The HVA22 family of genes, induced by abscisic acid and stress, encodes a class of stress response proteins with a conserved TB2/DP1/HVA22 domain that are unique among eukaryotes. Previous studies have shown that HVA22s play an important role in plant responses to abiotic stresses. In the present study, 34, 32, 16, and 17 HVA22s were identified in G. barbadense, G. hirsutum, G. arboreum, and G. raimondii, respectively. These HVA22 genes were classified into nine subgroups, randomly distributed on the chromosomes. Synteny analysis showed that the amplification of the HVA22s were mainly due to segmental duplication or whole genome replication (WGD). Most HVA22s promoter sequences contain a large number of drought response elements (MYB), defense and stress response elements (TC-rich repeats), and hormone response elements (ABRE, ERE, SARE, etc.), suggesting that HVA22s may respond to adversity stresses. Expression profiling demonstrated that most GhHVA22s showed a constitutive expression pattern in G. hirsutum and could respond to abiotic stresses such as salt, drought, and low temperature. Overexpression of GhHVA22E1D (GH_D07G0564) in Arabidopsis thaliana enhances salt and drought tolerance in Arabidopsis. Virus-induced gene silencing of GhHVA22E1D reduced salt and drought tolerance in cotton. This indicates that GhHVA22E1D plays an active role in the plant response to salt stress and drought stress. GhHVA22E1D may act in plant response to adversity by altering the antioxidant capacity of plants. This study provides valuable information for the functional genomic study of the HVA22 gene family in cotton. It also provides a reference for further elucidation of the functional studies of HVA22 in plant resistance to abiotic stress response.

Background Plants suffer from various abiotic stresses during their lifetime, of which drought and salt stresses are two main factors limiting crop yield and quality. Previous studies have shown that abscisic acid (ABA) responsive element binding protein (AREB)/ ABRE binding factors (ABFs) in bZIP transcription factors are involved in plant stress response in an ABA-dependent manner. However, little is known about the properties and functions of AREB/ABFs, especially ABF3, in cotton. Results Here, we reported the cloning and characterization of GhABF3. Expression of GhABF3 was induced by drought,salt and ABA treatments. Silencing of GhABF3 sensitized cotton to drought and salt stress, which was manifested in decreased cellular antioxidant capacity and chlorophyll content. Overexpression of GhABF3 significantly improved the drought and salinity tolerance of Arabidopsis and cotton. Exogenous expression of GhABF3 resulted in longer root length and less leaf wilting under stress conditions in Arabidopsis thaliana. Overexpressing GhABF3 significantly improved salt tolerance of upland cotton by reducing the degree of cellular oxidation, and enhanced drought tolerance by decreasing leaf water loss rate. The increased expression of GhABF3 up-regulated the transcriptional abundance of downstream ABA-inducible genes under salt stress in Arabidopsis. Conclusion In conclusion, our results demonstrated that GhABF3 plays an important role in plant drought and salt tolerance. Manipulation of GhABF3 by biotechnology might be an important strategy to alter the stress resistance of cotton.

Plant height (PH) is a key plant architecture trait for improving the biological productivity of cotton. Ideal PH of cotton is conducive to lodging resistance and mechanized harvesting. To detect quantitative trait loci (QTL) and candidate genes of PH in cotton, a genetic map was constructed with a recombinant inbred line (RIL) population of upland cotton. PH phenotype data under nine environments and three best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs) were used for QTL analyses. Based on restriction-site-associated DNA sequence (RAD-seq), the genetic map contained 5,850 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers, covering 2,747.12 cM with an average genetic distance of 0.47 cM. Thirty-seven unconditional QTL explaining 1.03–12.50% of phenotypic variance, including four major QTL and seven stable QTL, were identified. Twenty-eight conditional QTL explaining 3.27–28.87% of phenotypic variance, including 1 major QTL, were identified. Importantly, five QTL, including 4 stable QTL, were both unconditional and conditional QTL. Among the 60 PH QTL (including 39 newly identified), none of them were involved in the whole period of PH growth, indicating that QTL related to cotton PH development have dynamic expression characteristics. Based on the functional annotation of Arabidopsis homologous genes and transcriptome data of upland cotton TM-1, 14 candidate genes were predicted within 10 QTL. Our research provides valuable information for understanding the genetic mechanism of PH development, which also increases the economic production of cotton.

Chemical defoliants are widely used in cotton (Gossypium L.) to accelerate leaf abscission and boll maturation, as well as, to facilitate mechanical harvesting. The current study was conducted to determine the interactive effect of cotton cultivars and spraying time of defoliant on defoliation, boll opening, fibre yield and quality. An experiment was performed with four cultivars and three defoliant spraying time during 2019 and 2020 in split plot design with three replications. At harvest, the defoliation and boll opening rate of all treatments after spraying defoliant was 94.6 and 85.4%, while the blank control (water) was 73.9 and 79.1%, respectively. After spraying defoliant, the effects of defoliation rate, boll opening rate, fibre yield and quality were different among cultivars, indicating that different cultivars had different responses to defoliant. Among them, L7619 was the most sensitive to defoliant, with the average defoliation rate of 95.6% and a seed cotton yield reduction of 882.9 kg/ha. Among the different time of applications, late spraying (17 September, B3) of defoliant recorded the highest defoliation rate (97.3%), boll opening rate (89.8%), seed cotton yield (3991 kg/ha) and steadily increased the fibre strength by 0.59 cN/tex compared with the control. Late spraying of defoliant had little or even no adverse effect on the remaining fibre quality traits (length, uniformity, micronaire and elongation). In general, these results suggested that the appropriate time for spraying defoliant can be determined based on the sensitivity of the cotton cultivar, the weather conditions at the field and the harvest time.