Phenotypic and transcriptomic responses of cultivated sunflower seedlings (Helianthus annuus L.) to four abiotic stresses

Plants encounter and respond to numerous abiotic stresses during their lifetimes. These stresses are often related and could therefore elicit related responses. There are, however, relatively few detailed comparisons between multiple different stresses at the molecular level. Here, we investigated t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2022-09, Vol.17 (9), p.e0275462-e0275462
Hauptverfasser: Barnhart, Max H, Masalia, Rishi R, Mosley, Liana J, Burke, John M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0275462
container_issue 9
container_start_page e0275462
container_title PloS one
container_volume 17
creator Barnhart, Max H
Masalia, Rishi R
Mosley, Liana J
Burke, John M
description Plants encounter and respond to numerous abiotic stresses during their lifetimes. These stresses are often related and could therefore elicit related responses. There are, however, relatively few detailed comparisons between multiple different stresses at the molecular level. Here, we investigated the phenotypic and transcriptomic response of cultivated sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) seedlings to three water-related stresses (i.e., dry-down, an osmotic challenge, and salt stress), as well as a generalized low-nutrient stress. All four stresses negatively impacted seedling growth, with the nutrient stress having a more divergent response from control as compared to the water-related stresses. Phenotypic responses were consistent with expectations for growth in low-resource environments, including increased (i.e., less negative) carbon fractionation values and leaf C:N ratios, as well as increased belowground biomass allocation. The number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) under stress was greater in leaf tissue, but roots exhibited a higher proportion of DEGs unique to individual stresses. Overall, the three water-related stresses had a more similar transcriptomic response to each other vs. nutrient stress, though this pattern was more pronounced in root vs. leaf tissue. In contrast to our DEG analyses, co-expression network analysis revealed that there was little indication of a shared response between the four stresses in despite the majority of DEGs being shared between multiple stresses. Importantly, osmotic stress, which is often used to simulate drought stress in experimental settings, had little transcriptomic resemblance to true water limitation (i.e., dry-down) in our study, calling into question its utility as a means for simulating drought.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0275462
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2719689299</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A720368073</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_17d3502b371d423c90ede4c2dc6f6950</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A720368073</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-6821e1d2839b6c668cfb4a4c766202f3e86e510878e06b230110c888ca2640e83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkl-LEzEUxQdR3HX1GwgO-LI-tObfZDIvwrKou1DQB30OmcydNiVNapJZ6bf31o5iZclDws3JL_ckp6peU7KkvKXvt3FKwfjlPgZYEtY2QrIn1SXtOFtIRvjTf9YX1Yuct4Q0XEn5vLrgkraqE-KyOnzdQIjlsHe2NmGoSzIh2-T2Je6wlCAjP0Ou41jbyRf3YAoMdZ7C6ONPSHUGGLwL61xf34F3JpTNlBEVJpxWy3d1ifWIrdamd7EgMheEIvFl9Ww0PsOreb6qvn_6-O32brH68vn-9ma1sA0hZSEVo0AHpnjXSyulsmMvjLCtRGNs5KAkNJSoVgGRPeOEUmKVUtYwKQgoflW9OXH3PmY9v1rWrKWdVB3rOlTcnxRDNFu9T25n0kFH4_TvQkxrbRK27kHTduANYT1-wCAYtx2BAYRlg5Wj7BqCrA_zbVO_g8FCwBf1Z9DzneA2eh0fdNcwge4QcD0DUvwxQS5657IF702AOB37ZkRwoihF6dv_pI-7m1VrgwZcGCPea49QfYMsLhVpOaqWj6hwDIA5wIiNDutnB8TpgE0x5wTjX4-U6GNA_zSjjwHVc0D5LzMn2dE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2719689299</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Phenotypic and transcriptomic responses of cultivated sunflower seedlings (Helianthus annuus L.) to four abiotic stresses</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Barnhart, Max H ; Masalia, Rishi R ; Mosley, Liana J ; Burke, John M</creator><contributor>Gururani, Mayank</contributor><creatorcontrib>Barnhart, Max H ; Masalia, Rishi R ; Mosley, Liana J ; Burke, John M ; Gururani, Mayank</creatorcontrib><description>Plants encounter and respond to numerous abiotic stresses during their lifetimes. These stresses are often related and could therefore elicit related responses. There are, however, relatively few detailed comparisons between multiple different stresses at the molecular level. Here, we investigated the phenotypic and transcriptomic response of cultivated sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) seedlings to three water-related stresses (i.e., dry-down, an osmotic challenge, and salt stress), as well as a generalized low-nutrient stress. All four stresses negatively impacted seedling growth, with the nutrient stress having a more divergent response from control as compared to the water-related stresses. Phenotypic responses were consistent with expectations for growth in low-resource environments, including increased (i.e., less negative) carbon fractionation values and leaf C:N ratios, as well as increased belowground biomass allocation. The number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) under stress was greater in leaf tissue, but roots exhibited a higher proportion of DEGs unique to individual stresses. Overall, the three water-related stresses had a more similar transcriptomic response to each other vs. nutrient stress, though this pattern was more pronounced in root vs. leaf tissue. In contrast to our DEG analyses, co-expression network analysis revealed that there was little indication of a shared response between the four stresses in despite the majority of DEGs being shared between multiple stresses. Importantly, osmotic stress, which is often used to simulate drought stress in experimental settings, had little transcriptomic resemblance to true water limitation (i.e., dry-down) in our study, calling into question its utility as a means for simulating drought.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275462</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36178944</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Abiotic stress ; Analysis ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biomass ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Drought ; Ecosystem components ; Environmental aspects ; Fractionation ; Gene expression ; Genomes ; Growth ; Helianthus ; Helianthus annuus ; Influence ; Leaves ; Network analysis ; Nutrients ; Osmotic stress ; Phenotype ; Plant tissues ; Polyethylene glycol ; Precipitation ; Principal components analysis ; Seedlings ; Stresses ; Sunflowers ; Transcriptomics</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-09, Vol.17 (9), p.e0275462-e0275462</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Barnhart et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Barnhart et al 2022 Barnhart et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-6821e1d2839b6c668cfb4a4c766202f3e86e510878e06b230110c888ca2640e83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-6821e1d2839b6c668cfb4a4c766202f3e86e510878e06b230110c888ca2640e83</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0981-0160 ; 0000-0002-1412-5539</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9524668/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9524668/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Gururani, Mayank</contributor><creatorcontrib>Barnhart, Max H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masalia, Rishi R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mosley, Liana J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burke, John M</creatorcontrib><title>Phenotypic and transcriptomic responses of cultivated sunflower seedlings (Helianthus annuus L.) to four abiotic stresses</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Plants encounter and respond to numerous abiotic stresses during their lifetimes. These stresses are often related and could therefore elicit related responses. There are, however, relatively few detailed comparisons between multiple different stresses at the molecular level. Here, we investigated the phenotypic and transcriptomic response of cultivated sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) seedlings to three water-related stresses (i.e., dry-down, an osmotic challenge, and salt stress), as well as a generalized low-nutrient stress. All four stresses negatively impacted seedling growth, with the nutrient stress having a more divergent response from control as compared to the water-related stresses. Phenotypic responses were consistent with expectations for growth in low-resource environments, including increased (i.e., less negative) carbon fractionation values and leaf C:N ratios, as well as increased belowground biomass allocation. The number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) under stress was greater in leaf tissue, but roots exhibited a higher proportion of DEGs unique to individual stresses. Overall, the three water-related stresses had a more similar transcriptomic response to each other vs. nutrient stress, though this pattern was more pronounced in root vs. leaf tissue. In contrast to our DEG analyses, co-expression network analysis revealed that there was little indication of a shared response between the four stresses in despite the majority of DEGs being shared between multiple stresses. Importantly, osmotic stress, which is often used to simulate drought stress in experimental settings, had little transcriptomic resemblance to true water limitation (i.e., dry-down) in our study, calling into question its utility as a means for simulating drought.</description><subject>Abiotic stress</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Drought</subject><subject>Ecosystem components</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Fractionation</subject><subject>Gene expression</subject><subject>Genomes</subject><subject>Growth</subject><subject>Helianthus</subject><subject>Helianthus annuus</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Leaves</subject><subject>Network analysis</subject><subject>Nutrients</subject><subject>Osmotic stress</subject><subject>Phenotype</subject><subject>Plant tissues</subject><subject>Polyethylene glycol</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>Seedlings</subject><subject>Stresses</subject><subject>Sunflowers</subject><subject>Transcriptomics</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkl-LEzEUxQdR3HX1GwgO-LI-tObfZDIvwrKou1DQB30OmcydNiVNapJZ6bf31o5iZclDws3JL_ckp6peU7KkvKXvt3FKwfjlPgZYEtY2QrIn1SXtOFtIRvjTf9YX1Yuct4Q0XEn5vLrgkraqE-KyOnzdQIjlsHe2NmGoSzIh2-T2Je6wlCAjP0Ou41jbyRf3YAoMdZ7C6ONPSHUGGLwL61xf34F3JpTNlBEVJpxWy3d1ifWIrdamd7EgMheEIvFl9Ww0PsOreb6qvn_6-O32brH68vn-9ma1sA0hZSEVo0AHpnjXSyulsmMvjLCtRGNs5KAkNJSoVgGRPeOEUmKVUtYwKQgoflW9OXH3PmY9v1rWrKWdVB3rOlTcnxRDNFu9T25n0kFH4_TvQkxrbRK27kHTduANYT1-wCAYtx2BAYRlg5Wj7BqCrA_zbVO_g8FCwBf1Z9DzneA2eh0fdNcwge4QcD0DUvwxQS5657IF702AOB37ZkRwoihF6dv_pI-7m1VrgwZcGCPea49QfYMsLhVpOaqWj6hwDIA5wIiNDutnB8TpgE0x5wTjX4-U6GNA_zSjjwHVc0D5LzMn2dE</recordid><startdate>20220930</startdate><enddate>20220930</enddate><creator>Barnhart, Max H</creator><creator>Masalia, Rishi R</creator><creator>Mosley, Liana J</creator><creator>Burke, John M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0981-0160</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-5539</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220930</creationdate><title>Phenotypic and transcriptomic responses of cultivated sunflower seedlings (Helianthus annuus L.) to four abiotic stresses</title><author>Barnhart, Max H ; Masalia, Rishi R ; Mosley, Liana J ; Burke, John M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-6821e1d2839b6c668cfb4a4c766202f3e86e510878e06b230110c888ca2640e83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Abiotic stress</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Drought</topic><topic>Ecosystem components</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Fractionation</topic><topic>Gene expression</topic><topic>Genomes</topic><topic>Growth</topic><topic>Helianthus</topic><topic>Helianthus annuus</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Leaves</topic><topic>Network analysis</topic><topic>Nutrients</topic><topic>Osmotic stress</topic><topic>Phenotype</topic><topic>Plant tissues</topic><topic>Polyethylene glycol</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>Seedlings</topic><topic>Stresses</topic><topic>Sunflowers</topic><topic>Transcriptomics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Barnhart, Max H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masalia, Rishi R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mosley, Liana J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burke, John M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Barnhart, Max H</au><au>Masalia, Rishi R</au><au>Mosley, Liana J</au><au>Burke, John M</au><au>Gururani, Mayank</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Phenotypic and transcriptomic responses of cultivated sunflower seedlings (Helianthus annuus L.) to four abiotic stresses</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-09-30</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e0275462</spage><epage>e0275462</epage><pages>e0275462-e0275462</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Plants encounter and respond to numerous abiotic stresses during their lifetimes. These stresses are often related and could therefore elicit related responses. There are, however, relatively few detailed comparisons between multiple different stresses at the molecular level. Here, we investigated the phenotypic and transcriptomic response of cultivated sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) seedlings to three water-related stresses (i.e., dry-down, an osmotic challenge, and salt stress), as well as a generalized low-nutrient stress. All four stresses negatively impacted seedling growth, with the nutrient stress having a more divergent response from control as compared to the water-related stresses. Phenotypic responses were consistent with expectations for growth in low-resource environments, including increased (i.e., less negative) carbon fractionation values and leaf C:N ratios, as well as increased belowground biomass allocation. The number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) under stress was greater in leaf tissue, but roots exhibited a higher proportion of DEGs unique to individual stresses. Overall, the three water-related stresses had a more similar transcriptomic response to each other vs. nutrient stress, though this pattern was more pronounced in root vs. leaf tissue. In contrast to our DEG analyses, co-expression network analysis revealed that there was little indication of a shared response between the four stresses in despite the majority of DEGs being shared between multiple stresses. Importantly, osmotic stress, which is often used to simulate drought stress in experimental settings, had little transcriptomic resemblance to true water limitation (i.e., dry-down) in our study, calling into question its utility as a means for simulating drought.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>36178944</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0275462</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0981-0160</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-5539</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2022-09, Vol.17 (9), p.e0275462-e0275462
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2719689299
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Abiotic stress
Analysis
Biology and Life Sciences
Biomass
Computer and Information Sciences
Drought
Ecosystem components
Environmental aspects
Fractionation
Gene expression
Genomes
Growth
Helianthus
Helianthus annuus
Influence
Leaves
Network analysis
Nutrients
Osmotic stress
Phenotype
Plant tissues
Polyethylene glycol
Precipitation
Principal components analysis
Seedlings
Stresses
Sunflowers
Transcriptomics
title Phenotypic and transcriptomic responses of cultivated sunflower seedlings (Helianthus annuus L.) to four abiotic stresses
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T06%3A21%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Phenotypic%20and%20transcriptomic%20responses%20of%20cultivated%20sunflower%20seedlings%20(Helianthus%20annuus%20L.)%20to%20four%20abiotic%20stresses&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Barnhart,%20Max%20H&rft.date=2022-09-30&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e0275462&rft.epage=e0275462&rft.pages=e0275462-e0275462&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0275462&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA720368073%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2719689299&rft_id=info:pmid/36178944&rft_galeid=A720368073&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_17d3502b371d423c90ede4c2dc6f6950&rfr_iscdi=true