Next Article in Journal
Epigenetic Regulation of Root-Associated Microbiota: Mechanisms and Horticultural Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Diversity of Root System Architecture in Mediterranean Maize Inbred Lines Provides New Breeding Opportunities to Improve Stress Resilience and Resource Efficiency
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/plants15060936
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chrysanthemum CmDOF2 Positively Regulates Salt Tolerance in Transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana

by
Peiling Li
1,
Tingting Xiong
1,
Jianhua Yue
1,
Xinran Chong
2,
Hanbing Xu
1,
Zhiyong Wang
1 and
Xiang Huang
1,*
1
College of Horticulture, Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University, Xinyang 464000, China
2
Jiangsu Key Laboratory for the Research and Utilization of Plant Resources, Institute of Botany, Jiangsu Province and Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing Botanical Garden Mem. Sun Yat-Sen, Nanjing 210014, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2026, 15(6), 936; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15060936
Submission received: 25 February 2026 / Revised: 12 March 2026 / Accepted: 17 March 2026 / Published: 18 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Molecular Biology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium) is a globally significant ornamental plant, whose growth, development, and ornamental quality are frequently impaired by salt stress. DOF (DNA-binding with one finger) family transcription factors extensively act as crucial regulators in medicating reactions to environmental pressures on plants. But their specific functions in regulating salt stress tolerance in chrysanthemum still remain largely elusive and require further investigation. Here, we isolated CmDOF2, a DOF family transcription factor from chrysanthemum, whose expression was up-regulated in chrysanthemums under salt stress. Functional analysis demonstrated that CmDOF2 functions as a nuclear-localized transcriptional activator. Comprehensive phenotypic and physiological characterization showed that heterologous expression of CmDOF2 in Arabidopsis thaliana conferred markedly increased salt stress tolerance, as reflected by higher chlorophyll, leaf relative water, and proline content; lower leaf relative electric conductivity and malondialdehyde content; and increased activities of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, and catalase. Furthermore, qRT-PCR analyses confirmed that stable expression of CmDOF2 in Arabidopsis led to increased transcript levels of key salt-responsive genes, including stress marker genes (AtRD29A, AtRD29B), components of the SOS signaling pathway (AtSOS1, AtSOS2, AtSOS3), genes involved in osmotic adjustment (AtP5CS1, AtP5CS2), and genes encoding antioxidant enzymes (AtSOD1, AtPOD34, AtCAT3). Collectively, our data demonstrate that CmDOF2 serves as a nuclear-localized transcriptional regulator with activation activity and positively regulates salt stress tolerance by mediating the transcript levels of stress-related genes in multiple signaling pathways.

1. Introduction

As a significant global environmental issue, soil salinization is closely linked to land degradation and ecological deterioration [1,2]. As a critical abiotic constraint, salinity dramatically inhibits plant growth, development, and productivity, even resulting in plant death under extreme conditions [3,4]. Elevated salinity triggers a series of adverse impacts on plants, including ionic toxicity, osmotic stress, and oxidative stress [5,6]. Plants initiate a variety of salt stress-related signal transduction pathways to cope with adverse environmental circumstances [7]. These pathways act either independently or synergistically, enabling plants to acclimate to and tolerate high-salt conditions [8]. Therefore, dissecting the molecular machinery underlying plant salt stress adaptation is critical for identifying promising putative genes applicable for improving salt tolerance.
Among these mechanisms, the conserved salt overly sensitive (SOS) signaling pathway, which is rapidly activated upon salt treatment, serves as a pivotal example. This pathway functions to maintain cellular ion homeostasis and consists of the SOS3, SOS2, and SOS1 proteins [9,10]. In addition, multiple transcription factor families are strongly induced by salt stress, including DREB (dehydration-responsive element binding protein), AREB (ABA responsive element binding protein), bZIP (basic leucine zipper protein), MYC (myelocytomatosis transcription factor), MYB (myeloblastosis transcription factor), WRKY, and DOF (DNA-binding with one finger) members [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. These transcription factors mediate plant adaptation and acclimation to salinity, primarily by modulating transcriptional processes of downstream target genes [18]. Despite these advances, knowledge of the core regulatory mechanisms that underlie plant responses to salt stress still remains limited.
As a specialized group of plant-exclusive transcription factors, the DOF gene family features an extremely conserved DOF domain harboring a C2C2-type zinc finger motif, which confers the specific binding activity toward the 5′-AAAG-3′ cis-regulatory element [19]. Previous studies have shown that DOF proteins are critical for multiple physiological processes during plant growth and development, including carbohydrate metabolism [20], fruit ripening [21], flowering regulation [22], germination [23], and plant height [24]. Beyond their roles during plant development, members of the DOF family also serve pivotal functions in mediating phytohormone signaling pathways and adaptive responses to various environmental stresses [18,25,26,27]. For instance, in salt stress response, AtDOF5.8 from Arabidopsis thaliana regulates the transcript level of ANAC069 and functions in salt stress-triggered signaling pathways [28], while ThDOF1.4 from Tamarix hispida enhances plant tolerance to salinity and osmotic challenges through promoting the accumulation of proline and strengthening ROS (reactive oxygen species) detoxification [29]. Studies have shown that the transcriptional expression levels of CgDof03, 22, 27, 08, and 23 were markedly up-regulated by heat stress, suggesting their significant potential in resisting high temperatures [30]. Meanwhile, six PpDofs in Prunus persica (PpDof1, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 25) were remarkably induced under low-temperature stress [31], implying their vital functions in conferring tolerance to diverse abiotic stresses. Furthermore, transient expression analysis of CiDof22 from Carya illinoinensis in Nicotiana benthamiana showed that NbCAT3, NbDreb2a, NbPDH1, and NbSOS1 (drought-associated genes) were markedly increased under 10% PEG6000 treatment, suggesting its significant responsiveness to drought stress [32]. Overexpression of GmDof63 in soybean seedlings exhibited increased resistance against Phytophthora sojae by inducing the transcriptional expression of PR1a, PR4, PR5a, and PR10 (pathogenesis-related protein genes), suggesting that GmDof63 mediates the response of soybean against P. sojae infection by directly or indirectly regulating PR gene expression [33]. In summary, these results demonstrate that DOF proteins serve as critical regulators, not only in orchestrating the growth and development of the plant, but also in governing adaptive reactions to diverse abiotic stress conditions.
As a globally important horticultural species, chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium) possesses significant ornamental, cultural and economic importance [34]. Salinity stress acts as a critical constraint influencing the yield and quality of chrysanthemum, often causing severe leaf chlorosis, growth retardation, and even plant mortality under severe conditions. Consequently, breeding chrysanthemum with enhanced salt tolerance is critical for stable yield and sustainable production. Previous transcriptome profiling investigations have suggested that CmDOF2 might be involved in mediating chrysanthemum salt tolerance [35].
In the present study, we screened and characterized CmDOF2, a DOF gene in chrysanthemum, whose transcription was markedly induced by salt stress. Transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana with heterologous expression of CmDOF2 showed significantly enhanced salt tolerance. Collectively, our findings identify CmDOF2 as a valuable candidate for engineering enhanced salt resistance in chrysanthemum.

2. Results

2.1. Isolation and Sequence Characterization of CmDOF2

Full-length cDNA of CmDOF2 (KT235676) was obtained from the chrysanthemum cultivar ‘Jinba’ based on the gene ID Unigene36536_All obtained from C. morifolium transcriptome data [36]. The full-length gene sequence measured 1139 bp, with an 858 bp open reading frame (ORF) which corresponds to 286 amino acid residues. Amino acid sequence analysis indicated that CmDOF2 possessed a strongly conserved DOF domain harboring C-X2-C-X21-C-X2-C (Figure 1A). As shown in Figure 1B, the phylogenetic tree showed that CmDOF2 protein shared the highest sequence identity with TcDOF1-like protein from Tanacetum cinerariifolium.

2.2. Subcellular Localization Analysis of CmDOF2

The 35S::GFP and the 35S::GFP-CmDOF2 recombinant plasmid were separately co-transformed with nuclear marker 35S::D53-RFP into Nicotiana benthamiana leaf epidermal cells, to determine subcellular localization of CmDOF2. GFP fluorescence was observed exclusively in the nucleus of tobacco cells transfected with 35S::GFP-CmDOF2. By contrast, in cells transfected with the control vector 35S::GFP, the fluorescence signals of GFP were found to localize in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm (Figure 2A). Taken together, our findings showed that CmDOF2 functions as a nuclear-targeted regulator.

2.3. Transcriptional Activity of CmDOF2

A yeast one-hybrid system was performed to assess the transcriptional activity of CmDOF2. Only Y2H Gold yeast carrying pGBKT7-CmDOF2 or pCL1 (positive control) could grow on SD/-Ade/-His double-deficient medium, whereas yeast harboring pGBKT7 (negative control) failed to grow (Figure 2B). These results verified that CmDOF2 acts as an activator of transcription in yeast cells.

2.4. Expression Patterns of CmDOF2 Under Salt Treatment and in Various Tissues

CmDOF2 expression patterns in various organs of ‘Jinba’ chrysanthemum and under conditions of salt stress were quantified via qRT-PCR (quantitative real-time PCR). The expression of CmDOF2 increased quickly, then peaked at 1 h with a 5.54-fold up-regulation after salt treatment. Subsequently, the relative expression of CmDOF2 exhibited a gradual downward trend. Nevertheless, it still remained significantly higher than control, with a 3.41-fold increase at 24 h (Figure 3A). These data indicate that CmDOF2 may participate in regulating plant adaptation to salinity stress. Meanwhile, the expression pattern of CmDOF2 was observed in all tissues under investigation. As shown in Figure 3B, CmDOF2 transcripts were highly abundant in tubular florets and leaves, but the lowest expression was found in roots.

2.5. Heterologous Expression of CmDOF2 Enhances Salt Stress Tolerance in Transgenic Arabidopsis

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation was employed to produce Arabidopsis transgenic lines expressing CmDOF2. Three T3 transgenic lines, L2, L5, and L6, were selected for further analysis. As shown in Figure 4A, CmDOF2 transcripts were identified in transgenic plants, while absent in WT (wild-type) Arabidopsis.
Three T3 transgenic lines were assessed for their salt stress tolerance, in comparison with WT plants, focusing on seed germination, root growth, and seedling stress resistance. All seedlings germinated on 1/2 MS (half-strength Murashige and Skoog) medium exhibited no distinct phenotypic differences (Figure 4B,D). Conversely, when cultivated on 1/2 MS medium with 100 mM NaCl, three transgenic lines exhibited a markedly higher germination rate (83.33%, 91.33%, and 86.67%) than WT (20.67%).
Root length measurements demonstrated that exposure to NaCl treatment led to the inhibition of root growth in Arabidopsis (Figure 4D). There was no remarkable discrepancy in root length between transgenic lines and WT under 1/2 MS medium and 50 mM NaCl conditions. However, under 100 mM, 150 mM, and 200 mM NaCl conditions, transgenic lines exhibited less inhibition of root growth than WT plants. Notably, when subjected to 100 mM NaCl, WT plants showed an average root length of 0.92 cm, whereas the average values of the three transgenic lines were 1.73 cm, 1.83 cm, and 1.73 cm, respectively (Figure 4C,E).
Furthermore, three-week-old WT and transgenic seedlings were planted in soil and subjected to irrigation with NaCl solution at 100, 200, 300 and 400 mM for 14 days, respectively. Under 100 mM NaCl treatment, the phenotypic differences between WT and transgenic seedlings were marginal, accompanied by only slight leaf margin yellowing. By contrast, exposure to 200, 300, and 400 mM NaCl led to a striking phenotypic divergence between the two genotypes. WT plants exhibited severe chlorosis and wilting, reflecting greater salt sensitivity, whereas transgenic lines maintained markedly better growth (Figure 4F). Importantly, the genotypic difference in salt tolerance was further amplified with increasing NaCl concentration.
To determine whether CmDOF2 enhances salt tolerance in Arabidopsis, WT and CmDOF2 transgenic seedlings were exposed to 200 mM NaCl for 7 days. No obvious variations were observed in the physiological indicators between transgenic lines and the WT under non-stress conditions, including chlorophyll content, leaf relative water content (RWC), leaf relative electric conductivity (REC), the content of malondialdehyde (MDA) and proline, enzyme activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), and catalase (CAT). However, after salt stress treatment, CmDOF2 transgenic seedlings exhibited lower REC and MDA content but higher chlorophyll content, RWC, proline content, and enzymatic activities (SOD, POD, and CAT), compared with the WT, especially transgenic line L5 (Figure 5). These results demonstrate that heterologous expression of CmDOF2 confers significantly improved salinity tolerance in Arabidopsis.

2.6. Expression Analysis of Stress-Responsive Genes in CmDOF2-Expressing Arabidopsis

To further explore the potential role of CmDOF2 under salt stress, the relative transcript abundances of multiple salt-responsive genes were assessed in both CmDOF2 transgenic lines and the WT. Transcript levels of stress-marker genes (AtRD29A and AtRD29B), SOS pathway genes (AtSOS1, AtSOS2, and AtSOS3), osmotic adjustment-related genes (AtP5CS1 and AtP5CS2), and antioxidant enzymes-encoding genes (AtSOD1, AtPOD34, and AtCAT3) were determined in CmDOF2 transgenic lines and the WT upon salt stress (Figure 6). Under non-stress conditions (0 h, without salinity treatment), the transcript abundance of AtPOD34 was remarkably higher in CmDOF2 transgenic lines than the WT, whereas the remaining nine genes exhibited analogous transcript expression profiles between the two groups. When subjected to salinity stress, all ten tested genes exhibited higher expression levels in CmDOF2-expressing lines than the WT. The data demonstrate that CmDOF2 improves salt resistance in Arabidopsis though regulating a range of signaling pathways.

3. Discussion

Plants have evolved diverse signaling pathways to perceive and respond to environmental stresses, among which transcription factors act as crucial regulators [37]. Ever since ZmDof1 was isolated and characterized in 1993 as the first DOF protein in maize [38], this family has been successively characterized in an increasing number of plant species [32,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. As key regulatory proteins, DOF transcription factors participate extensively during various biological events, including plant growth, development, and adaptation to stresses [18,47].
To date, 20 DOF proteins have been reported from chrysanthemum [35], yet systematic investigations into their precise biological functions remain largely limited. As a DOF family protein in plants, CmDOF6 regulates chrysanthemum plant height by suppressing CmGA20ox1 expression via the mediation of CmTCP8 [24]. In this study, CmDOF2 was found to harbor a complete C2C2-type single zinc finger domain, and to function as a nuclear-localized transcriptional activator (Figure 1A and Figure 2), matching the typical structural and functional traits of the DOF family [19]. Notably, CmDOF2 transcripts were found to accumulate in chrysanthemum tissues, and its transcript level was markedly induced under salt stress (Figure 3), similar to the four DOF genes from Camellia oleifera (ColDof1, ColDof2, ColDof14, and ColDof36) [48]. Collectively, our results indicate that CmDOF2 probably participates in mediating chrysanthemum’s response to salinity stress.
To better understand how CmDOF2 regulates salt stress response at the molecular level, Arabidopsis thaliana transgenic lines ectopically expressing CmDOF2 were successfully obtained. Under salinity stress conditions, transgenic lines expressing CmDOF2 exhibited notably higher seed germination rate and longer root length than the WT (Figure 4B–E). Our results agree with previous findings reported for GhDof1.7 [49]. Moreover, when exposed to salt stress with different NaCl concentrations, CmDOF2 transgenic lines exhibited better phenotypic performance than WT plants. (Figure 4F).
When exposed to adverse conditions, variations in plant physiological indices mirror plant metabolic status and adequately demonstrate the strength of plant stress tolerance [4,7]. Leaf chlorophyll content serves as a crucial physiological parameter positively associated with plant photosynthetic capacity [50], while RWC is frequently used as an indicator reflecting both plant water status and tissue water metabolism [51]. Previous studies have reported that leaf chlorophyll content and RWC often decrease under salt stress, and plants displaying a milder decrease in these parameters are widely recognized to possess greater salt tolerance [52,53]. In this study, compared with the WT under salt stress treatment, CmDOF2-expressing transgenic plants displayed greater chlorophyll content and RWC (Figure 5A,B), suggesting that heterologous expression of CmDOF2 confers increased plant tolerance to salt stress. ROS can induce cellular membrane lipid degradation and exacerbate lipid peroxidation under salt stress. Cell membrane disruption causes a rise in REC [54,55]. Meanwhile, MDA content is extensively used as a stable indicator to assess the extent of oxidative damage to membrane lipids [56,57]. In our study, under salt stress with 200 mM salt solution, CmDOF2-expressing transgenic lines displayed relatively higher REC and MDA content, whereas WT plants exhibited lower levels of these two indicators (Figure 5C,D).
Under stress conditions, plants can accumulate osmotic regulators such as proline, which effectively regulate cellular osmotic potential and enhance cell water retention capacity, and thereby maintain normal cellular physiological and biochemical metabolism [58,59]. In the present study, when subjected to salt stress, CmDOF2-expressing transgenic lines accumulated greater proline accumulation compared with the WT (Figure 5E), suggesting that CmDOF2 might enhance the osmotic adjustment capacity of transgenic plants by positively regulating proline anabolism under salt stress. Salt stress in plants also can trigger excessive ROS accumulation [1,3]. To mitigate oxidative damage, plants form an enzymatic antioxidant defense system by synthesizing vital antioxidant enzymes such as SOD, POD, and CAT [60,61]. The antioxidant enzymes scavenge excess ROS and reduce membrane lipid peroxidation, thus improving salt resistance in plants [62,63]. In our current work, markedly elevated SOD, POD, and CAT activities in CmDOF2-expressing transgenic plants were exhibited in comparison with the WT when exposed to salt treatment (Figure 5F–H). These findings indicated that CmDOF2 could effectively scavenge the accumulation of intracellular ROS by strengthening antioxidant enzyme activities, thereby relieving oxidative injury triggered by salt stress.
Furthermore, the expression of multiple genes, including stress-responsive genes, genes associated with proline metabolism, and antioxidant enzyme biosynthesis, were determined by qRT-PCR. Previous studies have demonstrated that AtRD29A and AtRD29B participate in stress-induced detoxification and alleviate stress-induced damage in plants [64,65]. Typical SOS pathway-related genes in plants, AtSOS1, AtSOS2, and AtSOS3, are essential for sustaining ion homeostasis and salt resistance [10,66]. AtP5CS1 and AtP5CS2 participate in proline biosynthesis and accumulation under saline conditions [67,68]. Synergistic regulation of the antioxidant enzyme system constitutes a central strategy for plants to counteract oxidative damage, in which AtSOD1 encodes the cytosolic copper/zinc superoxide dismutase CSD1 for scavenging superoxide radicals, AtPOD34 may participate in the production of H2O2, and AtCAT3 encodes a catalase that facilitates the conversion of H2O2 into molecular oxygen and water [69,70,71]. In our study, under salt stress, stress-related genes exhibited stronger induction in CmDOF2-expressing lines than the WT (Figure 6), suggesting that CmDOF2 improves salt resistance via activating the transcript levels of stress- associated genes.
In summary, CmDOF2, a member belonging to the DOF gene family, is markedly induced by salt stress in chrysanthemum. CmDOF2, a nucleus-localized transcriptional activator, positively regulates salt tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. These findings indicate that CmDOF2 positively modulates expression of stress-associated genes to improve salt resistance, probably by modulating osmoprotectant accumulation and the function of the antioxidant enzyme system. However, the mechanistic details of CmDOF2-mediated signaling pathways underlying stress responses in chrysanthemum plants has not yet been fully clarified. In further studies, the generation of transgenic chrysanthemum plants overexpressing CmDOF2 will contribute to uncovering the detailed regulatory molecular mechanisms by which CmDOF2 regulates salt stress tolerance in plant.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Chrysanthemum Growth Conditions and Salt Treatment

The experimental materials used for the present study were chrysanthemum cv. ‘Jinba’. The chrysanthemum seedlings were planted in pots containing a (1:1, v/v) peat-vermiculite mixture and incubated in the plant growth chamber. Control growth conditions were set as follows: a 16/8 h light/dark regime, 22 ± 1 °C, 70% relative humidity, and a light intensity of 100 μmol·m−2·s−1.
Tissue samples of chrysanthemum, including roots, stems, leaves, tubular florets, and ray florets were separately harvested from plants for total RNA extraction. For salt stress, plants were treated with 200 mM NaCl at stages 7–9 [72], then the second fully expanded leaves were harvested at 0 h, 1 h, 4 h, 12 h, and 24 h after treatment. Then leaves were frozen instantly in liquid nitrogen and preserved at −80 °C for further experiments.

4.2. Isolation and Sequence Analyses of CmDOF2

Total RNA was isolated from chrysanthemum ‘Jinba’ leaf samples with the RNAiso reagent (TaKaRa, Dalian, China). cDNA was then prepared using M-MLV reverse transcriptase (TaKaRa, Dalian, China). The full-length cDNA sequence of CmDOF2 was amplified by PCR using primers CmDOF2-F/R (Table S1). After that, the PCR products were transferred into pMD19-T for subsequent sequencing. Homologous polypeptide sequences of CmDOF2 from various plant species were obtained via an online BLAST search (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi, accessed on 3 March 2023). DNAMAN 6.0 software (Lynnon Biosoft, San Ramon, CA, USA) was utilized to perform amino acid sequence comparison of CmDOF2 and its homologs. Phylogenetic analysis was performed using MEGA 11 software [73] with the neighbor-joining (NJ) algorithm, p-distance model, and 1000 bootstrap replicates.

4.3. Plasmid Construction and Arabidopsis thaliana Transformation

The coding sequence (CDS) of CmDOF2 was initially amplified by PCR using the specific primer pair CmDOF2-ENTR-F/R (Table S1) at Sal I and Not I restriction sites, and subsequently ligated into the pENTR™ 1A Gateway vector (Invitrogen™, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). This recombinant entry vector was subsequently introduced into the overexpression vector pMDC43 (35S::GFP) via recombination to generate the plasmid pMDC43-CmDOF2 (35S::GFP-CmDOF2).
The recombinant construct pMDC43-CmDOF2 was introduced into the Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3010, then transferred into wild-type Arabidopsis thaliana (WT) through the floral dipping technique [74]. Independent transgenic lines were selected on hygromycin-supplemented MS medium at 20 µg·mL−1. The CmDOF2-RT-F/R primer pair (Table S1) was used to identify T3 generation plants via RT-PCR, and the AtACT2 gene (AT3G18780.2) was used as the internal reference.

4.4. Subcellular Localization of CmDOF2

Additionally, 5-week-old Nicotiana benthamiana seedlings were used for co-infiltration with Agrobacterium tumefaciens harboring either the 35S::GFP-CmDOF2 or the 35S::GFP (negative control), together with the p19 strain, according to a previously published protocol [75]. The 35S::D53-RFP vector was employed as a marker for nuclear localization in this experiment [76]. After incubation in dark conditions at 22 °C for 48 h, GFP fluorescence signals were examined using the TCS SP8 laser confocal scanning microscope (Leica, Wetzlar, Germany).

4.5. Transcriptional Activation Analysis of CmDOF2

PCR was used to obtain the CDS of CmDOF2 (without termination codon) using the specific primer pair CmDOF2-BD-F/R (Table S1), then ligated into the pGBKT7 vector at EcoR I and BamH I sites. The yeast strain Y2H was transformed with pGBKT7-CmDOF2 constructed plasmid, pCL1 (positive control), and pGBKT7 (negative control), following the manufacturer’s protocol. The yeast cells harboring pCL1 plasmid were propagated on SD/-Leu medium, while yeast transformed with pGBKT7-CmDOF2 and pGBKT7 was separately cultured on SD/-Trp medium. The obtained colonies were then inoculated onto SD/-His-Ade selective media, with one group supplemented with 40 mg·L−1 X-α-gal. The transcriptional activation activity was assessed after all samples were incubated at 30 °C for 72 h.

4.6. Salt Stress Treatment on Transgenic Arabidopsis Plants

To assess seed germination, 50 seeds from CmDOF2 transgenic Arabidopsis and WT were sown and germinated on 1/2 MS agar medium supplemented with or without 100 mM NaCl. The cotyledon greening rate was calculated and statistically analyzed after 7 days of cultivation. To determine primary root elongation, seeds were initially placed on 1/2 MS medium for germination over 3 days, then transferred to fresh 1/2 MS medium with gradient NaCl concentrations (0, 50, 100, 150, 200 mM) for another 7 days, after which primary root length was measured. In addition, three-week-old transgenic plants expressing CmDOF2 and WT plants were subjected with NaCl solution at various concentrations (100, 200, 300, and 400 mM), respectively. After 14 days of salt stress, plant phenotypes characteristics were photographed to facilitate subsequent analysis. Furthermore, three-week-old WT and CmDOF2 transgenic seedlings were treated with 200 mM NaCl solution. After 7 days of treatment, leaves were harvested to determine physiological indexes. Meanwhile, leaves were collected at 0, 12, and 24 h under salinity treatment to analyze the expression of stress-related genes.

4.7. Determination of Physiological Indexes of Arabidopsis

The chlorophyll contents of leaves were determined using 80% acetone extraction [77]. RWC was determined following the previously described method [78]. REC was measured using the P902 electric conductivity meter (Youke, Shanghai, China) to estimate leaf cell membrane stability, as described by Su et al. [79]. The contents of MDA and proline, along with enzymatic activities of SOD, POD, and CAT, were measured using corresponding commercial assay kits. All the kits used were procured from the Nanjing Jiancheng Institute of Biological Engineering (Nanjing, China), with detailed information as follows: MDA assay kit (Cat. No. A003-1); proline assay kit (Cat. No. A107-1-1); SOD assay kit (Cat. No. A001-3) assayed by the WST-1 method; POD assay kit (Cat. No. A084-3-1); CAT assay kit (Cat. No. A007-1-1) analyzed via the ammonium molybdate method.

