Next Article in Journal
Effect of Ferulago lutea (Poir.) Grande Essential Oil on Molecular Hallmarks of Skin Aging
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Salt Stress-Induced Changes in Polyamine, Amino Acid, and Phytoalexin Profiles in Mature Fruits of Grapevine Cultivars Grown in Tunisian Oases
Previous Article in Journal
Bioactive Compound-Loaded Nanocarriers for Hair Growth Promotion: Current Status and Future Perspectives
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Anthocyanins in Plant Tolerance to Drought and Salt Stresses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 21
10.3390/plants12213740
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

GhDof1.7, a Dof Transcription Factor, Plays Positive Regulatory Role under Salinity Stress in Upland Cotton

by
Yi Li
1,2,
Miaomiao Tian
2,
Zhen Feng
2,
Jingjing Zhang
2,
Jianhua Lu
1,2,
Xiaokang Fu
1,2,
Liang Ma
1,2,
Hengling Wei
1,2,* and
Hantao Wang
1,2,3,*
1
Zhengzhou Research Base, National Key Laboratory of Cotton Bio-Breeding and Integrated Utilization, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
2
National Key Laboratory of Cotton Bio-Breeding and Integrated Utilization, Institute of Cotton Research of CAAS, Anyang 455000, China
3
Western Agricultural Research Center, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changji 831100, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(21), 3740; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12213740
Submission received: 5 September 2023 / Revised: 23 October 2023 / Accepted: 27 October 2023 / Published: 31 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Mechanisms of Plant Salinity Stress and Tolerance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Salt stress is a major abiotic stressor that can severely limit plant growth, distribution, and crop yield. DNA-binding with one finger (Dof) is a plant-specific transcription factor that plays a crucial role in plant growth, development, and stress response. In this study, the function of a Dof transcription factor, GhDof1.7, was investigated in upland cotton. The GhDof1.7 gene has a coding sequence length of 759 base pairs, encoding 252 amino acids, and is mainly expressed in roots, stems, leaves, and inflorescences. Salt and abscisic acid (ABA) treatments significantly induced the expression of GhDof1.7. The presence of GhDof1.7 in Arabidopsis may have resulted in potential improvements in salt tolerance, as suggested by a decrease in H2O2 content and an increase in catalase (CAT) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities. The GhDof1.7 protein was found to interact with GhCAR4 (C2-domain ABA-related 4), and the silencing of either GhDof1.7 or GhCAR4 resulted in reduced salt tolerance in cotton plants. These findings demonstrate that GhDof1.7 plays a crucial role in improving the salt tolerance of upland cotton and provide insight into the regulation of abiotic stress response by Dof transcription factors.

1. Introduction

Soil salinization is a major environmental issue worldwide, as studies have indicated that elevated salt levels can impede plant growth and disrupt metabolic processes, ultimately causing a significant decline in crop yield [1]. As salt accumulates in the soil, intracellular water potential surpasses extracellular potential, hindering plant roots’ ability to absorb water and resulting in stunted growth or even plant death due to water scarcity [2]. Furthermore, the accumulation of salt ions can increase reactive oxygen species (ROS) content in plants, leading to the destruction of cell membrane proteins and lipid structures [3]. To cope with salt stress, plants utilize various strategies, such as ion compartmentalization, osmoregulation, scavenging of reactive oxygen species, and regulation of gene transcription [4,5,6]. Transcription factors have the ability to respond to changes in the external environment by regulating their own expression and employing the spatiotemporal specificity of gene expression to activate target genes. In particular, several transcription factor families, such as MYB, NAC, WRKY, and CBF, have been identified as crucial components of the plant’s response to salt stress [7,8,9,10,11].
Dof transcription factors are a plant-specific class of transcription factors that typically consist of 200–400 amino acids [12]. The N-terminal domain of Dof proteins resembles a C2C2-type zinc finger and contains 50–52 conserved amino acid residues that can specifically bind to the core sequence with 5′-AAAG-3′ [13]. The C-terminal transcriptional regulatory domain of Dof transcription factors is highly variable and can interact with a variety of regulatory proteins, enabling the diversity of its function by activating or inhibiting the transcription of genes. Over the years, numerous Dof family members have been discovered and identified in different plants. For instance, 54, 31, 28, and 24 Dof family members were predicted in monocots such as Zea mays [14], Triticum aestivum [15], Sorghum bicolor [16], and Hordeum vulgare [17], respectively, while 36, 41, 89, and 78 Dof family members were predicted in dicots such as Arabidopsis thaliana [13], Populus trichocarpa [18], Gossypium hirsutum [19], and Glycine max [20], respectively. Previous studies have demonstrated that Dof transcription factors are involved in regulating plant growth [21,22,23,24,25], and more recently, they have been found to play a crucial role in the plant’s response to abiotic stresses [26,27,28,29]. For example, Dof genes in moso bamboo have been shown to be involved in cold, salt, and drought stress responses [30]. In poplars, seven Dof genes responded to osmotic and abscisic acid stress [31]. Additionally, the expression of the tomato Dof transcription factor TDDF1 can improve the stress tolerance of tomatoes to drought, salt, and various hormones [32]. The Dof transcription factor SlCDF1-5 in tomatoes is also involved in abiotic stress response [33]. Moreover, the AtDof5.8 gene binds to specific motifs and activates ANAC069 [34], thereby responding to salt stress, while the AtDof1 gene is induced by salt and low-temperature stress, as shown in some studies [35,36]. In summary, the accumulating evidence highlights the critical role of Dof transcription factors in regulating plant growth and development, as well as their crucial involvement in the response to various abiotic stresses.
Cotton (Gossypium spp.) is a major cash crop worldwide [37], and upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is widely grown for its long fibers and high strength. However, the global demand for high-quality cotton is often limited by environmental stresses, especially in Xinjiang, China, which is the country’s main cotton production area and is severely affected by soil salinization [38]. Soil salinization can significantly reduce cotton yield and quality, thereby restricting the sowing area and unit yield of cotton in China. While Dof transcription factors have been shown to play a critical role in plant responses to stress, there are very few reports on Dof genes in cotton, which limits our understanding of their specific roles in cotton. To address the limited understanding of the specific roles of Dof genes in cotton, this study screened and cloned the GhDof1.7 gene from upland cotton TM-1 and analyzed its function through a series of experiments, including qRT-PCR, GUS staining, subcellular localization, transgenic Arabidopsis, VIGS, and yeast two-hybrid and BiFC experiments to study protein interactions. The successful cloning and functional analysis of the GhDof1.7 gene in this study provides a valuable resource for improving the salt resistance of upland cotton through molecular breeding.
In summary, cotton is a vital cash crop that faces significant challenges due to environmental stresses, such as soil salinization. The identification of Dof transcription factors as key regulators of stress response in cotton provides a potential target for improving cotton’s tolerance to abiotic stressors, which can enhance cotton yield and quality and contribute to global food security. The cloning and functional analysis of the GhDof1.7 gene in this study enriches our understanding of the role of Dof transcription factors in cotton and provides a valuable gene resource for the molecular improvement of salt resistance in upland cotton.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Gene Cloning and Bioinformatic Analysis

The coding sequence of GhDof1.7 (Gh_A10G0541) and its promoter region sequence of 2000 bp upstream were obtained from the online database CottonFGD (https://cottonfgd.net/, accessed on 1 June 2020) [39]. Specific primers required for amplification were designed using Oligo7.0 software and are listed in Supplementary Table S1. The gene structure was visualized using the online server Gene Structure Display Server (GSDS2.0) (http://gsds.gao-lab.org/, accessed on 20 June 2020). To investigate the evolutionary relationship of GhDof1.7 with other Dof transcription factors, homologous sequences of AtDof family members were downloaded from the TAIR database (https://www.arabidopsis.org/, accessed on 20 June 2020) and an evolutionary tree was constructed using the neighbor-joining (NJ) method of MEGA7.0 software with a p-distance model and 1000 bootstrap replicates [40]. Multiple sequence alignment of GhDof1.7 homologs from other species (Populus tomentosa, Glycine max, Raphanus sativus, Durio zibethinus, Hibiscus syriacus, Arabidopsis thaliana, Theobroma cacao) was performed using DNAMAN 6.0.3.99 software. The protein structure of GhDof1.7 was analyzed using the Expasy-ProtScale website (https://web.expasy.org/protscale/, accessed on 15 July 2020), and subcellular localization prediction was performed using the online tool Plant-mPloc (http://www.csbio.sjtu.edu.cn/bioinf/plant-multi/#, accessed on 15 July 2020).

2.2. Cis-Regulatory Elements Analysis

The promoter region sequence of GhDof1.7 was analyzed for the presence of cis-regulatory elements using the online tool PlantCARE (http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/, accessed on 5 August 2020). The identified cis-regulatory elements were classified based on their functions, including elements involved in plant growth and development, hormone response, and stress response, among others. The results were compared with previous studies to validate the accuracy of the analysis. The identified cis-regulatory elements provide insights into the potential regulatory mechanisms of GhDof1.7, and they may contribute to a better understanding of its role in cotton growth and stress response.

2.3. DNA and RNA Extraction and qRT-PCR Analysis

Total genomic DNA was extracted using the cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) method [41]. Total RNA was isolated from samples using the RNAprep Pure Plant Kit (Tiangen, Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. cDNA was synthesized from RNA using the PrimeScript RT Reagent kit (Takara, Dajin, Japan). Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis was conducted using the SYBR Premix Ex Taq (Takara) and the ABI 7500 Real-time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, Shanghai, China). The qRT-PCR primers used in this study are listed in Supplementary Table S2. The qRT-PCR protocol consisted of three steps: step 1, an initial denaturation step at 95 °C for 30 s; step 2, 40 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 5 s and annealing/extension at 60 °C for 34 s; and step 3, melting curve analysis. The expression levels of the target genes were normalized to the reference genes GhActin and AtUBQ10 for G. hirsutum and A. thaliana, respectively. Each sample was analyzed in triplicate, and the data were analyzed using the 2−ΔΔCt formula [42].

2.4. Subcellular Localization

The subcellular localization prediction website utilizes the online tool Uniport (https://www.uniprot.org/, accessed on 20 September 2020). The 35S::GhDof1.7-GFP vector was constructed and transformed into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain LBA4404. When the transformed Agrobacterium reached an OD600 of approximately 1.8–2.0, it was pelleted, resuspended in the infiltration buffer, and incubated in the dark for 3 h before injecting into tobacco leaves (30-day-old seedlings). The infiltrated tobacco leaves were cultured in the dark for 24 h and then observed under a fluorescence microscope to determine the subcellular localization of the GhDof1.7-GFP fusion protein. The experiment was repeated at least three times to ensure the reproducibility of the results.

2.5. GUS Staining of Transgenic Arabidopsis

The promoter sequence of GhDof1.7 (2000 bp upstream of the start codon) was cloned into the pBI121-GUS vector. The resulting construct was then transformed into Arabidopsis thaliana plants using the floral dip method. Tissue-specific expression of the GhDof1.7 promoter was analyzed by GUS staining of various tissues, including roots, stems, leaves, inflorescences, and fruit pods, in mature Arabidopsis plants (about 30 days). GUS staining was performed using the standard protocol (Jefferson et al., 1987), and the stained tissues were observed and photographed using a stereomicroscope. The experiment was repeated at least three times, each time staining at least 20 plants per line to ensure reproducible results.
The transformation medium was prepared with 0.217 g of 1/2 MS, 3 g of sucrose, and 20 μL of Silwet L-77. Distilled water was added to make up the volume to 100 mL, and the pH was adjusted to 5.7 using sodium hydroxide.

2.6. Genetic Transformation of Arabidopsis

The overexpression vector pBI121-GhDof1.7 was constructed and transformed into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101. Arabidopsis thaliana plants were transformed using the floral dip method [43]. Briefly, flower buds from wild-type Arabidopsis were immersed in an Agrobacterium suspension for 50 s. The transformed plants were cultured in the dark for 24 h and then transferred to normal growth conditions. Transgenic lines were selected on 1/2 MS medium containing kanamycin to confirm the successful transformation. The experiment was performed once and the obtained results were verified by analyzing multiple independent transgenic lines.

2.7. Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS)

The coding sequences (CDS) of GhDof1.7 and GhCAR4 were submitted to the SGN-VIGS website (https://vigs.solgenomics.net/?tdsourcetag=s_pcqq_aiomsg, accessed on 19 March 2021), and 300 bp gene fragments were obtained and cloned into the pYL156 vector. Agrobacterium tumefaciens carrying the following plasmids (pYL156-GhDof1.7, pYL156-GhCAR4, pYL156 (negative control), pYL192 (helper vector), and pYL156-CAL1 (positive control)) were grown and induced to an OD600 of 1.5. The cells were pelleted, resuspended in the infiltration buffer, and left to stand for 3 h in the dark before injecting into the cotyledons of two-week-old cotton seedlings. The Agrobacterium carrying the pYL192 helper plasmid was mixed with other strains in a 1:1 ratio before infiltration. The infiltrated plants were cultured in the dark for 1 day and then transferred to normal growth conditions. The efficiency of gene silencing was assayed in VIGS cotton plants after 20 days of growth, and plants with high gene silencing efficiency were selected for treatment with 200 mM NaCl to observe the phenotype [44]. The experiment was repeated at least three times to ensure the reproducibility of the results.

2.8. Plant Materials and Treatment Methods

In this study, cotton plants were grown under normal conditions of 25 °C with a 16-h light/8-h dark cycle, while Arabidopsis and tobacco plants were grown under normal conditions of 23 °C with a 16-h light/8-h dark cycle. Uniformly full TM-1 cotton seeds were selected for planting in seedling blocks. When the third true leaves of the plants were expanded, they were treated with various stress conditions, including low temperature (4 °C), 200 mM NaCl, 30% PEG6000, 10 μM ABA, and 2 μM GA (gibberellin). Samples were taken at 0 h, 0.5 h, 1 h, 3 h, 6 h, 9 h, 12 h, and 24 h after treatment, and each sample was repeated three times. All samples were stored at −80 °C for RNA extraction.
Transgenic Arabidopsis seeds from the T3 generation were germinated on 1/2 MS medium containing 150 mM NaCl, and the germination rate was recorded after 10 days. Wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis plants were treated with a 200 mM NaCl solution at the seedling stage to observe the phenotype. The experiment was repeated at least three times to ensure the reproducibility of the results.

2.9. Screening of Yeast Library and Point-to-Point Verification

Initially, we performed self-activation detection in the following groups: self-activation group (pGADT7 + pGBKT7-GhDof1.7), positive control group (pGADT7-largeT + pGBKT7-p53), and negative control group (pGADT7-largeT + pGBKT7-laminC). Then, we co-cultured yeast cells containing the pGBKT7-GhDof1.7 plasmid with a two-hybrid library yeast constructed from salt-treated cotton roots, stems, and leaves. The bacterial broth was incubated for 20–24 h at 30 °C with agitation at 30–50 rpm and then evenly coated on SD/-Trp-Leu-His-Ade (SD-TLHA) medium. After sequencing and aligning the monoclonal yeast, we selected the target gene to construct an AD vector, which was then transferred into Y2HGold yeast together with the pGBKT7-GhDof1.7 plasmid. Finally, we observed the yeast cells on SD-TLHA/X-gal medium to verify the interaction. The experiment was repeated at least three times to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the results.

2.10. Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation (BiFC)

The candidate gene CDS sequences were constructed into the pEarleyGate202-YC vector, and GhDof1.7 was constructed into the pEarleyGate201-YN vector. Ten combinations of Agrobacterium were then mixed and injected into tobacco leaves. After 36–48 h of dark incubation, the leaves were observed using laser confocal microscopy. The experimental combinations were as follows:
pEarleyGate201-YN-GhDof1.7 + pEarleyGate202-YC-GhCAR4;
pEarleyGate201-YN-GhDof1.7 + pEarleyGate202-YC;
pEarleyGate201-YN + pEarleyGate202-YC-GhCAR4;
pEarleyGate201-YN-GhDof1.7 + pEarleyGate202-YC-GhSRC2;
pEarleyGate201-YN-GhDof1.7 + pEarleyGate202-YC;
pEarleyGate201-YN + pEarleyGate202-YC-GhSRC2;
pEarleyGate201-YN-GhDof1.7 + pEarleyGate202-YC-GhMKK9;
pEarleyGate201-YN-GhDof1.7 + pEarleyGate202-YC;
pEarleyGate201-YN + pEarleyGate202-YC-GhMKK9;
pEarleyGate201-YN + pEarleyGate202-YC.
The experiment was repeated at least three times to ensure the reproducibility of the results.

2.11. Determination of Relevant Physiological Indicators

In this study, we measured the H2O2 content, SOD (superoxide dismutase) activity, and CAT (catalase) activity using kits provided by Solaibao Biological Company (Beijing, China). The specific operation steps were carried out according to the instructions for use provided by the manufacturer. The experiment was repeated at least three times to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the results.

3. Results

3.1. Gene Structure and Sequence Analysis of GhDof1.7

The AtDof1 has been reported to be involved in various biological processes, including cell cycle regulation, flowering time regulation, stress response, root growth regulation, vascular cell differentiation, and lignin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. However, the functional characterization of its homologous gene GhDof1.7 in upland cotton remains unexplored. To investigate the function of the gene, we cloned the GhDof1.7 gene from upland cotton TM-1. The gene is located on the A10 chromosome and has a genomic DNA length of 4917 bp, with a coding sequence (CDS) length of 759 bp encoding a protein of 252 amino acids. The gene contains one exon and no introns (Figure 1A). The GhDof1.7 protein has a molecular weight (Mw) of 27.62 kDa and an isoelectric point (pI) of 8.64. Sequence alignment analysis revealed that the GhDof1.7 protein shares 52.17% identity with the orthologous protein AtDof1 (AT1G51700) from Arabidopsis thaliana. Phylogenetic analysis of the Dof transcription factor family based on the classification of AtDof family [45] divided the family into four main groups (A, B, C, and D) and nine subfamilies. The GhDof1.7 protein was found to be most closely related to group A (Figure 1B). Moreover, comparison of GhDof1.7 with related protein sequences from different species revealed that homologous Dof genes from various species share C2C2 domains (Figure 1C).

3.2. Subcellular Localization Results

The prediction of the online tool Uniport indicated that the protein encoded by the GhDof1.7 gene is located within the nucleus. To confirm this prediction, we constructed a 35S::GhDof1.7-GFP vector and transformed it into Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which was then used to infect tobacco leaves. As a control, tobacco leaves were injected with an empty vector. Fluorescence signals were observed in both cell membranes and nuclei in the GFP group, while fluorescence signals were only detected in the nucleus of the 35S::GhDof1.7-GFP group (Figure 2). These results are consistent with the prediction, indicating that the GhDof1.7 transcription factor is located in the nucleus and likely plays a role in regulating gene expression in this compartment.

3.3. Expression Analysis of GhDof1.7 in Different Tissues

To investigate the tissue-specific expression pattern of GhDof1.7 in upland cotton, we performed qRT-PCR experiments to analyze its relative expression in various tissues. The results showed that the GhDof1.7 gene had the highest expression level in petals, while in vegetative organs, it was most highly expressed in roots (Figure 3A). To further observe the tissue-specific expression of the GhDof1.7 gene, we constructed a ProGhDof1.7:GUS vector containing the promoter sequence (2000 bp upstream of the start codon) and transformed it into Arabidopsis. GUS staining was performed on different tissues of mature Arabidopsis, and GUS activity was detected in the roots, stems, leaves, and inflorescences of Arabidopsis with promoter transfer fragments (Figure 3B).

3.4. Promoter Sequence Analysis of GhDof1.7

To identify potential cis-acting elements involved in the regulation of GhDof1.7 gene expression, we extracted the 2000 bp sequence upstream of the start codon (ATG) of this gene for analysis. The results revealed that the cis-acting elements of the GhDof1.7 gene were mainly classified into three categories: stress-response related elements, hormone-response related elements, and plant growth and development related elements (Supplementary Table S3). The stress-responsive elements included antioxidant response elements (ARE) and low-temperature response elements (LTR); the hormone-responsive elements mainly included abscisic acid response elements (ABRE), gibberellin response elements (P-box), and ethylene response elements (ERE); the growth-related elements included CAT-box and MSA-like elements. These identified cis-acting elements provide insights into the potential regulatory mechanisms of GhDof1.7 in response to stress and hormone signaling pathways, as well as its role in plant growth and development.

3.5. Expression Pattern Analysis of GhDof1.7 under Different Stress Treatments

The promoter sequence analysis of the GhDof1.7 gene suggested that its expression might be regulated by external stress. To investigate this hypothesis, we treated cotton TM-1 leaves with low temperature, ABA, and GA and cotton roots with salt and drought, and we performed real-time PCR experiments to analyze the expression of GhDof1.7. The results showed that the expression of GhDof1.7 first decreased and then increased under ABA and drought treatments (Figure 4A,B). However, the expression of GhDof1.7 was down-regulated by GA and cold treatments (Figure 4A,B). Notably, the expression level of GhDof1.7 was significantly up-regulated after 24 h of salt treatment, reaching its highest level, indicating that this gene is highly induced to be expressed under salt stress (Figure 4B). To further investigate the effect of ABA stress on GhDof1.7 gene expression, the GUS staining of ProGhDof1.7::GUS transgenic seedlings was detected under ABA (10 μM) treatment. The results showed that untreated seedlings displayed weak GUS activity in leaves, while seedlings treated with ABA exhibited stronger GUS activity (Figure 4C). These findings suggest that the expression of the GhDof1.7 gene is induced by ABA stress treatments, and that it may play a role in regulating the plant’s response to stress.

3.6. High Expression of GhDof1.7 Gene Improves Salt Tolerance of Arabidopsis during Germination

To investigate the potential role of GhDof1.7 in salt stress resistance, we constructed a 35S::GhDof1.7 overexpression vector and transformed it into Arabidopsis. The expression levels of GhDof1.7 in wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis were verified by qRT-PCR, and the results showed that the expression of GhDof1.7 in transgenic Arabidopsis was detectable (Figure 5A). We then evaluated the salt tolerance of GhDof1.7 transgenic Arabidopsis at the germination stage by observing their germination rates in 1/2 MS medium and medium containing NaCl. The results showed that the germination rates of wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis in 1/2 MS medium were similar and their growth was comparable. However, the germination rate and growth of GhDof1.7 transgenic Arabidopsis in NaCl-containing medium were significantly better than those of wild-type Arabidopsis (Figure 5B,C). These findings suggest that overexpression of GhDof1.7 can improve the salt tolerance of Arabidopsis during germination, highlighting the potential of this gene in improving plant stress tolerance.

3.7. GhDof1.7 Promotes Arabidopsis Salt Resistance by Modulating ABA Biosynthesis and Signalling

To investigate the role of GhDof1.7 in regulating plant responses to salt stress, we treated wild-type (WT) and transgenic Arabidopsis plants overexpressing GhDof1.7 with 200 mM salt solution and observed their salt tolerance. After 5 days of salt treatment, the leaves of WT turned yellow and the plants were stunted, while Arabidopsis transgenic for GhDof1.7 showed greater adaptability (Figure 6A). We then examined the levels of H2O2 and the activities of SOD and CAT in wild-type Arabidopsis and Arabidopsis overexpressing GhDof1.7 before and after salt treatment. The results showed that H2O2 content (Figure 6B) and CAT activity (Figure 6C) were significantly increased in Arabidopsis plants overexpressing the GhDof1.7 gene. Under salt stress, H2O2 content was significantly decreased, and CAT and SOD activities were significantly increased in Arabidopsis overexpressing the GhDof1.7 gene (Figure 6B–D), indicating that GhDof1.7 overexpression inhibited H2O2 accumulation and increased the enzyme activities of CAT and SOD in plants under salt stress, thereby enhancing salt tolerance in Arabidopsis.
To explore whether GhDof1.7 transcription factor regulates the expression of ABA-related genes, we performed qRT-PCR experiments to assess the expression changes of ABA biosynthesis and signaling-related genes in transgenic Arabidopsis overexpressing GhDof1.7. The results showed that the expression levels of ABA biosynthesis and signal transduction-related genes were regulated in Arabidopsis plants overexpressing the GhDof1.7 gene, indicating that GhDof1.7 can regulate the expression of some ABA biosynthesis genes (AAO1-AAO4, NCED2, NCED3, and NCED9) and signaling genes (ABI1 and ABI2) (Figure 6E,F). We also identified several putative Dof binding core sequences in the promoter sequences of ABA biosynthesis genes (AAO1, AAO2, and AAO4) (Supplementary Table S4). Therefore, we propose that GhDof1.7 transcription factor may regulate ABA synthesis by binding to the promoter sequences of genes related to ABA biosynthesis and signal transduction, and then participate in the process of salt stress response. However, further experiments are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

3.8. Yeast Two-Hybrid Screening for Interacting Proteins

To identify proteins that interact with GhDof1.7 under salt stress, we screened a protein library using a yeast two-hybrid approach. First, we confirmed that GhDof1.7 does not have transcriptional self-activation activity using a self-activation assay (Figure 7A). We then sequenced monoclonal clones grown on SD-TLHA/X medium and identified a total of 62 potentially interacting proteins after removing duplicates and comparing the results with the TM-1 genome. Functional annotation showed that these genes were mainly associated with signal transduction, growth and development, biotic and abiotic stress, defense response, photosynthesis, and respiration (Supplementary Table S5).
Based on the functional annotation, we selected three target proteins that respond to salt stress (C2-domain ABA-related 4 (GhCAR4), MAP Kinase Kinase 9 (GhMKK9), and Soybean gene regulated by cold-2 (GhSRC2)) for further validation and analysis. We cloned and constructed AD expression vectors for each of these proteins and co-transformed them into Y2HGold yeast competent cells with the constructed pGBKT7-GhDof1.7 plasmid. The transformed cells were identified on SD-TL and SD-TLHA/X plates, and the results showed that all strains grew normally on two-deficient medium (SD-TL), while only the negative control could not grow on four-deficient medium (SD-TLHA) (Figure 7B). This indicates that GhDof1.7 protein may have interacted with GhCAR4, GhMKK9, and GhSRC2 proteins, respectively. To further confirm the reliability of the interaction results, we constructed fusion expression vectors of pEarleyGate201-YN-GhDof1.7, pEarleyGate202-YC-GhCAR4, pEarleyGate202-YC-GhSRC2, and pEarleyGate202-YC-GhMKK9 and transiently expressed them in tobacco leaves. The experimental results showed that YFP yellow fluorescent signal was detected in the combination of YN-GhDof1.7 with YC-GhCAR4, while no fluorescent signal was detected in the combination of YN-GhDof1.7 with YC-GhMKK9 and YC-GhSRC2 experimental combinations. This suggests that GhDof1.7 interacts with GhCAR4, and that the interaction with GhMKK9 and GhSRC2 was a false positive.

3.9. GhDof1.7 and GhCAR4 Silencing Reduced Salt Tolerance in Cotton

GhDof1.7 plays an important role in the cotton plant’s response to salt stress, and GhCAR4 is a key interacting protein involved in the regulation of ABA signaling. To further explore the effects of silencing these genes on cotton’s response to salt stress, we constructed VIGS vectors of pYL156-GhDof1.7 and pYL156-GhCAR4 and transferred them into cotton cotyledons. When the leaves of positive control plants showed an albino phenotype (Figure 8A), we performed qRT-PCR to detect the expression levels of GhDof1.7 and GhCAR4 in control and gene-silenced plants and calculate the silencing efficiency. The results showed that the expression levels of GhDof1.7 and GhCAR4 in the gene-silenced plants were significantly lower than those in the empty vector control plants (Figure 8B). We then selected plants with higher silencing efficiency and control plants for salt treatment and observed their response. We found that plants with silenced GhDof1.7 showed wilting phenotype earlier, and plants with silenced GhCAR4 showed leaf water loss phenotype earlier compared to control plants (Figure 8A). The results of relevant physiological parameters showed that H2O2 content, SOD activity, and CAT activity were significantly decreased in pYL156-GhDof1.7 and pYL156-GhCAR4 plants compared with pYL156 plants (Figure 8C,D), indicating that silencing the GhDof1.7 or GhCAR4 gene reduced the salt tolerance of cotton. These results suggest that both GhDof1.7 and GhCAR4 are important regulators of cotton’s response to salt stress, and their silencing can significantly affect the plant’s ability to tolerate salt stress.

4. Discussion

4.1. GhDof1.7 Gene and Promoter Structure Characteristics

In this study, we cloned the GhDof1.7 gene from upland cotton TM-1, which has a coding sequence (CDS) of 759 bp encoding 252 amino acids. Subcellular localization and transmembrane structure prediction showed that the GhDof1.7 protein is localized within the nucleus and lacks a transmembrane structure. This localization is consistent with the characteristics of most Dof proteins, which function as transcription factors within the nucleus [46]. The promoter region of the GhDof1.7 gene contains mainly cis-elements related to abiotic and biotic stresses, photoperiod, growth hormones, and meristem development. Similar cis-elements are also predicted in the promoters of Dof genes in sorghum [47]. The hormone response elements in the promoter region of the GhDof1.7 gene mainly include abscisic acid (ABA) and gibberellin (GA) response elements. The AtCDF3 gene in Arabidopsis is induced by ABA treatment [33], and the demonstrated role of Dof proteins in gibberellin response in sorghum supports the potential involvement of GhDof1.7 in hormone signaling pathways [47].

4.2. GhDof1.7 Is Involved in Cotton Response to Abiotic Stress

Under salt stress, the OsDof18 transcription factor can regulate the activity of OsRGLP2 and thereby respond to salt stress [48]. Similarly, eight different DcDof genes in carrots were induced to different extents after salt treatment [49]. These findings suggest that Dof transcription factors play important roles in plant response to salt stress. In our study, we observed that the GhDof1.7 gene in cotton responded most significantly to salt stress. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms of the GhDof1.7 gene in regulating cotton response to salt stress remain to be fully elucidated. Further studies are needed to explore the detailed regulatory network of GhDof1.7 in response to salt stress.
Plants accumulate large amounts of reactive oxygen species (ROS) when subjected to salt stress, which disrupts the normal state of the plant. Salt-induced ROS is usually represented by H2O2 [50,51]. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) is not only a scavenger of superoxide anions but also a major enzyme in the generation of H2O2 [52]. Catalase (CAT) is primarily responsible for scavenging H2O2, decomposing it into water and oxygen [53]. When plants encounter salt stress, their SOD activity is enhanced to scavenge oxygen free radicals and generate H2O2, while the activity of CAT is also enhanced to scavenge H2O2, thereby maintaining H2O2 homeostasis in plants. In addition, SOD and CAT are important substances in the antioxidant response [54]. In our study, the expression of the exogenous gene GhDof1.7 in Arabidopsis increased the activities of SOD and CAT under salt stress, which in turn inhibited H2O2 accumulation in plants. Conversely, cotton leaves with a silenced GhDof1.7 gene showed an earlier wilting phenomenon, and H2O2 content and SOD and CAT activities were decreased under salt stress. The molecular signaling cascade mediated by H2O2 plays a key role in the early response to salt stress in rice and Arabidopsis [55]. It has been shown that the Dof transcription factor CDF4 in Arabidopsis can also inhibit H2O2 secretion by repressing the expression of the catalase2 (CAT2) gene [56]. Thus, we speculate that the GhDof1.7 gene may regulate the homeostasis of H2O2 in plants by regulating the activity of the CAT enzyme; however, this conclusion requires further validation.
The ABA signaling system plays an important role in plant responses to abiotic stresses [57]. It has been shown that AAO3 is involved in ABA synthesis under stress conditions [58], and overexpression of AtNCED3 in transgenic Arabidopsis resulted in increased endogenous ABA levels [59]. Moreover, ABI1 and ABI2 negatively feedback to regulate the ABA signaling pathway [60]. The Dof transcription factor CDF4 in Arabidopsis can induce NCED2 and NCED3 expression, thereby promoting ABA synthesis [56]. After the expression of the exogenous gene GhDof1.7 in Arabidopsis, we observed that ABA synthesis and signaling-related genes were induced or repressed.

4.3. GhDof1.7 Interacts with GhCAR4 to Participate in Stress Response

In this study, we screened and validated the GhDof1.7 protein’s interaction with GhCAR4 and GhSRC2 proteins. GhCAR4 is a C2-domain ABA-related protein involved in regulating ABA signaling [61,62]. Previous studies in Arabidopsis and rice have shown that the CAR gene mediates the interaction of PYR/PYL ABA receptors with calcium-dependent proteins, thereby positively regulating ABA signaling [61]. Under salt stress, plants with GhCAR4 gene silencing exhibited similar phenotypes to plants with GhDof1.7 gene silencing. Qin et al. [63] showed that LOT1 affects ABA signaling by regulating CAR9 expression, thereby regulating plant response to drought stress. Based on these findings, we propose that GhDof1.7 participates in abiotic stress responses by interacting with the GhCAR4 protein to influence ABA signaling.
In summary, our results indicate that GhDof1.7, localized in the nucleus and possessing a promoter region with stress-related cis-elements, interacts with GhCAR4 to potentially modulate ABA signaling and contribute to stress response in cotton.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12213740/s1, Table S1: The primers used in vector construction; Table S2: Gene-specific primers used in the qRT-PCR experiments; Table S3: Predicted cis-acting element in the promoter of GhDof1.7; Table S4: 1000 bp sequence upstream of the Arabidopsis thaliana AAO1-4 gene.; Table S5: Yeast two-hybrid library screening results.

Author Contributions

Y.L.: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, software, original draft, writing—review and editing; M.T.: methodology; Z.F.: methodology; J.Z.: methodology; J.L.: methodology; X.F.: methodology; L.M.: methodology; H.W. (Hengling Wei): conceptualization, supervision; H.W. (Hantao Wang): conceptualization, supervision, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32072112), the Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund (No. 1610162023003), the Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (2022D01B222), and the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest to this work.

References

  1. Liu, J.; Guo, W.Q.; Shi, D.C. Seed germination, seedling survival, and physiological response of sunflowers under saline and alkaline conditions. Photosynthetica 2010, 48, 278–286. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mahajan, S.; Tuteja, N. Cold, salinity and drought stresses: An overview. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2005, 444, 139–158. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rehman, S.; Abbas, G.; Shahid, M.; Saqib, M.; Umer Farooq, A.B.; Hussain, M.; Murtaza, B.; Amjad, M.; Naeem, M.A.; Farooq, A. Effect of salinity on cadmium tolerance, ionic homeostasis and oxidative stress responses in conocarpus exposed to cadmium stress: Implications for phytoremediation. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 171, 146–153. [Google Scholar]
  4. Munns, R. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2002, 25, 239–250. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar]
  6. Zhu, J.K. Abiotic Stress Signaling and Responses in Plants. Cell 2016, 167, 313–324. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hu, H.; Dai, M.; Yao, J.; Xiao, B.; Li, X.; Zhang, Q.; Xiong, L. Overexpressing a NAM, ATAF, and CUC (NAC) transcription factor enhances drought resistance and salt tolerance in rice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 12987–12992. [Google Scholar]
  8. Li, C.; Ng, K.Y.; Fan, L.M. MYB transcription factors, active players in abiotic stress signaling. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2015, 114, 80–91. [Google Scholar]
  9. Shao, H.; Wang, H.; Tang, X. NAC transcription factors in plant multiple abiotic stress responses: Progress and prospects. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 902. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zhu, H.; Jiang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Huang, J.; Zhou, M.; Tang, Y.; Sui, J.; Wang, J.; Qiao, L. A novel salt inducible WRKY transcription factor gene, AhWRKY75, confers salt tolerance in transgenic peanut. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 160, 175–183. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lv, K.; Li, J.; Zhao, K.; Chen, S.; Nie, J.; Zhang, W.; Liu, G.; Wei, H. Overexpression of an AP2/ERF family gene, BpERF13, in birch enhances cold tolerance through upregulating CBF genes and mitigating reactive oxygen species. Plant Sci. 2020, 292, 110375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Yanagisawa, S.; Schmidt, R.J. Diversity and similarity among recognition sequences of Dof transcription factors. Plant J. 1999, 17, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Yanagisawa, S. The Dof family of plant transcription factors. Trends Plant Sci. 2002, 7, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jiang, Y.; Zeng, B.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, M.; Xie, S.; Lai, J. Genome-wide Transcription Factor Gene Prediction and their Expressional Tissue-Specificities in Maize. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2012, 54, 616–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shaw, L.M.; McIntyre, C.L.; Gresshoff, P.M.; Xue, G.P. Members of the Dof transcription factor family in Triticum aestivum are associated with light-mediated gene regulation. Funct. Integr. Genom. 2009, 9, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kushwaha, H.; Gupta, S.; Singh, V.K.; Rastogi, S.; Yadav, D. Genome wide identification of Dof transcription factor gene family in sorghum and its comparative phylogenetic analysis with rice and Arabidopsis. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2011, 38, 5037–5053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moreno-Risueno, M.A.; Martínez, M.; Vicente-Carbajosa, J.; Carbonero, P. The family of DOF transcription factors: From green unicellular algae to vascular plants. Mol. Genet. Genom. 2007, 277, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Yang, X.; Tuskan, G.A.; Cheng, M.Z. Divergence of the Dof gene families in poplar, Arabidopsis, and rice suggests multiple modes of gene evolution after duplication. Plant Physiol. 2006, 142, 820–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Chattha, W.S.; Atif, R.M.; Iqbal, M.; Shafqat, W.; Farooq, M.A.; Shakeel, A. Genome-wide identification and evolution of Dof transcription factor family in cultivated and ancestral cotton species. Genomics 2020, 112, 4155–4170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guo, Y.; Qiu, L.J. Genome-wide analysis of the Dof transcription factor gene family reveals soybean-specific duplicable and functional characteristics. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e76809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, P.; Chen, H.; Ying, L.; Cai, W. AtDOF5.4/OBP4, a DOF Transcription Factor Gene that Negatively Regulates Cell Cycle Progression and Cell Expansion in Arabidopsis thaliana. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Guo, Y.; Qin, G.; Gu, H.; Qu, L.J. Dof5.6/HCA2, a Dof transcription factor gene, regulates interfascicular cambium formation and vascular tissue development in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2009, 21, 3518–3534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wei, P.C.; Tan, F.; Gao, X.Q.; Zhang, X.Q.; Wang, G.Q.; Xu, H.; Li, L.J.; Chen, J.; Wang, X.C. Overexpression of AtDOF4.7, an Arabidopsis DOF family transcription factor, induces floral organ abscission deficiency in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2010, 153, 1031–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wang, H.W.; Zhang, B.; Hao, Y.J.; Huang, J.; Tian, A.G.; Liao, Y.; Zhang, J.S.; Chen, S.Y. The soybean Dof-type transcription factor genes, GmDof4 and GmDof11, enhance lipid content in the seeds of transgenic Arabidopsis plants. Plant J. 2007, 52, 716–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wu, Y.; Yang, W.; Wei, J.; Yoon, H.; An, G. Transcription Factor OsDOF18 Controls Ammonium Uptake by Inducing Ammonium Transporters in Rice Roots. Mol. Cells 2017, 40, 178–185. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wang, P.; Yan, Z.; Zong, X.; Yan, Q.; Zhang, J. Genome-Wide Analysis and Expression Profiles of the Dof Family in Cleistogenes songorica under Temperature, Salt and ABA Treatment. Plants 2021, 10, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nan, H.; Ludlow, R.A.; Lu, M.; An, H. Genome-Wide Analysis of Dof Genes and Their Response to Abiotic Stress in Rose (Rosa chinensis). Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 538733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tong, Q.; Xu, G.; Xu, M.; Li, H.; Fan, P.; Li, S.; Liang, Z. Transcriptomic analysis of grapevine Dof transcription factor gene family in response to cold stress and functional analyses of the VaDof17d gene. Planta 2021, 253, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cao, B.; Cui, Y.; Lou, K.; Luo, D.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, Q. Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Analysis of the Dof Gene Family in Medicago sativa L. under Various Abiotic Stresses. DNA Cell Biol. 2020, 39, 1976–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cheng, Z.; Hou, D.; Liu, J.; Li, X.; Xie, L.; Ma, Y.; Gao, J. Characterization of moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) Dof transcription factors in floral development and abiotic stress responses. Genome 2018, 61, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, H.; Zhao, S.; Gao, Y.; Yang, J. Characterization of Dof Transcription Factors and Their Responses to Osmotic Stress in Poplar (Populus trichocarpa). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Ewas, M.; Khames, E.; Ziaf, K.; Shahzad, R.; Nishawy, E.; Ali, F.; Subthain, H.; Amar, M.H.; Ayaad, M.; Ghaly, O.; et al. The Tomato DOF Daily Fluctuations 1, TDDF1 acts as flowering accelerator and protector against various stresses. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 10299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Corrales, A.R.; Nebauer, S.G.; Carrillo, L.; Fernández-Nohales, P.; Marqués, J.; Renau-Morata, B.; Granell, A.; Pollmann, S.; Vicente-Carbajosa, J.; Molina, R.V.; et al. Characterization of tomato Cycling Dof Factors reveals conserved and new functions in the control of flowering time and abiotic stress responses. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 995–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. He, L.; Su, C.; Wang, Y.; Wei, Z. ATDOF5.8 protein is the upstream regulator of ANAC069 and is responsive to abiotic stress. Biochimie 2015, 110, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jiang, Y.; Deyholos, M.K. Comprehensive transcriptional profiling of NaCl-stressed Arabidopsis roots reveals novel classes of responsive genes. BMC Plant Biol. 2006, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Carvallo, M.A.; Pino, M.T.; Jeknic, Z.; Zou, C.; Doherty, C.J.; Shiu, S.H.; Chen, T.H.; Thomashow, M.F. A comparison of the low temperature transcriptomes and CBF regulons of three plant species that differ in freezing tolerance: Solanum commersonii, Solanum tuberosum, and Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 3807–3819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gu, L.; Wei, H.; Wang, H.; Su, J.; Yu, S. Characterization and functional analysis of GhWRKY42, a group IId WRKY gene, in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). BMC Genet. 2018, 19, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, L.; Li, Y.; Lu, W.; Meng, F.; Wu, C.A.; Guo, X. Cotton GhMKK5 affects disease resistance, induces HR-like cell death, and reduces the tolerance to salt and drought stress in transgenic Nicotiana benthamiana. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 3935–3951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhu, T.; Liang, C.; Meng, Z.; Sun, G.; Meng, Z.; Guo, S.; Zhang, R. CottonFGD: An integrated functional genomics database for cotton. BMC Plant Biol. 2017, 17, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016, 33, 1870–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Soni, A.; Kumar, A. Protocol for improved extraction and PCR amplification of genomic DNA from liverwort, Plagiochasma appendiculatum. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2009, 47, 921–924. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Livak, K.J.; Schmittgen, T.D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods 2001, 25, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Clough, S.J.; Bent, A.F. Floral dip: A simplified method for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 1998, 16, 735–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gao, X.; Britt, R.C., Jr.; Shan, L.; He, P. Agrobacterium-mediated virus-induced gene silencing assay in cotton. J. Vis. Exp. 2011, 54, e2938. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lijavetzky, D.; Carbonero, P.; Vicente-Carbajosa, J. Genome-wide comparative phylogenetic analysis of the rice and Arabidopsis Dof gene families. BMC Evol. Biol. 2003, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Su, Y.; Liang, W.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Ijaz, B.; Hua, J. Overexpression of GhDof1 improved salt and cold tolerance and seed oil content in Gossypium hirsutum. J. Plant Physiol. 2017, 218, 222–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Gupta, S.; Malviya, N.; Kushwaha, H.; Nasim, J.; Bisht, N.C.; Singh, V.K.; Yadav, D. Insights into structural and functional diversity of Dof (DNA binding with one finger) transcription factor. Planta 2015, 241, 549–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Deeba, F.; Sultana, T.; Mahmood, T.; O’Shea, C.; Skriver, K.; Naqvi, S.S. Involvement of WRKY, MYB and DOF DNA-binding proteins in interaction with a rice germin-like protein gene promoter. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2017, 39, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Huang, W.; Huang, Y.; Li, M.Y.; Wang, F.; Xu, Z.S.; Xiong, A.S. Dof transcription factors in carrot: Genome-wide analysis and their response to abiotic stress. Biotechnol. Lett. 2016, 38, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, K.; Pang, C.H.; Ding, F.; Sui, N.; Wang, B.S. Overexpression of Suaeda salsa stroma ascorbate peroxidase in Arabidopsis chloroplasts enhances salt tolerance of plants. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2012, 78, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhou, Y.B.; Liu, C.; Tang, D.Y.; Yan, L.; Wang, D.; Yang, Y.Z.; Gui, J.S.; Zhao, X.Y.; Li, L.G.; Tang, X.D.; et al. The Receptor-Like Cytoplasmic Kinase STRK1 Phosphorylates and Activates CatC, Thereby Regulating H2O2 Homeostasis and Improving Salt Tolerance in Rice. Plant Cell 2018, 30, 1100–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ma, X.J.; Zhu, D.H. Functional roles of the plant superoxide dismutase. Yi Chuan 2003, 25, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Mhamdi, A.; Queval, G.; Chaouch, S.; Vanderauwera, S.; Van Breusegem, F.; Noctor, G. Catalase function in plants: A focus on Arabidopsis mutants as stress-mimic models. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61, 4197–4220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Harb, A.; Krishnan, A.; Ambavaram, M.M.; Pereira, A. Molecular and physiological analysis of drought stress in Arabidopsis reveals early responses leading to acclimation in plant growth. Plant Physiol. 2010, 154, 1254–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schmidt, R.; Mieulet, D.; Hubberten, H.M.; Obata, T.; Hoefgen, R.; Fernie, A.R.; Fisahn, J.; San Segundo, B.; Guiderdoni, E.; Schippers, J.H.; et al. Salt-responsive ERF1 regulates reactive oxygen species-dependent signaling during the initial response to salt stress in rice. Plant Cell 2013, 25, 2115–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, P.; Chen, H.; Cai, W. Transcription factor CDF4 promotes leaf senescence and floral organ abscission by regulating abscisic acid and reactive oxygen species pathways in Arabidopsis. EMBO Rep. 2020, 21, e48967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nakashima, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. ABA signaling in stress-response and seed development. Plant Cell Rep. 2013, 32, 959–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Seo, M.; Aoki, H.; Koiwai, H.; Kamiya, Y.; Nambara, E.; Koshiba, T. Comparative studies on the Arabidopsis aldehyde oxidase (AAO) gene family revealed a major role of AAO3 in ABA biosynthesis in seeds. Plant Cell Physiol. 2004, 45, 1694–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Iuchi, S.; Kobayashi, M.; Taji, T.; Naramoto, M.; Seki, M.; Kato, T.; Tabata, S.; Kakubari, Y.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; Shinozaki, K. Regulation of drought tolerance by gene manipulation of 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase, a key enzyme in abscisic acid biosynthesis in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2001, 27, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Merlot, S.; Gosti, F.; Guerrier, D.; Vavasseur, A.; Giraudat, J. The ABI1 and ABI2 protein phosphatases 2C act in a negative feedback regulatory loop of the abscisic acid signalling pathway. Plant J. 2001, 25, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rodriguez, L.; Gonzalez-Guzman, M.; Diaz, M.; Rodrigues, A.; Izquierdo-Garcia, A.C.; Peirats-Llobet, M.; Fernandez, M.A.; Antoni, R.; Fernandez, D.; Marquez, J.A.; et al. C2-domain abscisic acid-related proteins mediate the interaction of PYR/PYL/RCAR abscisic acid receptors with the plasma membrane and regulate abscisic acid sensitivity in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2014, 26, 4802–4820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Belda-Palazon, B.; Rodriguez, P.L. Degradation of Abscisic Acid Receptors through the Endosomal Pathway. Methods Mol. Biol. 2020, 2177, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Qin, T.; Tian, Q.; Wang, G.; Xiong, L. LOWER TEMPERATURE 1 Enhances ABA Responses and Plant Drought Tolerance by Modulating the Stability and Localization of C2-Domain ABA-Related Proteins in Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant 2019, 12, 1243–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plants 12 03740 g001
Figure 1. Gene structure, protein sequence, and phylogenetic analysis of GhDof1.7. (A) Gene structure of GhDof1.7. (B) Phylogenetic relationship between Arabidopsis Dof proteins and GhDof1.7 protein. (C) Protein sequence alignment of the GhDof1.7 protein with closely related proteins. The abbreviations before the gene names are as follows: Pt, Populus tomentosa; Gm, Glycine max; Rs, Raphanus sativus; Dz, Durio zibethinus; Hs, Hibiscus syriacus; At, Arabidopsis thaliana; Th, Theobroma cacao.
Figure 1. Gene structure, protein sequence, and phylogenetic analysis of GhDof1.7. (A) Gene structure of GhDof1.7. (B) Phylogenetic relationship between Arabidopsis Dof proteins and GhDof1.7 protein. (C) Protein sequence alignment of the GhDof1.7 protein with closely related proteins. The abbreviations before the gene names are as follows: Pt, Populus tomentosa; Gm, Glycine max; Rs, Raphanus sativus; Dz, Durio zibethinus; Hs, Hibiscus syriacus; At, Arabidopsis thaliana; Th, Theobroma cacao.
Plants 12 03740 g001
Plants 12 03740 g002
Figure 2. Subcellular localization assays showing that 35S::GhDof1.7-GFP fusion protein is located in the nucleus. Scale bars, 20 μm. The experiments were replicated at least three times.
Figure 2. Subcellular localization assays showing that 35S::GhDof1.7-GFP fusion protein is located in the nucleus. Scale bars, 20 μm. The experiments were replicated at least three times.
Plants 12 03740 g002
Plants 12 03740 g003
Figure 3. Expression of GhDof1.7 gene in various tissues of upland cotton. (A) Relative expression levels of GhDof1.7 gene in different tissues. Data are means ± SD (n = 3). Bars followed by different letters indicate significant difference at 5%. (B) GUS activity in different tissues of Arabidopsis thaliana overexpressing the GhDof1.7 promoter fragment. Error bars show the standard deviation of three biological repeats. The experiments were replicated at least three times.
Figure 3. Expression of GhDof1.7 gene in various tissues of upland cotton. (A) Relative expression levels of GhDof1.7 gene in different tissues. Data are means ± SD (n = 3). Bars followed by different letters indicate significant difference at 5%. (B) GUS activity in different tissues of Arabidopsis thaliana overexpressing the GhDof1.7 promoter fragment. Error bars show the standard deviation of three biological repeats. The experiments were replicated at least three times.
Plants 12 03740 g003
Plants 12 03740 g004
Figure 4. The expression of the GhDof1.7 gene was regulated by external stress. (A) Expression pattern of GhDof1.7 under ABA and GA stress. Data are means ± SD (n = 3). Bars followed by different letters indicate significant difference at 5%. (B) Expression patterns of GhDof1.7 genes under PEG, NaCl, and cold stress. Data are means ± SD (n = 3). Bars followed by different letters indicate significant difference at 5%. (C) GUS activity of Arabidopsis overexpressing GhDof1.7 promoter fragment under ABA stress conditions. The experiments were replicated at least three times.
Figure 4. The expression of the GhDof1.7 gene was regulated by external stress. (A) Expression pattern of GhDof1.7 under ABA and GA stress. Data are means ± SD (n = 3). Bars followed by different letters indicate significant difference at 5%. (B) Expression patterns of GhDof1.7 genes under PEG, NaCl, and cold stress. Data are means ± SD (n = 3). Bars followed by different letters indicate significant difference at 5%. (C) GUS activity of Arabidopsis overexpressing GhDof1.7 promoter fragment under ABA stress conditions. The experiments were replicated at least three times.
Plants 12 03740 g004
Plants 12 03740 g005
Figure 5. Salt tolerance of transgenic Arabidopsis at germination stage. (A) Transcript levels of the GhDof1.7 gene in wild-type and transgenic plants; (B) germination of wild-type and transgenic plants in 1/2 MS medium and in salt-containing medium; (C) germination rates of wild-type and transgenic plants in 1/2 MS medium and in salt-containing medium. Error bars indicate SD (** p < 0.01, n = 3).
Figure 5. Salt tolerance of transgenic Arabidopsis at germination stage. (A) Transcript levels of the GhDof1.7 gene in wild-type and transgenic plants; (B) germination of wild-type and transgenic plants in 1/2 MS medium and in salt-containing medium; (C) germination rates of wild-type and transgenic plants in 1/2 MS medium and in salt-containing medium. Error bars indicate SD (** p < 0.01, n = 3).
Plants 12 03740 g005
Plants 12 03740 g006
Figure 6. Salt tolerance of transgenic Arabidopsis at seedling stage. (A) Phenotypes after salt treatment in wild-type and overexpressing GhDof1.7 Arabidopsis; (B) detection of H2O2 content in wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis before and after salt treatment; (C,D) detection of SOD and CAT activity in wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis before and after salt treatment; (E,F) expression analysis of ABA synthesis and signaling-related genes in wild-type and GhDof1.7 transgenic Arabidopsis. Error bars indicate SD (** p < 0.01, 0.01 < * p < 0.05, n = 3).
Figure 6. Salt tolerance of transgenic Arabidopsis at seedling stage. (A) Phenotypes after salt treatment in wild-type and overexpressing GhDof1.7 Arabidopsis; (B) detection of H2O2 content in wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis before and after salt treatment; (C,D) detection of SOD and CAT activity in wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis before and after salt treatment; (E,F) expression analysis of ABA synthesis and signaling-related genes in wild-type and GhDof1.7 transgenic Arabidopsis. Error bars indicate SD (** p < 0.01, 0.01 < * p < 0.05, n = 3).
Plants 12 03740 g006
Plants 12 03740 g007
Figure 7. Auto-activation detection of GhDof1.7 in yeast cells and its interaction with candidate proteins. (A) Self-activation test result; (B) yeast two-hybrid point-to-point validation results; positive control group: pGADT7-largeT + pGBKT7-p53; negative control group: pGADT7-largeT + pGBKT7-laminC; (C) BiFC validation mutual interaction results in tobacco.
Figure 7. Auto-activation detection of GhDof1.7 in yeast cells and its interaction with candidate proteins. (A) Self-activation test result; (B) yeast two-hybrid point-to-point validation results; positive control group: pGADT7-largeT + pGBKT7-p53; negative control group: pGADT7-largeT + pGBKT7-laminC; (C) BiFC validation mutual interaction results in tobacco.
Plants 12 03740 g007
Plants 12 03740 g008
Figure 8. Phenotypic identification and analysis of VIGS cotton. (A) Positive control phenotype and phenotypes of plants silenced for GhCAR4 and GhDof1.7 under salt stress; (B) the expression levels of GhCAR4 and GhDof1.7 in pYL156 and VIGS plants; (C,D) H2O2 content, SOD activity, and CAT activity in pYL156 and VIGS plants after salt treatment. Error bars indicate SD (** p < 0.01, n = 3).
Figure 8. Phenotypic identification and analysis of VIGS cotton. (A) Positive control phenotype and phenotypes of plants silenced for GhCAR4 and GhDof1.7 under salt stress; (B) the expression levels of GhCAR4 and GhDof1.7 in pYL156 and VIGS plants; (C,D) H2O2 content, SOD activity, and CAT activity in pYL156 and VIGS plants after salt treatment. Error bars indicate SD (** p < 0.01, n = 3).
Plants 12 03740 g008
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Y.; Tian, M.; Feng, Z.; Zhang, J.; Lu, J.; Fu, X.; Ma, L.; Wei, H.; Wang, H. GhDof1.7, a Dof Transcription Factor, Plays Positive Regulatory Role under Salinity Stress in Upland Cotton. Plants 2023, 12, 3740. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12213740

AMA Style

Li Y, Tian M, Feng Z, Zhang J, Lu J, Fu X, Ma L, Wei H, Wang H. GhDof1.7, a Dof Transcription Factor, Plays Positive Regulatory Role under Salinity Stress in Upland Cotton. Plants. 2023; 12(21):3740. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12213740

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Yi, Miaomiao Tian, Zhen Feng, Jingjing Zhang, Jianhua Lu, Xiaokang Fu, Liang Ma, Hengling Wei, and Hantao Wang. 2023. "GhDof1.7, a Dof Transcription Factor, Plays Positive Regulatory Role under Salinity Stress in Upland Cotton" Plants 12, no. 21: 3740. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12213740

APA Style

Li, Y., Tian, M., Feng, Z., Zhang, J., Lu, J., Fu, X., Ma, L., Wei, H., & Wang, H. (2023). GhDof1.7, a Dof Transcription Factor, Plays Positive Regulatory Role under Salinity Stress in Upland Cotton. Plants, 12(21), 3740. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12213740

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