roots and Control 1 roots after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for four days. (B) GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots and Control 2 roots. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥3). The qRT-PCR results were normalized to the tubulin reference gene. Each experiment was performed more than three times with similar results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s008

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Contents of Zn2+, Ca2+ and Mn2+ in soybean hairy roots and shoots under salt stress.

(A) Zn2+ contents of GmCDF1-OE hairy roots and their nontransgenic shoots after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for 4 days compared with those of Control 1 plants.

(B) Zn2+ contents of GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots and their nontransgenic shoots after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for 4 days compared with those of Control 2 plants.

(C) Ca2+ contents of GmCDF1-OE hairy roots and their nontransgenic shoots after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for 4 days compared with those of Control 1 plants.

(D) Ca2+ contents of GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots and their nontransgenic shoots after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for 4 days compared with those of Control 2 plants.

(E) Mn2+ contents of GmCDF1-OE hairy roots and their nontransgenic shoots after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for 4 days compared with those of Control 1 plants.

(F) Mn2+ contents of GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots and their nontransgenic shoots after treatment with 0 mM or 75 mM NaCl for 4 days compared with those of Control 2 plants.

(* p<0.05, **p<0.01)

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s009

(TIF)

S10 Fig. Relative expression levels of GmSALT3, GmHKT1;4 and GmNcl in soybean hairy roots.

No significant differences were detected in the expression of these three genes in the GmCDF1-OE hairy roots or in the GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots when exposed to salt stress. (A) Relative expression levels of GmSALT3 in Control 1 and GmCDF1-OE hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (B) Relative expression levels of GmHKT1;4 in Control 1 and GmCDF1-OE hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The values are the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (C) Relative expression levels of GmNcl in Control 1 and GmCDF1-OE hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (D) Relative expression levels of GmSALT3 in Control 2 and GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (E) Relative expression levels of GmHKT1;4 in Control 2 and GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test. (F) Relative expression levels of GmNcl in Control 2 and GmCDF1-RNAi hairy roots after treatment with normal or salt conditions for four days. The data are presented as the means±SEs (n≥3). Statistical significance was detected by a two-tailed t-test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s010

(TIF)

S1 Table. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA of three germination-related traits under 0 mM NaCl (C) or 150 mM NaCl (S) conditions and four salt tolerance indices based on the means of the traits in the parents, 184 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) and 211 soybean accessions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s011

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Phenotypic correlations between the four salt tolerance indices based on the means of the traits in 184 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) and 211 soybean accessions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s012

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Details of SNPs significantly associated with four salt tolerance indices of soybean (with the suggestive threshold of 4.5≤-log10(P)< 5.32).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s013

(XLSX)

S4 Table. SNPs existing in exons and within the 2.0-kb promoter regions located on chromosome 8 between the SNP markers AX-93912074 and AX-93634504.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s014

(XLSX)

S5 Table. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of GmCDF1 in 31 soybean accessions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s015

(XLSX)

S6 Table. The relative expression of GmCDF1 in 31 soybean accessions and the ST-GR of 31 soybean accessions across three environments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s016

(XLSX)

S7 Table. Significant SNPs associated with relative expression of GmCDF1 in the 31 soybean accessions (significant association thresholds of -log10(P)>1.30 and P≤0.05).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s017

(XLSX)

S8 Table. Summary of 211 soybean accessions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s018

(XLSX)

S9 Table. Primers used in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798.s019

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms. Wenkai Du at Nanjing Agricultural University for the soybean hairy root generation experiment. We thank the three anonymous reviewers for their critical and highly valuable comments.

Citation: Zhang W, Liao X, Cui Y, Ma W, Zhang X, Du H, et al. (2019) A cation diffusion facilitator, GmCDF1, negatively regulates salt tolerance in soybean. PLoS Genet 15(1): e1007798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798

References

1. Parida AK, Das AB. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: a review. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety. 2005; 60(3): 324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.06.010 pmid:15590011

2. Roy SJ, Negrao S, Tester M. Salt resistant crop plants. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014; 26: 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2013.12.004 pmid:24679267

3. Deinlein U, Stephan AB, Horie T, Luo W, Xu G, Schroeder JI. Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci. 2014; 19(6): 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.02.001 pmid:24630845

4. Julkowska MM, Testerink C. Tuning plant signaling and growth to survive salt. Trends Plant Sci. 2015; 20(9): 586–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.06.008 pmid:26205171

5. Phang TH, Shao G, Lam HM. Salt tolerance in soybean. J Integr Plant Biol. 2008; 50(10): 1196–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2008.00760.x pmid:19017107.

6. Ashraf M, Foolad MR, Tuberosa R. Crop breeding for salt tolerance in the era of molecular markers and marker-assisted selection. Plant Breeding. 2013; 132(1): 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12000 PMID: 26205171.

7. DeRose-Wilson L, Gaut BS. Mapping salinity tolerance during Arabidopsis thaliana germination and seedling growth. PLoS One. 2011; 6(8): e22832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022832 pmid:21857956

8. Ha BK, Vuong TD, Velusamy V, Nguyen HT, Shannon JG, Lee JD. Genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci conditioning salt tolerance in wild soybean (Glycine soja) PI 483463. Euphytica. 2013; 193(1): 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-013-0944-9

9. Hamwieh A, Tuyen DD, Cong H, Benitez ER, Takahashi R, Xu DH. Identification and validation of a major QTL for salt tolerance in soybean. Euphytica. 2011; 179(3): 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-011-0347-8

10. Lee GJ, Boerma HR, Villagarcia MR, Zhou X, Carter TE, Li Z, et al. A major QTL conditioning salt tolerance in S-100 soybean and descendent cultivars. Theoretical And Applied Genetics. 2004; 109(8): 1610–1619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1783-9 pmid:15365627

11. Tuyen DD, Zhang HM, Xu DH. Validation and high-resolution mapping of a major quantitative trait locus for alkaline salt tolerance in soybean using residual heterozygous line. Molecular Breeding. 2013; 31(1): 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-012-9771-2

12. Tuyen DD, Lal SK, Xu DH. Identification of a major QTL allele from wild soybean (Glycine soja Sieb. & Zucc.) for increasing alkaline salt tolerance in soybean. Theoretical And Applied Genetics. 2010; 121(2): 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-010-1304-y pmid:20204319

13. Tuyen DD, Vuong TD, Dunn D, Smothers S, Patil G, Yungbluth DC, et al. Mapping and confirmation of loci for salt tolerance in a novel soybean germplasm, Fiskeby III. Theor Appl Genet. 2018; 131(3):513–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-017-3015-0 pmid:29151146

14. Hamwieh A, Xu DH. Conserved salt tolerance quantitative trait locus (QTL) in wild and cultivated soybeans. Breeding Science. 2008; 58(4): 355–359. https://doi.org/10.1270/Jsbbs.58.355

15. Guan R, Qu Y, Guo Y, Yu L, Liu Y, Jiang J, et al. Salinity tolerance in soybean is modulated by natural variation in GmSALT3. Plant J. 2014; 80(6): 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12695 pmid:25292417

16. Qi X, Li MW, Xie M, Liu X, Ni M, Shao G, et al. Identification of a novel salt tolerance gene in wild soybean by whole-genome sequencing. Nat Commun. 2014; 5: 4340. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5340 pmid:25004933

17. Do TD, Chen H, Hien VT, Hamwieh A, Yamada T, Sato T, et al. Ncl Synchronously Regulates Na+, K+, and Cl- in Soybean and Greatly Increases the Grain Yield in Saline Field Conditions. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 19147. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19147 pmid:26744076

18. Patil G, Do T, Vuong TD, Valliyodan B, Lee JD, Chaudhary J, et al. Genomic-assisted haplotype analysis and the development of high-throughput SNP markers for salinity tolerance in soybean. Sci Rep. 2016; 6(19199. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19199 pmid:26781337

19. Zeng A, Chen P, Korth K, Hancock F, Pereira A, Brye K, et al. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) of salt tolerance in worldwide soybean germplasm lines. Molecular Breeding. 2017; 37: 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-017-0634-8

20. Chen H, Cui S, Fu S, Gai J, Yu D. Identification of quantitative trait loci associated with salt tolerance during seedling growth in soybean (Glycine max L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2008; 59(12): 1086–1091.