4.8. qRT-PCR Analyses

qRT-PCR assays were executed on a 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), using SYBR® Premix Ex TaqTM II (Tli RNaseH Plus) purchased from TaKaRa (Dalian, China). Each sample was subjected to triplicate biological and technical repetitions during analysis. Relative expression was calculated by the 2−ΔΔCT approach [80]. For chrysanthemum and Arabidopsis samples, the CmEF1α gene (KF305681) and AtACT2 (AT3G18780.2) were employed as reference genes, respectively. To investigate the expression of salt stress-responsive genes in CmDOF2 transgenic and WT plants, the following genes were selected: AtRD29A (AT5G52310.1), AtRD29B (AT5G52300.1), AtSOS1 (AT2G01980.1), AtSOS2 (AT5G35410.1), AtSOS3 (AT5G24270.1), AtP5CS1 (AT2G39800.1), AtP5CS2 (AT3G55610.1), AtSOD1 (AT1G08830.1), AtPOD34 (AT3G49120.1), and AtCAT3 (AT1G20620.1). The sequences of all related primers are provided in Table S1.

4.9. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Duncan’s test was used to evaluate trait variations, with statistical significance defined as p < 0.05.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants15060936/s1, Table S1: Primer names and sequences used in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.L. and T.X.; methodology, J.Y. and X.H.; validation and formal analysis, X.C. and H.X.; data curation, Z.W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.L. and J.Y.; writing—review and editing, X.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32002083, 32202535), the Natural Science Foundation of Henan (262300421525), the Science and Technology Research Program of Henan Province (252102320082), and the Program for Innovative Research Team of Horticultural Plant Resources and Utilization in Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University (XNKJTD-012).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhu, J. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 2002, 53, 247–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhao, S.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, M.; Zhou, H.; Ma, C.; Wang, P. Regulation of plant responses to salt stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 4609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Parida, A.K.; Das, A.B. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005, 60, 324–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Han, X.; Yang, R.; Zhang, L.; Wei, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Shi, Y. A review of potato salt tolerance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 10726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Parvaiz, A.; Satyawati, S. Salt stress and phyto-biochemical responses of plants—A review. Plant Soil Environ. 2018, 54, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Miura, G. Surviving salt stress. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2023, 19, 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, J.; Shi, H. Physiological and molecular mechanisms of plant salt tolerance. Photosynth. Res. 2013, 115, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhou, H.; Shi, H.; Yang, Y.; Feng, X.; Chen, X.; Xiao, F.; Lin, H.; Guo, Y. Insights into plant salt stress signaling and tolerance. J. Genet. Genom. 2024, 51, 16–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ji, H.; Pardo, J.M.; Batelli, G.; Oosten, M.J.V.; Bressan, R.A.; Li, X. The salt overly sensitive (SOS) pathway: Established and emerging roles. Mol. Plant 2015, 6, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alzaabi, M.; Orpilla, J.; Hazzouri, K.M.; Li, L.; Amiri, K. SOS3 from Avicennia marina enhances salt stress tolerance of Arabidopsis thaliana. Cells 2025, 14, 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shi, H.; Qian, Y.; Tan, D.X.; Reiter, R.J.; He, C. Melatonin induces the transcripts of CBF/DREB1s and their involvement in both abiotic and biotic stresses in Arabidopsis. J. Pineal Res. 2015, 59, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Fiallos-Salguero, M.S.; Li, J.; Li, Y.; Xu, J.; Fang, P.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Tao, A. Identification of AREB/ABF gene family involved in the response of aba under salt and drought stresses in jute (Corchorus olitorius L.). Plants 2023, 12, 1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bi, C.; Yu, Y.; Dong, C.; Yang, Y.; Zhai, Y.; Du, F.; Xia, C.; Ni, Z.; Kong, X.; Zhang, L. The bZIP transcription factor TabZIP15 improves salt stress tolerance in wheat. Plant Biotech. J. 2020, 19, 209–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bao, M.; Xu, Y.; Wei, G.; Bai, M.; Wang, J.; Feng, L. The MYC gene RrbHLH105 contributes to salt stress–induced geraniol in rose by regulating trehalose-6-phosphate signalling. Plant Cell Environ. 2024, 48, 1947–1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhao, Y.; Yang, Z.; Ding, Y.; Liu, L.; Han, X.; Zhan, J.; Wei, X.; Diao, Y.; Qin, W.; Wang, P.; et al. Over-expression of an R2R3 MYB gene, GhMYB73, increases tolerance to salt stress in transgenic Arabidopsis. Plant Sci. 2019, 286, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhu, H.; Jiang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Huang, J.; Zhou, M.; Tang, Y.; Sui, J.; Wang, J.; Qiao, L. A novel salt inducible WRKY transcription factor gene, AhWRKY75, confers salt tolerance in transgenic peanut. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 160, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jha, R.; Li, W.; Lin, H.; He, Y.; Gao, J.; Zhang, K.; Shao, M.; Zhou, M. Comparative study of the Dof gene family in buckwheat: FtDOF34’s function in sugar biosynthesis and response to salt and drought stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2026, 231, 111003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zou, X.; Sun, H. DOF transcription factors: Specific regulators of plant biological processes. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1044918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yanagisawa, S. The Dof family of plant transcription factors. Trends Plant Sci. 2002, 7, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tanaka, M.; Takahata, Y.; Nakayama, H.; Nakatani, M.; Tahara, M. Altered carbohydrate metabolism in the storage roots of sweetpotato plants overexpressing the SRF1 gene, which encodes a Dof zinc finger transcription factor. Planta 2009, 230, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Khaksar, G.; Sangchay, W.; Pinsorn, P.; Sangpong, L.; Sirikantaramas, S. Genome-wide analysis of the Dof gene family in durian reveals fruit ripening-associated and cultivar-dependent Dof transcription factors. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Liu, X.; Liu, Z.; Hao, Z.; Chen, G.; Qi, K.; Zhang, H.; Jiao, H.; Wu, X.; Zhang, S.; Wu, J. Characterization of Dof family in Pyrus bretschneideri and role of PbDof9.2 in flowering time regulation. Genomics 2020, 112, 712–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ruta, V.; Longo, C.; Lepri, A.; Angelis, V.D.; Occhigrossi, S.; Costantino, P.; Vittorioso, P. The DOF transcription factors in seed and seedling development. Plants 2020, 9, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tang, J.; Liu, P.; Yu, Q.; Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Peng, J.; Ye, J.; Zhou, L.; Chen, S.; Chen, F.; et al. The CmDOF6 transcription factor controls chrysanthemum plant height by repressing CmGA20ox1 via CmTCP8. Plant Physiol. 2025, 199, kiaf509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yu, H.; Ma, Y.; Lu, Y.; Yue, J.; Ming, R. Expression profiling of the Dof gene family under abiotic stresses in spinach. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 14429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zheng, K.; Lv, M.; Qian, J.; Lian, Y.; Liu, R.; Huo, S.; Rehman, O.U.; Lin, Q.; Zhou, Z.; Liu, X.; et al. Identification and characterization of the DOF gene family in Phoebe bournei and its role in abiotic stress—Drought, heat and light stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 11147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhao, M.; Zhou, H.; Yang, Q.; Qin, L.; Li, M.; Zhang, X.; Fan, Y.; Ruan, J. DOF gene family in P. Sativum (L.): Comprehensive genomic identification, phylogenetic examination, evolutionary growth, and expression analysis. BMC Genom. 2026, 27, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. He, L.; Su, C.; Wang, Y.; Wei, Z. AtDOF5.8 protein is the upstream regulator of ANAC069 and is responsive to abiotic stress. Biochimie 2015, 110, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zang, D.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, H.; Wang, Y. ThDof1.4 and ThZFP1 constitute a transcriptional regulatory cascade involved in salt or osmotic stress in Tamarix hispida. Plant Mol. Biol. 2017, 94, 495–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. He, X.; Zhang, M.-M.; Huang, Y.; Yu, J.; Zhao, X.; Zheng, Q.; Liu, Z.-J.; Lan, S. Genome-based identification of the Dof gene family in three Cymbidium species and their responses to heat stress in Cymbidium goeringii. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 7662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, Z.; Wang, X.; Yan, J.; Cai, Z.; Zhang, B.; Xu, J.; Ma, R.; Yu, M.; Shen, Z. Systematic analysis of Dof gene family in Prunus persica unveils candidate regulators for enhancing cold tolerance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 7509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. He, J.; Wang, L.; Zou, L.; Yao, Z.; Zhang, S.; Xiang, Y. Genome-wide identification of the Dof gene family in Carya illinoinensis and potential function analysis of CiDof22 in drought stress. Plant Stress 2025, 18, 100990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fan, S.; Chen, H.; Huo, Y.; Song, Y.; Wang, P.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, L. Genome-wide analysis of the Dof gene family in soybean and functional identification of GmDof63 in response to Phytophthora sojae infection. Plants 2025, 14, 3621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Song, A.; Su, J.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Peer, Y.V.d.; Chen, F.; Fang, W.; Guan, Z.; Zhang, F.; et al. Analyses of a chromosome-scale genome assembly reveal the origin and evolution of cultivated chrysanthemum. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Song, A.; Gao, T.; Li, P.; Chen, S.; Guan, Z.; Wu, D.; Xin, J.; Fan, Q.; Zhao, K.; Chen, F. Transcriptome-wide identification and expression profiling of the DOF transcription factor gene family in Chrysanthemum morifolium. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, F.; Wang, Z.; Dong, W.; Sun, C.; Wang, H.; Song, A.; He, L.; Fang, W.; Chen, F.; Teng, N. Transcriptomic and proteomic analysis reveals mechanisms of embryo abortion during chrysanthemum cross breeding. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Deinlein, U.; Stephan, A.B.; Horie, T.; Luo, W.; Xu, G.; Schroeder, J.I. Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yanagisawa, S.; Izui, K. Molecular cloning of two DNA binding proteins of maize that are structurally different but interact with the same sequence motif. J. Biol. Chem. 1993, 268, 16028–16036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lijavetzky, D.; Carbonero, P.; Vicente-Carbajosa, J. Genome-wide comparative phylogenetic analysis of the rice and Arabidopsis Dof gene families. BMC Evol. Biol. 2003, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kushwaha, H.; Gupta, S.; Singh, V.K.; Rastogi, S.; Yadav, D. Genome wide identification of Dof transcription factor gene family in sorghum and its comparative phylogenetic analysis with rice and Arabidopsis. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2011, 38, 5037–5053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cao, X.; Wan, W.; Mao, H.; Yin, D.; Deng, X.; Yan, H.; Ren, L. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of Dof transcription factors in lotus (Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn.). Plants 2022, 11, 2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Venkatesh, J.; Park, S.W. Genome-wide analysis and expression profiling of DNA-binding with one zinc finger (Dof) transcription factor family in potato. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 94, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wu, Z.; Cheng, J.; Cui, J.; Xu, X.; Liang, G.; Luo, X.; Chen, X.; Tang, X.; Hu, K.; Qin, C. Genome-wide identification and expression profile of Dof transcription factor gene family in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zhang, L.; Liu, B.; Zheng, G.; Zhang, A.; Li, R. Genome-wide characterization of the SiDof gene family in foxtail millet (Setaria italica). Biosystems 2017, 151, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Liu, J.; Meng, Q.; Xiang, H.; Shi, F.; Ma, L.; Li, Y.; Liu, C.; Liu, Y.; Su, B. Genome-wide analysis of Dof transcription factors and their response to cold stress in rice (Oryza sativa L.). BMC Genom. 2021, 22, 800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Song, H.; Ji, X.; Wang, M.; Li, J.; Wang, X.; Meng, L.; Wei, P.; Xu, H.; Niu, T.; Liu, A. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of the Dof gene family reveals their involvement in hormone response and abiotic stresses in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Gene 2024, 910, 148336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Qian, G.; Yang, J.; Wang, M.; Li, L. Identification of the Dof gene family in quinoa and its potential role in regulating flavonoid synthesis under different stress conditions. Biology 2025, 14, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fu, C.; Xiao, Y.; Jiang, N.; Yang, Y. Genome-wide identification and molecular evolution of Dof gene family in Camellia oleifera. BMC Genom. 2024, 25, 702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, Y.; Tian, M.; Feng, Z.; Zhang, J.; Lu, J.; Fu, X.; Ma, L.; Wei, H.; Wang, H. Ghdof1.7, a Dof transcription factor, plays positive regulatory role under salinity stress in upland cotton. Plants 2023, 12, 3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Farieri, E.; Toscano, S.; Ferrante, A.; Romano, D. Identification of ornamental shrubs tolerant to saline aerosol for coastal urban and peri-urban greening. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 18, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Patanè, C.; Scordia, D.; Testa, G.; Cosentino, S.L. Physiological screening for drought tolerance in Mediterranean long-storage tomato. Plant Sci. 2016, 249, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Torabian, S.; Farhangi-Abriz, S.; Rathjen, J. Biochar and lignite affect H+-ATPase and H+-PPase activities in root tonoplast and nutrient contents of mung bean under salt stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 129, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Lima, T.M.d.; Silva, S.F.d.; Ribeiro, R.V.; Sánchez-Vilas, J.; Pinheiro, F. Short-term salt spray reveals high salt tolerance in a neotropical orchid species. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2023, 35, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cui, F.; Sui, N.; Duan, G.; Liu, Y.; Han, Y.; Liu, S.; Wan, S.; Li, G. Identification of metabolites and transcripts involved in salt stress and recovery in peanut. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Guo, H.; Huang, Z.; Li, M.; Hou, Z. Growth, ionic homeostasis, and physiological responses of cotton under different salt and alkali stresses. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Huang, G.; Shan, C. Lanthanum improves the antioxidant capacity in chloroplast of tomato seedlings through ascorbate-glutathione cycle under salt stress. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 232, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Xu, Y.; Bu, W.; Xu, Y.; Fei, H.; Zhu, Y.; Ahmad, I.; Nimir, N.E.A.; Zhou, G.; Zhu, G. Effects of salt stress on physiological and agronomic traits of rice genotypes with contrasting salt tolerance. Plants 2024, 13, 1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wei, T.-L.; Wang, Z.-X.; He, Y.-F.; Xue, S.; Zhang, S.-Q.; Pei, M.-S.; Liu, H.-N.; Yu, Y.-H.; Guo, D.-L. Proline synthesis and catabolism-related genes synergistically regulate proline accumulation in response to abiotic stresses in grapevines. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 305, 111373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yan, L.; Lu, M.; Riaz, M.; Tong, K.; Yu, H.; Gao, G.; Niu, Y. Exogenous proline enhances salt acclimation in soybean seedlings: Modifying physicochemical properties and controlling proline metabolism through the ornithine-glutamate dual pathway. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2025, 294, 118012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Farhangi-Abriz, S.; Torabian, S. Antioxidant enzyme and osmotic adjustment changes in bean seedlings as affected by biochar under salt stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 137, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dong, Z.; Huang, J.; Qi, T.; Fu, Q.; Meng, A.; Fu, Y. Effects of plant regulators on the seed germination and antioxidant enzyme activity of cotton under compound salt stress. Plants 2023, 12, 4112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, S.; Xie, H.; Chen, Y.; Jia, W.; Dong, D.; Wang, M.; Li, Y.; Zhang, T.; Han, L.; Chao, Y. MtTGA1 transcription factor enhances salt tolerance through hormonal regulation and antioxidant enzyme activity in Medicago truncatula. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jiang, L.; Xiao, M.; Huang, R.; Wang, J. The regulation of ROS and phytohormones in balancing crop yield and salt tolerance. Antioxidants 2025, 14, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zhu, J. Genetic analysis of plant salt tolerance using Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2000, 124, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Zelm, E.v.; Zhang, Y.; Testerink, C. Salt tolerance mechanisms of plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2020, 71, 403–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Sanders, D. The salty tale of Arabidopsis. Cur. Biol. 2000, 10, 486–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Strizhov, N.; Abrahám, E.; Okrész, L.; Blickling, S.; Zilberstein, A.; Schell, J.; Koncz, C.; Szabados, L. Differential expression of two P5CS genes controlling proline accumulation during salt-stress requires ABA and is regulated by ABA1, ABI1 and AXR2 in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 1997, 12, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Funck, D.; Baumgarten, L.; Stift, M.; Wirén, N.v.; Schönemann, L. Differential contribution of P5CS isoforms to stress tolerance in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 565134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mittler, R.; Vanderauwera, S.; Gollery, M.; Breusegem, F.V. Reactive oxygen gene network of plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2004, 9, 490–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lin, K.-H.; Sei, S.-C.; Su, Y.-H.; Chiang, C.-M. Overexpression of the Arabidopsis and winter squash superoxide dismutase genes enhances chilling tolerance via ABA-sensitive transcriptional regulation in transgenic Arabidopsis. Plant Signal Behav. 2019, 14, 1685728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Li, P.; Song, A.; Gao, C.; Wang, L.; Wang, Y.; Sun, J.; Jiang, J.; Chen, F.; Chen, S. Chrysanthemum WRKY gene CmWRKY17 negatively regulates salt stress tolerance in transgenic chrysanthemum and Arabidopsis plants. Plant Cell Rep. 2015, 34, 1365–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Tamura, K.; Stecher, G.; Kumar, S. Mega11: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 3022–3027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Clough, S.J.; Bent, A.F. Floral dip: A simplified method for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 1998, 16, 735–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wang, F.; Zhang, Z. Interactions among mediator subunits of tobacco by bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC) method. J. Agric. Biotechnol. 2012, 20, 38–47. [Google Scholar]
  76. Zhou, F.; Lin, Q.; Zhu, L.; Ren, Y.; Zhou, K.; Shabek, N.; Wu, F.; Mao, H.; Dong, W.; Gan, L.; et al. D14–SCFD3-dependent degradation of D53 regulates strigolactone signalling. Nature 2013, 504, 406–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fankhauser, C.; Casal, J.J. Phenotypic characterization of a photomorphogenic mutant. Plant J. 2004, 39, 747–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Barrs, H.; Weatherley, P. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 1962, 15, 413–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Su, A.-Y.; Niu, S.-Q.; Liu, Y.-Z.; He, A.-L.; Zhao, Q.; Paré, P.W.; Li, M.-F.; Han, Q.-Q.; Khan, S.A.; Zhang, J.-L. Synergistic effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (GB03) and water retaining agent on drought tolerance of perennial ryegrass. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Livak, K.J.; Schmittgen, T.D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT method. Methods 2001, 25, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 15 00936 g001
