欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (1): 221-232.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2026.53059

所属专题： 玉米：耕作栽培·生理生化

• 耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇    下一篇

渗透胁迫下不同玉米品种幼苗ABA合成及生理生化响应差异

张清怡(), 肖义涛, 李秋霞, 张钰石, 张明才*(), 李召虎   

  1. 植物生长调节剂教育部工程研究中心 / 中国农业大学农学院, 北京 100193
  • 收稿日期:2025-08-05 接受日期:2025-10-30 出版日期:2026-01-12 网络出版日期:2025-11-05
  • 通讯作者: *张明才, E-mail: zmc1214@163.com
  • 作者简介:E-mail: zqy04140021@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    新疆生产建设兵团重大科技项目(2024AB030-01);北京市科技计划项目(Z221100006422005)

Differences in ABA synthesis and physiological and biochemical responses of seedlings of different maize varieties under osmotic stress

Zhang Qing-Yi(), Xiao Yi-Tao, Li Qiu-Xia, Zhang Yu-Shi, Zhang Ming-Cai*(), Li Zhao-Hu   

  1. Engineering Research Center of Plant Growth Regulator, Ministry of Education / College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 10093, China
  • Received:2025-08-05 Accepted:2025-10-30 Published:2026-01-12 Published online:2025-11-05
  • Contact: *E-mail: zmc1214@163.com
  • Supported by:
    Major Science and Technology Projects of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps(2024AB030-01);Beijing Science and Technology Plan Project(Z221100006422005)

RichHTML

8

PDF

146

摘要：

脱落酸(ABA)是响应干旱胁迫的重要逆境信号转导物质, 但玉米品种干旱敏感性与ABA积累的内在关系仍不清晰。本研究以郑单958、农大364和农大3138为供试品种, 采用聚乙二醇(PEG-6000)模拟渗透胁迫, 比较研究渗透胁迫对玉米幼苗生长、ABA合成与积累及其生理生化特征的影响, 探究ABA在不同玉米品种中响应渗透胁迫的作用机制。主要研究结果如下, 渗透胁迫显著抑制不同品种幼苗地上部与根系的生长与生物量积累, 降低了植株相对含水量。其中郑单958、农大3138和农大364的地上部和地下部生物量分别降低32.8%和5.9%、37.1%和10.5%、43.8%和20.1%。同时, 渗透胁迫显著上调了不同品种叶片和根系中ABA合成关键基因ZmNCED1、 ZmAO2和ZmABA3的表达水平, 其中郑单958增幅最大, 较对照增加1.5~12.9倍, 而农大364增幅最小, 较对照仅增加0.4~1.3倍。渗透胁迫增强了ABA合成关键酶醛氧化酶活性, 促进了ABA积累, 其中农大364的叶片和根中ABA积累增幅最小, 分别为140%和90%, 而郑单958最大。此外, 渗透胁迫显著提高了玉米抗氧化酶POD、SOD和CAT活性, 不同品种间增幅与ABA含量的增幅规律一致。从不同品种的植株生长、ABA合成和积累相关生理生化特征、抗氧化酶活性等对渗透胁迫的响应特征进行综合分析, 品种抗旱性表现为郑单958 >农大3138 >农大364。研究结果揭示了ABA在不同抗旱性玉米品种响应渗透胁迫中的作用机制, 为抗旱品种选育和抗逆栽培措施构建提供了依据。

关键词: 玉米, ABA, 渗透胁迫, 醛氧化酶, 抗氧化酶

Abstract:

Osmotic stress significantly inhibited the growth and biomass accumulation of both aboveground and belowground parts in seedlings of different maize cultivars, and reduced the relative water content (RWC) of the plants. Specifically, the aboveground and root biomass of Zhengdan 958, Nongda 3138, and Nongda 364 were reduced by 32.8% and 5.9%, 37.1% and 10.5%, and 43.8% and 20.1%, respectively. Meanwhile, drought stress markedly upregulated the expression of key ABA biosynthesis genes—including ZmNCED1, ZmAO2, and ZmABA3—in both leaves and roots across cultivars. Among them, Zhengdan 958 exhibited the greatest increase, with transcript levels rising 1.5- to 12.9-fold compared to the control, whereas Nongda 364 showed the smallest increase, ranging from 0.4- to 1.3-fold. Osmotic stress also enhanced the activity of aldehyde oxidase, a key enzyme in ABA biosynthesis, thereby promoting ABA accumulation. Among the cultivars, Nongda 364 exhibited the smallest ABA increase in leaves and roots (140% and 90%, respectively), while Zhengdan 958 showed the largest. In addition, osmotic stress significantly elevated the activities of antioxidant enzymes in maize, including POD, SOD, and CAT, with the degree of increase consistent with the trend of ABA accumulation among cultivars. A comprehensive analysis of plant growth, physiological and biochemical characteristics related to ABA biosynthesis and accumulation, and antioxidant enzyme activities under osmotic stress revealed that drought tolerance among the cultivars followed the order: Zhengdan 958 > Nongda 3138 > Nongda 364. These findings elucidate the role of ABA in mediating maize responses to osmotic stress in cultivars with varying drought tolerance and provide a theoretical foundation for breeding drought-tolerant cultivars and developing stress-resilient cultivation strategies.