21. Kan G, Zhang W, Yang W, Ma D, Zhang D, Hao D, et al. Association mapping of soybean seed germination under salt stress. Mol Genet Genomics. 2015; 290(6): 2147–2162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00438-015-1066-y pmid:26001372

22. Qiu PC, Zhang WB, Liu CY, Jiang HW, Li CD, Fan HM, et al. QTL identification of salt tolerance in germination stage of soybean. Legume Genomics Genet. 2011; 2(3): 20–27.

23. Kan G, Ning L, Li Y, Hu Z, Zhang W, He X, et al. Identification of novel loci for salt stress at the seed germination stage in soybean. Breed Sci. 2016; 66(4): 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.15147 pmid:27795678

24. Zhang W-J, Niu Y, Bu S-H, Li M, Feng J-Y, Zhang J, et al. Epistatic association mapping for alkaline and salinity tolerance traits in the soybean germination stage. PloS one. 2014; 9(1): e84750. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084750 pmid:24416275

25. Wang J, Chu S, Zhang H, Zhu Y, Cheng H, Yu D. Development and application of a novel genome-wide SNP array reveals domestication history in soybean. Scientific reports. 2016; 6: 20728. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20728 pmid:26856884

26. Fujiwara T, Kawachi M, Sato Y, Mori H, Kutsuna N, Hasezawa S, et al. A high molecular mass zinc transporter MTP12 forms a functional heteromeric complex with MTP5 in the Golgi in Arabidopsis thaliana. The FEBS Journal. 2015; 282(10): 1965–1979. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13252 pmid:25732056

27. Domingo C, Lalanne E, Catala MM, Pla E, Reig-Valiente JL, Talon M. Physiological Basis and Transcriptional Profiling of Three Salt-Tolerant Mutant Lines of Rice. Front Plant Sci. 2016; 7: 1462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01462 pmid:27733859.

28. Kereszt A, Li D, Indrasumunar A, Nguyen CD, Nontachaiyapoom S, Kinkema M, et al. Agrobacterium rhizogenes-mediated transformation of soybean to study root biology. Nat Protoc. 2007; 2(4): 948–952. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.141 pmid:17446894

29. Rao PS, Mishra B, Gupta SR. Effects of soil salinity and alkalinity on grain quality of tolerant, semi-tolerant and sensitive rice genotypes. Rice Science. 2013; 20(4): 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6308(13)60136-5

30. Francois LE, Maas EV, Donovan TJ, Youngs VL. Effect of Salinity on Grain Yield and Quality, Vegetative Growth, and Germination of Semi-Dwarf and Durum Wheat. Agronomy Journal. 1986; 78(6): 1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1986.00021962007800060023x

31. Paulsen IT, Saier MH Jr. A novel family of ubiquitous heavy metal ion transport proteins. The Journal of membrane biology. 1997; 156(2): 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002329900192 pmid:9075641

32. Mäser P, Thomine S, Schroeder JI, Ward JM, Hirschi K, Sze H, et al. Phylogenetic relationships within cation transporter families of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 2001; 126(4): 1646–1667. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.126.4.1646 pmid:11500563

33. Haney CJ, Grass G, Franke S, Rensing C. New developments in the understanding of the cation diffusion facilitator family. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2005; 32(6): 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-005-0224-3 pmid:15889311

34. Palmiter RD, Huang L. Efflux and compartmentalization of zinc by members of the SLC30 family of solute carriers. Pflügers Archiv. 2004; 447(5): 744–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00424-003-1070-7 pmid:12748859

35. Krämer U, Talke IN, Hanikenne M. Transition metal transport. FEBS letters. 2007; 581(12): 2263–2272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2007.04.010 pmid:17462635

36. Kobayashi S, Miyabe S, Izawa S, Inoue Y, Kimura A. Correlation of the OSR/ZRCI gene product and the intracellular glutathione levels in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnology and applied biochemistry. 1996; 23(1): 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-8744.1996.tb00356.x MID:pmid:8867889

37. Bruinsma JJ, Jirakulaporn T, Muslin AJ, Kornfeld K. Zinc ions and cation diffusion facilitator proteins regulate Ras-mediated signaling. Developmental cell. 2002; 2(5): 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-5807(02)00151-x pmid:12015965

38. Chen Z, Fujii Y, Yamaji N, Masuda S, Takemoto Y, Kamiya T, et al. Mn tolerance in rice is mediated by MTP8. 1, a member of the cation diffusion facilitator family. Journal of experimental botany. 2013; 64(14): 4375–4387. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert243 pmid:23963678

39. Ueno D, Sasaki A, Yamaji N, Miyaji T, Fujii Y, Takemoto Y, et al. A polarly localized transporter for efficient manganese uptake in rice. Nature plants. 2015; 1(12): 15170. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.170 pmid:27251715

40. Gustin JL, Zanis MJ, Salt DE. Structure and evolution of the plant cation diffusion facilitator family of ion transporters. BMC evolutionary biology. 2011; 11(1): 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11-76 pmid:21435223

41. van der Zaal BJ, Neuteboom LW, Pinas JE, Chardonnens AN, Schat H, Verkleij JAC, et al. Overexpression of a novel Arabidopsis gene related to putative zinc-transporter genes from animals can lead to enhanced zinc resistance and accumulation. Plant Physiology. 1999; 119(3): 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.119.3.1047 pmid:10069843

42. Arrivault S, Senger T, Krämer U. The Arabidopsis metal tolerance protein AtMTP3 maintains metal homeostasis by mediating Zn exclusion from the shoot under Fe deficiency and Zn oversupply. The Plant Journal. 2006; 46(5): 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02746.x pmid:16709200

43. Delhaize E, Gruber BD, Pittman JK, White RG, Leung H, Miao Y, et al. A role for the AtMTP11 gene of Arabidopsis in manganese transport and tolerance. The Plant Journal. 2007; 51(2): 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03138.x pmid:17559518

44. Zhang M, Liu B. Identification of a rice metal tolerance protein OsMTP11 as a manganese transporter. PLoS One. 2017; 12(4): e0174987. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174987 pmid:28394944.

45. Erbasol I, Bozdag GO, Koc A, Pedas P, Karakaya HC. Characterization of two genes encoding metal tolerance proteins from Beta vulgaris subspecies maritima that confers manganese tolerance in yeast. Biometals. 2013; 26(5): 795–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10534-013-9658-7 pmid:23864431

46. Migocka M, Papierniak A, Maciaszczyk-Dziubińska E, Poździk P, Posyniak E, Garbiec A, et al. Cucumber metal transport protein MTP8 confers increased tolerance to manganese when expressed in yeast and Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of experimental botany. 2014; 65(18): 5367–5384. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru295 pmid:25039075

47. Shabala S, Cuin TA. Potassium transport and plant salt tolerance. Physiologia Plantarum. 2008; 133(4): 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.01008.x pmid:18724408

48. Shi H, Quintero FJ, Pardo JM, Zhu J-K. The Putative Plasma Membrane Na+/H+ Antiporter SOS1 Controls Long-Distance Na+ Transport in Plants. The Plant Cell. 2002; 14(2): 465. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.010371 pmid:11884687

49. Zhao X, Wei P, Liu Z, Yu B, Shi H. Soybean Na+/H+ antiporter GmsSOS1 enhances antioxidant enzyme activity and reduces Na+ accumulation in Arabidopsis and yeast cells under salt stress. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. 2017; 39(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-016-2323-3

50. Venema K, Quintero FJ, Pardo JM, Donaire JP. The Arabidopsis Na+/H+ exchanger AtNHX1 catalyzes low affinity Na+ and K+ transport in reconstituted liposomes. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2002; 277(4): 2413–2418. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M105043200 pmid:11707435

51. Apse MP, Sottosanto JB, Blumwald E. Vacuolar cation/H+ exchange, ion homeostasis, and leaf development are altered in a T‐DNA insertional mutant of AtNHX1, the Arabidopsis vacuolar Na+/H+ antiporter. The plant journal. 2003; 36(2): 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2003.01871.x pmid:14535887

52. Barragán V, Leidi EO, Andrés Z, Rubio L, De Luca A, Fernández JA, et al. Ion exchangers NHX1 and NHX2 mediate active potassium uptake into vacuoles to regulate cell turgor and stomatal function in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell. 2012; 24(3): 1127–1142. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.111.095273 pmid:22438021

53. Leidi EO, Barragán V, Rubio L, El‐Hamdaoui A, Ruiz MT, Cubero B, et al. The AtNHX1 exchanger mediates potassium compartmentation in vacuoles of transgenic tomato. The Plant Journal. 2010; 61(3): 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.04073.x pmid:19912566

54. Sun Y, Wang D, Bai Y, Wang N, Wang Y. Studies on the overexpression of the soybean GmNHX1 in Lotus corniculatus: The reduced Na+ level is the basis of the increased salt tolerance. Chinese Science Bulletin. 2006; 51(11): 1306–1315.

55. Olias R, Eljakaoui Z, Li JUN, De Morales PA, MarÍN‐Manzano MC, Pardo JM, et al. The plasma membrane Na+/H+ antiporter SOS1 is essential for salt tolerance in tomato and affects the partitioning of Na+ between plant organs. Plant, cell & environment. 2009; 32(7): 904–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01971.x pmid:19302170

56. Knight H, Trewavas Anthony J, Knight Marc R. Calcium signalling in Arabidopsis thaliana responding to drought and salinity. The Plant Journal. 2003; 12(5): 1067–1078. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1997.12051067.x pmid:9418048

57. Laohavisit A, Richards SL, Shabala L, Chen C, Colaço RDDR, Swarbreck SM, et al. Salinity-induced calcium signaling and root adaptation in Arabidopsis require the calcium regulatory protein annexin1. Plant Physiology. 2013; 163(1): 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.217810 pmid:23886625

58. Li W, Zhu Z, Chern M, Yin J, Yang C, Ran L, et al. A natural allele of a transcription factor in rice confers broad-spectrum blast resistance. Cell. 2017; 170(1): 114–126.e115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.008 pmid:28666113

59. Zhang Y, Liang Z, Zong Y, Wang Y, Liu J, Chen K, et al. Efficient and transgene-free genome editing in wheat through transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 DNA or RNA. Nature Communications. 2016; 7:12617. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12617 pmid:27558837

60. Shi J, Gao H, Wang H, Lafitte HR, Archibald RL, Yang M, et al. ARGOS8 variants generated by CRISPR-Cas9 improve maize grain yield under field drought stress conditions. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2016; 15(2): 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12603 pmid:27442592

61. Fu S, Zhan Y, Zhi H, Gai J, Yu D. Mapping of SMV resistance gene Rsc-7 by SSR markers in soybean. Genetica. 2006; 128(1–3): 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-005-5535-9 pmid:17028941

62. Hu Z, Zhang H, Kan G, Ma D, Zhang D, Shi G, et al. Determination of the genetic architecture of seed size and shape via linkage and association analysis in soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.). Genetica. 2013; 141(4–6): 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-013-9723-8 pmid:23754189

63. Churchill GA, Doerge RW. Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics. 1994; 138(3): 963–971. pmid:7851788

64. King KE, Peiffer GA, Reddy M, Lauter N, Lin SF, Cianzio S, et al. Mapping of iron and zinc quantitative trait loci in soybean for association to iron deficiency chlorosis resistance. Journal of plant nutrition. 2013; 36(14): 2132–2153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2013.766804

65. Lipka AE, Tian F, Wang Q, Peiffer J, Li M, Bradbury PJ, et al. GAPIT: genome association and prediction integrated tool. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(18): 2397–2399. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts444 pmid:22796960

