Advertisement

Genome Wide Identification, Molecular Characterization, and Gene Expression Analyses of Grapevine NHX Antiporters Suggest Their Involvement in Growth, Ripening, Seed Dormancy, and Stress Response

  • Mariem Ayadi
  • Viviana Martins
  • Rayda Ben Ayed
  • Rania Jbir
  • Molka Feki
  • Rim Mzid
  • Hernâni Géros
  • Sami Aifa
  • Mohsen HananaEmail author
Original Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Plant NHX antiporters are critical for cellular pH, Na+, and K+ homeostasis and salt tolerance. Even though their genomic and functional studies have been conducted in many species, the grapevine NHX family has not been described yet. Our work highlights the presence of six VvNHX genes whose phylogenetic analysis revealed their classification in two distinct groups: group I vacuolar (VvNHX1–5) and group II endosomal (VvNHX6). Several cis-acting regulatory elements related to tissue-specific expression, transcription factor binding, abiotic/biotic stresses response, and light regulation elements were identified in their promoter. Expression profile analyses of VvNHX genes showed variable transcription within organs and tissues with diverse patterns according to biochemical, environmental, and biotic treatments. All VvNHXs are involved in berry growth, except VvNHX5 that seems to be rather implicated in seed maturation. VvNHX4 would be more involved in floral development, while VvNHX2 and 3 display redundant roles. QPCR expression analyses of VvNHX1 showed its induction by NaCl and KNO3 treatments, whereas VvNHX6 was induced by ABA application and strongly repressed by PEG treatment. VvNHX1 plays a crucial role in a bunch of grape developmental steps and adaptation responses through mechanisms of phyto-hormonal signaling. Overall, VvNHX family members could be valuable candidate genes for grapevine improvement.

Keywords

NHX antiporter Berry Grapevine Salinity Ripening Dormancy Vacuolar Endosomal 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research work was financially supported by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Tunisia. We are grateful to Mr Riadh BEN MARZOUG for his helps with some software.

Author Contributions

AM, HM, and HG designed the study. AM, BAR, JR, FM, LV, AS, MR, and HM performed data analyses. AM, MV, and HG performed the experiments. AM, MV, and HM analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10528_2019_9930_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 26 kb)
10528_2019_9930_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (xlsx) (XLSX 21 kb)
10528_2019_9930_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 3 Online Resource 3: Cq values generated by QPCR analysis (XLSX 15 kb)
10528_2019_9930_MOESM4_ESM.pptx (111 kb)
Supplementary material 4 Online Resource 4: Melting curves s generated by QPCR analysis (PPTX 111 kb)

