How do exogenous chemical factors affect the activity of the wheat genome? A study using the RNA/DNA ratio

1Martynenko, OI
1Kyrylenko, TK
1Stepanyugin, AV
1Plodnik, DP
2Hovorun, DM
1Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics of the NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv
2Institute of High Technology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv; Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics of the NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv
Dopov. Nac. akad. nauk Ukr. 2014, 1:168-173
https://doi.org/10.15407/dopovidi2014.01.168
Section: Biochemistry
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: 

This paper presents a study of the wheat plant response to the effect of the chemical factor (methisazon) at the level of genome reaction using the RNA/DNA ratio. We established a differential character of the wheat genome functioning in the process of growth using the RNA/DNA ratio and indicators of the transcriptional activity of ribosomal genes. We found the opposite directionality of changes in the RNA/DNA ratio and in the growth rate of leaves in all studied plants. This finding is supported by the presence of a negative correlation between these parameters. We suggest to use the RNA/DNA ratio for the quantitative evaluation of the impact level of chemical factors on the functional activity of the plant genome and the growth rate of plants.

Keywords: activity, chemical factors, DNA, genome, RNA, wheat
References: 

1. Hirayama T., Shinozaki K. Plant J., 2010, 61: 1041–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04124.x
2. Ideker T., Galitski T., Hood L. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet., 2001, 2: 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.2.1.343
3. Long T. A., Brady S. M., Benfey P. N. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol., 2008, 24: 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175408
4. Rockman M. V., Kruglyak L. Nature Rev. Genet., 2006, 7: 862–872. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1964
5. Heinrich S., Valentin K., Frickenhaus S. et al. PLoS ONE, 2012, 7, Iss. 8: e44342. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044342
6. Quenelle D. C., Keith K. A., Kern E. R. Antiviral Res., 2006, 71, Iss. 1: 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2006.02.010
7. Levin H. G., Sharek K. M., Johnson K. M. et al. Adv. space res., 2000, 26, No. 2: 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1177(99)00577-3
8. Martynenko O. I., Kyrylenko T. K., Alkhimova O. G. Dopov. Nac. akad. nauk Ukr., 2009, No. 2: 179–183 (in Russian).
9. Ausubel F. M., Brent R., Kingston R. E. et. al. (Eds.). Short protocols in molecular biology. 4th ed. New York: Wiley, 1999: 4–26.
10. Chicharo M. A., Chicharo L. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 2008, 9: 1453–1471. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms9081453
11. Tishchenko E. N., Kurchy V. M., Petrov I. A. Ukr. biokhim. zhurn., 1999, 71, No. 5: 29–33.
12. Van Katz V. A., Thulke O. U., Conrath U. A. Plant Physiol., 1998, 117: 1333–1339. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.117.4.1333
13. Kharina A., Zaets I., Ovcharenko L. et al. Sepsis, 2011, 4, No. 1: 73–78.
14. Umezawa T., Fujita M., Fujita Y. et al. Curr. opinion biotechnol., 2006, 17, No. 2: 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2006.02.002