The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Proteomic analysis on a high salt tolerance introgression strain of Triticum aestivum/Thinopyrum ponticum
Abstract
Soil salinity is a major abiotic constraint to agricultural productivity. We successfully bred a new common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) introgression variety (Shanrong No. 3) with high salt‐tolerance via asymmetric somatic hybridization between common wheat cultivar (Jinan 177) and UV‐irradiated Agropyron elongatum (Thinopyrum ponticum Podp). We report here a comparative proteomic analysis to investigate variety‐specific and salt‐responsive proteins between seedling‐roots of Shanrong No. 3 and Jinan 177. In total, 114 spots reproducibly presented differential expression patterns on 2‐DE maps. Of them, 34 were variety‐specific and 49 were salt‐responsive. We identified 110 spots by MALDI‐TOF MS and partially confirmed by MALDI‐TOF‐TOF MS, and functionally classified them into signal transduction, transcription and translation, transporting, chaperones, proteolysis and detoxification, etc. Meanwhile, we also found the alteration of protein expression of Shanrong No. 3 through inhibition of old proteins and production of novel ones, change in abundance and sensitivity of some nonsalt‐responsive and salt‐responsive proteins, as well as PTMs. Furthermore, comparison between proteome and transcripteome using cDNA microarray showed that there were only 20 proteins with abundances correlative to signal densities of corresponding EST probes. This study gives us a global insight into proteomic difference between Shanrong No. 3 and Jinan 177 in constitute and to salt‐response.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Zörb, C., Schmitt, S., Neeb, A., Karl, S., Linder, M., & Schubert, S. (2004) · Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.03.004 · Cited by 148
Cited by
ROS homeostasis in halophytes in the context of salinity stress tolerance
Bose, J., Rodrigo-Moreno, A., & Shabala, S. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/ert430 · Cited by 963
Kosová, K., Vítámvás, P., Prášil, I. T., & Renaut, J. (2011) · Journal of Proteomics · doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2011.02.006 · Cited by 852
Mechanisms of Plant Salt Response: Insights from Proteomics
Zhang, H., Han, B., Wang, T., Chen, S., Li, H., Zhang, Y., & Dai, S. (2012) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr200861w · Cited by 377
Plant Abiotic Stress Proteomics: The Major Factors Determining Alterations in Cellular Proteome
Kosová, K., Vítámvás, P., Urban, M. O., Prášil, I. T., & Renaut, J. (2018) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.00122 · Cited by 375
Abiotic stress responses in plant roots: a proteomics perspective
Ghosh, D., & Xu, J. (2014) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00006 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, M., Peng, Z., Li, C., Li, F., Liu, C., & Xia, G.
- Venue
- PROTEOMICS
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03-26
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1470-1489
- ISSN
- 1615-9853 (ISSN-L)
- 1615-9861
- OpenAlex
- W2069139040
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Proteomic analysis on a high salt tolerance introgression strain of Triticum aestivum/Thinopyrum ponticum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pmic.200700569
- The paper
- Wang, M., Peng, Z., Li, C., Li, F., Liu, C., & Xia, G. (2008). Proteomic analysis on a high salt tolerance introgression strain of Triticum aestivum/Thinopyrum ponticum. PROTEOMICS. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200700569
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.