Next Article in Journal
Antibody Assay and Anti-Inflammatory Function Evaluation of Therapeutic Potential of Different Intravenous Immunoglobulins for Alzheimer’s Disease
Next Article in Special Issue
Rhizosphere Fungal Dynamics in Sugarcane during Different Growth Stages
Previous Article in Journal
The ENA1 Na+-ATPase Gene Is Regulated by the SPS Sensing Pathway and the Stp1/Stp2 Transcription Factors
Previous Article in Special Issue
SiMYBS3, Encoding a Setaria italica Heterosis-Related MYB Transcription Factor, Confers Drought Tolerance in Arabidopsis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 6
10.3390/ijms24065547
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

GmGSTU23 Encoding a Tau Class Glutathione S-Transferase Protein Enhances the Salt Tolerance of Soybean (Glycine max L.)

by
Xingang Li
1,2,3,†,
Yuanting Pang
4,5,†,
Yiwang Zhong
1,2,3,
Zhandong Cai
1,2,3,
Qibin Ma
1,2,3,
Ke Wen
1,2,3,4,6,* and
Hai Nian
1,2,3,6,*
1
The State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Subtropical Agro-Bioresources, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
2
Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Guangzhou 510642, China
3
The Guangdong Subcenter of the National Center for Soybean Improvement, College of Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
4
Key Laboratory of Vegetable Biology of Hainan Province, Vegetable Research Institute of Hainan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Haikou 570228, China
5
Beijing Key Laboratory of Growth and Developmental Regulation for Protected Vegetable Crops, Department of Vegetable Science, College of Horticulture, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
6
Hainan Yazhou Bay Seed Laboratory, Sanya Nanfan Research Institute, Hainan University, Sanya 572025, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(6), 5547; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24065547
Submission received: 11 February 2023 / Revised: 7 March 2023 / Accepted: 10 March 2023 / Published: 14 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Crop Stress Biology and Molecular Breeding 3.0)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Salt stress has a detrimental impact on crop yield, quality, and profitability. The tau-like glutathione transferases (GSTs) represent a significant group of enzymes that play a crucial role in plant stress responses, including salt stress. In this study, we identified a tau-like glutathione transferase family gene from soybean named GmGSTU23. Expression pattern analysis revealed that GmGSTU23 was predominantly expressed in the roots and flowers and exhibited a concentration–time-specific pattern in response to salt stress. Transgenic lines were generated and subjected to phenotypic characterization under salt stress. The transgenic lines exhibited increased salt tolerance, root length, and fresh weight compared to the wild type. Antioxidant enzyme activity and malondialdehyde content were subsequently measured, and the data revealed no significant differences between the transgenic and wild-type plants in the absence of salt stress. However, under salt stress, the wild-type plants exhibited significantly lower activities of SOD, POD, and CAT than the three transgenic lines, whereas the activity of APX and the content of MDA showed the opposite trend. We identified changes in glutathione pools and associated enzyme activity to gain insights into the underlying mechanisms of the observed phenotypic differences. Notably, under salt stress, the transgenic Arabidopsis’s GST activity, GR activity, and GSH content were significantly higher than those of the wild type. In summary, our findings suggest that GmGSTU23 mediates the scavenging of reactive oxygen species and glutathione by enhancing the activity of glutathione transferase, thereby conferring enhanced tolerance to salt stress in plants.

1. Introduction

Soil salinization is widely distributed in more than 60% of countries or regions, causing severe food and economic problems worldwide [1,2,3]. According to statistics, about 7% of the fundamental arable land in China is saline soil and has a trend of increasing yearly [4]. In saline soil, excessive sodium and chloride ions are released into the soil which are actively absorbed by plants, inhibiting seed germination and plant growth and development [5]. Salt stress can seriously affect crops’ yield, quality, and benefit, and it has become one of the principal abiotic stresses and limiting factors affecting crop production and agricultural development [5,6]. In order to resist the damage of salt stress, different salt tolerance mechanisms exist in crops [7,8,9]. Plant salt tolerance mechanisms mainly include ion homeostasis, osmotic adjustment, cell wall and membrane lipid modifications under salt stress, and changes in antioxidant-related enzymes [9,10,11].
Enzymes play an irreplaceable role in the normal life activities of plants. Currently, several families of salt stress tolerance genes have been identified in plant species [12,13,14,15]. Glutathione S-transferase (GST) is a ubiquitous, large, and diverse gene family [16,17,18]. Arabidopsis, rice, and soybean genomes contain 28, 41, and 59 family members (PTHR11260), respectively [18,19,20,21]. According to amino acid sequence similarity, these genes were classified into five subcategories of tau, phi, zeta, theta, and lambda [22,23,24]. Glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) catalyze the binding of glutathione to toxic biological heterologous substances or oxidation products to facilitate their metabolism, regional isolation, or elimination [25,26]. Their promoter contains MYB and MYC domains and at least one conservative protein domain (GST_NTER, GST_CTER). In its classical reaction mode, GSTs catalyze the transfer of glutathione (GSH) to a coenzyme (R-X) containing an active electrophilic center to establish a polar S-glutathione reaction product (R-SG) [22,25,26]. Recent studies have shown that GST protein is essential in multiple metabolic reactions [12,24,27]. It has been reported that GST protein in plant roots increases the biological nitrogen fixation efficiency of legume nodules [28,29,30]. Wen et al. found that GST protein might be involved in coupling exogenous glutathione with chromium ions to alleviate the toxicity of heavy metals [31]. In addition, GST protein may be involved in crop herbicide metabolism and selection, and has been used in the soybean and maize seed industries [24,32,33,34].
Tau class glutathione transferase is a vital enzyme in plant cells that plays a significant role in plant antioxidant defenses and metabolic regulation. It is of utmost importance for improving plant stress resistance, growth, and development. Recent research has demonstrated that regulating the expression and activity of tau glutathione transferases can significantly enhance plant adaptability to various stress environments, such as high salt, low temperature, and drought [35,36,37]. For example, the research by Cao et al. proved that CsGSTU19 was involved in the defense of tea trees against temperature stress [36]. In Medicago ruthenica and Medicago sativa, MruGSTU39 detoxified ROS under drought stress by up-regulating GST and glutathione peroxidase activities [37]. In addition, some GST genes, such as PpGST, OsGSTL2, and PtGSTU51, were also isolated and conferred heavy metal tolerance to Pyrus pyrifolia, Oryza sativa, and Populus tomentosa, respectively [38,39,40]. Moreover, the GST genes were also identified as necessary in the physiological and molecular mechanisms of plant resistance to salt stress. The salt tolerance of transgenic plants was enhanced after the GST gene of Suaeda salsa was heterologously transformed into Arabidopsis thaliana [41]. In a study of tomato LeGSTU2 gene function, transgenic plants expressing tomato glutathione S-transferase showed enhanced resistance to salt and drought stress [42]. Similarly, GsGST, PtGSTF1, and CsGSTU8 have been reported to have similar functions in Glycine soja, Pyrus pyrifolia and Camellia sinensis [43,44,45]. In particular, co-expression of the Suaeda salsa glutathione S-transferase and catalase in transgenic rice may have a synergistic effect in response to salt stress [46].
Soybean (Glycine max) is one of the most substantial oil and protein crops in the world and participates in the human diet and food industry as an essential raw material [47,48,49,50]. Salt stress will have a severe toxic effect on each growth stage of soybean plants, which will eventually leading to the loss of soybean yield and the reduction of soybean quality [51,52,53]. Predecessors studied the molecular mechanisms of soybean salt tolerance, and some genes were identified such as GmPAL1.1, GmCHX1, GmSALT3, GmHKT1;4, and GmbZIP44 [54,55,56,57,58]. Meanwhile, the molecular mechanism of soybean GSTs under salt stress has not been thoroughly studied and identified. The primary objective of this investigation is to elucidate the involvement of glutathione S-transferase in the molecular mechanisms of plant salt tolerance. In the present study, a salt-responsive glutathione S-transferase gene, named GmGSTU23, was isolated from transcriptome-based analysis of changes in gene expression patterns after salt stress. The function of GmGSTU23 was identified, and phenotypic analysis was performed on overexpressed transgenic lines from Arabidopsis thaliana. Our study postulated that GmGSTU23 has a crucial role in plant responses to salt stress, ameliorating plant salt tolerance through its regulation of enzyme activity and the proportion of reduced glutathione in plants. The results of this study offer theoretical support in understanding the role of glutathione S-transferase in the molecular mechanisms of plant salt tolerance.