Figure 1. Amino acid sequence characterization and phylogenetic analysis of CmDOF2. (A) Alignment of amino acid sequence of CmDOF2. (B) Phylogenetic analysis of CmDOF2. The protein sequences used in this experiment have the following accession numbers: TcDOF1-like: GEV02235.1; CcDOF1-like: XP_024976751.1; LsDOF1: XP_023761283.1; BhDOF1-like: XP_076902525.1; EcDOF1-like: XP_043639975.1; RlDOF1-like: XP_071702357.1; SmDOF1-like: XP_057792156.1; BnDOF1-like: XP_048629735.1; AtDOF1: NP_201049.3; EsDOF1: XP_006394394.1; AaDOF1: KFK27970.1; CrDOF1: XP_006280864.1; RsDOF1: XP_056844251.1; SdDOF3-like: KAL1541631.1; AcDOF2: KAK1307898.1; StDOF2: KAF7820521.1; AcDOF6: ATG31845.1; ShDOF3-like: XP_047972319.1; ApDOF1-like: XP_051115619.1.
Figure 1. Amino acid sequence characterization and phylogenetic analysis of CmDOF2. (A) Alignment of amino acid sequence of CmDOF2. (B) Phylogenetic analysis of CmDOF2. The protein sequences used in this experiment have the following accession numbers: TcDOF1-like: GEV02235.1; CcDOF1-like: XP_024976751.1; LsDOF1: XP_023761283.1; BhDOF1-like: XP_076902525.1; EcDOF1-like: XP_043639975.1; RlDOF1-like: XP_071702357.1; SmDOF1-like: XP_057792156.1; BnDOF1-like: XP_048629735.1; AtDOF1: NP_201049.3; EsDOF1: XP_006394394.1; AaDOF1: KFK27970.1; CrDOF1: XP_006280864.1; RsDOF1: XP_056844251.1; SdDOF3-like: KAL1541631.1; AcDOF2: KAK1307898.1; StDOF2: KAF7820521.1; AcDOF6: ATG31845.1; ShDOF3-like: XP_047972319.1; ApDOF1-like: XP_051115619.1.
Plants 15 00936 g001
Plants 15 00936 g002
Figure 2. Subcellular localization and transactivation activity in CmDOF2. (A) Characterization of CmDOF2 subcellular localization. GFP: fluorescence signal of green fluorescent protein; mRFP-NLS: fluorescence signal of nuclear localization signal-tagged red fluorescent protein. Bars: 25 μm. (B) Transcriptional activity of CmDOF2.
Figure 2. Subcellular localization and transactivation activity in CmDOF2. (A) Characterization of CmDOF2 subcellular localization. GFP: fluorescence signal of green fluorescent protein; mRFP-NLS: fluorescence signal of nuclear localization signal-tagged red fluorescent protein. Bars: 25 μm. (B) Transcriptional activity of CmDOF2.
Plants 15 00936 g002
Plants 15 00936 g003
Figure 3. The expression profiles of CmDOF2 in chrysanthemum. (A) Expression patterns of CmDOF2 under salinity treatment. (B) Tissue-specific expression analysis of CmDOF2. Values are shown as the mean ± standard error (SE). Different lowercase letters above the columns represent statistically significant differences according to Duncan’s test.
Figure 3. The expression profiles of CmDOF2 in chrysanthemum. (A) Expression patterns of CmDOF2 under salinity treatment. (B) Tissue-specific expression analysis of CmDOF2. Values are shown as the mean ± standard error (SE). Different lowercase letters above the columns represent statistically significant differences according to Duncan’s test.
Plants 15 00936 g003
Plants 15 00936 g004
Figure 4. Salt stress response analysis of CmDOF2-expressing Arabidopsis. (A) RT-PCR-based identification of CmDOF2-expressing Arabidopsis. (B) Seed germination comparison between WT and CmDOF2 transgenic lines. (C) Growth of WT and transgenic seedlings on 1/2 MS with NaCl. Bar: 1 cm. (D) Germination rates of WT and transgenic lines under salt stress. (E) Root length measurements of WT and transgenic lines under salt stress. (F) Phenotypic observations of WT and transgenic seedlings under salinity stress. Data are expressed as means ± SE. Statistical significance was analyzed by Duncan’s test and represented by distinct letters.
Figure 4. Salt stress response analysis of CmDOF2-expressing Arabidopsis. (A) RT-PCR-based identification of CmDOF2-expressing Arabidopsis. (B) Seed germination comparison between WT and CmDOF2 transgenic lines. (C) Growth of WT and transgenic seedlings on 1/2 MS with NaCl. Bar: 1 cm. (D) Germination rates of WT and transgenic lines under salt stress. (E) Root length measurements of WT and transgenic lines under salt stress. (F) Phenotypic observations of WT and transgenic seedlings under salinity stress. Data are expressed as means ± SE. Statistical significance was analyzed by Duncan’s test and represented by distinct letters.
Plants 15 00936 g004
Plants 15 00936 g005
Figure 5. Physiological characteristics of CmDOF2-expressing transgenic Arabidopsis and WT under salt stress. (A) Chlorophyll content; (B) leaf relative water content; (C) leaf relative electrolyte conductivity; (D) MDA content; (E) proline content; (F) SOD activity; (G) POD activity; (H) CAT activity. Values are presented as means ± SE. Statistical analysis by Duncan’s test revealed significant differences, as denoted by distinct letters.
Figure 5. Physiological characteristics of CmDOF2-expressing transgenic Arabidopsis and WT under salt stress. (A) Chlorophyll content; (B) leaf relative water content; (C) leaf relative electrolyte conductivity; (D) MDA content; (E) proline content; (F) SOD activity; (G) POD activity; (H) CAT activity. Values are presented as means ± SE. Statistical analysis by Duncan’s test revealed significant differences, as denoted by distinct letters.
Plants 15 00936 g005
Plants 15 00936 g006
Figure 6. Transcript levels of stress-related genes in CmDOF2-expressing Arabidopsis and WT under salt treatment. (A) AtRD29A; (B) AtRD29B; (C) AtSOS1; (D) AtSOS2; (E) AtSOS3; (F) AtP5CS1; (G) AtP5CS2; (H) AtSOD1; (I) AtPOD34; (J) AtCAT3. Values represent the means ± SE. Distinct letters represent statistically significant variation between transgenic lines and WT by Duncan’s test.
Figure 6. Transcript levels of stress-related genes in CmDOF2-expressing Arabidopsis and WT under salt treatment. (A) AtRD29A; (B) AtRD29B; (C) AtSOS1; (D) AtSOS2; (E) AtSOS3; (F) AtP5CS1; (G) AtP5CS2; (H) AtSOD1; (I) AtPOD34; (J) AtCAT3. Values represent the means ± SE. Distinct letters represent statistically significant variation between transgenic lines and WT by Duncan’s test.
Plants 15 00936 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, P.; Xiong, T.; Yue, J.; Chong, X.; Xu, H.; Wang, Z.; Huang, X. Chrysanthemum CmDOF2 Positively Regulates Salt Tolerance in Transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana. Plants 2026, 15, 936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15060936

AMA Style

Li P, Xiong T, Yue J, Chong X, Xu H, Wang Z, Huang X. Chrysanthemum CmDOF2 Positively Regulates Salt Tolerance in Transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana. Plants. 2026; 15(6):936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15060936

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Peiling, Tingting Xiong, Jianhua Yue, Xinran Chong, Hanbing Xu, Zhiyong Wang, and Xiang Huang. 2026. "Chrysanthemum CmDOF2 Positively Regulates Salt Tolerance in Transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana" Plants 15, no. 6: 936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15060936

APA Style

Li, P., Xiong, T., Yue, J., Chong, X., Xu, H., Wang, Z., & Huang, X. (2026). Chrysanthemum CmDOF2 Positively Regulates Salt Tolerance in Transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana. Plants, 15(6), 936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15060936

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop