Molecular analysis confirms cold responsive genes in sugarcane, suggesting breeding strategies for cold tolerance.
Background: Sugarcane (Saccharum derived) is an important commercially harvested crop in all parts of the world including tropical and subtropical areas. Saccharum hybrid is the tall perennial true grasses with sweet stalk rich in sucrose and it is the main source of sugar.Methods: Initially, 23 genes differentially expressed during cold stress in other Andropogoneae tribe members were retrieved from NCBI GenBank and were investigated in the genome of selected sugarcane and Saccharum spontaneum L. Samples. Their presence in our samples was analyzed and confirmed through PCR and Agarose Gel Electrophoresis (AGE).Results: Most of these (COR) genes (21/23) were confirmed in cold tolerant cultivars namely, SPSG-394, CP-851491 and Saccharum spontaneum L. while the least number of genes was observed in cold sensitive cultivar namely, CP-77400. Moreover 10 cold responsive genes, namely CBF1, CBF2, CBF3, COR 6.6, COR 78, COR 47, WCOR 80, WCOR14, C17 and 85KDA were sent for sequencing. Nucleotide sequences analysis of selected genes revealed the homology to stress responsive protein. Furthermore, during a conserved domain search, three conserved domains had been detected, namely gypsy transposon, zinc binding for reverse transcriptase and pepsin like aspartate proteases.Conclusion: The analysis of cold responsive genes in sugarcane could help breeders to select cold tolerant sugarcane cultivars through PCR amplification.Keywords: NCBI; Sugarcane; COR genes; Conserved domainEditorial Expression of Concern20 June 2025: Following publication of this paper, the internal audit (consequent to concerns on quality raised by Web of Science) notified Advancements in Life Sciences about suspected plagiarism. By this Editorial Expression of Concern, we alert the scientific community of the errors as we reconcile the records.Editorial Note25 June 2025: While rerunning the Turnitin originality analysis, a similarity index of 34% was found for this article (21% from a single source). Editorial board of Advancements in Life Sciences has started the process of retracting this article due to the above post-publication findings. The process shall be concluded after registering responses from the authors. Meanwhile, full text of the article shall remain unavailable for citations (this notice has been updated following insights derived from relevant COPE cases and the industry standards). Show of cause notice has also been issued to the concerned editorial team member.Retraction Note20 July 2025: The Editor-in-Chief, upon the recommendation of the Inquiry Team, has retracted this article due to plagiarism. An internal audit revealed that several articles, including this one, exhibited a high similarity index without proper disclosure or attribution by the authors. This constitutes a breach of the journal’s editorial policy, and the article is therefore being retracted.The authors do not agree to this retraction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rehman et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: