Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 462

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Metabolic responses to salt stress of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars, Sahara and Clipper, which differ in salinity tolerance

Open access
Widodo, Patterson, John H., Newbigin, Ed, Tester, Mark, Bacic, Antony, Roessner, Ute·2009·Journal of Experimental Botany

Abstract

Plants show varied cellular responses to salinity that are partly associated with maintaining low cytosolic Na(+) levels and a high K(+)/Na(+) ratio. Plant metabolites change with elevated Na(+), some changes are likely to help restore osmotic balance while others protect Na(+)-sensitive proteins. Metabolic responses to salt stress are described for two barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars, Sahara and Clipper, which differed in salinity tolerance under the experimental conditions used. After 3 weeks of salt treatment, Clipper ceased growing whereas Sahara resumed growth similar to the control plants. Compared with Clipper, Sahara had significantly higher leaf Na(+) levels and less leaf necrosis, suggesting they are more tolerant to accumulated Na(+). Metabolite changes in response to the salt treatment also differed between the two cultivars. Clipper plants had elevated levels of amino acids, including proline and GABA, and the polyamine putrescine, consistent with earlier suggestions that such accumulation may be correlated with slower growth and/or leaf necrosis rather than being an adaptive response to salinity. It is suggested that these metabolites may be an indicator of general cellular damage in plants. By contrast, in the more tolerant Sahara plants, the levels of the hexose phosphates, TCA cycle intermediates, and metabolites involved in cellular protection increased in response to salt. These solutes remain unchanged in the more sensitive Clipper plants. It is proposed that these responses in the more tolerant Sahara are involved in cellular protection in the leaves and are involved in the tolerance of Sahara leaves to high Na(+).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jxb/erp243

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 58 references

Metadata

Authors
Widodo, Patterson, J. H., Newbigin, E., Tester, M., Bacic, A., & Roessner, U.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Botany
Published
2009-08-10
Volume
60
Issue
14
Pages
4089-4103
ISSN
  • 0022-0957 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2431
OpenAlex
W2145390393
Cited by
462
References
58
FWCI
19.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Metabolic responses to salt stress of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars, Sahara and Clipper, which differ in salinity tolerance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jxb/erp243
The paper
Widodo, Patterson, J. H., Newbigin, E., Tester, M., Bacic, A., & Roessner, U. (2009). Metabolic responses to salt stress of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars, Sahara and Clipper, which differ in salinity tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp243

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.