References

  1. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA et al (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25:3389–3402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apse MP, Aharon GS, Snedden WA, Blumwald E (1999) Salt tolerance conferred by overexpression of a vacuolar Na+/H+ antiport in Arabidopsis. Science 285:1256–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apse MP, Sottosanto JB, Blumwald E (2003) Vacuolar cation/H+ exchange, ion homeostasis, and leaf development are altered in a T-DNA insertional mutant of AtNHX1, the Arabidopsis vacuolar Na+/H+ antiporter. Plant J Cell Mol Biol 36:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvidsson S, Kwasniewski M, Riaño-Pachón DM, Mueller-Roeber B (2008) QuantPrime—a flexible tool for reliable high-throughput primer design for quantitative PCR. BMC Bioinform 9:465.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashnest JR, Huynh DL, Dragwidge JM et al (2015) Arabidopsis intracellular NHX-type Sodium-proton antiporters are required for seed storage protein processing. Plant Cell Physiol 56:2220–2233.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcv138 Google Scholar
  6. Ayadi M, Ben Ayed R, Mzid R et al (2019) Computational Approach for structural feature determination of grapevine NHX antiporters. BioMed Res Int 2019:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1031839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banjara M, Zhu L, Shen G et al (2012) Expression of an Arabidopsis sodium/proton antiporter gene (AtNHX1) in peanut to improve salt tolerance. Plant Biotechnol Rep 6:59–67.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11816-011-0200-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barragán V, Leidi EO, Andrés Z et al (2012) Ion exchangers NHX1 and NHX2 mediate active potassium uptake into vacuoles to regulate cell turgor and stomatal function in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 24:1127–1142.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.111.095273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bassil E, Blumwald E (2014) The ins and outs of intracellular ion homeostasis: NHX-type cation/H(+) transporters. Curr Opin Plant Biol 22:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2014.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bassil E, Ohto M, Esumi T et al (2011) The Arabidopsis intracellular Na+/H+ antiporters NHX5 and NHX6 are endosome associated and necessary for plant growth and development. Plant Cell 23:224–239.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.110.079426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bassil E, Tajima H, Liang Y-C et al (2011) The Arabidopsis Na+/H+ antiporters NHX1 and NHX2 control vacuolar pH and K+ homeostasis to regulate growth, flower development, and reproduction. Plant Cell Online 23:3482–3497.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.111.089581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bassil E, Coku A, Blumwald E (2012) Cellular ion homeostasis: emerging roles of intracellular NHX Na+/H+ antiporters in plant growth and development. J Exp Bot 63:5727–5740.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Basu S, Roychoudhury A (2014) Expression profiling of abiotic stress-inducible genes in response to multiple stresses in rice ( Oryza sativa L.) varieties with contrasting level of stress tolerance. BioMed Res Int 2014:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/706890 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bickmore WA, Sutherland HGE (2002) Addressing protein localization within the nucleus. EMBO J 21:1248–1254.  https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/21.6.1248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brett CL, Tukaye DN, Mukherjee S, Rao R (2005) The yeast endosomal Na+(K+)/H+ exchanger Nhx1 Regulates cellular pH to control vesicle trafficking. Mol Biol Cell 16:1396–1405.  https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E04-11-0999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cao B, Long D, Zhang M et al (2016) Molecular characterization and expression analysis of the mulberry Na(+)/H(+) exchanger gene family. Plant Physiol Biochem PPB 99:49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chang E, Tian F, Hu J et al (2017) Expression and integrated network analyses revealed functional divergence of NHX-type Na+/H+ exchanger genes in poplar. Sci Rep 7:1.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02894-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chanroj S, Wang G, Venema K et al (2012) Conserved and diversified gene families of monovalent cation/H(+) antiporters from algae to flowering plants. Front Plant Sci 3:25.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2012.00025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Charfeddine S, Charfeddine M, Hanana M, Gargouri-Bouzid R (2018) Ectopic expression of a grape vine vacuolar NHX antiporter enhances transgenic potato plant tolerance to salinity. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol 28:50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13562-018-0462-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dash S, Hemert JV, Hong L et al (2012) PLEXdb: gene expression resources for plants and plant pathogens. Nucleic Acids Res 40:D1194–D1201.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Decendit A, Ramawat KG, Waffo P et al (1996) Anthocyanins, catechins, condensed tannins and piceid production in Vitis vinifera cell bioreactor cultures. Biotechnol Lett 18:659–662.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doligez A, Adam-Blondon AF, Cipriani G et al (2006) An integrated SSR map of grapevine based on five mapping populations. Theor Appl Genet 113:369–382.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-006-0295-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Downton WJS (1977) Photosynthesis in Salt-stressed grapevines. Funct Plant Biol 4:183–192.  https://doi.org/10.1071/pp9770183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fasoli M, Dal Santo S, Zenoni S et al (2012) The grapevine expression atlas reveals a deep transcriptome shift driving the entire plant into a maturation program[W][OA]. Plant Cell 24:3489–3505.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.112.100230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fontes N, Gerós H, Delrot S (2011) Grape berry vacuole: a complex and heterogeneous membrane system specialized in the accumulation of solutes. Am J Enol Vitic. doi: 10.5344/ajev.2011.10125.Google Scholar
