English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A microarray including 1654 cDNAs, mainly derived from dehydration-shocked barley leaf tissues, was utilized to monitor expression changes in leaves of barley plants subjected to slow drying conditions (7 d and 11 d: 7d-WS and 11d-WS) in soil and after rehydration. The results were compared with those obtained under shock-like conditions imposed with a 6 h dehydration treatment. A total number of 173 transcripts (approximately 10% of all transcripts profiled) were declared up- or down-regulated in at least one of the conditions tested. The majority of the transcripts were regulated by only one of the drought treatments, with 57% of the differentially expressed transcripts exclusively affected in the dehydration shock treatment, 6% at 7d-WS, 14% at 11d-WS, and 6% after rehydration. Irrespective of the low percentage of transcripts (10%) with similar expression changes between shock and slow stress treatments, a sizeable portion of these transcripts shared a common expression trend under the different drought treatment conditions, as evidenced by low but significant correlations between the fast occurring and the 7d-WS and 11d-WS treatments (r=0.32 and 0.41, P=0.001, respectively). These results are discussed with respect to the merit of different dehydration treatments in the investigation of the changes in transcript profiling.

Barley transcript profiles under dehydration shock and drought stress treatments: a comparative analysis