Key words: maize, ABA, osmotic stress, aldehyde oxidase, antioxidant enzymes

表1

定量PCR所用引物"

基因名称
Gene name		 上游引物
Forward primer (5′-3′)		 下游引物
Reverse primer (5′-3′)
ZmNCED1 GGCTTCCACGGCACCTTCATCACGGGC CGGGGAACTGATCTGGGCTCCCTCTGG
ZmAO2 GGCCTCCTCTCCAGAATACC ACCTCAACAGCAATGGAACC
ZmABA3 CGGCAGGTGTACTTTGGGCAAA CGGGGTCCTGATTCGGTCACTCAG
ZmTUB7 GTACCCCCCTCTCACCGTGC ACGGAACATAGCAGATGCCGTGA

图1

PEG胁迫对幼苗地上部和根生长的影响 ZD958: 郑单958; ND364: 农大364; ND3138: 农大3138; CK: 对照; PEG: PEG-6000处理。"

表2

PEG胁迫对玉米幼苗植株生物量和相对含水量的影响"

品种
Variety		 处理
Treatment		 地上部
Aboveground (g plant-1)		 根
Root (g plant-1)		 相对含水量
Relative water content (%)
鲜重
Fresh weight		 干重
Dry weight		 鲜重
Fresh weight		 干重
Dry weight		 地上部
Aboveground		 根
Root
ZD958 CK 20.559±0.388 b 1.490±0.078 b 4.294±0.084 b 0.202±0.003 b 92.666±0.189 b 94.668±0.235 b
PEG 9.977±0.219 c 1.000±0.007 d 2.417±0.101 d 0.179±0.004 cd 90.023±0.248 c 92.312±0.310 c
ND364 CK 20.966±0.436 b 1.395±0.037 c 4.964±0.138 a 0.224±0.008 a 93.167±0.250 a 95.563±0.327 a
PEG 6.753±0.240 d 0.784±0.013 e 2.394±0.182 d 0.191±0.013 bc 89.198±0.337 e 92.317±0.364 c
ND3138 CK 24.189±0.633 a 1.607±0.045 a 3.944±0.202 c 0.197±0.014 b 92.991±0.210 a 94.788±0.150 b
PEG 10.078±0.179 c 1.010±0.013 d 2.185±0.031 e 0.176±0.005 d 89.468±0.334 d 91.825±0.425 d
变异来源Source of variation
品种 Variety *** *** *** *** * **
处理 Treatment *** *** *** *** *** ***
品种×处理
Variety × treatment		 *** * *** * *** ***

图2

PEG胁迫对幼苗总根长、根表面积和根体积的影响 不同小写字母表示处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。处理及缩写同图1。"

图3

PEG胁迫对叶片中ZmNCED1、ZmAO2和ZmABA3基因表达的影响 同一品种中不同小写字母表示不同处理时间下差异显著(P < 0.05)。处理及缩写同图1。FC: 变化倍数。"

图4

PEG胁迫对根中ZmNCED1、ZmAO2和ZmABA3基因表达的影响 同一品种中不同小写字母表示不同处理时间下差异显著(P < 0.05)。处理及缩写同图1。FC: 变化倍数。"

图5

PEG胁迫对幼苗叶片和根中醛氧化活性的影响 A: 玉米叶片中的醛氧化酶活性; B: 玉米根中的醛氧化酶活性。处理及缩写同图1。"

图6

PEG胁迫对幼苗叶片和根中ABA含量的影响 A: 玉米叶片中ABA含量; B: 玉米根中ABA含量。同一品种中不同小写字母表示不同处理时间下差异显著(P < 0.05)。处理及缩写同图1。FC: 变化倍数。"

图7

PEG胁迫对叶片中过氧化物酶、超氧化物歧化酶和过氧化氢酶活性的影响 同一处理时间下不同小写字母表示品种间差异显著(P < 0.05)。处理及缩写同图1。"

图8

PEG胁迫对根中过氧化物酶、超氧化物歧化酶和过氧化氢酶活性的影响 同一处理时间下不同小写字母表示品种间差异显著(P < 0.05)。处理及缩写同图1。"

图9

与生理学和形态学数据相关的相关分析热图 红色和蓝色分别表示2个变量之间呈正相关和负相关。框中的数字表示相关系数。*、**和***分别表示相关系数在P < 0.05、P < 0.01和P < 0.001水平的显著性。"

图10

不同玉米品种抗旱性评价模型(偏最小二乘路径分析) 箭头附近的数字是标准化的路径系数。R2值表示可由结构方程模型中相应变量解释的变异比例。*、**和***分别表示路径系数在P < 0.05、P < 0.01和P < 0.001水平的显著性。"

[1] Zhang J B, Chen X X, Song Y J, et al. Integrative regulatory mechanisms of stomatal movements under changing climate. J Integr Plant Biol, 2024, 66: 368-393.
doi: 10.1111/jipb.13611
[2] Kim W, Iizumi T, Nishimori M. Global patterns of crop production losses associated with droughts from 1983 to 2009. J Appl Meteor Climatol, 2019, 58: 1233-1244.
doi: 10.1175/JAMC-D-18-0174.1
[3] Wu G, Wei Z K, Wang Y X, et al. The mutual responses of higher plants to environment: physiological and microbiological aspects. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2007, 59: 113-119.
doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2007.05.003
[4] 李红杰. PEG模拟干旱胁迫下冬瓜的生理指标变化及耐旱性. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17: 6792-6799.
Li H J. Physiological index variation and drought resistance of winter gourd under polyethylene dlycol simulation drought stress. Mol Plant Breed, 2019, 17: 6792-6799 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[5] 余为仆, 许晖, 李戎, 等. 水稻抗旱机理研究进展. 中南农业科技, 2024, 45(12): 227-233.
Yu W P, Xu H, Li R, et al. Research progress on drought resistance mechanism of rice. South Cent Agric Sci Technol, 2024, 45(12): 227-233 (in Chinese).
[6] Xiong L M, Zhu J K. Regulation of abscisic acid biosynthesis. Plant Physiol, 2003, 133: 29-36.
doi: 10.1104/pp.103.025395 pmid: 12970472
[7] Bittner F, Oreb M, Mendel R R. ABA 3 is a molybdenum cofactor sulfurase required for activation of aldehyde oxidase and xanthine dehydrogenase in Arabidopsis thaliana. J Biol Chem, 2001, 276: 40381-40384.
doi: 10.1074/jbc.C100472200 pmid: 11553608
[8] Xiong L M, Ishitani M, Lee H, et al. The Arabidopsis LOS5/ABA3 locus encodes a molybdenum cofactor sulfurase and modulates cold stress- and osmotic stress-responsive gene expression. Plant Cell, 2001, 13: 2063-2083.
doi: 10.1105/tpc.010101 pmid: 11549764
[9] 刘贤德, 李晓辉, 李文华, 等. 玉米自交系苗期耐旱性差异分析. 玉米科学, 2004, 12(3): 63-65.
Liu X D, Li X H, Li W H, et al. Analysis on difference for drought responses of maize inberd lines at seedling stage. J Maize Sci, 2004, 12(3): 63-65 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[10] 张丽华, 赵洪祥, 谭国波, 等. 不同玉米杂交种抗旱性比较研究. 玉米科学, 2012, 20(3): 29-33.
Zhang L H, Zhao H X, Tan G B, et al. Comparative study on the drought resistance of maize hybrids. J Maize Sci, 2012, 20(3): 29-33 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[11] 赵洪兵, 黄亚群. 不同玉米杂交种抗旱性比较及抗旱性鉴定指标的研究. 华北农学报, 2007, 22(增刊2): 66-70.
Zhao H B, Huang Y Q. Study on the drought resistibility and related indicators for different maize hybrids. Acta Agric Boreali-Sin, 2007, 22(S2): 66-70 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[12] Zhang J, Yu H Y, Zhang Y S, et al. Increased abscisic acid levels in transgenic maize overexpressing AtLOS5 mediated root ion fluxes and leaf water status under salt stress. J Exp Bot, 2016, 67: 1339-1355.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv528 pmid: 26743432
[13] Ali M, Afzal S, Parveen A, et al. Silicon mediated improvement in the growth and ion homeostasis by decreasing Na+ uptake in maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars exposed to salinity stress. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2021, 158: 208-218.
doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.10.040
[14] Seo M, Koiwai H, Akaba S, et al. Abscisic aldehyde oxidase in leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J, 2000, 23: 481-488.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00812.x
[15] Zdunek-Zastocka E, Omarov R T, Koshiba T, et al. Activity and protein level of AO isoforms in pea plants (Pisum sativum L.) during vegetative development and in response to stress conditions. J Exp Bot, 2004, 55: 1361-1369.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erh134 pmid: 15073210
[16] Zhang L W, Mi X C, Shao H B, et al. Strong plant-soil associations in a heterogeneous subtropical broad-leaved forest. Plant Soil, 2011, 347: 211-220.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-011-0839-2
[17] Yan K, Chen P, Shao H B, et al. Photosynthetic characterization of Jerusalem artichoke during leaf expansion. Acta Physiol Plant, 2012, 34: 353-360.
doi: 10.1007/s11738-011-0834-5
[18] Fang P, Yao Q L, Chen F B. Morpho-physiological characteristics of maize (Zea mays L.) landraces under water stress. Philipp Agric Sci, 2011, 94: 323-328.
[19] Grzesiak M T, Marcinska I, Janowiak F, et al. The relationship between seedling growth and grain yield under drought conditions in maize and triticale genotypes. Acta Physiol Plant, 2012, 34: 1757-1764.
doi: 10.1007/s11738-012-0973-3
[20] 刘海龙, 郑桂珍, 关军锋, 等. 干旱胁迫下玉米根系活力和膜透性的变化. 华北农学报, 2002, 17(2): 20-22.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-7091.2002.02.005
Liu H L, Zheng G Z, Guan J F, et al. Changes of root activity and membrane permeability under drought stress in maize. Acta Agric Boreali-Sin, 2002, 17(2): 20-22 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-7091.2002.02.005
[21] Westgate M E, Boyer J S. Osmotic adjustment and the inhibition of leaf, root, stem and silk growth at low water potentials in maize. Planta, 1985, 164: 540-549.
doi: 10.1007/BF00395973 pmid: 24248230
[22] Zhu J M, Alvarez S, Marsh E L, et al. Cell wall proteome in the maize primary root elongation zone: II. region-specific changes in water soluble and lightly ionically bound proteins under water deficit. Plant Physiol, 2007, 145: 1533-1548.
doi: 10.1104/pp.107.107250
[23] Seo M, Peeters A, Koiwai H, et al. The Arabidopsis aldehyde oxidase 3 (AAO3) gene product catalyzes the final step in abscisic acid biosynthesis in leaves. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2000, 97: 12908-12913.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.220426197 pmid: 11050171
[24] Lu Y, Li Y J, Zhang J C, et al. Overexpression of Arabidopsis molybdenum cofactor sulfurase gene confers drought tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.). PLoS One, 2013, 8: e52126.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052126
[25] Sharma A, Gupta A, Ramakrishnan M, et al. Roles of abscisic acid and auxin in plants during drought: a molecular point of view. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2023, 204: 108129.
doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.108129
[26] Nadarajah K K. ROS homeostasis inabiotic stress tolerance inplants. Int J Mol Sci, 2020, 21: 5208.
doi: 10.3390/ijms21155208
[27] Nasirzadeh L, Sorkhilaleloo B, Hervan E M, et al. Changes in antioxidant enzyme activities and gene expression profiles under drought stress in tolerant, intermediate, and susceptible wheat genotypes. Cereal Res Commun, 2021, 49: 83-89.
doi: 10.1007/s42976-020-00085-2
[28] Tan B C, Schwartz S H, Zeevaart J A, et al. Genetic control of abscisic acid biosynthesis in maize. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1997, 94: 12235-12240.
pmid: 9342392
[29] Burbidge A, Grieve T M, Jackson A, et al. Characterization of the ABA-deficient tomato mutant notabilis and its relationship with maize Vp14. Plant J, 1999, 17: 427-431.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1999.00386.x pmid: 10205899