  26. Gainza-Cortés F, Pérez-Dïaz R, Pérez-Castro R et al (2012) Characterization of a putative grapevine Zn transporter, VvZIP3, suggests its involvement in early reproductive development in Vitis vinifera L. BMC Plant Biol 12:111.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-12-111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaxiola RA, Rao R, Sherman A et al (1999) The Arabidopsis thaliana proton transporters, AtNhx1 and Avp1, can function in cation detoxification in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96:1480–1485.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.4.1480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Giannuzzi G, D’Addabbo P, Gasparro M et al (2011) Analysis of high-identity segmental duplications in the grapevine genome. BMC Genomics 12:436.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanana M, Cagnac O, Yamaguchi T et al (2007) A grape berry (Vitis vinifera L.) cation/proton antiporter is associated with berry ripening. Plant Cell Physiol 48:804–811.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcm048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hernandez M, Ghersi D, Sanchez R (2009) SITEHOUND-web: a server for ligand binding site identification in protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res 37:W413–416.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Higo K, Ugawa Y, Iwamoto M, Korenaga T (1999) Plant cis-acting regulatory DNA elements (PLACE) database: 1999. Nucleic Acids Res 27:297–300.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/27.1.297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hu B, Jin J, Guo A-Y et al (2015) GSDS 2.0: an upgraded gene feature visualization server. Bioinformatics 31:1296–1297.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaillon O, Aury J-M, Noel B et al (2007) The grapevine genome sequence suggests ancestral hexaploidization in major angiosperm phyla. Nature 449:463–467.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jiang S-Y, González JM, Ramachandran S (2013) Comparative genomic and transcriptomic analysis of tandemly and segmentally duplicated genes in rice. PLoS ONE 8:e63551.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jo Y, Hyun TK (2011) Genome-wide identification of antioxidant component biosynthetic enzymes: comprehensive analysis of ascorbic acid and tocochromanols biosynthetic genes in rice. Comput Biol Chem 35:261–268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2011.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaplan B, Davydov O, Knight H et al (2006) Rapid transcriptome changes induced by cytosolic Ca2+ transients reveal ABRE-related sequences as Ca2+-responsive cis elements in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Online 18:2733–2748.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.106.042713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kronzucker HJ, Britto DT (2011) Sodium transport in plants: a critical review. New Phytol 189:54–81.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03540.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krzywinski MI, Jacqueline E Schein, Inanc Birol, et al (2009) Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/06/15/gr.092759.109.abstract. Accessed 8 Sep 2016
  39. Kumar K, Kumar M, Kim S-R et al (2013) Insights into genomics of salt stress response in rice. Rice 6:27.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1939-8433-6-27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee T-H, Tang H, Wang X, Paterson AH (2013) PGDD: a database of gene and genome duplication in plants. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D1152–D1158.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li H-T, Liu H, Gao X-S, Zhang H (2009) Knock-out of Arabidopsis AtNHX4 gene enhances tolerance to salt stress. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 382:637–641.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.03.091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu H, Wang Q, Yu M et al (2008) Transgenic salt-tolerant sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) constitutively expressing an Arabidopsis thaliana vacuolar Na/H antiporter gene, AtNHX3, accumulates more soluble sugar but less salt in storage roots. Plant Cell Environ 31:1325–1334.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01838.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu H, Tang R, Zhang Y et al (2010) AtNHX3 is a vacuolar K+/H+ antiporter required for low-potassium tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Environ 33:1989–1999.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02200.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(− Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods San Diego Calif 25:402–408.  https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Luo H, Song F, Goodman RM, Zheng Z (2005) Up-regulation of OsBIHD1, a Rice gene encoding BELL homeodomain transcriptional factor, in disease resistance responses. Plant Biol 7:459–468.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-865851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance–current assessment. J Irrig Drain Div 103:115–134Google Scholar
  47. Maathuis FJM, Ahmad I, Patishtan J (2014) Regulation of Na(+) fluxes in plants. Front Plant Sci 5:467.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nakano M, Shimada T, Endo T et al (2012) Characterization of genomic sequence showing strong association with polyembryony among diverse Citrus species and cultivars, and its synteny with Vitis and Populus. Plant Sci 183:131–142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2011.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nenadic O, Greenacre M (2007) Correspondence analysis in R, with two-and three-dimensional graphics: the ca package. J Stat Soft 20:3.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i03 Google Scholar
  51. Nishiuchi T, Shinshi H, Suzuki K (2004) Rapid and transient activation of transcription of the ERF3 gene by wounding in tobacco leaves: possible involvement of NtWRKYs and autorepression. J Biol Chem 279:55355–55361.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M409674200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Olías R, Eljakaoui Z, Li J et al (2009) The plasma membrane Na+/H+ antiporter SOS1 is essential for salt tolerance in tomato and affects the partitioning of Na+ between plant organs. Plant Cell Environ 32:904–916.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01971.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pardo JM, Cubero B, Leidi EO, Quintero FJ (2006) Alkali cation exchangers: roles in cellular homeostasis and stress tolerance. J Exp Bot 57:1181–1199.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erj114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Park HC (2004) Pathogen- and NaCl-induced expression of the SCaM-4 promoter is mediated in part by a GT-1 box that interacts with a GT-1-like transcription factor. Plant Physiol 135:2150–2161.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.104.041442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Park SG, Hannenhalli S, Choi SS (2014) Conservation in first introns is positively associated with the number of exons within genes and the presence of regulatory epigenetic signals. BMC Genom 15:526.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-526 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parra G, Bradnam K, Rose AB, Korf I (2011) Comparative and functional analysis of intron-mediated enhancement signals reveals conserved features among plants. Nucleic Acids Res 39:5328–5337.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Potenza E, Racchi ML, Sterck L et al (2015) Exploration of alternative splicing events in ten different grapevine cultivars. BMC Genom 16:706.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1922-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reguera M, Bassil E, Tajima H et al (2015) pH regulation by NHX-type antiporters is required for receptor-mediated protein trafficking to the vacuole in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 114:135699.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.114.135699 Google Scholar
  59. Reid KE, Olsson N, Schlosser J et al (2006) An optimized grapevine RNA isolation procedure and statistical determination of reference genes for real-time RT-PCR during berry development. BMC Plant Biol 6:27.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-6-27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rizzon C, Ponger L, Gaut BS (2006) Striking similarities in the genomic distribution of tandemly arrayed genes in Arabidopsis and rice. PLoS Comput Biol 2:e115.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rodriguez-Rosales MP, Jiang X, Gálvez FJ et al (2008) Overexpression of the tomato K+/H+ antiporter LeNHX2 confers salt tolerance by improving potassium compartmentalization. New Phytol 179:366–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rodríguez-Rosales MP, Gálvez FJ, Huertas R et al (2009) Plant NHX cation/proton antiporters. Plant Signal Behav 4:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rose AB (2008) Intron-mediated regulation of gene expression. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 326:277–290Google Scholar
  64. Saeed AI, Bhagabati NK, Braisted JC et al (2006) TM4 microarray software suite. Methods Enzymol 411:134–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(06)11009-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwartz R, Ting CS, King J (2001) Whole proteome pI values correlate with subcellular localizations of proteins for organisms within the three domains of life. Genome Res 11:703–709.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.158701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shabala S (2013) Learning from halophytes: physiological basis and strategies to improve abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Ann Bot 112:1209–1221.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mct205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shi H, Ishitani M, Kim C, Zhu JK (2000) The Arabidopsis thaliana salt tolerance gene SOS1 encodes a putative Na+/H+ antiporter. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:6896–6901.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.120170197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D et al (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30:2725–2729.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tattersall EAR, Grimplet J, DeLuc L et al (2007) Transcript abundance profiles reveal larger and more complex responses of grapevine to chilling compared to osmotic and salinity stress. Funct Integr Genom 7:317–333.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10142-007-0051-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tavakkoli E, Fatehi F, Coventry S et al (2011) Additive effects of Na+ and Cl ions on barley growth under salinity stress. J Exp Bot 62:2189–2203.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Velasco R, Zharkikh A, Troggio M et al (2007) A high quality draft consensus sequence of the genome of a heterozygous grapevine variety. PLoS ONE 2:e1326.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Venema K, Quintero FJ, Pardo JM, Donaire JP (2002) The Arabidopsis Na+/H+ exchanger AtNHX1 catalyzes low affinity Na+ and K+ transport in reconstituted liposomes. J Biol Chem 277:2413–2418.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M105043200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Venema K, Belver A, Marín-Manzano MC et al (2003) A novel intracellular K+/H+ antiporter related to Na+/H+ antiporters is important for K+ ion homeostasis in plants. J Biol Chem 278:22453–22459.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M210794200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Venier M, Agüero CB, Bermejillo A et al (2018) Analysis of salinity tolerance of “Vitis vinifera” ‘Thompson Seedless’ transformed with “AtNHX1”. Vitis J Grapevine Res 57:143–150Google Scholar
  75. Viehweger K, Dordschbal B, Roos W (2002) Elicitor-activated phospholipase A(2) generates lysophosphatidylcholines that mobilize the vacuolar H(+) pool for pH signaling via the activation of Na(+)-dependent proton fluxes. Plant Cell 14:1509–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vinogradov AE (2006) “Genome design” model: evidence from conserved intronic sequence in human-mouse comparison. Genome Res 16:347–354.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.4318206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vitulo N, Forcato C, Carpinelli EC et al (2014) A deep survey of alternative splicing in grape reveals changes in the splicing machinery related to tissue, stress condition and genotype. BMC Plant Biol 14:99.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-14-99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vivier MA, Pretorius IS (2002) Genetically tailored grapevines for the wine industry. Trends Biotechnol 20:472–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Voorrips R. (2001) MapChart: software for the graphical presentation of linkage maps and QTLs. - PubMed - NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12011185. Accessed 1 Jan 2016
  80. Walker RR, Blackmore DH, Clingeleffer PR, Iacono F (1997) Effect of salinity and Ramsey rootstock on ion concentrations and carbon dioxide assimilation in leaves of drip-irrigated, field-grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultana). Aust J Grape Wine Res 3:66–74.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.1997.tb00117.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Walker RR, Blackmore DH, Clingeleffer PR, Correll RL (2002) Rootstock effects on salt tolerance of irrigated field-grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultana).: 1. Yield and vigour inter-relationships. Aust J Grape Wine Res 8:3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2002.tb00206.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang B, Zhai H, He S et al (2016) A vacuolar Na+/H+ antiporter gene, IbNHX2, enhances salt and drought tolerance in transgenic sweetpotato. Sci Hortic 201:153–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.01.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wu S, Wan P, Li J et al (2006) Multi-modality of pI distribution in whole proteome. Proteomics 6:449–455.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200500221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wu X, Ebine K, Ueda T, Qiu Q-S (2016) AtNHX5 and AtNHX6 are required for the subcellular localization of the SNARE complex that mediates the trafficking of seed storage proteins in Arabidopsis. PLoS ONE  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151658 Google Scholar
  85. Yamaguchi T, Fukada-Tanaka S, Inagaki Y et al (2001) Genes encoding the vacuolar Na+/H+ exchanger and flower coloration. Plant Cell Physiol 42:451–461.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pce080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yamaguchi T, Hamamoto S, Uozumi N (2013) Sodium transport system in plant cells. Front Plant Sci https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00410 Google Scholar
  87. Yokoi S, Quintero FJ, Cubero B et al (2002) Differential expression and function of Arabidopsis thaliana NHX Na+/H+ antiporters in the salt stress response. Plant J Cell Mol Biol 30:529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yoshida K, Kawachi M, Mori M et al (2005) The involvement of tonoplast proton pumps and Na+(K+)/H+ exchangers in the change of petal color during flower opening of Morning Glory,Ipomoea tricolorcv. Heavenly Blue. Plant Cell Physiol 46:407–415.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pci057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zhang HX, Blumwald E (2001) Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit. Nat Biotechnol 19:765–768.  https://doi.org/10.1038/90824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zhang J-L, Shi H (2013) Physiological and molecular mechanisms of plant salt tolerance. Photosynth Res 115:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-013-9813-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zhang X, Walker RR, Stevens RM, Prior LD (2002) Yield-salinity relationships of different grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) scion-rootstock combinations. Aust J Grape Wine Res 8:150–156.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2002.tb00250.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zhang Y-M, Liu Z-H, Wen Z-Y et al (2012) The vacuolar Na+–H+ antiport gene TaNHX2 confers salt tolerance on transgenic alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Funct Plant Biol 39:708–716.  https://doi.org/10.1071/FP12095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariem Ayadi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Viviana Martins
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Rayda Ben Ayed
    • 2
  • Rania Jbir
    • 6
  • Molka Feki
    • 2
  • Rim Mzid
    • 1
  • Hernâni Géros
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Sami Aifa
    • 2
  • Mohsen Hanana
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratory of Extremophile Plants, Center of Biotechnology of Borj-CédriaHammam-lifTunisia
  2. 2.Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Screening Processes, Center of Biotechnology of SfaxUniversity of SfaxSfaxTunisia
  3. 3.Centro de Biologia Molecular E Ambiental (CBMA), Departamento de Biologia, Escola de CiênciasUniversidade Do MinhoBragaPortugal
  4. 4.Centro de Investigação E de Tecnologias Agro-Ambientais E Biológicas (CITAB)Universidade de Trás-Os-Montes E Alto DouroVila RealPortugal
  5. 5.Centro de Engenharia Biológica (CEB)Universidade Do MinhoBragaPortugal
  6. 6.Laboratory of Plant Biotechnologies Applied To Crop ImprovementNational School of Engineering of Sfax (ENIS)SfaxTunisia

Personalised recommendations