66. Zhang Z, Ersoz E, Lai C-Q, Todhunter RJ, Tiwari HK, Gore MA, et al. Mixed linear model approach adapted for genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics. 2010; 42:355. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.546 pmid:20208535

67. Yang N, Lu Y, Yang X, Huang J, Zhou Y, Ali F, et al. Genome wide association studies using a new nonparametric model reveal the genetic architecture of 17 agronomic traits in an enlarged maize association panel. PLoS Genet. 2014; 10(9): e1004573. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004573 pmid:25211220

68. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT method. methods. 2001; 25(4): 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262 pmid:11846609

69. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2013; 30(12): 2725–2729. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197 PMC3840312 pmid:24132122

70. Bradbury PJ, Zhang Z, Kroon DE, Casstevens TM, Ramdoss Y, Buckler ES. TASSEL: software for association mapping of complex traits in diverse samples. Bioinformatics. 2007; 23(19): 2633–2635. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm308 pmid:17586829

71. Barrett JC, Fry B, Maller J, Daly MJ. Haploview: analysis and visualization of LD and haplotype maps. Bioinformatics. 2005; 21(2): 263–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth457 pmid:15297300

Word count: 11877

Show less

© 2019 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Translate

Salt stress is one of the major abiotic factors that affect the metabolism, growth and development of plants, and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] germination is sensitive to salt stress. Thus, to ensure the successful establishment and productivity of soybeans in saline soil, the genetic mechanisms of salt tolerance at the soybean germination stage need to be explored. In this study, a population of 184 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) was utilized to map quantitative trait loci (QTLs) related to salt tolerance. A major QTL related to salt tolerance at the soybean germination stage named qST-8 was closely linked with the marker Sat_162 and detected on chromosome 8. Interestingly, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) identified several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) significantly associated with salt tolerance in the same genetic region on chromosome 8. Resequencing, bioinformatics and gene expression analyses were implemented to identify the candidate gene Glyma.08g102000, which belongs to the cation diffusion facilitator (CDF) family and was named GmCDF1. Overexpression and RNA interference of GmCDF1 in soybean hairy roots resulted in increased sensitivity and tolerance to salt stress, respectively. This report provides the first demonstration that GmCDF1 negatively regulates salt tolerance by maintaining K+-Na+ homeostasis in soybean. In addition, GmCDF1 affected the expression of two ion homeostasis-associated genes, salt overly sensitive 1 (GmSOS1) and Na+/H+ exchanger 1 (GmNHX1), in transgenic hairy roots. Moreover, a haplotype analysis detected ten haplotypes of GmCDF1 in 31 soybean genotypes. A candidate-gene association analysis showed that two SNPs in GmCDF1 were significantly associated with salt tolerance and that Hap1 was more sensitive to salt stress than Hap2. The results demonstrated that the expression level of GmCDF1 was negatively correlated with salt tolerance in the 31 soybean accessions (r = -0.56, P < 0.01). Taken together, these results not only indicate that GmCDF1 plays a negative role in soybean salt tolerance but also help elucidate the molecular mechanisms of salt tolerance and accelerate the breeding of salt-tolerant soybean.

Details

Title

A cation diffusion facilitator, GmCDF1 , negatively regulates salt tolerance in soybean

Author

Zhang, Wei; Liao, Xiliang; Cui, Yanmei; Ma, Weiyu; Zhang, Xinnan; Du, Hongyang; Ma, Yujie; Ning, Lihua; Wang, Hui; Huang, Fang; Yang, Hui; Kan, Guizhen; Yu, Deyue

First page

e1007798

Section

Research Article

Publication year

2019

Publication date

Jan 2019

Publisher

Public Library of Science

ISSN

15537390

e-ISSN

15537404

Source type

Scholarly Journal

Language of publication

English

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007798

ProQuest document ID

2251032983

A cation diffusion facilitator, GmCDF1 , negatively regulates salt tolerance in soybean

Jump to:

Full Text

Abstract

Details

Suggested sources