[30] Iuchi S, Kobayashi M, Taji T, et al. Regulation of drought tolerance by gene manipulation of 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase, a key enzyme in abscisic acid biosynthesis in Arabidopsis. Plant J, 2001, 27: 325-333.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2001.01096.x pmid: 11532178
[31] Bueno P, Piqueras A, Kurepa J, et al. Expression of antioxidant enzymes in response to abscisic acid and high osmoticum in tobacco BY-2 cell cultures. Plant Sci, 1998, 138: 27-34.
doi: 10.1016/S0168-9452(98)00154-X
[32] Guan L M, Zhao J, Scandalios J G. Cis-elements and trans-factors that regulate expression of the maize Cat1 antioxidant gene in response to ABA and osmotic stress: H2O2 is the likely intermediary signaling molecule for the response. Plant J, 2000, 22: 87-95.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00723.x pmid: 10792824
[33] Jiang M, Zhang J. Effect of abscisic acid on active oxygen species, antioxidative defence system and oxidative damage in leaves of maize seedlings. Plant Cell Physiol, 2001, 42: 1265-1273.
doi: 10.1093/pcp/pce162 pmid: 11726712
[34] Jiang M Y, Zhang J H. Water stress-induced abscisic acid accumulation triggers the increased generation of reactive oxygen species and up-regulates the activities of antioxidant enzymes in maize leaves. J Exp Bot, 2002, 53: 2401-2410.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erf090 pmid: 12432032
[35] Hu X L, Jiang M Y, Zhang A Y, et al. Abscisic acid-induced apoplastic H2O2 accumulation up-regulates the activities of chloroplastic and cytosolic antioxidant enzymes in maize leaves. Planta, 2005, 223: 57-68.
doi: 10.1007/s00425-005-0068-0
[1] 刘恩波, 陈静, 李红星, 于宁宁, 任佰朝, 赵斌, 刘鹏, 张吉旺. 遮阴改变源-库平衡和调节碳水化合物代谢进而抑制夏玉米幼穗发育[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1891-1901.
[2] 梁进宇, 尹嘉德, 王红丽, 张国平, 侯慧芝, 董博, 马明生. 基于无人机高光谱和机器学习的旱地饲用玉米叶片氮含量估测[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1788-1801.
[3] 金昱何, 王雪菲, 徐张一娃, 缪怡宁, 蒋云杰, 伊莹, 缪德麟, 朱静仪, 钟一帆, 陈铭亨, 方芳, 刘鹏. 外源激素对低温胁迫下大豆叶片叶绿素荧光参数及抗氧化酶系统的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1817-1829.
[4] 孙淑凤, 许振南, 黄嘉鑫, 翁建峰, 李新海. 玉米MAPK家族全基因组鉴定及其对拟轮枝镰孢菌感染的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1291-1308.
[5] 张宁宁, 滕雨菲, 任娜娜, 魏兴卓, 闫书豪, 樊可心, 王永宏, 陈文康, 张兴华, 朱万超, 徐淑兔, 薛吉全. 201份玉米自交系抗旱表型评价及可塑性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1309-1325.
[6] 杨欣雨, 崔文涛, 迪力尼格尔·阿力木, 汪凯翔, 吴鹏昊, 任姣姣. 玉米穗上叶片数全基因组关联分析和全基因组选择[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1573-1590.
[7] 韩亚鑫, 何冠华, 张小琼, 张登峰, 李永祥, 刘旭洋, 王天宇, 黎裕, 邹华文, 李春辉. 基于RNA-Seq和BSA-Seq联合分析挖掘玉米侧根密度基因资源[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1341-1352.
[8] 杨扬, 常诗惠, 田红丽, 易红梅, 王璐, 任洁, 范亚明, 刘亚维, 王凤格, 赵久然. 不同生态区国审玉米品种的遗传多样性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1352-1364.
[9] 张鸿蓉, 王菲儿, 李盼, 仇海龙, 朱静, 赵连豪, 南运有, 何蔚, 樊志龙, 胡发龙, 柴强, 殷文. 减量20%灌水与25%有机肥替代化肥提高青贮玉米产量的光合特性[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1487-1500.
[10] 蔡宏玮, 于爱忠, 姜科强, 王鹏飞, 王玉珑, 霍建喆, 庞小能, 尹波, 尚永盼. 干旱灌区有机肥替代部分化肥促进甜玉米产量提升的关键机制[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1166-1180.
[11] 田红丽, 杨扬, 范亚明, 易红梅, 郭丹丹, 王凤格, 赵久然. 适于玉米品种鉴定的一套三等位变异SNP新型标记组合[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 993-1005.
[12] 杨亚莉, 徐明睿, 马越飞, 海艺蕊, 刘凯栋, 刘万茂, 孙颖. 玉米根尖及整根响应缺铁的转录组比较研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1006-1021.
[13] 张超, 郭欢, 李忠玲, 岳淑宁, 赵娜. 基于BSA-seq技术定位玉米籽粒花青素关联基因[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 780-789.
[14] 郭向阳, 涂亮, 王栋, 刘鹏飞, 王安贵, 易强, 任洪, 李刚, 祝云芳, 吴迅, 蒋喻林, 田丰, 陈泽辉. 热带Suwan种质在我国玉米种质改良中的创新与利用[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 655-664.
[15] 孟成, 王哲. 玉米ZmPFK基因家族全基因组鉴定及响应胁迫表达分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 764-779.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2