2. Results

2.1. Isolation and Bioinformatics Analysis of the GmGSTU23

Based on the identification of salt-tolerant soybean material resources (unpublished data), a salt-induced gene encoding glutathione S-transferase was isolated from the high salt-tolerant soybean variety Guizao 1 (Table S1). A BLAST search in the soybean reference genome Wm82.a2.v1 identified the gene as Glyma.07G139700 which was named GmGSTU23 and belongs to the GST tau subfamily based on previous studies [59]. The soybean genome database showed that the full-length genomic sequence of GmGSTU23 consisted of two exons and one intron, with a DNA length of 1066 bp, including a 678 bp CDS sequence, which encodes a peptide 226 amino acids in length with an isoelectric point of 5.39 (Table S1, Figure 1A). The amino acid sequence of GmGSTU23 was aligned with the GST members of other plant species. GmGSTU23 shares a degree of homology with members of the GST family from Phaseolus vulgaris, Phaseolus vulgaris, Medicago sativa, Cicer arietinum, and Arabidopsis thaliana, with the highest identity being with PvGST (Figure 1B). The Pfam database shows that GmGSTU23 has two typical conservative domains called GST-N and GST-C, representing the typical domain characteristics of GST family (Figure 1A,B). The predictions of the GmGSTU23 protein structural model showed that it has seven protein folds (Figure 1C). Subcellular localization predictions suggest that expression of GmGSTU23 may be located in the cytoplasm. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that GmGSTU23 homologs of legume species were clustered, and there were several homologous genes in the dicotyledonous plant A. thaliana (Figure 1D).

2.2. Expression Pattern Analysis of the GmGSTU23

In different plant organs, the expression of GmGSTU23 was mainly concentrated in the flower and roots, while the expression in the leaf, stem, and pod was low (Figure 2A). In the experiment of detecting the response to time, GmGSTU23 showed a significant upward trend after 4 h of NaCl treatment, and the expression level increased significantly with the treatment time and reached the maximum expression at 8 h, and then began to decline (Figure 2B). In addition, as shown in Figure 2C, the expression of GmGSTU23 in soybean tissues significantly increased with the increase in NaCl concentration after exposure to salt for 8 h.

2.3. Generation and Detection of the GmGSTU23 Overexpression Lines

To explore the function of GmGSTU23 in plant salt stress responses, the coding sequence of GmGSTU23 was inserted into the expression vector pTF101 containing a strong CaMV 35S promoter, and the transgenic plant was obtained by the floral dip method. A total of 11 overexpressed lines were selected by herbicide identification and the expression levels of GmGSTU23 in the different lines were determined by qRT-PCR (Figure S1). Then, three T3 generation transgenic lines (OE-2, OE-5, and OE-11) with high expression levels were selected for studying the salt tolerance phenotype and physiological analysis (Figure S1, Figure 3 and Figure 4).

2.4. Overexpression of GmGSTU23 Confers Phenotypic Tolerance to Salt Stress

To evaluate the salt tolerance of the GmGSTU23 transgenic lines, the salt dose response phenotype of the seedlings was analyzed in agarose plate and soil culture. As shown in Figure 3A, the root elongation of wild-type and transgenic A. thaliana was inhibited to varying degrees under 100 mM or 150 mM NaCl treatment in the plate culture experiment. However, the inhibition of salt stress on the overexpression lines was significantly lower than that in the wild type (Figure 3B). Specifically, under the treatment of 150 mM NaCl, the root lengths of WT and GmGSTU23 transgenic seedlings were 4.1 cm and 5.2 cm, respectively (Figure 3B). In the long-term salt stress test in soil culture, 15-day-old plants were continuously irrigated with 200 mM NaCl solution for 20 days. The phenomena of yellowing of plant leaves and stunted growth were revealed under salt stress. It was observed that the growth of wild-type plants was severely affected by salinity, while the growth of the transgenic plants was less affected (Figure 4A). Compared with the condition without salt stress, the fresh weight of WT and GmGSTU23 transgenic lines under 200 mM NaCl treatment was decreased by 81.2% and 53.1%, respectively (Figure 4B). In addition, the content of malondialdehyde in the wild-type strain was significantly higher than that in transgenic lines under salt stress, which reflected the degree of membrane peroxidation (Figure 4B). The data on antioxidant enzyme activities showed that there was no significant difference between transgenic and wild-type plants in the absence of salt stress. Under salt stress, the activities of SOD, POD, and CAT in the wild type were significantly lower than those of the three transgenic lines, while the activity of APX showed the opposite situation (Figure 4B).

2.5. Changes of Glutathione Pool Composition and Related Enzymes under Salt Stress

To analyze the underlying causes of the phenotypic differences, glutathione pools and the associated enzyme activity changes were determined. Under salt stress, GST activity, GR activity, and GSSG content were increased, while GSH content showed the opposite effect (Figure 5). The analysis between wild-type and transgenic plants showed that the GST activity, GR activity, and GSH content of transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana were significantly higher than those of the wild-type strain under 200 mM NaCl treatment (Figure 5A,C,D). Specifically, there were significant differences in GST activity and GSH content in the absence of salt stress (Figure 5A,B).

3. Discussion

Salt stress is one of the abiotic stresses that has the most significant impact on agriculture. It can severely reduce the yield and quality of crops by destroying the homeostasis of plant ions, osmosis, and reactive oxygen species [5,6,7,10,11]. During their long evolution, plants have developed many responses to salt stress, such as calcium signals and glutathione-anti-circulating pathways to maintain cell homeostasis and eliminate reactive oxygen species [7,60]. The mechanisms of salt tolerance-related genes have been identified in some species, such as AtHKT1;1, AtHAK5, OsLAX, OsABCB, SOS2, SnRK2, GmDof41, SlWRKY23, etc., and these genes have endowed plants with different degrees of tolerance to salt stress [61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. The ascorbate–glutathione (ASA-GSH) cycle is widespread in living organisms and plays an essential role in plant oxidative defenses and abiotic stress responses [31,68]. During this cycle, GSTs, a family of proteins widely distributed in various organisms, plays a crucial role in detoxification [69]. Specifically, its primary function is to catalyze the coupling of some electrophilic groups with the thiols of reduced glutathione, to change its hydrophobicity so that it can easily cross the cell membrane to the extracellular space after being decomposed, thus achieving detoxification [70,71]. According to previous genome-wide identification reports of the GST family, it has been found that it has functions related to oxidative stress responses to abiotic stress [17,72,73,74,75]. AtGSTF8, AtGSTU19, and AtGST1 relieved salt stress by maintaining redox homeostasis in A. thaliana roots [76,77]. The glutathione S-transferase gene has been isolated in a study in wild-type soybeans, and transgenic plants showed a higher tolerance to salt at the seedling stage than wild-type plants [43]. Meanwhile, the molecular mechanisms of soybean GST family genes under salt stress have been rarely reported and are unclear.
In this study, a salt-responsive glutathione S-transferase gene, defined as GmGSTU23, was identified as a differentially expressed gene under salt stress. Through sequence alignment and conservative domain analysis, we found that GmGSTU23 shares a high degree of homology with the identified tau subfamily genes, particularly with PaGST (Figure 1A,D). These results indicated that the GST family genes are highly conserved among different species and may have similar functions in response to environmental stress [17,73]. Analysis of the promoter of GmGSTU23 revealed a total of 3 ABREs (ABA-responsive elements), 2 LTREs (low-temperature responsive elements), 17 MYB-responsive elements, and 20 MYC-responsive element cis-counterparts. Among them, ABRE is mainly involved in the regulation of ABA response or drought expression [78,79]. Based on these results, it was speculated that GmGSTU23 might be associated with abiotic stress responses in plants. Due to the existence of LTREs, some studies have suggested that GmGSTU23 also encodes a heat shock protein in soybeans, which may respond to high-temperature stress, and further studies are needed [80].
The orthologous gene of GmGSTU23 in A. thaliana is At3g09270 with 80% similarity, which is thought to be involved in the early responses of A. thaliana cells to cadmium exposure [19,81]. Although it is similar to the GST family genes of other species in structure such as in the conservative domain, GmGSTU23 may have a unique expression pattern and molecular function (Figure 1 and Figure 2). In some previous studies, the expression patterns of GmGSTU23 were localized in the roots, especially in the root hair [82]. Meanwhile, our results showed that the expression of GmGSTU23 is not confined to the roots, but is expressed in other organs of the plant, especially at high levels in the flowers (Figure 2A), which is similar to the results of some previous reports [83]. After 8h of salt treatment, the expression of GmGSTU23 reached a peak, which suggested that GmGSTU23 might be regulated by some transcription factors and may indirectly participate in plant salt stress responses (Figure 2B). The 3D structure model of GmGSTU23 did not have a transmembrane domain, and its subcellular localization was predicted to be cytoplasmic. Therefore, it is speculated that GmGSTU23 was expressed in the cytoplasm to catalyze the binding of GSH and ROS (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
In order to further identify the mechanism of GmGSTU23 in enhancing the tolerance of plants to salt stress, we obtained transgenic A. thaliana lines and conducted a salt stress treatment experiment. Compared with the control, the growth of wild-type and transgenic A. thaliana was inhibited under salt stress, and the leaves became withered and yellow (Figure 3A and Figure 4A). The results showed that under salt stress, the root length and fresh weight of transgenic A. thaliana were significantly higher than those of wild type (Figure 3B and Figure 4B). Malondialdehyde is generally considered to be an indicator of the degree of cell membrane peroxidation and the strength of plant responses to adverse conditions [84]. Malondialdehyde content in the transgenic lines was lower than in wild type, indicating that they were less damaged by ROS (Figure 4B) and that the overexpression of GmGSTU23 enhanced the tolerance of plants to salt stress. The content of antioxidant enzymes in the transgenic A. thaliana and wild-type lines was also determined to study its response mechanism to salt stress (Figure 4B), and the results were similar to those of previous studies [39,40,41]. Some antioxidant enzymes such as SOD, POD, CAT, and APX can eliminate ROS in cells and reduce the generation of hydrogen peroxide, thereby enhancing salt tolerance [85]. We speculated that the GmGSTU23 transgenic A. thaliana might induce changes in antioxidant enzymes through some pathways to improve the plant’s tolerance to salt stress. The measurement of glutathione pool composition and related enzymes showed that the GST activity and GSH content of the transgenic lines were significantly higher than those of the WT strain, regardless of the presence of salt stress (Figure 5). Therefore, it is speculated that GmGSTU23 directly enhances the activity of glutathione transferase and participates in the clearance of reactive oxygen species with glutathione, thereby enhancing the tolerance of plants to salt stress [31,33,84]. However, little is known about the interactions between GmGSTU23 and other transcription factors, which will need further exploration. Therefore, we will use a yeast library, RNA-Seq, and other techniques to study the function of the GmGSTU23 gene in future studies to increase our understanding of the salt tolerance mechanisms in plants.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Materials and Growth Conditions

The sterilized seeds of soybean variety Guizao 1, obtained from the South China Agricultural University (Guangzhou, China), were selected and sowed in vermiculite. After germination, the seedlings with consistent growth were selected and transferred to a hydroponic system (pH 6.8) with modified Hoagland nutrient solution at 28/25 °C and a 14 h/10 h (light/dark) photoperiod, as described by Ke Wen et al. [86]. The nutrient solution was rejuvenated daily. In the soil culture experiment, the plant organs including the roots, stem, leaf, flower, and pod were collected at the soybean V6 stage and then quickly frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored in an ultra-low-temperature refrigerator [86,87,88]. The experimental plants were grown in the basin with the nutrient soil in an environmentally controlled incubation chamber.

