Creation of ethyl methanesulfonate chemical mutants of Hemarthria compressa seed stem

doi:10.11686/cyxb2025092

Abstract

Abstract:

Hemarthria compressa isa perennial species of the Poaceae family， with fast growth rate， strong adaptability and stress resistance. It is a very important forage resource in the southern region of China. This study investigated the use of ethyl methanesulfonate （EMS） as a chemical agent to produce mutants of H. compressa. Stems of seedlings were used to provide cells of H. compressa for exposure to EMS and two factors were tested： EMS concentration （0%， 0.2%， 0.4%， 0.6%， 0.8% or 1.0%） and treatment time （2， 4 or 6 h）. It was found that the optimal EMS concentration and treatment time for mutagenesis of H. compressa is 0.6% and 6 hours. Phenotypic comparison testing identified an excellent H. compressa mutant among the EMS-mutatated population， designated number 5-5-4. Comparative testing of mutant 5-5-4 and the wild type under low phosphorus stress conditions showed that 5-5-4 had greater root and root tip number， longest root length and total root length， and a more developed root hair structure than the wild-type. Low phosphorus stress resulted in a significant decrease in phosphorus uptake， but the phosphorus use efficiency was greatly improved and the phosphorus utilization efficiency in roots and stems of mutant 5-5-4 was higher than in the wild type. Under low phosphorus stress， the activities of acid phosphatase， superoxide dismutase and peroxidase were also higher in roots of the mutant and roots of the mutant exhibited greater presence of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria， including Bacillus， Ramlibacter and Rhodoferax in the rhizosphere. In summary， this study used EMS chemical mutagenesis technology to generate H. compressa mutants and analyzed the tolerance to low phosphorus stress and associated physiological parameters in a promising mutant， resulting in new germplasm resources with low phosphorus tolerance. These results provide both technical data for further mutagenesis work and breeding material development of improved H. compressa varieties to support animal husbandry in low phosphorus areas in southern China.

Key words: Hemarthria compressa, ethyl methane sulfonate （EMS）, mutagenesis, mutant, low phosphorus stress

Hui PENG, Lin MU, Jia-xin SHEN, Jing-xuan WANG, Jing HUANG, Yu-xun HUANG, Zhi-fei ZHANG. Creation of ethyl methanesulfonate chemical mutants of Hemarthria compressa seed stem[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2026, 35(2): 95-106.

Figures/Tables 13

References 25

[1]	He W， Zhang X Q， Yang C H， et al. The distribution characters and planting technology of Hemarthia spp. SICHUAN CAOYUAN， 2003（5）： 42-44.
	何玮，张新全，杨春华，等. 牛鞭草种质资源在中国的分布及其人工草地建植技术. 四川草原， 2003（5）： 42-44.
[2]	Li F， Zhang X Q， Ma X， et al. Comparative study on the agronomic traits of new whipgrass lines. Hubei Agricultural Sciences， 2009， 48（5）： 1210-1213.
	李芳，张新全，马啸，等. 扁穗牛鞭草新品系的农艺性状比较研究. 湖北农业科学， 2009， 48（5）： 1210-1213.
[3]	Chen Y X， Zhang X Q， Yang C H， et al. Breeding and cultivation techniques of a new variety Hemarthria compressa cv. Ya’an. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2012， 34（3）： 109-112.
	陈永霞，张新全，杨春华，等. 扁穗牛鞭草新品种选育及栽培技术. 中国草地学报， 2012， 34（3）： 109-112.
[4]	Yang C. Waterlogging resistance and root microstructure analysis of different Hemarthria compressa germplasm resources under flooding stress. Chongqing： Southwest University， 2022.
	杨成. 淹水胁迫下不同扁穗牛鞭草种质资源耐涝性能及其根部显微结构分析. 重庆：西南大学， 2022.
[5]	Zeng J， Huang L K， Zhang X Q， et al. Study on phenotype mutation of Hemarthria compressa and dose selection of ⁶⁰Co-γ irradiation. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2014， 22（4）： 828-833.
	曾捷，黄琳凯，张新全，等. ⁶⁰Co-γ辐射扁穗牛鞭草剂量筛选及表型变异研究. 草地学报， 2014， 22（4）： 828-833.
[6]	Chen L Z， Duan L， Sun M H， et al. Current trends and insights on EMS mutagenesis application to studies on plant abiotic stress tolerance and development. Frontiers in Plant Science， 2023， 13： 1052569.
[7]	Zhang J. Spatial and temporal changes of soil nutrients in typical red soil erosion region of southern China. Fuzhou： Fujian Normal University， 2021.
	张婧. 南方典型红壤侵蚀区土壤养分时空变异特征研究. 福州：福建师范大学， 2021.
[8]	Zhao C. Study on characteristics and physiological mechanism of phosphorus efficient utilization of switchgrass in saline-alkali soil. Yinchuan： Ningxia University， 2023.
	赵匆. 盐碱地柳枝稷磷高效利用特征及其生理机制研究. 银川：宁夏大学， 2023.
[9]	Wu R X， Li Y， You Y L， et al. Study on drought resistance identification and evaluation methods of alfalfa during whole growth period. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2020， 28（5）： 1444-1453.
	武瑞鑫，李源，游永亮，等. 紫花苜蓿全生育期抗旱性鉴定评价方法探讨. 草地学报， 2020， 28（5）： 1444-1453.
[10]	Xu W W. Construction of sugarcane mutant library induced by EMS and sereening of SSR primers. Beijing： Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences， 2018.
	许雯雯. EMS诱变甘蔗突变体库的构建及其SSR引物的筛选. 北京：中国农业科学院， 2018.
[11]	Li M， Wang Y F， Xu K J， et al. Construction of mutant library by EMS induction with Panicum virgatum spike buds. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica， 2016， 25（2）： 203-208.
	李毛，王勇锋，徐开杰，等. 利用EMS诱变构建柳枝稷穗芽无性系突变体库的初步研究. 西北农业学报， 2016， 25（2）： 203-208.
[12]	Yang Q， Zhang F， Wang D， et al. Selection of salt-tolerant variants from potato in vitro micro-cuttings induced by EMS. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences， 2011， 25（4）： 673-678.
	杨乾，张峰，王蒂，等. EMS诱变筛选马铃薯茎段离体耐盐变异体. 核农学报， 2011， 25（4）： 673-678.
[13]	Guo S Y. EMS mutagenesis creates Lilium davidii var. unicolor mutants. Shenyang： Shenyang Agricultural University， 2020.
	郭思雨. EMS诱变创建兰州百合突变体. 沈阳：沈阳农业大学， 2020.
[14]	Feng S Z， Chen X B， He X Y， et al. Effects of land use and fertilization on lignin accumulation in red soil. Journal of Agro-Environment Science， 2015， 34（9）： 1761-1768.
	冯书珍，陈香碧，何寻阳，等. 不同土地利用方式及施肥措施对红壤木质素积累特性的影响. 农业环境科学学报， 2015， 34（9）： 1761-1768.
[15]	Liu Z P. Quality characteristics and regulation technique of sugarcane cultivated-layer in red soil slope farmland. Chongqing： Southwest University， 2018.
	刘志鹏. 红壤坡耕地甘蔗耕层质量特征及调控技术研究. 重庆：西南大学， 2018.
[16]	Sun Z W， Xu Y M， Xu R Y， et al. Research advance in the response of rice to low phosphorus stress and its regulation mechanism. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences， 2023， 37（8）： 1562-1570.
	孙志伟，徐月梅，许荣越，等. 水稻低磷胁迫响应及其调控机制的研究进展. 核农学报， 2023， 37（8）： 1562-1570.
[17]	Dong L. Root developmental responses to phosphorus nutrition. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology， 2021， 63（6）： 1065-1090.
[18]	Yugandhar P， Veronica N， Ai H， et al. NH787 EMS mutant of rice variety Nagina22 exhibits higher phosphate use efficiency. Scientific Reports， 2021， 11（1）： 9156.
[19]	Zhang Y. Molecular regulation of phosphate starvation-induced acid phosphatase activity. Beijing： Tsinghua University， 2014.
	张烨. 低磷胁迫诱导植物酸性磷酸酶的分子调控机制. 北京：清华大学， 2014.
[20]	Li P C， Ma X L， Wang J C， et al. Integrated analysis of metabolome and transcriptome reveals insights for low phosphorus tolerance in wheat seedling. International Journal of Molecular Sciences， 2023， 24（19）： 14840.
[21]	Sewelam N， Kazan K， Schenk P M. Global plant stress signaling： reactive oxygen species at the cross-road. Frontiers in Plant Science， 2016， 7（187）： 187.
[22]	Shuvasish C， Piyalee P， Lingaraj S， et al. Reactive oxygen species signaling in plants under abiotic stress. Plant Signaling & Behavior， 2013， 8（4）： e23681.
[23]	Yugandhar P， Sun Y， Liu L. Characterization of the loss-of-function mutant NH101 for yield under phosphate deﬁciency from EMS-induced mutants of rice variety Nagina22. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry， 2018， 130： 1-13.
[24]	Oburger E， Dell’mour M， Hann S， et al. Evaluation of a novel tool for sampling root exudates from soil-grown plants compared to conventional techniques. Environmental and Experimental Botany， 2013， 87： 235-247.
[25]	Zheng Y F， Cao X W， Zhou Y， et al. Purines enrich root-associated Pseudomonas and improve wild soybean growth under salt stress. Nature Communications， 2024， 15（1）： 3520.

EMS浓度 EMS concentration （%）	7 d出芽率7 days germination rate			14 d出芽率14 days germination rate
EMS浓度 EMS concentration （%）	2 h	4 h	6 h	2 h	4 h	6 h
0	8.33±2.36Aa	10.00±4.08Aa	30.00±18.71Aa	95.00±4.08ABa	88.33±2.36Ba	96.67±2.36Aa
0.2	8.33±8.50Aa	11.67±2.36Aa	15.00±12.25Aab	81.67±12.47Aab	86.67±2.36Aa	86.67±8.50Aa
0.4	8.33±6.24Aa	6.67±2.36Aab	5.00±4.08Ab	76.67±8.50Aab	78.33±14.34Aa	33.33±6.24Bb
0.6	0Aa	5.00±4.08Aab	6.67±4.71Ab	83.33±9.43Aab	78.33±6.24Aa	41.67±6.24Bb
0.8	0Aa	1.67±2.36Ab	0Ab	58.33±6.24Abc	50.00±7.07Ab	1.67±2.36Bc
1.0	0Aa	0Ab	0Ab	41.67±18.41Ac	11.67±2.36Bc	3.33±2.36Bc

EMS浓度 EMS concentration （%）	7 d出芽率7 days germination rate			14 d出芽率14 days germination rate
EMS浓度 EMS concentration （%）	2 h	4 h	6 h	2 h	4 h	6 h
0	8.33±2.36Aa	10.00±4.08Aa	30.00±18.71Aa	95.00±4.08ABa	88.33±2.36Ba	96.67±2.36Aa
0.2	8.33±8.50Aa	11.67±2.36Aa	15.00±12.25Aab	81.67±12.47Aab	86.67±2.36Aa	86.67±8.50Aa
0.4	8.33±6.24Aa	6.67±2.36Aab	5.00±4.08Ab	76.67±8.50Aab	78.33±14.34Aa	33.33±6.24Bb
0.6	0Aa	5.00±4.08Aab	6.67±4.71Ab	83.33±9.43Aab	78.33±6.24Aa	41.67±6.24Bb
0.8	0Aa	1.67±2.36Ab	0Ab	58.33±6.24Abc	50.00±7.07Ab	1.67±2.36Bc
1.0	0Aa	0Ab	0Ab	41.67±18.41Ac	11.67±2.36Bc	3.33±2.36Bc

编号 Number	分蘖数 Tiller number （个·株^-1 No.·plant^-1）	最长分蘖长度 Longest tiller length （cm）	叶长 Leaf length （cm）	叶宽 Leaf width （mm）	生物量 Biomass （kg·plant^-1）	D值 D value	排名 Rank
5-5-4	106	312.73	13.12	6.1	2.45	0.95	1
3-8-10	91	243.53	8.79	3.4	2.30	0.64	2
7-10-10	86	194.57	13.10	5.1	3.07	0.49	3
4-7-1	50	237.63	8.20	3.9	1.20	0.44	4
4-1-8	62	210.44	14.15	5.3	0.43	0.43	5
3-3-1	45	222.36	12.23	4.3	2.99	0.40	6
5-4-3	61	206.72	9.00	4.0	1.35	0.40	7
CK	40	228.97	12.51	5.1	1.07	0.39	8
5-4-2	36	229.88	13.35	4.6	2.51	0.39	9
5-1-1	85	173.45	6.12	4.2	1.71	0.38	10
9-8-3	37	230.46	7.27	5.0	1.00	0.36	11
5-3-1	61	182.45	12.81	5.5	1.67	0.34	12
7-8-10	47	203.21	8.14	4.2	2.76	0.33	13
9-7-6	25	226.04	8.93	5.1	0.43	0.30	14
3-6-6	32	192.33	9.56	3.6	0.43	0.22	15
6-9-10	52	157.34	11.21	4.8	0.42	0.21	16
6-7-8	30	180.64	9.50	3.9	0.41	0.18	17
5-10-1	28	178.71	7.75	4.0	0.34	0.16	18
6-8-9	31	136.43	10.88	5.0	0.53	0.05	19
最大值Maximum value	106	312.73	14.15	6.1	3.07	-	-
最小值Minimum value	25	136.43	6.12	3.4	0.34	-	-
变异系数Coefficient of variation	0.44	0.18	0.23	0.15	0.67	-	-

编号 Number	分蘖数 Tiller number （个·株^-1 No.·plant^-1）	最长分蘖长度 Longest tiller length （cm）	叶长 Leaf length （cm）	叶宽 Leaf width （mm）	生物量 Biomass （kg·plant^-1）	D值 D value	排名 Rank
5-5-4	106	312.73	13.12	6.1	2.45	0.95	1
3-8-10	91	243.53	8.79	3.4	2.30	0.64	2
7-10-10	86	194.57	13.10	5.1	3.07	0.49	3
4-7-1	50	237.63	8.20	3.9	1.20	0.44	4
4-1-8	62	210.44	14.15	5.3	0.43	0.43	5
3-3-1	45	222.36	12.23	4.3	2.99	0.40	6
5-4-3	61	206.72	9.00	4.0	1.35	0.40	7
CK	40	228.97	12.51	5.1	1.07	0.39	8
5-4-2	36	229.88	13.35	4.6	2.51	0.39	9
5-1-1	85	173.45	6.12	4.2	1.71	0.38	10
9-8-3	37	230.46	7.27	5.0	1.00	0.36	11
5-3-1	61	182.45	12.81	5.5	1.67	0.34	12
7-8-10	47	203.21	8.14	4.2	2.76	0.33	13
9-7-6	25	226.04	8.93	5.1	0.43	0.30	14
3-6-6	32	192.33	9.56	3.6	0.43	0.22	15
6-9-10	52	157.34	11.21	4.8	0.42	0.21	16
6-7-8	30	180.64	9.50	3.9	0.41	0.18	17
5-10-1	28	178.71	7.75	4.0	0.34	0.16	18
6-8-9	31	136.43	10.88	5.0	0.53	0.05	19
最大值Maximum value	106	312.73	14.15	6.1	3.07	-	-
最小值Minimum value	25	136.43	6.12	3.4	0.34	-	-
变异系数Coefficient of variation	0.44	0.18	0.23	0.15	0.67	-	-

处理 Treatment	编号 Number	根部 Root part			地上部 Overground part
处理 Treatment	编号 Number	干物质 Dry matter （g）	磷吸收量 Phosphorus uptake （mg）	磷利用效率 Phosphorus utilization efficiency （g·mg^-1）	干物质 Dry matter （g）	磷吸收量 Phosphorus uptake （mg）	磷利用效率 Phosphorus utilization efficiency （g·mg^-1）
NP	5-5-4	0.525	4.478	0.117	5.665	30.025	0.189
NP	WT	0.484	4.482	0.108	6.275	31.187	0.201
LP	5-5-4	0.786	0.927	0.847	5.017	5.418	0.926
LP	WT	0.541	0.687	0.787	3.675	13.009	0.282