Next Article in Journal
Effects of the Rainfall Intensity and Slope Gradient on Soil Erosion and Nitrogen Loss on the Sloping Fields of Miyun Reservoir
Previous Article in Journal
Phytoremediation of Potentially Toxic Elements: Role, Status and Concerns
Previous Article in Special Issue
Identification of QTL under Brassinosteroid-Combined Cold Treatment at Seedling Stage in Rice Using Genotyping-by-Sequencing (GBS)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Wheat Omics: Advancements and Opportunities

by
Deepmala Sehgal
1,2,*,†,
Priyanka Dhakate
3,†,
Heena Ambreen
4,
Khasim Hussain Baji Shaik
5,
Nagenahalli Dharmegowda Rathan
6,7,
Nayanahalli Munireddy Anusha
6,
Rupesh Deshmukh
8 and
Prashant Vikram
9
1
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), El Batán, Texcoco 56237, Mexico
2
Syngenta, Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY, UK
3
National Institute of Plant Genome Research, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi 110076, India
4
School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK
5
Faculty of Agriculture Sciences, Georg-August-Universität, Wilhelmsplatz 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
6
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (ICAR-IARI), New Delhi 110012, India
7
Corteva Agriscience, Hyderabad 502336, Telangana, India
8
Department of Biotechnology, Central University of Haryana, Mahendragarh 123031, Haryana, India
9
Bioseed Research India Ltd., Hyderabad 5023324, Telangana, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Plants 2023, 12(3), 426; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030426
Submission received: 29 September 2022 / Revised: 7 December 2022 / Accepted: 14 December 2022 / Published: 17 January 2023

Abstract

:
Plant omics, which includes genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics and proteomics, has played a remarkable role in the discovery of new genes and biomolecules that can be deployed for crop improvement. In wheat, great insights have been gleaned from the utilization of diverse omics approaches for both qualitative and quantitative traits. Especially, a combination of omics approaches has led to significant advances in gene discovery and pathway investigations and in deciphering the essential components of stress responses and yields. Recently, a Wheat Omics database has been developed for wheat which could be used by scientists for further accelerating functional genomics studies. In this review, we have discussed various omics technologies and platforms that have been used in wheat to enhance the understanding of the stress biology of the crop and the molecular mechanisms underlying stress tolerance.

1. Introduction

Wheat is a widely grown staple cereal crop covering an area of 217 million ha annually and meets the dietary demands of 2.5 billion people globally [1]. Its production is severely affected by biotic and abiotic stresses throughout its production zones [2,3,4] leading to a large gap between the potential yield and the real harvest yield. The projected global demand for wheat by 2050 [5] demands that scientists and breeders should adopt newer tools and technologies to accelerate the development of high-yielding varieties that can adapt to challenging environments.
With the recent advancements in wheat omics, which include genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics and proteomics, extensive research has been conducted to decipher the mechanism(s) of stress tolerance, leading to the enhanced understanding of the expression of different genes along with their protein profiling and the biological mechanisms underlying various stress tolerance traits [6,7]. To handle massive data points generated by all omics approaches, new analytical tools, high-throughput data analysis pipelines and omics databases have been developed [8,9,10,11]. For example, a Wheat Omics database has been recently developed, which combines multiple omics data gathered from different tissues and germplasm sets harboring more than 100,000 novel annotated transcripts [10]. It has various user-friendly tools, including BLAST, Primer Server, Homolog Finder, IntervalTool, etc., and various functionalities to investigate gene expression, co-expression, protein interactions and synteny. WheatGmap database (https://www.wheatgmap.org, accessed on 10 October 2022) was recently developed, which integrates multiple mapping models and large amounts of public data to facilitate functional genomics research [11]. It contains more than 3500 next-generation sequencing (NGS) datasets, including whole genome sequencing (WGS), whole exome sequencing (WES) and transcriptome deep-sequencing (RNA-seq) datasets. These recent developments will allow wheat scientists to further enrich the knowledge of differentially regulated genes under various stress conditions and unravel the complex regulatory interplay of different biological processes in response to multiple stresses in fields. It is anticipated that these advances will play pivotal roles in wheat breeding and trait optimization.
In the past few years, the use of multi-omics has become a leading approach in elucidating the responses to biotic and abiotic stresses and in building prediction models in crops, thus allowing multidimensional research in several crops, including wheat [12,13]. Figure 1 illustrates different omics approaches that are generally deployed in crops. This review highlights various omics/multi-omics approaches and technological advancements that have been utilized in wheat for identifying genes underpinning stress tolerance, investigating the biochemical changes in response to stress, understanding protein–protein interactions and regulating metabolic pathways evolved to tolerate and/or escape stresses. Various case studies have been discussed at length under different sections to better understand the methodology in detail and to realize how the research outputs from omics/multi-omics research could be used in breeding.

2. Genomic Approaches

Advancement in NGS technologies has propelled a massive wave of scientific discoveries, providing enormous modern genomic tools and resources for wheat genetic improvement and bringing a paradigm shift in breeding methods [14]. Innovations have been made in the development of efficient genotyping platforms in wheat which could be combined with physical maps for rapid gene discovery [15,16,17]. Advancements in single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping arrays now allow thousands of markers to be screened in large populations, providing tangible information in an expeditious and inexpensive mode. Over the years, several SNP arrays have been developed for genotyping wheat, showing continuous improvement in terms of their effectiveness to differentiate diverse wheat genotypes. A 9K iSelect array was developed based on gene-associated SNPs and assessed the functional diversity of 2994 wheat accessions [18]. Additionally, a high-density 90K SNP chip was developed that was subsequently used for the generation of a 15K Infinium array [19,20]. An Affymetrix Axiom 820K SNP array, targeted the identification of polymorphisms in bread wheat and close relatives, including members from secondary and tertiary gene pools [21]. This array was further exploited to derive a 35K Wheat Breeders Array which was found to be highly equipped to genotype elite wheat accessions, including landraces from breeding programs [22]. Whole genome resequencing data from eight wheat lines were employed to develop a 280K SNP array for effective discrimination between closely related wheat accessions [23].
Recently, previously reported seven wheat SNP arrays were evaluated to design a cumulative 660K Axiom SNP array with wider applicability [17]. Based on a novel approach, an imputation-enabled SNP array, Illumina Infinium Wheat Barley 40K SNP array version 1.0, has been designed to capture the haplotypic diversity in wheat and barley germplasm [24]. In addition to the reliable and cost-effective SNP chip arrays, NGS-based genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) has been used to detect global variation in wheat germplasm for various applications [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34].
In the past decade, several reference genomes sequences have been released for wheat, including durum wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. durum;) [35,36] bread wheat (T. aestivum) [9,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44] and its progenitor species including wild emmer (T. turgidum spp. dicoccoides) [35] wild goatgrass (Aegilops tauschii) [45,46,47] and T. urartu [48]. These near-complete assemblies, for the first time, depicted the true genomic landscape of wheat and provided genome-wide navigation into repeat and gene families, transforming the entire field of wheat genomics. The availability of multiple high-quality reference genomes and resequencing data from several genotypes in wheat has revealed a high proportion of genomic variation [40]. Moreover, an awareness that a single reference genome is inadequate to represent the complete diversity within the species has catalyzed the expansion of a pan-genomic era in wheat. Pan-genomes aim at investigating the entire sequence diversity within a species, captured from the core/universal (present in all individuals) and divergent/variable (specific to a few individuals) genomic components, which could potentially be applied for understanding the genetic basis of important agronomic traits [49]. The first wheat pan-genome, based on the gene content of 18 cultivars, identified a new gene space along with the exploration of variable genes through presence/absence variation (PAV) analysis with respect to the classical reference genome of Chinese Spring [50]. Functional annotation of the variable gene components of the studied wheat cultivars exhibited the enrichment of genes involved in the response to abiotic and biotic stresses. The dispensable gene sets were shown to harbour more genomic variation as compared to core genes and were projected to play an important role in maintaining crop diversity.
The reference genome assemblies have served as a key component for in-silico identification and characterization of known and novel gene families with functional implications in various biotic and abiotic stresses. For instance, examination of nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeats (NLR) gene family revealed a highly variable and complex repertoire of the NLR-encoding resistance gene family [40]. Only 30–34% of NLR signatures were conserved among the studied lines and a large number of unique signatures were reserved in individual genotypes, providing high-resolution variation information which could be exploited for the development of disease-resilient wheat cultivars. Additionally, exploration of a novel gene family facilitates the identification of gene members, analysis of their gene structure and duplication events, evolutionary relationships, spatial and temporal expression dynamics and assignment of putative function. A plethora of studies have been conducted to elucidate the novel functional roles of different gene families during various stress conditions in wheat. Reporting the entire set of these studies would be difficult to accommodate here, owing to the excessively high quantum; however, a few representative studies are presented in Table 1.
The availability of millions of SNPs in wheat has opened vistas of new gene discoveries using genome-wide association studies (GWAS) [14,73]. As of today, more than 3000 marker-trait associations are known for a plethora of agronomic traits in wheat which have been compiled into 141 meta-QTLs [74]. Thirteen of these meta-QTLs have been reported as breeder’s meta-QTLs, the application of which in breeding should prove useful for realizing yield gains. Due to the high marker densities available in wheat, haplotypes-based GWAS studies and epistatic interaction analyses have become possible in wheat, providing high-resolution dissection of complex traits [75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84]. Additionally, a range of new genetics and genomics analyses are now possible, including genomic selection (GS) and selective sweep analyses, which require genome-wide high-density markers [85,86,87,88]. The integration of genomics in wheat improvement programs has restructured breeding programs globally, from conventional to genomics-assisted ones, promoting marker-assisted selection (MAS) and GS for achieving faster and more reliable breeding outcomes [89].
Due to its intrinsic ability to expedite genetic gains achieved through improved selection accuracy coupled with reduced breeding time and phenotyping cost, GS has garnered huge attention over the past decade in wheat [85]. Various efforts have been undertaken to practically implement the GS strategy for abiotic stress tolerance, particularly heat and drought stress, and different robust statistical models have been tested to analyze their impact on prediction accuracies [77,90,91,92,93,94,95,96]. Additionally, attempts have been made to optimize genomic prediction accuracies for resistance against a wide range of pathogens in wheat, including powdery mildew (causative agent: Blumeria graminis; [97]), fusarium head blight (causative agent: Fusarium graminearum; [98,99,100,101]), septoria tritici blotch (causative agent: Zymoseptoriatritici; [99,102,103]), stem or black rust (causative agent: Puccinia graminis Pers; [104]), leaf or brown rust (causative agent: Puccinia triticina Eriks; [104]), stripe or yellow rust (causative agent: Puccinia striiformis West; [104,105]), stagonospora nodorum blotch (causative agent: Parastagonospora nodorum; [102]), spot blotch (causative agent: Bipolaris sorokiniana; [32] and tan spot (causative agent: Pyrenophora tritici-repentis; [102]). Integrating omics datasets in prediction models and compounding GS with high-throughput phenotyping, speed breeding and gene editing techniques would be instrumental in hastening wheat improvement programs for the development of future climate-resilient, high-yielding superior wheat cultivars.

3. Transcriptomic Approaches

In the past, microarrays have been used extensively to analyze the expression and co-expression of numerous genes under various stress conditions in crop plants [106,107,108]. However, microarray-based experiments failed to detect gene networks regulating stress responses at the genome-wide level. With advancements in NGS, whole transcriptome analyses have become feasible, allowing identification and quantification of the global expression of transcripts, alternative splicing patterns and associated allele-specific expressions [109,110]. RNA-seq, the latest NGS technique for investigating genome-wide transcriptomes, helps to examine the expressional variation in genes in contrasting sets of samples or panels subjected to different stress treatments and to pinpoint the potential candidate genes. Due to its in-depth coverage and global expression of transcripts, RNA-seq has been used extensively in many crops, including wheat, to uncover the mechanisms conferring tolerance to different stresses. Table 2 enlists transcriptomic studies carried out in wheat under different stress conditions in the past decade.
Transcriptomics studies have unveiled important roles played by numerous genes, gene families, transcription factors (TFs), hormones, metabolites, cofactors and microRNAs (miRNAs) in conferring tolerance to various abiotic stresses in wheat. Most significantly, the role of antioxidant enzymes, such as cytochrome P450, glutathione S-transferase, polyphenol oxidase, chitinase 2, ascorbate peroxidase (APX) and peroxidase (POD), in circumventing the adverse effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS) on proteins has been repeatedly suggested to be an important tolerance mechanism under both drought and salinity stress conditions [122,123,124]. Similarly, ABC transporters and Na+/Ca2+ exchangers have been suggested to be the key players under salinity stress conditions. In addition, the role of various TFs belonging to the NAC, WRKY and MADS families was highlighted to be a significant one under a single or multiple abiotic stress condition while TFs from the MYB family were highlighted as the key candidate genes under biotic stress conditions [125,126].
The transcriptomic alterations in response to salt stress were analysed to identify the candidate genes regulating plant salt stress tolerance in wheat [125]. Two sets of genotypes, contrasting for sensitivity to salinity stress wherein one set consisted of a German winter wheat cultivar Zentos (salt-tolerant) and the synthetic genotype Syn86 (salt-susceptible), while the other set had a Turkish cultivar Altay2000 (salt-tolerant) and the Uzbek cultivar Bobur (salt-susceptible) were analysed [125]. The expression of genes from four genotypes revealed upregulation of some ABC transporters and Na+/Ca2+ exchangers in the tolerant genotypes, indicating their involvement in the mechanisms of sodium exclusion and homeostasis. Furthermore, five genes were found co-located with two QTLs on chromosome 2A and three of these were found to have a differential expression. Of these, TraesCS2A02G395000, which codes for an oxoglutarate/iron-dependent dioxygenase, was reported to be central in controlling salinity stress in wheat [125]. Transcriptomic analyses in wheat was employed to assess regulation of biosynthesis of a special metabolite, benzoxazinoid, by the wheat transcription factor MYB31 in response to pest attack [126]. The silencing of TaMYB31 gene was found to significantly decrease the benzoxazinoid metabolite levels and consequently resulting in susceptibility to herbivores [126]. Furthermore, comprehensive transcriptomics highlighted the fact that the TaMYB31 gene co-expresses with the target benzoxazinoid-encoded Bx genes under various biotic and environmental circumstances imparting resistance to wheat plants [126]. RNAseq analysis of wheat lines subjected to multiple abiotic stresses revealed a novel ERF gene TaERF-6-3A, which was found to be induced under three abiotic stresses, salt, cold and drought [127]. In addition, upregulation of 20 AP2/ERF genes was identified based in response to drought stress [127]. Most significantly, a novel ERF gene, TaERF-6-3A, was found to be induced in response to three abiotic stresses, salt, cold and drought [127]. Further, the ectopic expression of TaERF-6-3A in Arabidopsis was found to increase sensitivity to drought and salinity stress. TaERF-6-3A was found to repress endogenous antioxidant enzyme mechanisms, resulting in increased oxidative damage and reduced tolerance to stress, suggesting TaERF-6-3A to be a negative regulator [127].
Over the last decade, transcriptomics has validated the regulatory role of miRNAs in response to abiotic stresses in wheat [128,129,130,131]. The microRNAs (miRNAs) are small, single-stranded, non-coding RNAs with a typical length of 20–24 nucleotides. The role of miRNAs as cardinal post-transcriptional regulators directing gene expression in a sequence-specific manner in response to abiotic stresses is now well established. Stress-induced expression of miRNA genes usually leads to the accumulation of mature miRNA species to downregulate their intended target. Alternatively, the downregulation of these genes results in an increased expression in their intended targets. Over the past decade, transcriptomics has been used to assess the altered expressions of miRNAs and their downstream target in response to numerous abiotic stresses. RNA-seq was employed in the salt-tolerant wheat cultivar (Arg) and salt-susceptible cultivar (Moghan3) and identified a total of 26,171 novel transcripts, of which 5128 were found to be differentially expressed in response to salinity stress [129]. Significant expression of 16 novel miRNAs was found in response to salinity stress, in addition to the TaABAC15, TaACA7, TaANN4 and TaNCL2 genes, in the salt-tolerant wheat cultivar, implicating a central role of miRNA in mediating responses to salinity stress in wheat. A root-specific accumulation of mature miRNAs under salinity stress in wheat was identified [131]. Most importantly, miRNAs osamiR444b.2, osamiR172b and athmiR5655 were found to mediate the regulation of TFs, containing conserved domains such as MADS-box, AP2/ERBP and bHLH135, respectively [131].
Furthermore, underlying regulatory network at play to improve tolerance to heat was explored with the exogenous application of trehalose in wheat [124]. It was found that pretreatment with trehalose was found to alleviate the oxidative damage caused by high-temperature stress [124]. A total of 15,403 genes were found differentially expressed in the tolerant Yangmai 18 variety and the differential expression of 749 genes was found in the susceptible Yannong 19, suggesting that a higher number of genes are involved in the trehalose response in the tolerant variety [124]. A majority of the DEGs were found to mediate cellular metabolism and regulation cell metabolism and biological regulation. Additionally, RNA-seq analysis revealed that the exogenous application of trehalose could potentially activate autophagy under high-temperature stress. Conclusively, the application of trehalose in wheat plants was found to reset the transcriptional profile of the endogenous metabolic pathways, suggesting the existence of a trehalose-induced complex regulatory network at play to aid the efficient adaptation of plants in response to heat stress [124].
Numerous transcriptomic studies have suggested a co-mediated regulation of Calmodulin (CaM) and calmodulin-like (CML) proteins regulating Ca2+-signaling processes in response to abiotic stresses in wheat [51,132]. The transcriptome from leaves of the salt-tolerant Iranian wheat cultivar (Arg) was analysed on Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform [129]. A total of 26,700 novel transcripts along with the differential expression of 4290 genes, were identified, of which 2346 were found upregulated and 1944 were downregulated [129]. Transcripts discovered were primarily found to be related to phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, transporters, exosomes, transcription factors, MAPK signalling, glycosyltransferases and signal transduction, suggesting their relevance in imparting salt tolerance to the plant [129]. Significant upregulation of Ca2+ homeostasis-related genes, including two genes for calcium-transporting ATPases, three glutamate receptors (GLRs), 13 CIPK genes, a gene encoding calmodulin (CaM), a CaM-binding transcription factor CBP60 and a CaM-binding gene TaMLO was found [129]. In addition, six wall-associated kinases (WAKs) and three LecRLKs, which are both members of the receptor-like kinases (RLK) subfamily, were discovered to be upregulated [129]. Likewise, LecRLKs and WAKs have a well-documented role in controlling plants’ adaptation to various abiotic stresses [133]. In addition, 27 MYBs, basic leucine zipper TFs, 17 zinc finger TFs and two genes coding for TIFY were found to be differentially expressed in response to salinity stress in wheat [129]. Further, 22 genes, reported to be involved in regulating the transportation of sodium, potassium or both, were found to be significantly upregulated in response to salt stress [129]. Of these, two genes, Ta.HKT1 and Ta.KT, were functionally characterized. Ta.HKT1 was established as an orthologue of rice Os04g0607500 that encodes a cation transporter. Ta.KT was found to be an orthologue of At2g30070 that encodes AtKT1, a potassium transporter. Transcripts of both genes were found to be significantly accumulated in response to salinity stress [129]. Similarly, recently 113 TaCMLs and 15 TaCAMs were identified in response to drought and salinity stress [51]. Increased expression of TaCAM2-D was found under salt and drought stresses [51]. Evidently enough, the ectopic expression of TaCAM2-D in Arabidopsis led to an increased tolerance to salt and drought. TaCAM2-D was validated to be TaMPK8, a wheat mitogen-activated protein kinase, providing evidence of calcium signalling in regulating the stress response in plants [51].
Heavy metal contamination of the soil via natural and (or) anthropogenic activities is another stress that crop plants regularly experience. The physical-geochemical properties of these heavy metals in soil and their subsequent uptake by plants have been found to adversely affect various physiological, morphological and biochemical processes of the plant, resulting in reduced crop productivity. Given the relevance of wheat as an important cereal across the globe, developing/screening wheat cultivars with low heavy metal accumulation promises reduced dietary exposure to heavy metals. To this effect, root transcriptomes of YM16, a low-Cadmium (Cd)-accumulating wheat genotype were analysed under cadmium-treated and untreated conditions [134]. Genes regulating glutathione metabolism, phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, nitrogen metabolism and sulfur metabolism were found to be significantly upregulated under Cd stress [134]. Furthermore, a comparative transcriptomic approach was employed to assess the activation of endogenous Cd detoxification mechanisms following Cd treatment in wheat genotypes T207 and S276 displaying Cd resistance and sensitivity, respectively [135]. The accumulation of transcripts encoding glutathione, ascorbic acid and catalase activity was found in T207 along with lower expression levels of peroxidase and superoxide dismutase [135]. Further, the transcriptomics revealed that the expression of Respiratory Burst Oxidase Homologs (RBOH), such as RBOHA, RBOHC, and RBOHE, was significantly increased in response to Cd toxicity [135]. Twenty-two RBOH genes were found to have increased expression levels in S276 in comparison with T207. Studies, as mentioned above, continue to increase our understanding of the complex molecular mechanisms of plants under Cd stress and shall aid in the development of low-heavy metal accumulating wheat varieties.

4. Metabolomic Approaches

Metabolomics is one of the most evolved and extensively explored omics technologies. It is an analytical profiling platform to measure and compare the metabolites present in biological samples at a given time. Metabolomics can be combined with high-throughput analytical chemistry and multivariate data analysis to unravel the molecular mechanisms at play in response to endogenous and exogenous environments of organisms. Its ability to efficiently complement other omics approaches makes it even more powerful for usage across all organisms [74]. In contrast to other omics approaches, metabolomics is efficient in tangibilizing the biochemical activities of apparent proteins and their subsequent metabolism into other proteins, making it rather easy to associate phenotypes [74]. Albeit not as extensively as transcriptomics, metabolomics has been employed in wheat to identify stress tolerance mechanisms and candidate genes by correlating the accumulation of metabolites in response to induced stresses [41,136,137]. An untargeted metabolomic analysis was employed to validate the use of wheat homeologous group 3 ditelosomic lines for identification and direct validation of genes regulating the accumulation of metabolites during the later stages of grain development [136]. Significant differences with respect to the accumulation of sugars were found between genetically modified wheat genotypes with their parental lines associated with the environment rather than the genotype [138]. Similar findings have also been reported in other investigations [137,139,140]. To assess the effects of nutrient deficiency on the metabolomic profile of wheat, a metabolomic approach in conjunction with transcriptomics was employed to assess the effects of nitrogen and sulphur deficiency on the remobilization of resources from a degrading canopy to developing grains in wheat [141]. The results obtained from both approaches corroborated, to suggest a suboptimal mobilization of N and (or) S supply to leaves but the supply to developing grains was always found to be optimum. A clever strategy employed by the plant was deciphered that utilizes the machinery in place for aminoacid biosynthesis to produce glutamine in developing grains. In the first seven days of seed development, a significant accumulation of glutamine was observed that was later converted to other amino acids and proteins over the subsequent 21 days of grain development [141]. The content of nitrogen and sulphur in the grains was found to increase at a steady rate of post-anthesis and nitrogen deficiency was found to adversely affect the accumulation of nitrogen and sulphur, suggesting that the availability of nitrogen at the vegetative stage determines the time and extent of the remobilization of resources [141].
The metabolic profile of the wheat cultivar Sumai-3 was analysed to unravel the host resistance mechanisms against Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) in response to two isolates of Fusarium graminearum that differentiated with regard to the production of trichothecene [142]. The resistance was found to be acquired due to the accumulation of the resistance-related (RR) metabolites from the phenylpropanoid pathway that reduced the spread of fungus by thickening the host cell wall and not due to the reduced accumulation of the toxic deoxynivalenol (DON) [142]. In addition, the growth of the pathogen was found curbed owing to the antifungal properties of RR phenylpropanoids that subsequently decreased the biosynthesis of trichothecene. Evidently, these results demonstrated the efficacy of the metabolomic approach in dissecting the underlying mechanisms driving biotic stress tolerance in wheat [142].
An increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 has been reported to have an adverse effect on the metabolomic profile of the wheat plant. A change in 40 metabolites was found with an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that was associated with the altered development of the plant [143]. This change was correlated with the decreased concentration of a few amino acids and derivatives that induce the raffinose synthesis pathway only during the vegetative phase but a reduced lysine turnover throughout the plant’s life cycle. Similarly, increased atmospheric CO2 was found to be associated with a decrease in the accumulation of N-rich metabolites vis-a-vis a few organic acids and ribose-5-P [144]. Interestingly, soon after, one of the first reports of integrating the metabolomic approach with other high-throughput studies was reported. The genetic basis of variation in metabolites and agronomic traits was dissected by integrating the mapping of QTLs associated with the levels of metabolites with the mapping of the agronomic traits [145]. Furthermore, a genetic control for numerous groups of metabolites was found to be regulated by two distinct loci on chromosome 7A. Such a study is a great example of the integration of metabolomics with QTL analysis to identify potential trait targets with accuracy.
Metabolomics has also been employed to investigate salinity tolerance in durum wheat [146]. Adaptation to salinity was reported acquired by rearranging sucrose and nitrogen-containing metabolites in cytosol following the uptake of sodium and its sequestration in the vacuoles. Such a strategy ensures the optimal maintenance of osmoticum to prevent any oxidative damage to the root cell and ensures plant survival under nitrogen-deficient conditions. Under low nitrate conditions, accumulation of glycine betaine and sucrose was found [146]. However, under high nitrate conditions, glycine betaine, proline and asparagine were found to maintain cytosolic osmoticum, scavenge ROS and assimilate excess ammonium [146]. Differential changes in the metabolomic profiles, correlated with physiological changes, were found in leaves and roots of two wheat genotypes, LA54 and AGS2038, drought-tolerant and drought-susceptible, respectively, to assess the drought-responsive mechanisms in wheat [147]. In LA54, 45 metabolites in the leaves were found to be altered compared to only 20 in the roots, suggesting active allocation of resources on the leaves [147]. In the leaves and roots of AGS2038, 30 and 28 metabolites, respectively, were changed, suggesting that the resource allocation in the sensitive genotype was suboptimal, favouring roots more than leaves [147]. Furthermore, in LA54, the accumulation of valine, tryptophan, malic acid, fumaric acid and citric acid showed a higher accumulation in the leaf compared to the root. These findings suggested that the differential allocation of resources in tolerant and susceptible genotypes was decisive in imparting tolerance to drought stress in wheat [147]. The finding that the differential allocation of amino acids, phenolics, alkaloids, flavonoids and organic acids is an important key mechanism in differentiating drought-resistant and susceptible varieties was further reinforced by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) [41].
Furthermore, to assess the effect of Cd toxicity on wheat metabolome, the metabolome profile following Cd application was investigated from two hexaploid wheat genotypes, AK58, and ZM10, with a low and high Cd-accumulation in grains, respectively [148]. Compared to ZM10, AK58 was found to have a greater root antioxidant system and higher levels of Cd bound to root cell walls, owing to the increased accumulation of hemicellulose and pectin to aid Cd binding. To further our understanding of Cd toxicity, ameliorating effect of Boron (B) was analysed on wheat growth following exposure to Cd treatment [149]. It was found that plant growth under Cd stress was adversely affected and B application was not able to fully recover the plant [149]. However, following the B application, accumulated Cd and malondialdehyde levels in the shoot and root decreased significantly. In addition, B application led to a reduction in the activity of enzymes, such as SOD and peroxidase (POD), that were induced in response to Cd stress [149]. Also, B application following exposure to Cd stress resulted in an increased accumulation of citric acid, galactaric acid, D-glucose and N6-galacturonyl-L-lysine and decreased accumulation of C16 sphinganine and threoninyl-tryptophan [149]. Hence, a significant role of galactose, sphingolipid, linoleic acid and propanoate metabolism and glycolysis/gluconeogenesis pathways was slated to alleviate Cd toxicity by inhibiting Cd uptake, changing metabolic profile and augmenting antioxidant activity.

5. Proteomics Approaches

Proteins, along with their post-translational modifications, are crucial for plant stress responses. Proteomics studies, therefore, provide valuable information about the cellular pathways involved in stress adaptation and mitigation. Initially, the term ‘proteomics’ referred to the methods used to analyze numerous proteins at a time; however, the term has now expanded to include any approach that provides information on the abundance, properties, interactions, activities or structures of proteins in a sample [150]. The analysis of the protein profile of wheat plants in response to abiotic stresses, such as drought, salinity and heat, is well documented (Table 3).
Molecular mechanisms in response to drought were investigated in two wheat lines, Zhongmai 8601 and YW642, drought tolerance and Thinopyrum intermedium 7XL/7DS translocation line, respectively, under a drought stress environment [158]. Two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) was employed to explore the differential accumulation protein (DAP) after 20 days of post anthesis (DPA) and a total of 146 DAPs were identified [158]. Furthermore, MALDI-TOF/TOF-MS was employed to identify the 113 unique proteins connoted by these DAPs [158]. Of these, 48 unique proteins exhibited upregulation and were involved in plant stress response, protein metabolism and, energy metabolism. Most significantly, 14 DAP genes were reported to have high expression levels in the 7XL/7DS translocation line during grain development periods [158]. Of these, four genes were identified as responding to drought stress, of which two genes showed oxidoreductase and dehydrogenase activities. In addition, three genes with potential protein binding, catalytic and transmembrane transporter-type roles were identified under drought and heat stress [158]. Functional relevance of a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium (PGPR) Enterobacter cloacae SBP-8 was assessed under excessive salinity (200 mM NaCl) stress by investigating proteome profiles in the bacterial-inoculated wheat plants with and without salt stress [169]. A total of 286 differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) were identified and the majority of them were linked to metabolic pathways, photosynthesis and stress mechanisms [169]. Furthermore, bacterial inoculation was found to upregulate the expression of the Hsp70, Hsp90 organizing protein and cold shock protein CS66 at 200 mM NaCl stress [169].
To understand the effects of heat stress on wheat plants, proteome changes were analysed in the wheat kernel in the winter wheat cultivar Gaocheng 8901 under heat stress by iTRAQ (isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation) [161]. The iTRAQ analysis revealed quantitative information on 2493 proteins in the cultivar Gaocheng 8901 under heat stress, of which 116 were upregulated and 91 were downregulated [161]. A group of 78 DEPs were coupled to 83 KEGG signalling/metabolic pathways. Five DEPs, Elicitor responsive gene 3 (ERG3), brassinosteroid-insensitive 1 (BRI1), chaperone protein (CLPB1), histone cell cycle regulator (HIR1) and pre-mRNA processing factor (RSZ22), were involved in protein–protein interaction networks and were suggested to significantly impact the yield and quality of wheat grain under heat stress [161]. The relevance of stress-associated active proteins (SAAPs) involved in the process of the terminal heat tolerance of wheat has also been investigated [162]. The wheat cvs., HD2985 (heat-tolerant) and HD2329 (heat-sensitive) were studied under heat stress at 38 °C for 2 h to identify 4271 SAAPs by employing iTRAQ. Under heat stress, 2800 and 2225 differentially expressed SAAPs were upregulated and downregulated in the tolerant cultivar HD2985, while 800 and 3600 expressed SAAPs were upregulated and downregulated in the sensitive cultivar HD2329, respectively [162]. Using the gene ontology analysis, differentially expressed SAAPs were characterized into three majorly functional groups, namely, molecular functions (51%), biological processes (39%), and cellular components (10%) [162]. SAAPs have been classified to regulate in defence- and stress-related activities. However, expression of ribonuclease TUDOR-1, HSP90, HSP20, peroxidase and HSC70 has been found in the wheat cv. HD2985 (heat-tolerant), and downregulation was observed in the wheat cv. HD2329 (heat-susceptible) under heat stress [162]. In addition, here was an increase of 8.2 folds HSP17 and 2.2 folds of CDPK in expression under heat stress at 38 °C for 2 h in the spike of the wheat cv. HD2985 [162]. Likewise, there was a 22.5 folds HSP17, 4.5 folds RuBisCo, 4.3 folds Rca and 4.1 folds OEEP increase in expression in the leaves of the wheat cv. HD2985 under heat stress at 38 °C [162].
The Molecular mechanism of pathogenesis on the protein level in a wheat cultivar (Dongxuan 3) was analysed for two diseases, i.e., dwarf bunt (Tilletia controversa Kühn) and common bunt (T. foetida Kühn) [170]. The iTRAQ and Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC)-MS/MS analysis were employed for detecting DEPs [170]. A total of 4553 DEPs following infection by T. controversa and 804 DEPs following infection by T. foetida were identified [170]. Of the 4553 and 804 DEPs, 4100 and 447 were upregulated and were linked with metabolic process, catalytic activity, transferase activity, photosynthetic membrane and oxidoreductase activity [170].
Molecular mechanisms of the interaction between the Fusarium pseudograminearum WZ-8A and two wheat cultivars were explored [171]. Crown rot pathogen F. pseudograminearum was inoculated into UC1110, disease-susceptible and PI61750, disease-resistant wheat cultivars. Three days after inoculation (DAI), the average root diameter and malondialdehyde content of the roots was found to decrease, and the number of root tips increased [171]. To determine if the morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of the roots to disease differed between the two cultivars, Tandem Mass Tag (TMT) labelling and LC-MS/MS were employed [171]. Using TMT quantitative proteomics analysis, 366 DEPs were identified, of which 163 were from UC1110. Gene ontology and KEGG analysis identified candidate genes involved in biological processes, such as phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, photosynthesis and glutathione metabolism and cellular components, such as ribosomes [171].

6. Multiomics Approaches

Since the advancements in omics technologies and computational tools, the use of a multiomics approach has become a major area of thrust to answer burning questions in the stress biology of a crop and to reduce the number of false positives arising from the use of a single data [172,173]. It has been proposed that, by inspecting the change in correlation in the transcript–protein–metabolite between the control and stress conditions, biological processes strongly regulated by the plants can be recognised.
Various web-based tools and visualization portals are available to analyze the multi-omics datasets, such as PAINTOMICS, KaPPA-view, COVAIN, and O-miner [174,175,176,177,178]. In PAINTOMICS, the integrated visualization of transcriptomics and metabolomics datasets is possible and displays the data on KEGG pathway maps. The KaPPA-view tool allows the integration of transcript and metabolite data on plant metabolic pathway maps. The COVAIN tool offers statistical analysis of the integrated omics dataset through the KEGG pathway and gene ontology analysis [177].
A combined phenotypical, molecular and metabolomic approaches were employed to understand the role of symbiosis with arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) on the mineral nutrition of wheat and in response to pathogen attack by the fungus Xanthomonas translucens [4]. The changes in transcripts and proteins in the roots and leaves of wheat plants with AM and with AM along with pathogen infection were investigated. It was observed that the transcriptomic and proteomic datasets shared 3.7 and 0.9% and 19 and 20% of differentially expressed genes (DEG) and differentially expressed proteins (DEP), respectively [4]. Several genes involved in nutrient uptake, primary metabolism and phytohormone regulation were found to be differentially regulated between the lines with and without AM [4]. Most significantly, the homologies searches identified important orthologous candidate genes, such as coding for Glycerol-3-phosphate acyltransferase (OsRAM2 homolog), LysM domain-containing protein (OsLysM homolog) and ABC-2 type transporter (OsSTR1 homolog) [4]. In addition, the transcription profiles of some phosphate transporters (PTs) were investigated by RNA-seq and qRT-PCR analyses, such as TaAMT3.1, TaSulfTr2, TaAKT1, TaPT10, TaPT11 and TaPT12. All of these PT genes were strongly induced in wheat-AM plants’ roots compared to plants without AM [4]. A total of 29 novel genes were found to be exclusively expressed in the leaves of AM plants known to be involved in the responses to biotic stress, including a pathogenesis-related protein PR-1, mildew resistance locus (MLO) genes and putative homologs of RPM1 (Resistance to Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculicola 1) protein [4].
Both proteomics and metabolomics approaches were employed for two spring-wheat cultivars, Bahar and Kavir, drought-tolerant and drought-susceptible, respectively, to understand the underlying biochemical networks at play in wheat leaves under drought stress [154]. Metabolomic analysis revealed that the levels of primary metabolites, such as amino acids, sugars and organic acids, were found to change in response to water deficiency [154]. In the Bahar cv, the accumulation of branched-chain amino acids, lysine, proline, aromatic, arginine and methionine was found in response to drought stress, in addition to the activation of shikimate pathway-mediated tryptophan accumulation aiding auxin production [154]. In the Kavir metabolome, only two pathways were found to be significantly affected in response to stress, one being of purine metabolism [154]. Only a few alterations in the metabolomic profile of Kavir were potent enough to induce susceptibility to drought stress, suggesting that unravelling the subtle changes in complex pathways leads to profound phenotypical changes [154].
Combined metabolomic and proteomic approaches was employed to dissect the resistance mechanism conferred by Fhb1 QTL in the near-isogenic lines (NILs) derived from the wheat genotype Nyubai [142]. The comparison of the metabolomic and proteomic profiles in the NILs revealed that the shunt phenylpropanoid pathway-producing metabolites, such as hydroxycinnamic acid amides, phenolic glucosides and flavonoids, played an important role [142]. Using confocal microscopy, it was confirmed that cell wall thickening, due to the deposition of hydroxycinnamic acid amides, phenolic glucosides and flavonoids, was responsible for imparting resistance rather than the conversion of DON to less toxic deoxynivalenol 3-O-glucoside, demonstrating alternate novel pathways that could play a pivotal role [142].
Large-scale multi-omics analysis was used to dissect the wheat stem solidness and resistance to wheat stem sawfly (WSS) [179]. A combined transcriptomic, metabolomic and proteomic approach was deployed on two wheat cultivars, the solid-stemmed Choteau and semi-solid-stemmed Scholar, differentiating for a QTL identified previously on chromosome 3B for solid stem [179]. The semi-solid-stemmed cultivar showed a differential regulation of 15 transcripts on WSS infection, of which 5 were upregulated and coded for an auxin efflux carrier component, pathogenesis-related (PR) genes 5 (CPR-5) protein, NADH dehydrogenase (NDH-A) and a magnesium transporter [179]. The solid-stemmed Choteau variety, on the other hand, showed nine DEGs, of which only one was found to be upregulated, while the remaining transcripts were downregulated [179]. In silico analysis revealed that this upregulated DEG coded for a cysteine-rich receptor-like protein kinase. The proteomic and metabolomic data further suggested the activation of the phenylpropanoid and pentose phosphate pathways in response to WSS infestation [179]. The key metabolites of the phenylpropanoid pathway are flavonoids and lignin. Lignin is is known to protect plants against mechanical damage under stress conditions, including drought or wounding, and acts as a physical barrier against pathogens [180].
Molecular mechanisms underlying the adaptation of wheat were determined in response to potassium (K) deficiency by investigating the transcriptomes and metabolomes of a panel of wheat accessions differing in K-deficiency tolerance [181]. The panel was subjected to a low-K treatment under hydroponic culture conditions for 14 days and root samples were collected for transcriptomic and metabolomic analyses [181]. It was found that the three CIPK (serine/threonine protein kinases)-encoding DEGs, i.e., CIPK14, CIPK9 and CIPK27, were upregulated in KN9204 and unchanged in BN207, while the expression of the three other DEGs (CIPK19, CIPK15 and CIPK29) was downregulated in BN207. These CIPKs were suggested to be underlying candidates for low-K tolerance. Recently, a multiomics approach was employed to identify the genes conferring a dense spike in a wheat-dense spike mutant (wds) obtained from a landrace Huangfangzhu [128]. Two large deletion segments on chromosome 6B, at 334.8–424.3 and 579.4–717.8 Mb, in the wds mutant and 499 genes were identified within the deleted regions [128]. The candidate gene TraesCS6B01G334600, for which an ortholog was identified in rice (OsBUL1), is known to regulate spike length and grain length [182]. This study, therefore, provided a basis for using this gene in wheat breeding for yield improvement.
In most of the GWAS studies, the biological mechanisms underlying the associations are unknown. To deal with this, GWAS has been integrated with metabolite profiling and/or gene regulatory network or pathway analysis and this approach has proven to be very effective in increasing the utility of information gained from GWAS [183,184,185]. A combination of GWAS and SNP-phenotype network approaches was employed in a core collection of wheat to identify the genetic basis of grain yield and spikelet-fertility-related traits [185]. The 118 SNPs that were found to be significant in their study at a false discovery rate (FDR) = 0.01 were used in the genotype–phenotype network analysis, of which 14 SNPs directly interacted with many of the agronomic traits. In silico analysis of these 14 SNPs revealed the strong involvement of metal ion transport and Gibberellin 2-oxidases (GA2oxs) genes in controlling the spikelet sterility [185]. Additionally, these genes showed a higher expression in the grain and spike, which further suggested their pivotal role in controlling the traits [185]. Acombination of GWAS and gene co-network analysis was used to dissect the genetic basis of root traits in a panel of winter wheat [80]. Three genomic regions on chromosomes 6A, 6B and 6D controlling the rooting depth, canopy temperature and yield were identified [80]. Using a minirhizotron system, accessions with favourable marker alleles of peak SNPs on chromosomes 6A, 6B and 6D were found to have longer roots than those with alternative marker alleles at these loci. Most significantly, 13 NRT2 genes from a nitrate transporter gene family were identified in the study, which are known to improve nitrogen use efficiency and yield in rice [186].
The three rust pathogens, Puccinia triticina (leaf rust), Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici (stem rust) and Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici (stripe rust), are the most damaging pathogens in wheat and create massive losses in yield [187,188,189]. The constant appearance of their new races in wheat-growing areas and their high adaptability to diverse climates pose serious challenges in developing resistance in wheat against rust. Although genomic selection (GS) has been deployed previously to improve predictions for fusarium head blight resistance, an integration of GS and transcriptomics data was suggested to improve the applicability of GS for rusts [190]. To be effective in a practical breeding program, the transcriptomes of only a limited number of founder lines could be integrated to develop GS models for imputing the value of others by using pedigree and genomic data [191].

7. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Diverse omics tools are now at hand to understand the quantitative and qualitative reaction of wheat to various stresses and to pinpoint the potential candidate genes for marker-based breeding and/or for gene manipulation by CRISPR-based genome editing. The combined application of genomics and transcriptomics approaches has unveiled gene sets of certain gene families that could be deployed for generating stress-tolerant varieties. Furthermore, metabolomic and proteomic approaches have revealed additional candidate genes, gene networks and mechanisms, suggesting that a network of diverse gene actions comes into play under a stress condition. For example, genomics and transcriptomics studies demonstrated the role of ROS enzymes to be key players, while metabolomics studies highlighted the important roles played by amino acid transporters in the differential allocation of resources under drought stress.
While genomics and transcriptomics approaches are routinely employed in wheat for in-depth analysis, the combined application of metabolomics and proteomics has not been explored to a great extent. This is partly due to the affordability of genomics and transcriptomics data on large panels owing to low sequencing costs, as compared to metabolomics and proteomics, and due to the availability of user-friendly statistical and bioinformatics tools facilitating the analyses of genomics and transcriptomics. We envision that similar advancements in metabolomics and proteomics tools in the future will enable the comparative analysis of data from different streams of omics platforms in wheat. A straightforward application combining GWAS with proteomics (pGWAS) and metabolomics (mGWAS) would become feasible to identify the novel genes and functional pathways underlying complex traits. In addition to unveiling the novel candidate genes, the combined analysis of data will help in narrowing down the number of candidate genes to be subjected to functional validation by utilizing the mutant resource freely available to wheat scientists. The information of sequenced mutant libraries in the Ensemble database (http://plants.ensembl.org/Triticum_aestivum/Info/Index) and SNP-based primers available to screen mutants have opened vistas for conducting a plethora of novel functional genomics studies in wheat. Furthermore, amalgamating omics approaches shall pave the way for developing mathematical and GS models to predict plant performance under adverse conditions. This will facilitate wheat breeders to select lines with suitable gene-trait combinations to improve crop productivity under stress conditions. The synchronous analysis of genome, transcriptomes, proteome, metabolome and correlation of findings is, therefore, highly relevant and timely to develop efficient crop improvement programs in wheat.

Author Contributions

D.S. and P.D. Conceptualized the article; D.S., P.D., H.A. and K.H.B.S. contributed towards writing and finalising the manuscript. N.D.R. and N.M.A. contributed toward reference formatting, figure generation and table compilation. P.D., D.S., N.D.R., R.D. and P.V. contributed towards the review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors wish to acknowledge funding from CRP WHEAT, CIMMYT, Mexico and the ICAR-World bank-funded NAHEP-CAAST project, India.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAOSTAT. (FAO, 2022). Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  2. Anwaar, H.A.; Perveen, R.; Mansha, M.Z.; Abid, M.; Sarwar, Z.M.; Aatif, H.M.; Alam, M.M. Assessment of grain yield indices in response to drought stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019, 27, 1818–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Shah, T.; Xu, J.; Zou, X.; Cheng, Y.; Nasir, M.; Zhang, X. Omics approaches for engineering wheat production under abiotic stresses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Fiorilli, V.; Vannini, C.; Ortolani, F.; Garcia-Seco, D.; Chiapello, M.; Novero, M.; Domingo, G.; Terzi, V.; Morcia, C.; Bagnaresi, P.; et al. Omics approaches revealed how arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis enhances yield and resistance to leaf pathogen in wheat. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Hu, L.; Xie, Y.; Fan, S.; Wang, Z.; Wang, F.; Zhang, B.; Li, H.; Song, J.; Kong, L. Comparative analysis of root transcriptome profiles between drought-tolerant and susceptible wheat genotypes in response to water stress. Plant Sci. 2018, 272, 276–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ma, J.; Zhang, M.; Lv, W.; Tang, X.; Zhao, D.; Wang, L.; Li, C.; Jiang, L. Overexpression of TaSNAC4-3D in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) negatively regulates drought tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 945272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yuan, Y.; Scheben, A.; Chan, C.K.K.; Edwards, D. Databases for wheatgenomics and crop improvement. In Wheat Biotechnology. Methods in Molecular Biology; Bhalla, P., Singh, M., Eds.; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 1679, pp. 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhu, T.; Wang, L.; Rimbert, H.; Rodriguez, J.C.; Deal, K.R.; De Oliveira, R.; Choulet, F.; Keeble-Gagnere, G.; Tibbits, J.; Rogers, J.; et al. Optical maps refine the bread wheat Triticum aestivum cv. Chinese Spring genome assembly. Plant J. 2021, 107, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ma, S.; Wang, M.; Wu, J.; Guo, W.; Chen, Y.; Li, G.; Wang, Y.; Shi, W.; Xia, G.; Fu, D.; et al. WheatOmics: A platform combining multiple omics data to accelerate functional genomics studies in wheat. Mol. Plant. 2021, 14, 1965–1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, L.; Dong, C.; Chen, Z.; Gui, L.; Chen, C.; Li, D.; Xie, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, X.; Xia, C.; et al. WheatGmap: A comprehensive platform for wheat gene mapping and genomic studies. Mol. Plant. 2021, 14, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Deshmukh, R.; Sonah, H.; Patil, G.; Echen, W.; Eprince, S.; Emutava, R.; Evuong, T.; Valliyodan, B.; Nguyen, H.T. Integrating omic approaches for abiotic stress tolerance in soybean. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 25, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yang, G.; Pan, W.; Zhang, R.; Pan, Y.; Guo, Q.; Song, W.; Zheng, W.; Nie, X. Genome-wide identification and characterization of caffeoyl-coenzyme A O-methyltransferase genes related to the Fusarium head blight response in wheat. BMC Genom. 2021, 22, 504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hussain, B.; Akpınar, B.A.; Alaux, M.; Algharib, A.M.; Sehgal, D.; Ali, Z.; Aradottir, G.I.; Batley, J.; Bellec, A.; Bentley, A.R.; et al. Capturing wheat phenotypes at the genome level. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 851079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rasheed, A.; Hao, Y.; Xia, X.; Khan, A.; Xu, Y.; Varshney, R.K.; He, Z. Crop breeding chips and genotyping platforms: Progress, challenges, and perspectives. Mol. Plant. 2017, 10, 1047–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Borrill, P.; Harrington, S.A.; Uauy, C. Applying the latest advances in genomics and phenomics for trait discovery in polyploid wheat. Plant J. 2019, 97, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sun, C.; Dong, Z.; Zhao, L.; Ren, Y.; Zhang, N.; Chen, F. The wheat 660K SNP array demonstrates great potential for marker-assisted selection in polyploid wheat. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 1354–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cavanagh, C.R.; Chao, S.; Wang, S.; Huang, B.E.; Stephen, S.; Kiani, S.; Forrest, K.; Saintenac, C.; Brown-Guedira, G.L.; Akhunova, A.; et al. Genome-wide comparative diversity uncovers multiple targets of selection for improvement in hexaploid wheat landraces and cultivars. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8057–8062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Wang, S.; Wong, D.; Forrest, K.; Allen, A.; Chao, S.; Huang, B.E.; Maccaferri, M.; Salvi, S.; Milner, S.G.; Cattivelli, L.; et al. Characterization of polyploid wheat genomic diversity using a high-density 90,000 single nucleotide polymorphism array. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2014, 12, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Soleimani, B.; Lehnert, H.; Keilwagen, J.; Plieske, J.; Ordon, F.; Naseri Rad, S.; Ganal, M.; Beier, S.; Perovic, D. Comparison between core set selection methods using different Illumina marker platforms: A case study of assessment of diversity in wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Winfield, M.O.; Allen, A.M.; Burridge, A.J.; Barker, G.L.; Benbow, H.R.; Wilkinson, P.A.; Coghill, J.; Waterfall, C.; Davassi, A.; Scopes, G.; et al. High-density SNP genotyping array for hexaploid wheat and its secondary and tertiary gene pool. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2016, 14, 1195–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Allen, A.M.; Winfield, M.O.; Burridge, A.J.; Downie, R.C.; Benbow, H.R.; Barker, G.L.; Wilkinson, P.A.; Coghill, J.; Waterfall, C.; Davassi, A.; et al. Characterization of a wheat breeder’ Array suitable for high-throughput SNP genotyping of global accessions of hexaploid bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). Plant Biotechnol. J. 2017, 15, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Rimbert, H.; Darrier, B.; Navarro, J.; Kitt, J.; Choulet, F.; Leveugle, M.; Duarte, J.; Rivière, N.; Eversole, K.; Le Gouis, J.; et al. International wheat genome sequencing consortium, Le Gouis J. high throughput SNP discovery and genotyping in hexaploid wheat. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0186329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Keeble-Gagnère, G.; Pasam, R.; Forrest, K.L.; Wong, D.; Robinson, H.; Godoy, J.; Rattey, A.; Moody, D.; Mullan, D.; Walmsley, T.; et al. Novel design of imputation-enabled snp arrays for breeding and research applications supporting multi-species hybridization. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 756877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sehgal, D.; Vikram, P.; Sansaloni, C.P.; Ortiz, C.; Pierre, C.S.; Payne, T.; Ellis, M.; Amri, A.; Petroli, C.D.; Wenzl, P.; et al. Exploring and mobilizing the gene bank biodiversity for wheat improvement. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ando, K.; Krishnan, V.; Rynearson, S.; Rouse, M.N.; Danilova, T.; Friebe, B.; See, D.; Pumphrey, M.O. Introgression of a novel ug99-effective stem rust resistance gene into wheat and development of Dasypyrum villosum chromosome-specific markers via genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS). Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 1068–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Alipour, H.; Bai, G.; Zhang, G.; Bihamta, M.R.; Mohammadi, V.; Peyghambari, S.A. Imputation accuracy of wheat genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) data using barley and wheat genome references. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0208614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ladejobi, O.; Mackay, I.J.; Poland, J.; Praud, S.; Hibberd, J.M.; Bentley, A.R. Reference genome anchoring of high-density markers for association mapping and genomic prediction in European winter wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Zhao, J.; Abdelsalam, N.R.; Khalaf, L.; Chuang, W.P.; Zhao, L.; Smith, C.M.; Carver, B.; Bai, G. Development of single nucleotide polymorphism markers for the wheat curl mite resistance gene Cmc4. Crop Sci. 2019, 59, 1567–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Edae, E.A.; Rouse, M.N. Association mapping of resistance to emerging stem rust pathogen races in spring wheat using genotyping-by-sequencing. Plant Genome 2020, 13, e20050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhao, L.; Liu, S.; Abdelsalam, N.R.; Carver, B.F.; Bai, G. Characterization of wheat curl mite resistance gene Cmc4 in OK05312. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 993–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Juliana, P.; He, X.; Poland, J.; Roy, K.K.; Malaker, P.K.; Mishra, V.K.; Chand, R.; Shrestha, S.; Kumar, U.; Roy, C.; et al. Genomic selection for spot blotch in bread wheat breeding panels, full-sibs and half-sibs and index-based selection for spot blotch, heading and plant height. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2022, 13, 1965–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, H.; Zhang, F.; Zhao, J.; Bai, G.; Amand, P.S.; Bernardo, A.; Ni, Z.; Sun, Q.; Su, Z. Identification of a novel major QTL from Chinese wheat cultivar Ji5265 for Fusarium head blight resistance in greenhouse. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2022, 135, 1867–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Li, L.; Yang, X.; Wang, Z.; Ren, M.; An, C.; Zhu, S.; Xu, R. Genetic mapping of powdery mildew resistance genes in wheat landrace Guizi 1 via genotyping by sequencing. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2022, 49, 4461–4468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Avni, R.; Nave, M.; Barad, O.; Baruch, K.; Twardziok, S.O.; Gundlach, H.; Hale, I.; Mascher, M.; Spannagl, M.; Wiebe, K.; et al. Wild emmer genome architecture and diversity elucidate wheat evolution and domestication. Science 2017, 357, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Maccaferri, M.; Harris, N.S.; Twardziok, S.O.; Pasam, R.K.; Gundlach, H.; Spannagl, M.; Ormanbekova, D.; Lux, T.; Prade, V.M.; Milner, S.G.; et al. Durum wheat genome highlights past domestication signatures and future improvement targets. Nat. Genet. 2019, 51, 885–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Zimin, A.V.; Puiu, D.; Hall, R.; Sarah Kingan, S.; Clavijo, B.J.; Salzberg, S.L. The first near-complete assembly of the hexaploid bread wheat genome, Triticum aestivum. Gigascience 2017, 6, giw016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Clavijo, B.J.; Venturini, L.; Schudoma, C.; Accinelli, G.G.; Kaithakottil, G.; Wright, J.; Borrill, P.; Kettleborough, G.; Heavens, D.; Chapman, H.; et al. An improved assembly and annotation of the allohexaploid wheat genome identifies complete families of agronomic genes and provides genomic evidence for chromosomal translocations. Genome Res. 2017, 7, 885–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium (IWGSC). A chromosome-based draft sequence of the hexaploid bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) genome. Science 2014, 345, 1251788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Walkowiak, S.; Gao, L.; Monat, C.; Haberer, G.; Kassa, M.T.; Brinton, J.; Ramirez-Gonzalez, R.H.; Kolodziej, M.C.; Delorean, E.; Thambugala, D.; et al. Multiple wheat genomes reveal global variation in modern breeding. Nature 2020, 588, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guo, W.; Xin, M.; Wang, Z.; Yao, Y.; Hu, Z.; Song, W.; Yu, K.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; Guan, P.; et al. Origin and adaptation to high altitude of Tibetan semi-wild wheat. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shi, M.; Wang, F.; Lan, P.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Yan, Y.; Liu, Y. Effect of ultrasonic intensity on structure and properties of wheat starch-monoglyceride complex and its influence on quality of norther-style Chinese steamed bread. LWT 2021, 138, 110677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sato, K.; Abe, F.; Mascher, M.; Haberer, G.; Gundlach, H.; Spannagl, M.; Shirasawa, K.; Isobe, S. Chromosome-scale genome assembly of the transformation-amenable common wheat cultivar ‘Fielder’. DNA Res. 2021, 28, dsab008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Aury, J.M.; Engelen, S.; Istace, B.; Monat, C.; Lasserre-Zuber, P.; Belser, C.; Cruaud, C.; Rimbert, H.; Leroy, P.; Arribat, S.; et al. Long-read and chromosome-scale assembly of the hexaploid wheat genome achieves high resolution for research and breeding. GigaScience 2022, 11, giac034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Luo, Q.; Teng, W.; Fang, S.; Li, H.; Li, B.; Chu, J.; Li, Z.; Zheng, Q. Transcriptome analysis of salt-stress response in three seedling tissues of commonwheat. Crop J. 2019, 7, 378–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhao, C.; Liu, B.; Piao, S.; Wang, X.; Lobell, D.B.; Huang, Y.; Huang, M.; Yao, Y.; Bassu, S.; Ciais, P.; et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 9326–9331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Zhou, Y.; Zhao, X.; Li, Y.; Xu, J.; Bi, A.; Kang, L.; Xu, D.; Chen, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.G.; et al. Triticum population sequencing provides insights into wheat adaptation. Nat. Genet. 2020, 52, 1412–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ling, H.Q.; Ma, B.; Shi, X.; Liu, H.; Dong, L.; Sun, H.; Cao, Y.; Gao, Q.; Zheng, S.; Li, Y.; et al. Genome sequence of the progenitor of wheat A subgenome Triticum urartu. Nature 2018, 557, 424–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Jayakodi, M.; Schreiber, M.; Stein, N.; Mascher, M. Building pan-genome infrastructures for crop plants and their use in association genetics. DNA Res. 2021, 28, dsaa030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Montenegro, J.D.; Golicz, A.A.; Bayer, P.E.; Hurgobin, B.; Lee, H.; Chan, C.K.K.; Visendi, P.; Lai, K.; Dolezel, J.; Batley, J.; et al. The pangenome of hexaploid bread wheat. Plant J. 2017, 90, 1007–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Xiao, Y.; Wen, Y.; Li, K.; Ma, Z.; Yang, L.; Zhu, Y.; Yin, J. Genome-wide characterization and function analysis uncovered roles of wheat LIMs in responding to adverse stresses and TaLIM8-4D function as a susceptible gene. Plant Genome 2022, 15, e20246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, L.; Xiang, L.; Hong, J.; Xie, Z.; Li, B. Genome-wide analysis of bHLH transcription factor family reveals their involvement in biotic and abiotic stress responses in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Benbow, H.R.; Jermiin, L.S.; Doohan, F.M. Serpins: Genome-wide characterisation and expression analysis of the serine protease inhibitor family in Triticum aestivum. G3-Genes Genomes Genet. 2019, 9, 2709–2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Wang, X.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z.; Gao, X.; Dong, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Thomashow, L.S.; Weller, D.M.; Yang, M. Genome-wide identification and expression profile analysis of the phospholipase C gene family in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant 2020, 7, 885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Gao, Y.; Wang, Z.Y.; Kumar, V.; Xu, X.F.; Zhu, X.F.; Li, T.Y.; Jia, B.; Xuan, Y.H. Genome-wide identification of the SWEET gene family in wheat. Gene 2018, 642, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Guo, J.; Islam, M.A.; Lin, H.; Ji, C.; Duan, Y.; Liu, P.; Zeng, Q.; Day, B.; Kang, Z.; Guo, J. Genome-wide identification of cyclic nucleotide-gated ion channel gene family in wheat and functional analyses of TaCNGC14 and TaCNGC16. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Yang, Y.; Feng, D. Genome-wide identification of the aspartic protease gene family and their response under powdery mildew stress in wheat. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2020, 47, 8949–8961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Niu, H.; Xia, P.; Hu, Y.; Zhan, C.; Li, Y.; Gong, S.; Li, Y.; Ma, D. Genome-wide identification of ZF-HD gene family in Triticum aestivum: Molecular evolution mechanism and function analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0256579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liu, Y.; Han, N.; Wang, S.; Chen, C.; Lu, J.; Riaz, M.W.; Si, H.; Sun, G.; Ma, C. Genome-wide identification of Triticum aestivum xylanase inhibitor gene family and inhibitory effects of XI-2 subfamily proteins on Fusarium graminearum GH11 xylanase. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 665501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ru, J.N.; Hou, Z.H.; Zheng, L.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, F.Z.; Chen, J.; Zhou, Y.B.; Chen, M.; Ma, Y.Z.; Xi, Y.J.; et al. Genome-wide analysis of DEAD-box RNA helicase family in wheat (Triticum aestivum) and functional identification of TaDEAD-box57 in abiotic stress responses. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 797276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ye, H.; Qiao, L.; Guo, H.; Guo, L.; Ren, F.; Bai, J.; Wang, Y. Genome-wide identification of wheat WRKY gene family reveals that TaWRKY75-A is referred to drought and salt resistances. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 663118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhou, X.; Zhu, X.; Shao, W.; Song, J.; Jiang, W.; He, Y.; Yin, J.; Ma, D.; Qiao, Y. Genome-wide mining of wheat DUF966 gene family provides new insights into salt stress responses. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 569838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xiao, J.; Hu, R.; Gu, T.; Han, J.; Qiu, D.; Su, P.; Feng, J.; Chang, J.; Yang, G.; He, G. Genome-wide identification and expression profiling of trihelix gene family under abiotic stresses in wheat. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kumar, A.; Sharma, S.; Chunduri, V.; Kaur, A.; Kaur, S.; Malhotra, N.; Kumar, A.; Kapoor, P.; Kumari, A.; Kaur, J.; et al. Genome-wide identification and characterization of heat shock protein family reveals role in development and stress conditions in Triticum aestivum L. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Guerin, C.; Roche, J.; Allard, V.; Ravel, C.; Mouzeyar, S.; Bouzidi, M.F. Genome-wide analysis, expansion and expression of the NAC family under drought and heat stresses in bread wheat (T. aestivum L.). PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Agarwal, P.; Baranwal, V.K.; Khurana, P. Genome-wide analysis of bZIP transcription factors in wheat and functional characterization of a TabZIP under abiotic stress. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 4608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Zan, T.; Li, L.; Xie, T.; Zhang, L.; Li, X. Genome-wide identification and abiotic stress response patterns of abscisic acid stress ripening protein family members in Triticum aestivum L. Genomics 2020, 112, 3794–3802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jiang, W.; Geng, Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, S.; Cao, S.; Li, W.; Chen, H.; Ma, D.; Yin, J. Genome-wide identification and characterization of SRO gene family in wheat: Molecular evolution and expression profiles during different stresses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 154, 590–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Han, Z.; Liu, Y.; Deng, X.; Liu, D.; Liu, Y.; Hu, Y.; Yan, Y. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of expansin gene family in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Ma, Y.; Han, Y.; Feng, X.; Gao, H.; Cao, B.; Song, L. Genome-wide identification of BAM (β-amylase) gene family in jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) and expression in response to abiotic stress. BMC Genom. 2022, 23, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zan, T.; Zhang, L.; Xie, T.; Li, L. Genome-wide identification and analysis of the growth-regulating factor (GRF) gene family and GRF-interacting factor family in Triticum aestivum L. Biochem. Genet. 2020, 58, 705–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tian, R.; Yang, Y.; Chen, M. Genome-wide survey of the amino acid transporter gene family in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): Identification, expression analysis and response to abiotic stress. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 162, 1372–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sehgal, D.; Dreisigacker, S. GWAS case studies in wheat. In Genome-Wide Association Studies. Methods in Molecular Biology; Torkamaneh, D., Belzile, F., Eds.; Humana: New York, NY, USA, 2022; Volume 2481, pp. 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Saini, D.K.; Srivastava, P.; Pal, N.; Gupta, P.K. Meta-QTLs, ortho-meta-QTLs and candidate genes for grain yield and associated traits in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2022, 135, 1049–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Sehgal, D.; Autrique, E.; Singh, R.; Ellis, M.; Singh, S.; Dreisigacker, S. Identification of genomic regions for grain yield and yield stability and their epistatic interactions. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Sehgal, D.; Mondal, S.; Guzman, C.; Barrios, G.G.; Franco, C.; Singh, R.; Dreisigacker, S. Validation of candidate gene-based markers and identification of novel loci for thousand-grain weight in spring bread wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Sehgal, D.; Mondal, S.; Crespo-Herrera, L.; Velu, G.; Juliana, P.; Huerta-Espino, J.; Shrestha, S.; Poland, J.; Singh, R.; Dreisigacker, S. Haplotype-based, genome-wide association study reveals stable genomic regions for grain yield in CIMMYT spring bread wheat. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 589490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sehgal, D.; Rosyara, U.; Mondal, S.; Singh, R.; Poland, J.; Dreisigacker, S. Incorporating genome-wide association mapping results into genomic prediction models for grain yield and yield stability in CIMMYT spring bread wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Ledesma-Ramirez, L.; Solis-Moya, E.; Iturriaga, G.; Sehgal, D.; Reyes-Valdes, M.H.; Montero-Tavera, V.; Sansaloni, C.P.; Burgueno, J.; Ortiz, C.; Aguirre-Mancilla, C.L.; et al. GWAS to identify genetic loci for resistance to yellow rust in wheat pre-breeding lines derived from diverse exotic crosses. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, F.; Wen, W.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Cao, S.; He, Z.; Rasheed, A.; Jin, H.; Zhang, C.; Yan, J.; et al. Genetic architecture of grain yield in bread wheat based on genome-wide association studies. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kokhmetova, A.; Sehgal, D.; Ali, S.; Atishova, M.; Kumatbayeva, M.; Leonova, I.; Dreisigacker, S. Genome-wide association study of tan spot resistance in a hexaploid wheat collection from Kazakhstan. Front. Genet. 2021, 11, 581214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Singh, S.; Vikram, P.; Sehgal, D.; Burgueño, J.; Sharma, A.; Singh, S.K.; Sansaloni, C.P.; Joynson, R.; Brabbs, T.; Ortiz, C.; et al. Harnessing genetic potential of wheat germplasm banks through impact oriented-prebreeding for future food and nutritional security. Nat. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Singh, S.; Jighly, A.; Sehgal, D.; Burgueño, J.; Joukhadar, R.; Sharma, A.; Vikram, P.; Sansaloni, C.P.; Govindan, V.; Bhavani, S.; et al. Direct introgression of untapped diversity into elite wheat lines. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shokat, S.; Sehgal, D.; Fulai, L.; Sukhwinder, S. GWAS analysis of wheat pre-breeding germplasm for terminal drought stress using next generation sequencing technology. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 3156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Sehgal, D.; Mondal, S.; Burgeno, J.; Rosyara, U.; Bentley, A.R.; Dreisigacker, S. Genomic selection in wheat: Progress, opportunities and challenges. In Genomic Selection in Plants: A Guide for Breeders, 1st ed.; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 51–67. ISBN 9781003214991. [Google Scholar]
  86. Afzal, F.; Li, H.; Gul, A.; Subhani, A.; Ali, A.; Mujeeb-Kazi, A.; Ogbonnaya, F.; Trethowan, R.; Xia, X.; He, Z.; et al. Genome-wide analyses reveal footprints of divergent selection and drought adaptive traits in synthetic-derived wheats. G3-Genes Genomes Genet. 2019, 9, 1957–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Hanif, U.; Alipour, H.; Gul, A.; Jing, L.; Darvishzadeh, R.; Amir, R.; Munir, F.; Ilyas, M.K.; Ghafoor, A.; Siddiqui, S.U.; et al. Characterization of the genetic basis of local adaptation of wheat landraces from Iran and Pakistan using genome-wide association study. Plant Genome 2021, 14, e20096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Mondaini, A.; Rosyara, U.; Sehgal, D.; Dreisigacker, S. Selection signatures in the CIMMYT International Elite Spring and Semi-arid Wheat Yield Trials. Plant Genome 2021, 15, e20165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Upadhyaya, N.M.; Mago, R.; Panwar, V.; Hewitt, T.; Luo, M.; Chen, J.; Sperschneider, J.; Nguyen-Phuc, H.; Wang, A.; Ortiz, D.; et al. Genomics accelerated isolation of a new stem rust avirulence gene–wheat resistance gene pair. Nat. Plants 2021, 7, 1220–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rutkoski, J.; Poland, J.; Mondal, S.; Autrique, E.; Perez, L.G.; Crossa, J.; Reynolds, M.; Singh, R. Canopy temperature and vegetation indices from high-throughput phenotyping improve accuracy of pedigree and genomic selection for grain yield in wheat. G3-Genes Genomes Genet. 2016, 6, 2799–2808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Dunckel, S.; Crossa, J.; Wu, S.; Bonnett, D.; Poland, J. Genomic selection for increased yield in synthetic-derived wheat. J. Crop Sci. 2017, 57, 713–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Sun, J.; Rutkoski, J.E.; Poland, J.A.; Crossa, J.; Jannink, J.L.; Sorrells, M.E. Multitrait, random regression, or simple repeatability model in high-throughput phenotyping data improve genomic prediction for wheat grain yield. Plant Genome 2017, 10, plantgenome2016-11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Crain, J.; Mondal, S.; Rutkoski, J.; Singh, R.P.; Poland, J. Combining high-throughput phenotyping and genomic information to increase prediction and selection accuracy in wheat breeding. Plant Genome 2018, 11, 170043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Sukumaran, S.; Jarquin, D.; Crossa, J.; Reynolds, M. Genomic-enabled prediction accuracies increased by modeling genotype× environment interaction in durum wheat. Plant Genome 2018, 11, 170112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Juliana, P.; Poland, J.; Huerta-Espino, J.; Shrestha, S.; Crossa, J.; Crespo-Herrera, L.; Toledo, F.H.; Govindan, V.; Mondal, S.; Kumar, U.; et al. Improving grain yield, stress resilience and quality of bread wheat using large-scale genomics. Nat. Genet. 2019, 51, 1530–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Merida-Garcia, R.; Liu, G.; He, S.; Gonzalez-Dugo, V.; Dorado, G.; Galvez, S.; Solis, I.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Reif, J.C.; Hernandez, P. Genetic dissection of agronomic and quality traits based on association mapping and genomic selection approaches in durum wheat grown in Southern Spain. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Sarinelli, J.M.; Murphy, J.P.; Tyagi, P.; Holland, J.B.; Johnson, J.W.; Mergoum, M.; Mason, R.E.; Babar, A.; Harrison, S.; Sutton, R.; et al. Training population selection and use of fixed effects to optimize genomic predictions in a historical USA winter wheat panel. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2019, 132, 1247–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Rutkoski, J.E.; Poland, J.A.; Singh, R.P.; Huerta-Espino, J.; Bhavani, S.; Barbier, H.; Rouse, M.N.; Jannink, J.L.; Sorrells, M.E. Genomic selection for quantitative adult plant stem rust resistance in wheat. Plant Genome 2014, 7, plantgenome2014-02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Herter, C.P.; Ebmeyer, E.; Kollers, S.; Korzun, V.; Würschum, T.; Miedaner, T. Accuracy of within-and among-family genomic prediction for Fusarium head blight and Septoria tritici blotch in winter wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2019, 132, 1121–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Verges, V.L.; Lyerly, J.; Dong, Y.; Van Sanford, D.A. Training Population Design With the Use of Regional Fusarium Head Blight Nurseries to Predict Independent Breeding Lines for FHB Traits. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Larkin, D.L.; Holder, A.L.; Mason, R.E.; Moon, D.E.; Brown-Guedira, G.; Price, P.P.; Harrison, S.A.; Dong, Y. Genome-wide analysis and prediction of Fusarium head blight resistance in soft red winter wheat. Crop Sci. 2020, 60, 2882–2900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Juliana, P.; Singh, R.P.; Singh, P.K.; Crossa, J.; Rutkoski, J.E.; Poland, J.A.; Bergstrom, G.C.; Sorrells, M.E. Comparison of models and whole-genome profiling approaches for genomic-enabled prediction of septoria tritici blotch, stagonosporanodorum blotch, and tan spot resistance in wheat. Plant Genome 2017, 10, plantgenome2016-08. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Alemu, A.; Brazauskas, G.; Gaikpa, D.S.; Henriksson, T.; Islamov, B.; Jørgensen, L.N.; Koppel, M.; Koppel, R.; Liatukas, Z.; Svensson, J.T.; et al. Genome-wide association analysis and genomic prediction for adult-plant resistance to Septoria tritici blotch and powdery mildew in winter wheat. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 661742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Juliana, P.; Singh, R.P.; Singh, P.K.; Crossa, J.; Huerta-Espino, J.; Lan, C.; Bhavani, S.; Rutkoski, J.E.; Poland, J.A.; Bergstrom, G.C.; et al. Genomic and pedigree-based prediction for leaf, stem, and stripe rust resistance in wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2017, 130, 1415–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Shahinnia, F.; Geyer, M.; Schurmann, F.; Rudolphi, S.; Holzapfel, J.; Kempf, H.; Stadlmeier, M.; Loschenberger, F.; Morales, L.; Buerstmayr, H.; et al. Genome-wide association study and genomic prediction of resistance to stripe rust in current Central and Northern European winter wheat germplasm. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2022, 135, 3583–3595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Lee, W.P.; Tzou, W.S. Computational methods for discovering gene networks from expression data. Brief. Bioinform. 2009, 10, 408–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Dash, P.K.; Cao, Y.; Jailani, A.K.; Gupta, P.; Venglat, P.; Xiang, D.; Rai, R.; Sharma, R.; Thirunavukkarasu, N.; Abdin, M.Z.; et al. Genome-wide analysis of drought induced gene expression changes in flax (Linum usitatissimum). GM Crops Food 2014, 5, 106–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Kumar, A.; Dash, P.K. Transcriptome analysis for abiotic stresses in rice (Oryza sativa L.). In Transcriptome Analysis; Blumenberg, M., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Wang, Z.; Gerstein, M.; Snyder, M. RNA-Seq: A revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2009, 10, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kukurba, K.R.; Montgomery, S.B. RNA sequencing and analysis. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2015, 11, pdb-top084970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Liu, Z.; Xin, M.; Qin, J.; Peng, H.; Ni, Z.; Yao, Y.; Sun, Q. Temporal transcriptome profiling reveals expression partitioning of homeologous genes contributing to heat and drought acclimation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). BMC Plant Biol. 2015, 15, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Goyal, E.; Amit, S.K.; Singh, R.S.; Mahato, A.K.; Chand, S.; Kanika, K. Transcriptome profiling of the salt-stress response in Triticum aestivum cv. Kharchia Local. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. He, G.H.; Xu, J.Y.; Wang, Y.X.; Liu, J.M.; Li, P.S.; Chen, M.; Ma, Y.Z.; Xu, Z.S. Drought-responsive WRKY transcription factor genes TaWRKY1 and TaWRKY33fromwheat confer drought and/or heatresistance in Arabidopsis. BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Wang, X.; Wang, C.; Sheng, H.; Wang, Y.; Zeng, J.; Kang, H.; Fan, X.; Sha, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, Y. Transcriptome-wide identification and expression analyses of ABC transporters in dwarf polish wheatundermetal stresses. Biol. Plant. 2017, 61, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Dalal, M.; Sahu, S.; Tiwari, S.; Rao, A.R.; Gaikwad, K. Transcriptome analysis reveals interplay between hormones, ROS metabolism and cellwall biosynthesis for drought-induced root growth in wheat. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 130, 482–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Sharma, C.; Saripalli, G.; Kumar, S.; Gautam, T.; Kumar, A.; Rani, S.; Jain, N.; Prasad, P.; Raghuvanshi, S.; Jain, M.; et al. A study of transcriptome in leaf rust infected bread wheat involving seedling resistance gene Lr28. Funct. Plant Biol. 2018, 45, 1046–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ye, W.; Liu, T.; Zhang, W.; Li, S.; Zhu, M.; Li, H.; Kong, Y.; Xu, L. Disclosure of the molecular mechanism of wheat leaf spot disease caused by Bipolaris sorokiniana through comparative transcriptome and metabolomics analysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 6090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Vicente, R.; Bolger, A.M.; Martinez-Carrasco, R.; Perez, P.; Gutierrez, E.; Usadel, B.; Morcuende, R. De novo transcriptome analysis of durum wheat flag leaves provides new insights into the regulatory response to elevated CO2 and high temperature. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Zhang, H.; Fu, Y.; Guo, H.; Zhang, L.; Wang, C.; Song, W.; Yan, Z.; Wang, Y.; Ji, W. Transcriptome and proteome-based network analysis reveals a model of gene activation in wheat resistance to stripe rust. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Derakhshani, B.; Ayalew, H.; Mishina, K.; Tanaka, T.; Kawahara, Y.; Jafary, H.; Oono, Y. Comparative analysis of root transcriptome reveals candidate genes and expression divergence of homoeologous genes in response to water stress in wheat. Plants 2020, 9, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Rangan, P.; Furtado, A.; Henry, R. Transcriptome profiling of wheat genotypes under heat stress during grain-filling. J. Cereal Sci. 2020, 91, 102895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Dugasa, M.T.; Feng, X.; Wang, N.H.; Wang, J.; Wu, F. Comparative transcriptome and tolerance mechanism analysis in the two contrasting wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars in response to drought and salinity stresses. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 94, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Chaichi, M.; Badii, F.; Mohammadi, A.; Hashemi, M. Water resistance and mechanical properties of low methoxy-pectin nanocomposite film responses to interactions of Ca2+ ions and glycerol concentrations as crosslinking agents. Food Chem. 2019, 293, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Luo, Y.; Xie, Y.; Li, W.; Wei, M.; Dai, T.; Li, Z.; Wang, B. Physiological and transcriptomic analyses reveal exogenous trehalose is involved in the responses of wheat roots to high temperature stress. Plants 2021, 10, 2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Duarte-Delgado, D.; Dadshani, S.; Schoof, H.; Oyiga, B.C.; Schneider, M.; Mathew, B.; Leon, J.; Ballvora, A. Transcriptome profiling at osmotic and ionic phases of salt stress response in bread wheat uncovers trait-specific candidate genes. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Batyrshina, Z.S.; Shavit, R.; Yaakov, B.; Bocobza, S.; Tzin, V. The transcription factor TaMYB31 regulates the benzoxazinoid biosynthetic pathway in wheat. J. Exp. Bot. 2022, 73, 5634–5649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Yu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Henderson, I.R.; Guo, J. Artificial sweeteners stimulate horizontal transfer of extracellular antibiotic resistance genes through natural transformation. ISME J. 2022, 16, 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Wang, L.; Bai, X.; Qiao, Y.; Si, L.; Yu, Z.; Ni, C.; Li, T.; Guo, C.; Xiao, K. tae-miR9674a, a microRNA member of wheat, confers plant drought and salt tolerance through modulating the stomata movement and ROS homeostasis. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Amirbakhtiar, N.; Ismaili, A.; Ghaffari, M.R.; Firouzabadi, F.; Shobbar, Z.S. Transcriptome response of roots to salt stress in a salinity-tolerant bread wheat cultivar. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Akpinar, B.A.; Kantar, M.; Budak, H. Root precursors of microRNAs in wild emmer and modern wheats show major differences in response to drought stress. Funct. Integr. Genom. 2022, 15, 587–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Eren, H.; Pekmezci, M.Y.; Okay, S.; Turktas, M.; Inal, B.; Ilhan, E.; Atak, M.; Erayman, M.; Unver, T. Hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum) root miRNome analysis in response to salt stress. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2015, 167, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Seifikalhor, M.; Aliniaeifard, S.; Shomali, A.; Azad, N.; Hassani, B.; Lastochkina, O.; Li, T. Calcium signaling and salt tolerance are diversely entwined in plants. Plant Signal. Behav. 2019, 14, 1665455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Vaid, N.; Pandey, P.; Srivastava, V.K.; Tuteja, N. Pea lectin receptor-like kinase functions in salinity adaptation without yield penalty, by alleviating osmotic and ionic stresses and upregulating stress-responsive genes. Plant Mol. Biol. 2015, 88, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Shahid, M.; Khalid, S.; Abbas, G.; Shahid, N.; Nadeem, M.; Sabir, M.; Aslam, M.; Dumat, C. Heavy Metal Stress and Crop Productivity. In Crop Production and Global Environmental Issues; Hakeem, K., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Zhang, T.; Xiao, J.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jie, Y.; Shen, D.; Yue, C.; Huang, J.; Hua, Y.; Zhou, T. Comparative physiological and transcriptomic analyses reveal ascorbate and glutathione coregulation of cadmium toxicity resistance in wheat genotypes. BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Francki, M.G.; Hayton, S.; Gummer, J.P.A.; Rawlinson, C.; Trengove, R.D. Metabolomic profiling and genomic analysis of wheat aneuploid lines to identify genes controlling biochemical pathways in mature grain. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2016, 14, 649–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Shewry, P.R.; Corol, D.I.; Jones, H.D.; Beale, M.H.; Ward, J.L. Defining genetic and chemical diversity in wheat grain by 1H-NMR spectroscopy of polar metabolites. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2017, 61, 1600807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Baker, J.M.; Hawkins, N.D.; Ward, J.L.; Lovegrove, A.; Napier, J.A.; Shewry, P.R.; Beale, M.H.A. Metabolomic study of substantial equivalence of field-grown genetically modified wheat. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2006, 4, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Graham, S.F.; Amigues, E.; Migaud, M.; Browne, R.A. Application of NMR based metabolomics for mapping metabolite variation in european wheat. Metabolomics 2009, 5, 302–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Curtis, T.Y.; Muttucumaru, N.; Shewry, P.R.; Parry, M.A.J.; Powers, S.J.; Elmore, J.S.; Mottram, D.S.; Hook, S.; Halford, N.G. Effects of genotype and environment on free amino acid levels in wheat grain: Implications for acrylamide formation during processing. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 1013–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Howarth, J.R.; Parmar, S.; Jones, J.; Shepherd, C.E.; Corol, D.I.; Galster, A.M.; Hawkins, N.D.; Miller, S.J.; Baker, J.M.; Verrier, P.J.; et al. Co-ordinated expression of amino acid metabolism in response to N and S deficiency during wheat grain filling. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 3675–3689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Gunnaiah, R.; Kushalappa, A.C. Metabolomics deciphers the host resistance mechanisms in wheat cultivar Sumai-3, against trichothecene producing and non-producing isolates of Fusarium graminearum. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2014, 83, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Aranjuelo, I.; Erice, G.; Sanz-Sáez, A.; Abadie, C.; Gilard, F.; Gil-Quintana, E.; Avice, J.C.; Staudinger, C.; Wienkoop, S.; Araus, J.L.; et al. Differential CO2 effect on primary carbon metabolism of flag leaves in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Plant Cell Environ. 2015, 38, 2780–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  144. Hogy, P.; Keck, M.; Niehaus, K.; Franzaring, J.; Fangmeier, A. Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on biomass, yield and low molecular weight metabolites in wheat grain. J. Cereal Sci. 2010, 52, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Hill, C.B.; Taylor, J.D.; Edwards, J.; Mather, D.; Langridge, P.; Bacic, A.; Roessner, U. Detection of QTL for metabolic and agronomic traits in wheat with adjustments for variation at genetic loci that affect plant phenology. Plant Science 2015, 233, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Annunziata, M.G.; Ciarmiello, L.F.; Woodrow, P.; Maximova, E.; Fuggi, A.; Carillo, P. Durum wheat roots adapt to salinity remodeling the cellular content of nitrogen metabolites and sucrose. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Kang, Z.; Babar, M.A.; Khan, N.; Guo, J.; Khan, J.; Islam, S.; Shrestha, S.; Shahi, D. Comparative metabolomic profiling in the roots and leaves in contrasting genotypes reveals complex mechanisms involved in post-anthesis drought tolerance in wheat. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Lu, M.; Yu, S.; Lian, J.; Wang, Q.; He, Z.; Feng, Y.; Yang, X. Physiological and metabolomics responses of two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes differing in grain cadmium accumulation. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 145345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Qin, S.; Xu, Y.; Nie, Z.; Liu, H.; Gao, W.; Li, C.; Zhao, P. Metabolomic and antioxidant enzyme activity changes in response to cadmium stress under boron application of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 34701–34713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Page, M.J.; Griffiths, T.A.M.; Bleackley, M.R.; MacGillivray, R.T.A. Proteomics: Applications relevant to transfusion medicine. Transfus. Med. Rev. 2006, 20, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Faghani, E.; Gharechahi, J.; Komatsu, S.; Mirzaei, M.; Khavarinejad, R.A.; Najafi, F.; Farsad, L.K.; Salekdeh, G.H. Comparative physiology and proteomic analysis of two wheat genotypes contrasting in drought tolerance. J. Proteom. 2015, 114, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Kang, G.; Li, G.; Xu, W.; Peng, X.; Han, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Guo, T. Proteomics reveals the effects of salicylic acid on growth and tolerance to subsequent drought stress in wheat. J. Proteome Res. 2012, 11, 6066–6079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Alvarez, S.; Choudhury, S.R.; Pandey, S. Comparative quantitative proteomics analysis of the ABA response of roots of drought-sensitive and drought-tolerant wheat varieties identifies proteomic signatures of drought adaptability. J. Proteome Res. 2014, 13, 1688–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Michaletti, A.; Naghavi, M.R.; Toorchi, M.; Zolla, L.; Rinalducci, S. Metabolomics and proteomics reveal drought-stress responses of leaf tissues from spring-wheat. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Ge, P.; Ma, C.; Wang, S.; Gao, L.; Li, X.; Guo, G.; Ma, W.; Yan, Y. Comparative proteomic analysis of grain development in two spring wheat varieties under drought stress. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2012, 402, 1297–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Qin, N.; Xu, W.; Hu, L.; Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Qi, X.; Fang, Y.; Hua, X. Drought tolerance and proteomics studies of transgenic wheat containing the maize C4 phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC) gene. Protoplasma 2016, 253, 1503–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Cheng, L.; Wang, Y.; He, Q.; Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, F. Comparative proteomics illustrates the complexity of drought resistance mechanisms in two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars under dehydration and rehydration. BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Lu, F.; Duan, W.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, D.; Zhang, M.; Yan, Y. 2D-DIGE based proteome analysis of wheat-Thinopyrum intermedium 7XL/7DS translocation line under drought stress. BMC Genom. 2022, 23, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Ding, H.; Han, Q.; Ma, D.; Hou, J.; Huang, X.; Wang, C.; Xie, Y.; Kang, G.; Guo, T. Characterizing physiological and proteomic analysis of the action of H2S to mitigate drought stress in young seedling of wheat. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2018, 36, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Wang, X.; Xu, Y.; Li, J.; Ren, Y.; Wang, Z.; Xin, Z.; Lin, T. Identification of two novel wheat drought tolerance-related proteins by comparative proteomic analysis combined with virus-induced gene silencing. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 4020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Zhang, Y.; Lou, H.; Guo, D.; Zhang, R.; Su, M.; Hou, Z.; Zhou, H.; Liang, R.; Xie, C.; You, M.; et al. Identifying changes in the wheat kernel proteome under heat stress using iTRAQ. Crop J. 2018, 6, 600–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Kumar, R.R.; Singh, K.; Ahuja, S.; Tasleem, M.; Singh, I.; Kumar, S.; Grover, M.; Mishra, D.; Rai, G.K.; Goswami, S.; et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis reveals novel stress-associated active proteins (SAAPs) and pathways involved in modulating tolerance of wheat under terminal heat. Funct. Integr. Genom. 2019, 19, 329–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Chunduri, V.; Kaur, A.; Kaur, S.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, N.; Singh, P.; Kapoor, P.; Kaur, S.; Kumari, A.; et al. Gene expression and proteomics studies suggest an involvement of multiple pathways under day and day–night combined heat stresses during grain filling in wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Wang, X.; Hou, L.; Lu, Y.; Wu, B.; Gong, X.; Liu, M.; Wang, J.; Sun, Q.; Vierling, E.; Xu, S. Metabolic adaptation of wheat grain contributes to a stable filling rate under heat stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2018, 69, 5531–5545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Fercha, A.; Capriotti, A.L.; Caruso, G.; Cavaliere, C.; Gherroucha, H.; Samperi, R.; Stampachiacchiere, S.; Lagana, A. Gel-free proteomics reveal potential biomarkers of priming-induced salt tolerance in durum wheat. J. Proteom. 2013, 91, 486–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Guo, G.; Ge, P.; Ma, C.; Li, X.; Lv, D.; Wang, S.; Ma, W.; Yan, Y. Comparative proteomic analysis of salt response proteins in seedling roots of two wheat varieties. J. Proteom. 2012, 75, 1867–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Yadav, R.; Santal, A.R.; Singh, N.P. Comparative root proteome analysis of two contrasting wheat genotypes Kharchia-65 (highly salt-tolerant) and PBW-373 (salt-sensitive) for salinity tolerance using LC–MS/MS approach. Vegetos 2022, 35, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Gharechahi, J.; Alizadeh, H.; Naghavi, M.R.; Sharifi, G. A proteomic analysis to identify cold acclimation associated proteins in wild wheat (Triticum urartu L.). Mol. Biol. Rep. 2014, 41, 3897–3905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Singh, R.P.; Runthala, A.; Khan, S.; Jha, P.N. Quantitative proteomics analysis reveals the tolerance of wheat to salt stress in response to Enterobacter cloacae SBP-8. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  170. He, T.; Xu, T.; Muhae-Ud-din, G.; Guo, Q.; Liu, T.; Chen, W.; Gao, L. ITRAQ-based proteomic analysis of wheat (Triticum aestivum) spikes in response to Tilletia controversa Kuhn and Tilletia foetida Kühn Infection, causal organisms of dwarf bunt and common bunt of wheat. Biology 2022, 11, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Qiao, F.; Yang, X.; Xu, F.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Song, M.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, M.; He, D. TMT-based quantitative proteomic analysis reveals defense mechanism of wheat against the crown rot pathogen Fusarium pseudograminearum. BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Ritchie, M.D.; Holzinger, E.R.; Li, R.W.; Pendergrass, S.A.; Kim, D. Methods of integrating data to uncover genotype-phenotype interactions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2015, 16, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Subramanian, I.; Verma, S.; Kumar, S.; Jere, A.; Anamika, K. Multi-omics data integration, interpretation, and its application. Bioinf. Biol. Insights 2020, 14, 1177932219899051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  174. Kuo, T.C.; Tian, T.F.; Tseng, Y.J. 3Omics: A web-based systems biology tool for analysis, integration and visualization of human transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic data. BMC Syst. Biol. 2013, 7, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Garcia-Alcalde, F.; García-Lopez, F.; Dopazo, J.; Conesa, A. Paintomics: A web-based tool for the joint visualization of transcriptomics and metabolomics data. J. Bioinform. 2011, 27, 137–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  176. Tokimatsu, T.; Sakurai, N.; Suzuki, H.; Ohta, H.; Nishitani, K.; Koyama, T.; Umezawa, T.; Misawa, N.; Saito, K.; Shibata, D. KaPPA-View. A web-based analysis tool for integration of transcript and metabolite data on plant metabolic pathway maps. Plant Physiol. 2005, 138, 1289–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Sun, X.; Weckwerth, W. COVAIN: A toolbox for uni- and multivariate statistics, time-series and correlation network analysis and inverse estimation of the differential Jacobian from metabolomics covariance data. Metabolomics 2012, 8, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Sangaralingam, A.; Dayem Ullah, A.Z.; Marzec, J.; Gadaleta, E.; Nagano, A.; Ross-Adams, H.; Wang, J.; Lemoine, N.R.; Chelala, C. ‘Multi-omic’data analysis using O-miner. Brief. Bioinform. 2019, 20, 130–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  179. Biyiklioglu, S.; Alptekin, B.; Akpinar, B.A.; Varella, A.C.; Hofland, M.L.; Weaver, D.K.; Bothner, B.; Budak, H. A large-scale multiomics analysis of wheat stem solidness and the wheat stem sawfly feeding response, and syntenic associations in barley, Brachypodium, and rice. Funct. Integr. Genom. 2018, 18, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Velez-Bermúdez, I.C.; Salazar-Henao, J.E.; Fornalé, S.; López-Vidriero, I.; Franco-Zorrilla, J.M.; Grotewold, E.; Gray, J.; Solano, R.; Schmidt, W.; Pagés, M.; et al. A MYB/ZML complex regulates wound-induced lignin genes in maize. Plant Cell 2015, 27, 3245–3259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Zhao, Y.; Sun, R.; Liu, H.; Liu, X.; Xu, K.; Xiao, K. Multi-omics analyses reveal the molecular mechanisms underlying the adaptation of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to potassium deprivation. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 588994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Heang, D.; Sassa, H. An atypical bHLH protein encoded by positive regulator of grain length 2 is involved in controlling grain length and weight of rice through interaction with a typical bHLH protein APG. Breed Sci. 2012, 62, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Thrash, A.; Tang, J.D.; DeOrnellis, M.; Peterson, D.G.; Warburton, M.L. PAST: The pathway association studies tool to infer biological meaning from GWAS datasets. Plants 2020, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  184. Weckwerth, W.; Ghatak, A.; Bellaire, A.; Chaturvedi, P.; Varshney, R.K. PANOMICS meets germplasm. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 1507–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  185. Alqudah, A.M.; Haile, J.K.; Alomari, D.Z.; Pozniak, C.J.; Kobiljski, B.; Borner, A. Genome-wide and SNP network analyses reveal genetic control of spikelet sterility and yield-related traits in wheat. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Chen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Tan, Y.; Zhang, M.; Zhu, L.; Xu, G.; Fan, X. Agronomic nitrogen-use efficiency of rice can be increased by driving Os NRT 2.1 expression with the Os NAR 2.1 promoter. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2016, 14, 1705–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Ellis, J.G.; Lagudah, E.S.; Spielmeyer, W.; Dodds, P.N. The past, present and future of breeding rust resistant wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  188. Huerta-Espino, J.; Singh, R.P.; Germán, S.; McCallum, B.D.; Park, R.; Chen, W.Q.; Bhardwaj, S.C.; Goyeau, H. Global status of wheat leaf rust caused by Puccinia triticina. Euphytica 2011, 179, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Singh, R.P.; Hodson, D.P.; Jin, Y.; Lagudah, E.S.; Ayliffe, M.A.; Bhavani, S.; Rouse, M.N.; Pretorius, Z.A.; Szabo, L.J.; Huerta-Espino, J.; et al. Emergence and spread of new races of wheat stem rust fungus: Continued threat to food security and prospects of genetic control. Phytopathology 2015, 105, 872–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  190. Haile, T.A.; Heidecker, T.; Wright, D.; Neupane, S.; Ramsay, L.; Vandenberg, A.; Bett, K.E. Genomic selection for lentil breeding: Empirical evidence. Plant Genome 2020, 13, e20002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Gamazon, E.R.; Wheeler, H.E.; Shah, K.P.; Mozaffari, S.V.; Aquino-Michaels, K.; Carroll, R.J.; Eyler, A.E.; Denny, J.C.; Nicolae, D.L.; GTEx Consortium; et al. A gene-based association method for mapping traits using reference transcriptome data. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47, 1091–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The schematic representation of various omics approaches deployed in crops.
Figure 1. The schematic representation of various omics approaches deployed in crops.
Plants 12 00426 g001
Table 1. Representative studies of gene families with putative roles under biotic and abiotic stresses in wheat.
Table 1. Representative studies of gene families with putative roles under biotic and abiotic stresses in wheat.
Gene FamilyPutative AnnotationStress Reference
Biotic stress
LIM (Lin-11, IsI-1 and Mec-3)Transcription factorsFusarium head blight[51]
bHLH (basic helix-loop-helix)Transcription factorsFusarium head blight and Septoria tritici blotch[52]
Serpin (serine protease inhibitor)Protease inhibitorsFusarium head blight[53]
SNARETransport proteinsPowdery mildew[54]
SWEETSugar transporterStem rust[55]
CNGCsCalcium channelStripe rust[56]
AP (Aspartic proteases)Proteolysis enzymesPowdery mildew[57]
ZF_HD (Zinc finger homeodomain)Transcription factorsFusarium head blight[58]
Xylanase inhibitorPlant pathogen interactionFusarium head blight[59]
Caffeoyl-coenzyme A O-methyltransferase Lignin biosynthesisFusarium head blight[13]
Abiotic stress
DEAD box RNA helicasesRNA metabolism Drought, cold and salt[60]
WRKYTranscription factorsDrought and salt[61]
Domain of unknown functionUncharacterizedSalt[62]
TrihelixPlant specific transcription factorsSalt and cold[63]
HSPs (Heat shock proteins)Protein foldingHeat[64]
NAC (NAM-ATAF1-2-CUC2)Plant specific transcription factorsHeat and drought[65]
bZIP (basic leucine zipper)Transcription factorsHeat, salinity, drought and oxidative stress[66]
ASR (ABA-stress-ripening) genesTranscription factorsSalt and low temperature[67]
SRO (similar to radical-induced cell death 1 proteins)Small protein familyVarious stresses[68]
PLC (Phospholipase C)Cytoplasmic membranesSalt, low temperature and drought[54]
ExpansinCell wall componentSalt[69]
BAM (B-amylase)SugarHeat and drought[70]
LIM (Lin-11, IsI-1 and Mec-3)Transcription factorsHeat, drought, salt, abscisic acid[51]
Growth regulating factorsTranscription factorsOsmotic stress[71]
Amino acid transporterTransporter proteinsHeat and drought[72]
Table 2. Transcriptomic studies on analyzing stress responses in wheat.
Table 2. Transcriptomic studies on analyzing stress responses in wheat.
Trait for Transcriptome AnalysisSummaryReference
Heat and drought stressHSFs and DREBs are involved in alleviating stress effect. Further, 1328 TFs found to be responsive to stress treatment.[111]
Salt stressTF’s including WD40-like, C2H2, MYB-HB-like, genes coding for V-ATPase, glutathione S-transferases, cytochrome c oxidase and Cbl-interacting protein kinasewere over expressed in Triticum aestivum cv. Kharchia Local.[112]
Drought and/or heat stressDrought-responsive WRKY transcription factor genes TaWRKY1 and TaWRKY33 were found to confer drought and/or heat resistance in Arabidopsis.[113]
High temperature stressIdentified six heat-induced MYB genes in wheat.[46]
Metal stressThe expressions of ABC transporters in dwarf polish wheat played important roles in metal transport (Cd, Cu, Mg, Zn, Fe, and Ni) and detoxification.[114]
Drought stressDrought stress significantly upregulated auxin receptor (AFB2) and ABA responsive transcription factors (MYB78, WRKY18 and GBF3), ACC oxidase and 2OG-Fe(II) oxygenase in roots. Genes related to gibberellic acid, jasmonic acid and phenylpropanoid pathways were down regulated in roots.[115]
Water stressRoot transcriptome profiles identified DEGs involved in carbon metabolism, flavonoid biosynthesis and phytohormone signal transduction.[6]
Leaf rustGenes involved in reactive oxygen species (ROS) homeostasis and several genes encoding TFs, most abundant being WRKY TFs, were identified along with some ncRNAs and histone variants in HD 2329 + Lr28 NIL in comparison to HD 2329.[116]
Seedling salt stressSalt tolerance was conferred by polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFAs) by enhancing the photosynthetic system and JA-related pathways.[45]
Leaf spot (Bipolaris sorokiniana) toleranceThe upregulation of hydrolase inhibitor, NAC (including NAM, ATAF1 and CUC2) transcriptional factor, and peroxidase in infected wheat tissues suggested their central roles in the defensive response of wheat to Bipolaris sorokiniana.[117]
Elevated CO2 and high temperature stressDEGs in response to stress includes protein kinases, receptor kinases, and transcription factors.[118]
Stripe rustSeveral regulators, including splicing and transcription factors and Hsp70 protein are responsive in Puccinia striformis induced response network.[119]
Water StressComparative analysis of root transcriptome revealed that transcription factors, pyroline-5-carboxylate reductase and late-embryogenesis-abundant proteins were upregulated genes in the tolerant cultivar.[120]
Heat stress during grain fillingHsp-family, ascorbate peroxidase, β-amylase, γ-gliadin-2 and LMW-glutenin were heat stress responsive and were upregulated during stress.[121]
Table 3. Proteomic studies on analyzing stress responses in wheat.
Table 3. Proteomic studies on analyzing stress responses in wheat.
Abiotic Stresses AnalysedResearch SummaryReference
Drought StressStress response of two genotypes SW89.5193/kAu2|SERI M 82 (Susceptible|Tolerant) was analyzed under drought. They found 40 roots; 73 leaves differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) in roots and leaves, respectively.[151]
Pretreatment with 0.5 mM salicylic acid (SA) for 3 days
significantly enhanced the growth and tolerance to subsequent drought stress in Yumai 34. A total of 76 proteins were found to be differentially regulated by using 2-DE, MALDI-TOF-TOF from leaf samples.
[152]
Monitored the roots of two different wheat varieties, Nesser (drought-tolerant) and Opata (drought-sensitive), in the absence and presence of abscisic acid (ABA, as a proxy for drought). A total of 151 proteins were found to be differentially regulated.[153]
Monitored the stress response of two cultivars Bahar, drought-susceptible; Kavir, drought tolerant under drought stress. A total of 81 proteins were found to be differentially regulated. [154]
Monitored the stress response of two varieties, Ningchun 4 (Tolerant) and Chinese Spring (Susceptible), at grain development stage: A total of 91 proteins were found to be differentially regulated.[155]
Monitored PEPC transgenic lines for drought tolerance, expressing maize C4 phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC) gene. By employing the 2-DE, MALDI-TOF, a total of 75 genes were found to be differentially regulated from flag leaf samples.[156]
Monitored the stress response of two wheat cultivars, Xihan No. 2 and Longchun 23, under dehydration and rehydration. They reported 84 and 64 proteins differentially regulated in Xihan No. 2 and Longchun 23, respectively.[157]
Monitored the stress response of two varieties, Zhongmai 8601 and Zhongmai 8601-Thinopyrum intermedium 7XL/7DS translocation line YW642, under drought stress at grain development stage. They found the differential regulation of 146 proteins in response to drought.[158]
Monitored the NaHS treated seedlings under drought stress in Yumai 34. They found the differential regulation of 120 proteins.[159]
Identified drought-tolerant proteins via virus-induced gene silencing in drought-tolerant XN979 and drought-sensitive LA379 varieties. They found the differential regulation of 335 proteins in response to stress.[160]
Heat StressMonitored the stress response of Gaocheng 8901, winter wheat. They found the upregulation of 207 proteins. [161]
Monitored the stress response of two cultivars, HD2985 (thermotolerant) and HD2329 (thermosusceptible), at pollination and grain filling stages. They identified 4271 stress-associated proteins.[162]
Monitored the BWL4444 (HD2967+ Yr10) plants during the grain filling stage to understand the effect of heat stress in heat-tolerant varieties. Differential expression of 153 proteins was found in developing grain samples.[163]
Monitored the stability of the filling rate under heat stress in two wheat varieties, Chinese Spring and Liao-10. They found 309 proteins associated with heat stress.[164]
Salinity StressMonitored priming-induced salt tolerance on vigor in T durum var. Waha. The ratio of seed weight to the volume of solution employed for priming was 1:5; 12 h soaking. Priming treatments: distilled water (c) and ascorbate (t). Salt stress: 10 mL of saline solution (NaCl 250 mmol L−1) or distilled water (control) and drying under shade with forced air at 27 ± 3 °C. They found 72 proteins hydroprimed and 83 proteins ascorbate primed.[165]
Monitored the roots of two wheat varieties, Jing-411 (salt-tolerant) and Chinese Spring (salt-sensitive), under salt stress. They found 52 proteins in Jing-411 and 47 proteins in Chinese Spring to be differentially regulated.[166]
Monitored the roots of two wheat varieties, Kharchia-65 (highly salt-tolerant) and PBW-373 (salt-sensitive), under salt stress. They found 2520 proteins in Kharchia-65 and 1633 proteins in PBW-373 to be differentially regulated.[167]
Cold StressMonitored the cold stress response of seeds of one wheat cultivar, T urartu L. They found 34 proteins differentially regulated in response to cold stress in leaf samples.[168]
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

Sehgal, D.; Dhakate, P.; Ambreen, H.; Shaik, K.H.B.; Rathan, N.D.; Anusha, N.M.; Deshmukh, R.; Vikram, P. Wheat Omics: Advancements and Opportunities. Plants 2023, 12, 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030426

AMA Style

Sehgal D, Dhakate P, Ambreen H, Shaik KHB, Rathan ND, Anusha NM, Deshmukh R, Vikram P. Wheat Omics: Advancements and Opportunities. Plants. 2023; 12(3):426. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030426

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sehgal, Deepmala, Priyanka Dhakate, Heena Ambreen, Khasim Hussain Baji Shaik, Nagenahalli Dharmegowda Rathan, Nayanahalli Munireddy Anusha, Rupesh Deshmukh, and Prashant Vikram. 2023. "Wheat Omics: Advancements and Opportunities" Plants 12, no. 3: 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030426

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