4.2. Analysis of Gene Expression Pattern

The plants were processed with the following treatments in the experiment to analyze the gene expression patterns in soybean plants (G. max) [86]. In order to determine the dose-dependent expression patterns, the seedings were cultivated in a solution with 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 mM NaCl for 8 h. The plant materials were collected after 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h in the 200 mM NaCl treatment to determine the time-dependent expression patterns. To determine organ-specific expression, the plant organs stored in the −80 °C refrigerator described in Section 4.1 were used for qPCR identification [31].
The total RNA was extracted from the plant samples using the RNA-easy Isolation Reagent (Vazyme, Nanjing, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and then reverse transcribed into cDNA using PrimeScript RT kit (Takara, Shiga, Japan). The gene expression level was evaluated by qPCR using the 2−ΔΔct method using real-time PCR on a CFX96™ Touch Real-Time PCR System (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) with SYBR Premix ExTaq™ II Mix (TaKaRa, Shiga, Japan) [86]. GmACTIN6 (GeneBnak Accession: AAK285830.1) was used as an internal control for three technical replicates. All primers were designed using the NCBI Primer tool (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, accessed on 4 February 2022) and are shown in Table S2.

4.3. Cloning and Bioinformatics Analysis of GmGSTU23

In this study, the cDNA of the soybean variety Guizao 1, reverse-transcribed from its mixed tissue RNA sample, was used to clone the gene sequence. GmGSTU23 was extracted with PrimeScript RT Reagent Kit with gDNA eraser (TaKaRa, Shiga, Japan) by PCR using the specific primer pair: 5′-CGCATTCATACGCAGCAATCA-3′ and 5′-AGCAATAACTCAACAAGACAAGT-3′. The PCR cloning was performed with primers and cDNA using the following program: 5 min at 94 °C; 35 cycles of 30 s at 94 °C, 1 min at 54 °C, and 2 min at 72 °C; and 5 min at 72 °C for the final extension.
The sequence with the correct molecular size detected by agarose gel electrophoresis was integrated into the pLB vector (Tiangen Biotech, Beijing, China) and sent to a sequencing company (Shenggong, Guangzhou, China) for sequencing. The multiple protein sequence alignment of GmGSTU23 with other glutathione S-transferases (GST) was performed using ClustalW2 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/, accessed on 15 January 2023). The tree of gene homology and molecular evolutionary genetics analysis was constructed using MEGA-X software via the Neighbor-Joining (NJ) method. The protein 3D structure of GmGSTU23 was predicted by the phyre2 online prediction website (http://www.sbg.bio.ic.ac.uk/phyre2/html/page.cgi?id=index, accessed on 17 January 2023). The subcellular localization prediction was performed by the Cell-PLoc 2.0 online tool (http://www.csbio.sjtu.edu.cn/bioinf/Cell-PLoc-2/, accessed on 17 January 2023).

4.4. Vector Construction and Transgenic Lines Generation

To obtain transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana lines, the exonic region of GmGSTU23 was amplified using gene-specific primers with XbaI and SacI sites (Table S2). GmGSTU23 was then linearly cloned into the pTF101.1 binary vector with a modified CaMV 35S promoter, which contained a phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (bar) resistance gene (phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase, PAT) as selection marker for the transgenic line. The constructed vector was transformed into Agrobacterium strain GV3101 by electroporation (Gene Pulser Xcell™ Electroporation Systems, Hercules,CA, USA), and the target gene was transferred into the A. thaliana ecotype Columbia (Col-0) by flower dipping [89]. The T0 generation of A. thaliana was identified by overexpression by herbicide (Liberty®, Bayer, Leverkusen, Germany) spraying and PCR molecular identification. Molecular identification of the T3 transgenic line was performed using the 2 × Taq Plus Master Mix (Vazyme, Nanjing, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The specific primers used for PCR were designed based on the vector and the gene sequence (Table S2).

4.5. Phenotypes Analysis of GmGSTU23 Transgenic Lines

To analyze the phenotypes of GmGSTU23-overexpressing (OE) and wild-type (WT) A. thaliana under salt stress, three T3 transgenic lines with high expression levels were selected for 1/2 MS agar plates and soil culture experiments. Specifically, the seeds sterilized with 10% sodium hypochlorite for 10 min were sown on 1/2 MS agar plates and vernalized at 4 ℃ in the dark for four days [86]. Subsequently, the plates were erected and placed in a growth chamber at 22–24 °C, with 60% relative humidity and a 16 h/8 h (light/dark) photoperiod until the roots grew to 1 cm. The seedlings with consistent growth were transferred to 1/2 strength MS agar medium containing different concentrations of NaCl (0 mM, 100 mM, 150 mM) for ten days. The length from the base of the rosette leaf to the top of the straight root was measured with a ruler, and the image was photographed with a Canon EOS 750d camera. In addition, T3 transgenic seeds and wild-type seeds (Columbia-0) after vernalization were planted in sterile substrate soil (Jiffy, Oslo, Norway) with a 16 h/8 h (light/dark) photoperiod in a GXZ-300D illuminated growth incubator (Jiangnan, Ningbo, China). The two-week-old seedlings were treated with 200 mM NaCl solution irrigation for 20 days. Then, the fresh weight and height of the plants were measured, and the leaf of the plants were quickly frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored in a refrigerator at −80 °C for the determination of various physiological indicators [43].

4.6. Physiological Analysis of GmGSTU23 Transgenic Lines

To analyze the physiology of the transgenic lines, 0.2 g of the flash frozen sample was accurately weighed, transferred to a centrifuge tube containing 1 mL of the sodium phosphate buffer, ground into a homogenate by a hand-held grinder, and centrifuged at 12,000 rpm for 15 min at 4 °C. Then, the absorbance of supernatant was measured at different wavelengths using a spectrophotometer (Shanghai Precision Instruments Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China, Model v-5800). Specifically, the absorbance values of glutathione S-transferase (GST), glutathione (GSH), oxidized glutathione (GSSG), glutathione reductase (GR, EC 1.6.4.2), malondialdehyde (MDA), peroxidase (POD, EC 1.11.1.7), superoxide dismutase (SOD, EC 1.15.1.1), peroxidase (CAT, EC 1.11.1.6), and ascorbate peroxidase (APX, EC 1.11.1.11) were measured at 340 nm, 412 nm, 412 nm, 532 nm, 470 nm, 450 nm, 510 nm, and 290 nm, respectively. The above physiological indexes were determined according to a previous method and using the corresponding kit (Grace Biotechnology, Suzhou, China) [31].

4.7. Statistical Analysis

The experiment was designed with random blocks, and there were at least three experiments and biological repetitions. The data are shown as the mean ± SE (standard error) of the three replicates. For statistical analysis, SPSS Statistics Ver. 22 (IBM, New York, NY, USA) and GraphPad Prism 6 (Boston, MA, USA) were used. One-way ANOVA and Student’s t-test were used for comparisons, and p ≤ 0.05 was the threshold for a significant difference.

5. Conclusions

In this study, a soybean gene GmGSTU23 encoding a tau class glutathione transferase was identified. GmGSTU23 was up-regulated under salt stress. The overexpression of GmGSTU23 in Arabidopsis thaliana lines enhanced their tolerance to salt stress. Based on the physiological data and previous studies, we speculated that GmGSTU23 might improve the activity of glutathione transferase and the clearance of ROS by GSH, thereby alleviating salt toxicity in plants. This study provides some support for understanding the mechanisms of plant regulation of salt tolerance.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms24065547/s1.

Author Contributions

K.W. and H.N. designed the study; X.L., K.W. and Y.P. wrote the manuscript; Y.Z. and Z.C. were responsible for gene cloning, vector construction, genetic transformation, and detection of transgenic lines; X.L. and K.W. performed the gene sequencing, molecular identification of transgenic plants, analysis of resistance to salt growth phenotype, analysis of expression pattern, and analysis of genetic bioinformatics; Q.M. replicated and prepared all the plants used for the study experiments. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture (NZ2021012); Hainan Yazhou Bay Seed Lab (B21HJ0901); the Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province (2020B020220008); the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971966, 31971965); the China Agricultural Research System (CARS-04-PS09); the National Key Research and Development Projects (2018YFE0116900-06); and the Guangdong Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation and Promotion Project (2019KJ136-03).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data sets supporting the results of this study are included in the article. The RNA-seq data have been deposited into the NCBI Short Read Archive (SRA, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/, accessed on 4 February 2022) under accession number PRJNA867574.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Tianfu Han from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences for kindly gifting us with the pTF101.1 binary vector for the generation of the transgenic lines. The authors would like to thank Xiaoyu Zhang for her constructive help in the bioinformatics analysis and English editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Singh, A. Soil salinization and waterlogging: A threat to environment and agricultural sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 128–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Litalien, A.; Zeeb, B. Curing the earth: A review of anthropogenic soil salinization and plant-based strategies for sustainable mitigation. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 698, 134235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Teh, S.Y.; Koh, H.L. Climate change and soil salinization: Impact on agriculture, water and food security. Int. J. Agric. For. Plant. 2016, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  4. Li, J.; Pu, L.; Han, M.; Zhu, M.; Zhang, R.; Xiang, Y. Soil salinization research in China: Advances and prospects. J. Geogr. Sci. 2014, 24, 943–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Parida, A.K.; Das, A.B. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005, 60, 324–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shani, U.; Dudley, L.M. Field studies of crop response to water and salt stress. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 1522–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. van Zelm, E.; Zhang, Y.; Testerink, C. Salt tolerance mechanisms of plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2020, 71, 403–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Acosta-Motos, J.R.; Ortuño, M.F.; Bernal-Vicente, A.; Diaz-Vivancos, P.; Sanchez-Blanco, M.J.; Hernandez, J.A. Plant responses to salt stress: Adaptive mechanisms. Agronomy 2017, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Gorham, J.; Wyn Jones, R.G.; McDonnell, E. Some mechanisms of salt tolerance in crop plants. Biosalin. Action Bioprod. Saline Water 1985, 89, 15–40. [Google Scholar]
  10. Liang, W.; Ma, X.; Wan, P.; Liu, L. Plant salt-tolerance mechanism: A review. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 495, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Muchate, N.S.; Nikalje, G.C.; Rajurkar, N.S.; Suprasanna, P.; Nikam, T.D. Plant salt stress: Adaptive responses, tolerance mechanism and bioengineering for salt tolerance. Bot. Rev. 2016, 82, 371–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Edwards, R.; Dixon, D.P.; Walbot, V. Plant glutathione S-transferases: Enzymes with multiple functions in sickness and in health. Trends Plant Sci. 2000, 5, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Prasannath, K. Plant defense-related enzymes against pathogens: A review. AGRIEAST J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 11, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cunningham, F.X., Jr.; Gantt, E. Genes and enzymes of carotenoid biosynthesis in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 1998, 49, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gullner, G.; Komives, T.; Király, L.; Schröder, P. Glutathione S-transferase enzymes in plant-pathogen interactions. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Islam, S.; Rahman, I.A.; Islam, T.; Ghosh, A. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of glutathione S-transferase gene family in tomato: Gaining an insight to their physiological and stress-specific roles. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0187504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Islam, S.; Sajib, S.D.; Jui, Z.S.; Arabia, S.; Islam, T.; Ghosh, A. Genome-wide identification of glutathione S-transferase gene family in pepper, its classification, and expression profiling under different anatomical and environmental conditions. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 9101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. McGonigle, B.; Keeler, S.J.; Lau, S.M.C.; Koeppe, M.K.; O’Keefe, D.P. A genomics approach to the comprehensive analysis of the glutathione S-transferase gene family in soybean and maize. Plant Physiol. 2000, 124, 1105–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Wagner, U.; Edwards, R.; Dixon, D.P.; Mauch, F. Probing the diversity of the Arabidopsis glutathione S-transferase gene family. Plant Mol. Biol. 2002, 49, 515–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Soranzo, N.; Sari Gorla, M.; Mizzi, L.; Mauch, F. Organisation and structural evolution of the rice glutathione S-transferase gene family. Mol. Genet. Genom. 2004, 271, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Thomas, P.D.; Ebert, D.; Muruganujan, A.; Mushayahama, T.; Albou, L.P.; Mi, H. PANTHER: Making genome-scale phylogenetics accessible to all. Protein Sci. 2022, 31, 8–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pickett, C.B.; Lu, A.Y.H. Glutathione S-transferases: Gene structure, regulation, and biological function. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1989, 58, 743–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Droog, F. Plant glutathione S-transferases, a tale of theta and tau. J. Plant Growth Regul. 1997, 16, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Marrs, K.A. The functions and regulation of glutathione S-transferases in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 1996, 47, 127–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vuilleumier, S. Bacterial glutathione S-transferases: What are they good for? J. Bacteriol. 1997, 179, 1431–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Daniel, V. Glutathione S-transferases: Gene structure and regulation of expression. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1993, 28, 173–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Wilce, M.C.J.; Parker, M.W. Structure and function of glutathione S-transferases. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA-Protein Struct. Mol. Enzymol. 1994, 1205, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dalton, D.A.; Boniface, C.; Turner, Z.; Lindahl, A.; Kim, H.J.; Jelinek, L.; Govindarajulu, M.; Finger, R.E.; Taylor, C.G. Physiological roles of glutathione s-transferases in soybean root nodules. Plant Physiol. 2009, 150, 521–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Becana, M.; Matamoros, M.A.; Udvardi, M.; Dalton, D.A. Recent insights into antioxidant defenses of legume root nodules. New Phytol. 2010, 188, 960–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Dalton, D.A.; Scott, J.; Jelinek, L. Characterization of Glutathione S-Transferases from Legume Root Nodules. In Biological Nitrogen Fixation: Towards Poverty Alleviation through Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 203–204. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wen, K.; Li, X.; Huang, R.; Nian, H. Application of exogenous glutathione decreases chromium translocation and alleviates its toxicity in soybean (Glycine max L.). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 234, 113405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. García-Garijo, A.; Tejera, N.A.; Lluch, C.; Palma, F. Metabolic responses in root nodules of Phaseolus vulgaris and Vicia sativa exposed to the imazamox herbicide. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2014, 111, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Neuefeind, T.; Reinemer, P.; Bieseler, B. Plant glutathione S-transferases and herbicide detoxification. Biol. Chem. 1997, 378, 199–205. [Google Scholar]
  34. DeRidder, B.P.; Dixon, D.P.; Beussman, D.J.; Edwards, R.; Goldsbrough, P.B. Induction of glutathione S-transferases in Arabidopsis by herbicide safeners. Plant Physiol. 2002, 130, 1497–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Estévez, I.H.; Hernández, M.R. Plant glutathione S-transferases: An overview. Plant Gene 2020, 23, 100233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cao, Q.; Lv, W.; Jiang, H.; Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y. Genome-wide identification of glutathione S-transferase gene family members in tea plant (Camellia sinensis) and their response to environmental stress. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 205, 749–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wang, T.; Zhang, D.; Chen, L.; Wang, J.; Zhang, W.H. Genome-wide analysis of the glutathione S-Transferase family in wild Medicago ruthenica and drought-tolerant breeding application of MruGSTU39 gene in cultivated alfalfa. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2022, 135, 853–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Liu, D.; Liu, Y.; Rao, J.; Wang, G.; Li, H.; Ge, F.; Chen, C. Overexpression of the glutathione S-transferase gene from Pyrus pyrifolia fruit improves tolerance to abiotic stress in transgenic tobacco plants. Mol. Biol. 2013, 47, 515–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kumar, S.; Asif, M.H.; Chakrabarty, D.; Tripathi, R.D.; Dubey, R.S.; Trivedi, P.K. Expression of a rice Lambda class of glutathione S-transferase, OsGSTL2, in Arabidopsis provides tolerance to heavy metal and other abiotic stresses. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 248–249, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Choi, Y.I.; Noh, E.W.; Kim, H.J.; Shim, D. Overexpression of poplar GSTU51 confers selective tolerance to both mercury and methyl viologen but not to CDNB or cadmium in transgenic poplars. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2013, 7, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Qi, Y.C.; Liu, W.Q.; Qiu, L.Y.; Zhang, S.M.; Ma, L.; Zhang, H. Overexpression of glutathione S-transferase gene increases salt tolerance of Arabidopsis. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 57, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xu, J.; Xing, X.J.; Tian, Y.S.; Peng, R.H.; Xue, Y.; Zhao, W.; Yao, Q.H. Transgenic Arabidopsis Plants Expressing Tomato Glutathione S-Transferase Showed Enhanced Resistance to Salt and Drought Stress. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0136960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ji, W.; Zhu, Y.; Li, Y.; Yang, L.; Zhao, X.; Cai, H.; Bai, X. Over-expression of a glutathione S-transferase gene, GsGST, from wild soybean (Glycine soja) enhances drought and salt tolerance in transgenic tobacco. Biotechnol. Lett. 2010, 32, 1173–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gao, H.; Yu, C.; Liu, R.; Li, X.; Huang, H.; Wang, X.; Zhang, C.; Jiang, N.; Li, X.; Cheng, S.; et al. The Glutathione S-Transferase PtGSTF1 Improves Biomass Production and Salt Tolerance through Regulating Xylem Cell Proliferation, Ion Homeostasis and Reactive Oxygen Species Scavenging in Poplar. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 11288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, Y.; He, J.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wan, S.; Liu, L.; Dong, Y.; Liu, H.; Yu, Y. CsGSTU8, a Glutathione S-Transferase From Camellia sinensis, Is Regulated by CsWRKY48 and Plays a Positive Role in Drought Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 795919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhao, F.; Zhang, H. Salt and paraquat stress tolerance results from co-expression of the Suaeda salsa glutathione S-transferase and catalase in transgenic rice. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2006, 86, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Specht, J.E.; Diers, B.W.; Nelson, R.L.; de Toledo, J.F.F.; Torrion, J.A.; Grassini, P. Soybean. Yield Gains Major US Field Crop. 2014, 33, 311–355. [Google Scholar]
  48. List, G.R. Soybean lecithin: Food, industrial uses, and other applications. Polar Lipids 2015, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chen, K.I.; Erh, M.H.; Su, N.W.; Liu, W.H.; Chou, C.C.; Cheng, K.C. Soyfoods and soybean products: From traditional use to modern applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 96, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Erdman, J.W., Jr.; Fordyce, E.J. Soy products and the human diet. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1989, 49, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Essa, T.A. Effect of salinity stress on growth and nutrient composition of three soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) cultivars. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2002, 188, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Phang, T.; Shao, G.; Lam, H. Salt tolerance in soybean. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2008, 50, 1196–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ghassemi-Golezani, K.; Taifeh-Noori, M.; Oustan, S.; Moghaddam, M.; Seyyed-Rahmani, S. Oil and protein accumulation in soybean grains under salinity stress. Not. Sci. Biol. 2010, 2, 64–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Zhang, X.; Shen, Y.; Mu, K.; Cai, W.; Zhao, Y.; Shen, H.; Wang, X.; Ma, H. Phenylalanine Ammonia Lyase GmPAL1.1 Promotes Seed Vigor under High-Temperature and -Humidity Stress and Enhances Seed Germination under Salt and Drought Stress in Transgenic Arabidopsis. Plants 2022, 11, 3239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Qi, X.; Li, M.; Xie, M.; Liu, X.; Ni, M.; Shao, G.; Song, C.; Yim, A.K.-Y.; Tao, Y.; Wong, F.-L.; et al. Identification of a novel salt tolerance gene in wild soybean by whole-genome sequencing. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Guan, R.; Qu, Y.; Guo, Y.; Yu, L.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, J.; Chen, J.; Ren, Y.; Liu, G.; Tian, L.; et al. Salinity tolerance in soybean is modulated by natural variation in GmSALT3. Plant J. 2014, 80, 937–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Chen, H.; Chen, X.; Gu, H.; Wu, B.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, X.; Cui, X. GmHKT1; 4, a novel soybean gene regulating Na+/K+ ratio in roots enhances salt tolerance in transgenic plants. Plant Growth Regul. 2014, 73, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liao, Y.; Zou, H.F.; Wei, W.; Hao, Y.-J.; Tian, A.-G.; Huang, J.; Liu, Y.-F.; Zhang, J.-S.; Chen, S.-Y. Soybean GmbZIP44, GmbZIP62 and GmbZIP78 genes function as negative regulator of ABA signaling and confer salt and freezing tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. Planta 2008, 228, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chronopoulou, E.G.; Papageorgiou, A.C.; Ataya, F.; Nianiou-Obeidat, I.; Madesis, P.; Labrou, N.E. Expanding the Plant GSTome Through Directed Evolution: DNA Shuffling for the Generation of New Synthetic Enzymes with Engineered Catalytic and Binding Properties. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhao, C.; Zhang, H.; Song, C.; Zhu, J.K.; Shabala, S. Mechanisms of Plant Responses and Adaptation to Soil Salinity. Innovation 2020, 1, 100017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Berthomieu, P.; Conejero, G.; Nublat, A.; Brackenbury, W.J.; Lambert, C.; Savio, C.; Uozumi, N.; Oiki, S.; Yamada, K.; Cellier, F.; et al. Functional analysis of AtHKT1 in Arabidopsis shows that Na+ recirculation by the phloem is crucial for salt tolerance. EMBOJ 2003, 22, 2004–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Alemán, F.; Caballero, F.; Ródenas, R.; Rivero, R.M.; Martínez, V.; Rubio, F. The F130S point mutation in the Arabidopsis high-affinity K+ transporter AtHAK5 increases K+ over Na+ and Cs+ selectivity and confers Na+ and Cs+ tolerance to yeast under heterologous expression. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Chai, C.; Subudhi, P.K. Comprehensive analysis and expression profiling of the OsLAX and OsABCB auxin transporter gene families in rice (Oryza sativa) under phytohormone stimuli and abiotic stresses. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Halfter, U.; Ishitani, M.; Zhu, J.K. The Arabidopsis SOS2 protein kinase physically interacts with and is activated by the calcium-binding protein SOS3. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 3735–3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Soma, F.; Mogami, J.; Yoshida, T.; Abekura, M.; Takahashi, F.; Kidokoro, S.; Mizoi, J.; Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. ABA-unresponsive SnRK2 protein kinases regulate mRNA decay under osmotic stress in plants. Nat. Plants 2017, 3, 16204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wei, J.T.; Zhao, S.P.; Zhang, H.Y.; Jin, L.G.; Yu, T.F.; Zheng, L.; Ma, J.; Chen, J.; Zhou, Y.B.; Chen, M.; et al. GmDof41 regulated by the DREB1-type protein improves drought and salt tolerance by regulating the DREB2-type protein in soybean. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 230, 123255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Singh, D.; Debnath, P.; Sane, A.P.; Sane, V.A. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) WRKY23 enhances salt and osmotic stress tolerance by modulating the ethylene and auxin pathways in transgenic Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2023, 195, 330–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Kaya, C.; Ugurlar, F.; Ashraf, M.; Alam, P.; Ahmad, P. Nitric oxide and hydrogen sulfide work together to improve tolerance to salinity stress in wheat plants by upraising the AsA-GSH cycle. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2023, 194, 651–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Foyer, C.H.; Noctor, G. Ascorbate and glutathione: The heart of the redox hub. Plant Physiol. 2011, 155, 2–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Foyer, C.H.; Noctor, G. Oxidant and antioxidant signalling in plants: A re-evaluation of the concept of oxidative stress in a physiological context. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 28, 1056–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hasan, M.K.; Liu, C.; Wang, F.; Ahammed, G.J.; Zhou, J.; Xu, M.X.; Yu, J.Q.; Xia, X.J. Glutathione-mediated regulation of nitric oxide, S-nitrosothiol and redox homeostasis confers cadmium tolerance by inducing transcription factors and stress response genes in tomato. Chemosphere 2016, 161, 536–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Vaish, S.; Parveen, R.; Gupta, D.; Basantani, M.K. Genome-wide identification and characterization of glutathione S-transferase gene family in Musa acuminata L. AAA group and gaining an insight to their role in banana fruit development. J. Appl. Genet. 2022, 63, 609–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. He, G.; Guan, C.N.; Chen, Q.X.; Gou, X.J.; Liu, W.; Zeng, Q.Y.; Lan, T. Genome-Wide Analysis of the Glutathione S-Transferase Gene Family in Capsella rubella: Identification, Expression, and Biochemical Functions. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Vaish, S.; Awasthi, P.; Tiwari, S.; Tiwari, S.K.; Gupta, D.; Basantani, M.K. In silico genome-wide identification and characterization of the glutathione S-transferase gene family in Vigna radiata. Genome 2018, 61, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Jianan, Z.; Li, W.; Zhang, Y.; Song, W.; Jiang, H.; Zhao, J.; Zhan, Y.; Teng, W.; Qiu, L.; Zhao, X.; et al. Identification of glutathione transferase gene associated with partial resistance to Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean using genome-wide association and linkage mapping. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 2699–2709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Horváth, E.; Bela, K.; Holinka, B.; Riyazuddin, R.; Gallé, Á.; Hajnal, Á.; Hurton, Á.; Fehér, A.; Csiszár, J. The Arabidopsis glutathione transferases, AtGSTF8 and AtGSTU19 are involved in the maintenance of root redox homeostasis affecting meristem size and salt stress sensitivity. Plant Sci. 2019, 283, 366–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Yang, K.Y.; Kim, E.Y.; Kim, C.S.; Guh, J.O.; Kim, K.C.; Cho, B.H. Characterization of a glutathione S-transferase gene ATGST1 in Ara-bidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Rep. 1998, 17, 700–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sengupta, S.; Pehlivan, N.; Mangu, V.; Rajasekaran, K.; Baisakh, N. Characterization of a Stress-Enhanced Promoter from the Grass Halophyte, Spartina alterniflora L. Biology 2022, 11, 1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhang, X.; Xue, Y.; Wang, H.; Nisa, Z.U.; Jin, X.; Yu, L.; Liu, X.; Yu, Y.; Chen, C. Genome-wide identification and characterization of NHL gene family in response to alkaline stress, ABA and MEJA treatments in wild soybean (Glycine soja). PeerJ 2022, 10, e14451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Czarnecka, E.; Nagao, R.T.; Key, J.L.; Gurley, W.B. Characterization of Gmhsp26-A, a stress gene encoding a divergent heat shock protein of soybean: Heavy-metal-induced inhibition of intron processing. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1988, 8, 1113–1122. [Google Scholar]
  81. Sarry, J.E.; Kuhn, L.; Ducruix, C.; Lafaye, A.; Junot, C.; Hugouvieux, V.; Jourdain, A.; Bastien, O.; Fievet, J.B.; Vailhen, D.; et al. The early responses of Arabidopsis thaliana cells to cadmium exposure explored by protein and metabolite profiling analyses. Proteomics 2006, 6, 2180–2198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Libault, M.; Farmer, A.; Brechenmacher, L.; Drnevich, J.; Langley, R.J.; Bilgin, D.D.; Radwan, O.; Neece, D.J.; Clough, S.J.; May, G.D.; et al. Complete transcriptome of the soybean root hair cell, a single-cell model, and its alteration in response to Bradyrhizobium japonicum infection. Plant Physiol. 2010, 152, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Severin, A.J.; Woody, J.L.; Bolon, Y.T.; Joseph, B.; Diers, B.W.; Farmer, A.D.; Muehlbauer, G.J.; Nelson, R.T.; Grant, D.; Specht, J.E.; et al. RNA-Seq Atlas of Glycine max: A guide to the soybean transcriptome. BMC Plant Biol. 2010, 10, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Ozfidan-Konakci, C.; Yildiztugay, E.; Arikan, B.; Alp-Turgut, F.N.; Turan, M.; Cavusoglu, H.; Sakalak, H. Responses of individual and combined polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate nanoplastics on hormonal content, fluorescence/photochemistry of chlorophylls and ROS scavenging capacity in Lemna minor under arsenic-induced oxidative stress. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2023, 196, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Zia-Ur-Rehman, M.; Anayatullah, S.; Irfan, E.; Hussain, S.M.; Rizwan, M.; Sohail, M.I.; Jafir, M.; Ahmad, T.; Usman, M.; Alharby, H.F. Nanoparticles assisted regulation of oxidative stress and antioxidant enzyme system in plants under salt stress: A review. Chemosphere 2023, 314, 137649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Cai, Z.; Xian, P.; Wang, H.; Lin, R.; Lian, T.; Cheng, Y.; Ma, Q.; Nian, H. Transcription Factor GmWRKY142 Confers Cadmium Resistance by Up-Regulating the Cadmium Tolerance 1-Like Genes. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Hanway, J.J.; Thompson, H.E. How a soybean plant develops. Iowa State Univ. Sci. Technol. Coop. Ext. Serv. 1967. Available online: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/90212 (accessed on 4 February 2023).
  88. Fehr, W.R.; Caviness, C.E. Stages of Soybean Development; Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Cooperative Extension Service: Ames, IA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  89. Clough, S.J.; Bent, A.F. Floral dip: A simplified method for agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 1998, 16, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ijms 24 05547 g001 550
Figure 1. Bioinformatics analysis of GmGSTU23. (A) Conserved domain analysis of the GmGSTU23 protein sequence. (B) Sequence comparison of GmGSTU23 and its homologues. GmGSTU23 and its homologs both contain an N-terminal domain (red line) and a C-terminal domain (blue line). (C) Prediction of the GmGSTU23 protein structure. The protein structure modeling template is [PDB c6ghfA]. One color represents one protein fold. (D) Phylogenetic tree of GmGSTU23 and GST members in other species.
Figure 1. Bioinformatics analysis of GmGSTU23. (A) Conserved domain analysis of the GmGSTU23 protein sequence. (B) Sequence comparison of GmGSTU23 and its homologues. GmGSTU23 and its homologs both contain an N-terminal domain (red line) and a C-terminal domain (blue line). (C) Prediction of the GmGSTU23 protein structure. The protein structure modeling template is [PDB c6ghfA]. One color represents one protein fold. (D) Phylogenetic tree of GmGSTU23 and GST members in other species.
Ijms 24 05547 g001
Ijms 24 05547 g002 550
Figure 2. Determination of GmGSTU23 expression patterns. (A) The relative expression of GmGSTU23 in different organs of soybean plants. (B) Time-dependent expression pattern of GmGSTU23. The plant materials were collected after 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h in 200 mM NaCl. (C) Dose-dependent expression pattern of GmGSTU23. The seedings were measured after exposure to 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 mM NaCl for 8 h. Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Determination of GmGSTU23 expression patterns. (A) The relative expression of GmGSTU23 in different organs of soybean plants. (B) Time-dependent expression pattern of GmGSTU23. The plant materials were collected after 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h in 200 mM NaCl. (C) Dose-dependent expression pattern of GmGSTU23. The seedings were measured after exposure to 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 mM NaCl for 8 h. Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Ijms 24 05547 g002
Ijms 24 05547 g003 550
Figure 3. Overexpression of GmGSTU23 relieved the inhibition of root elongation by salt stress. (A) Phenotypes of the GmGSTU23 transgenic lines in plate culture. (B) Analysis of root elongation of seedlings. Scale bar = 1 cm. The bars represent the average ± SD of three replicates. Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05). WT, wild type; OE-2, OE-5, OE-11: GmGSTU23 transgenic lines.
Figure 3. Overexpression of GmGSTU23 relieved the inhibition of root elongation by salt stress. (A) Phenotypes of the GmGSTU23 transgenic lines in plate culture. (B) Analysis of root elongation of seedlings. Scale bar = 1 cm. The bars represent the average ± SD of three replicates. Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05). WT, wild type; OE-2, OE-5, OE-11: GmGSTU23 transgenic lines.
Ijms 24 05547 g003
Ijms 24 05547 g004 550
Figure 4. Overexpression of GmGSTU23 in transgenic plants enhances phenotypic and antioxidant enzyme activity under salt stress. (A) Phenotypes of the GmGSTU23 transgenic lines in soil culture. (B) Analysis of fresh weight, MDA, CAT, SOD, POD, and APX in the WT and transgenic lines. Scale bar = 1 cm. Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among the treatments at p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Overexpression of GmGSTU23 in transgenic plants enhances phenotypic and antioxidant enzyme activity under salt stress. (A) Phenotypes of the GmGSTU23 transgenic lines in soil culture. (B) Analysis of fresh weight, MDA, CAT, SOD, POD, and APX in the WT and transgenic lines. Scale bar = 1 cm. Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among the treatments at p < 0.05.
Ijms 24 05547 g004
Ijms 24 05547 g005 550
Figure 5. Glutathione pool composition and related enzymes. (A–D) Changes in GST (A), GSH (B), GSSG (C), and GR (D) contents of 15-day-old wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana after 20 days of treatment with 0 or 200 mM NaCl solution. Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Glutathione pool composition and related enzymes. (A–D) Changes in GST (A), GSH (B), GSSG (C), and GR (D) contents of 15-day-old wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana after 20 days of treatment with 0 or 200 mM NaCl solution. Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Ijms 24 05547 g005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, X.; Pang, Y.; Zhong, Y.; Cai, Z.; Ma, Q.; Wen, K.; Nian, H. GmGSTU23 Encoding a Tau Class Glutathione S-Transferase Protein Enhances the Salt Tolerance of Soybean (Glycine max L.). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 5547. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24065547

AMA Style

Li X, Pang Y, Zhong Y, Cai Z, Ma Q, Wen K, Nian H. GmGSTU23 Encoding a Tau Class Glutathione S-Transferase Protein Enhances the Salt Tolerance of Soybean (Glycine max L.). International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(6):5547. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24065547

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Xingang, Yuanting Pang, Yiwang Zhong, Zhandong Cai, Qibin Ma, Ke Wen, and Hai Nian. 2023. "GmGSTU23 Encoding a Tau Class Glutathione S-Transferase Protein Enhances the Salt Tolerance of Soybean (Glycine max L.)" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 6: 5547. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24065547

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop