Deciphering Drought-Response in Wheat (Triticum Aestivum): Physiological, Biochemical, and Transcriptomic Insights into Tolerant and Sensitive Cultivars under Dehydration Shock

Abstract

Introduction: Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is a major staple crop, but its productivity is severely threatened by drought, especially during reproductive stages when yield and quality are most vulnerable. Climate change and water overexploitation intensify this challenge, with yield losses of up to 80% in arid regions and projected global production declines of similar to 29%. Drought tolerance is a complex trait involving physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms, including stomatal regulation, osmolyte accumulation, and activation of stress-responsive genes. Advances in transcriptomics, functional genomics, and genome editing have identified key regulators (DREB, ERF, SnRK2), antioxidant enzymes, and ABA signalling components as targets for improving drought resilience. Developing drought-tolerant wheat varieties is therefore a priority for food security. Materials and Methods: This study investigates transcriptomic responses in root and leaf tissues of three wheat cultivars, Atay 85 (drought-sensitive), Gerek 79 and Mufitbey (drought-tolerant), subjected to 4- and 8-hour shock-dehydration stress. Before RNAseq analysis, biochemical assays were conducted to assess oxidative damage (TBARS) and antioxidant enzyme activities under shock-dehydration stress for three different cultivars. Differential gene expression analysis was performed, and several highly differentially expressed genesincluding TaZFP36, TaMC5, TaGI, TaGLP9-1, and TaFer were selected to validate RNAseq data in both root and leaf tissues of tolerant and sensitive cultivars. Results: Transcriptomic analysis revealed distinct metabolic strategies for drought adaptation. Photosynthesis-related processes, including Photosystem I and II, were broadly downregulated, while extracellular and membrane-associated components were upregulated, reflecting a shift toward stress defence mechanisms. Cultivar-specific responses highlighted diverse adaptation strategies: Atay 85 exhibited severe metabolic suppression and ATP depletion, making it highly vulnerable to drought. Gerek 79 conserved energy by suppressing photosynthesis while enhancing osmoprotective sugar metabolism and reinforcing structural integrity through lignin and flavonoid biosynthesis. Mufitbey demonstrated the most robust drought tolerance by integrating metabolic dormancy, hormonal signalling, and antioxidant defence, characterized by stable CAT activity and elevated SOD activity, which mitigated oxidative damage and preserved photosynthetic stability. Root tissues prioritized metabolic adjustments for oxidative stress reduction and developmental adaptation, while leaf tissues focused on maintaining photosynthesis and limiting protein damage. Functional enrichment analysis indicated significant upregulation of stress-related pathways, including ABA-mediated signalling, protein binding, and cellular metabolic processes in tolerant cultivars. Discussion: This study advances our knowledge of the complex molecular and biochemical responses of wheat with differing tolerance levels, highlighting both key candidate genes and antioxidant defence mechanisms as central to cultivar-specific adaptation strategies. The distinct metabolic strategies observed emphasize the importance of tailored molecular mechanisms in drought tolerance, which can guide future breeding programs aimed at improving wheat resilience under water-limited conditions.