Comparative proteomic analysis of salt response proteins in seedling roots of two wheat varieties

Guangfang Guo, Pei Ge, Chaoying Ma, Xiaohui Li, Dongwen Lv, Shunli Wang, Wujun Ma, Yueming Yan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

103 Scopus citations


A comparative proteomic analysis was made of salt response in seedling roots of wheat cultivars Jing-411 (salt tolerant) and Chinese Spring (salt sensitive) subjected to a range of salt stress concentrations (0.5%, 1.5% and 2.5%) for 2. days. One hundred and ninety eight differentially expressed protein spots (DEPs) were located with at least two-fold differences in abundance on 2-DE maps, of which 144 were identified by MALDI-TOF-TOF MS. These proteins were involved primarily in carbon metabolism (31.9%), detoxification and defense (12.5%), chaperones (5.6%) and signal transduction (4.9%). Comparative analysis showed that 41 DEPs were salt responsive with significant expression changes in both varieties under salt stress, and 99 (52 in Jing-411 and 47 in Chinese Spring) were variety specific. Only 15 and 9 DEPs in Jing-411 and Chinese Spring, respectively, were up-regulated in abundance under all three salt concentrations. All dynamics of the DEPs were analyzed across all treatments. Some salt responsive DEPs, such as guanine nucleotide-binding protein subunit beta-like protein, RuBisCO large subunit-binding protein subunit alpha and pathogenesis related protein 10, were up-regulated significantly in Jing-411 under all salt concentrations, whereas they were down-regulated in salinity-stressed Chinese Spring.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1867-1885
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Proteomics
Issue number6
StatePublished - Mar 16 2012
Externally publishedYes


  • Proteome
  • Salt stress
  • Triticum aestivum

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Biochemistry


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparative proteomic analysis of salt response proteins in seedling roots of two wheat varieties'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this