Comparative Morpho-Physiological, Biochemical, and Gene Expressional Analyses Uncover Mechanisms of Waterlogging Tolerance in Two Soybean Introgression Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waterlogging is one of the key abiotic factors that severely impedes the growth and productivity of soybeans on a global scale. To develop soybean cultivars that are tolerant to waterlogging, it is a prerequisite to unravel the mechanisms governing soybean responses to waterlogging. Hence, we explored the morphological, physiological, biochemical, and transcriptional changes in two contrasting soybean introgression lines, A192 (waterlogging tolerant, WT) and A186 (waterlogging sensitive, WS), under waterlogging. In comparison to the WT line, waterlogging drastically decreased the root length (RL), shoot length (ShL), root fresh weight (RFW), shoot fresh weight (ShFW), root dry weight (RDW), and shoot dry weight (ShDW) of the WS line. Similarly, waterlogging inhibited soybean plant growth by suppressing the plant’s photosynthetic capacity, enhancing oxidative damage from reactive oxygen species, and decreasing the chlorophyll content in the WS line but not in the WT line. To counteract the oxidative damage and lipid peroxidation, the WT line exhibited increased activity of antioxidant enzymes such as peroxidase (POD), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and catalase (CAT), as well as higher levels of proline content than the WS line. In addition, the expression of antioxidant enzyme genes (POD1, POD2, FeSOD, Cu/ZnSOD, CAT1, and CAT2) and ethylene-related genes (such as ACO1, ACO2, ACS1, and ACS2) were found to be up-regulated in WT line under waterlogging stress conditions. In contrast, these genes showed a down-regulation in their expression levels in the stressed WS line. The integration of morpho-physiological, biochemical, and gene expression analyses provide a comprehensive understanding of the responses of WT and WS lines to waterlogging conditions. These findings would be beneficial for the future development of soybean cultivars that can withstand waterlogging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".