
Citation: Sonia Shastri, Ravichandra Vemuri, Nuri Gueven, Madhur D. Shastri, Rajaraman Eri. Molecular mechanisms of intestinal inflammation leading to colorectal cancer[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2017, 4(1): 152-177. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2017.1.152
[1] | Tatyana V. Polyudova, Daria V. Eroshenko, Vladimir P. Korobov . Plasma, serum, albumin, and divalent metal ions inhibit the adhesion and the biofilm formation of Cutibacterium (Propionibacterium) acnes. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(1): 165-172. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.1.165 |
[2] | Meiliyana Wijaya, Ryan Halleyantoro, Jane Florida Kalumpiu . Biofilm: The invisible culprit in catheter-induced candidemia. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(3): 467-485. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023025 |
[3] | Joseph O. Falkinham . Mycobacterium avium complex: Adherence as a way of life. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(3): 428-438. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.428 |
[4] | Luciana C. Gomes, Joana M. R. Moreira, José D. P. Araújo, Filipe J. Mergulhão . Surface conditioning with Escherichia coli cell wall components can reduce biofilm formation by decreasing initial adhesion. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 613-628. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.613 |
[5] | Joice Cavalcanti Lima, Lívia de Souza Ramos, Pedro Fernandes Barbosa, Iuri Casemiro Barcellos, Marta Helena Branquinha, André Luis Souza dos Santos . Biofilm production by the multidrug-resistant fungus Candida haemulonii is affected by aspartic peptidase inhibitor. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(1): 228-241. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025012 |
[6] | Stephen H. Kasper, Ryan Hart, Magnus Bergkvist, Rabi A. Musah, Nathaniel C. Cady . Zein nanocapsules as a tool for surface passivation, drug delivery and biofilm prevention. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(4): 422-433. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.4.422 |
[7] | McKenna J. Cruikshank, Justine M. Pitzer, Kimia Ameri, Caleb V. Rother, Kathryn Cooper, Austin S. Nuxoll . Characterization of Staphylococcus lugdunensis biofilms through ethyl methanesulfonate mutagenesis. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(4): 880-893. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024038 |
[8] | Ariel J. Santiago, Maria L. Burgos-Garay, Leila Kartforosh, Mustafa Mazher, Rodney M. Donlan . Bacteriophage treatment of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a multispecies biofilm: a potential biocontrol strategy for healthcare facilities. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(1): 43-63. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020003 |
[9] | Afraa Said Al-Adawi, Christine C. Gaylarde, Jan Sunner, Iwona B. Beech . Transfer of bacteria between stainless steel and chicken meat: A CLSM and DGGE study of biofilms. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(3): 340-358. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.3.340 |
[10] | Stephen T. Abedon . Phage “delay” towards enhancing bacterial escape from biofilms: a more comprehensive way of viewing resistance to bacteriophages. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 186-226. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.186 |
Rice is the staple food for most Asian people. Due to the conversion of lowland to infrastructure and plantation development, the best paddy fields tend to decrease [1]. Increased production will depend on the greater use of suboptimal land areas [2]. Among the potential lands in this category are coastal regions. As the largest archipelago country, Indonesia has extensive coastal areas [3]. However, these areas have some constraints for rice cultivation, including a high level of salinity [1].
In general, rice is one of the most sensitive plants to salinity stress and has a narrow tolerance variability [4,5]. The rice productivity in the coastal regions is relatively low compared to the optimal land areas [1,6]. According to Rad et al. [7] salinity at 6 dS m-1 can reduce rice productivity by 50-100%. Therefore, increasing rice productivity in saline areas is very important for maintaining the sustainability of food production in Indonesia and elsewhere. Among the solutions for this critical issue is the use of rice varieties tolerant to salinity stress.
Development of varieties can be done through doubled-haploid technology by anther culture [8,9]. The approach is efficient in producing homozygous lines in a shorter period compared to the conventional breeding process [10]. However, the response of doubled-haploid rice lines is still influenced by their interactions with the environment [11], so effective selection of salinity tolerance is crucial. Reproductive screening is considered the most crucial because, at this stage, plants are unable to escape from the salinity stress [12]. In addition, salinity toxicity is cumulative as the longer the plant is exposed to salinity the greater the accumulation of Na+ in tissues [13]. High accumulation of Na+ can negatively impact the development of rice reproductive traits which are economically valuable [12]. Therefore, the selection of tolerant rice lines under salinity stress in the reproductive phase is essential.
The salinity screening performed in the greenhouse until the reproductive phase can be conducted in pots as an artificial screening method. It is preferred as compared to the actual selection in the field [14,15,16]. The salinity treatment can be controlled under a greenhouse condition according to the desired stress level, whereas in the field it is difficult to control because each field has specific spatial and temporal characteristics of salinity stress [6,17] as well as other stresses. Therefore, the artificial screening method as a selection approach is a good alternative for screening genotypes for salinity tolerance. However, the combination of main and secondary characters through a selection index model under the greenhouse environment is rarely performed. According to Mansuri et al. [18], selection based on stable secondary characters related to yield can increase yield stability under different environments. In the selection index model, character weighting is an important step in determining priorities in selection [19,20,21]. One of the methods for determining character weighting is factor analysis. Factor analysis is a multivariate analysis approach used to identify the internal covariate among variables in one dimension [22,23,24]. It is useful in random data analysis [25]. Godshalk and Timothy [26] and Rocha et al. [27] have reported the use of factor analysis in selection index development as an alternative to the Smith-Hazel index. Thus, the factor analysis in selection index development can also be applied to the selection of doubled-haploid rice lines under salinity stress. The objective of this study was to develop a selection index model based on factor analysis and select doubled-haploid rice lines tolerant to high salinity stress using an artificial screening in the greenhouse.
The salinity screening was conducted in a pot under a greenhouse condition at the Indonesian Center for Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Research and Development (ICABIOGRAD): Bogor from March to July 2018. The minimum and maximum temperature and humidity in the greenhouse during the screening experiments were 21.6–37.5 ℃ and 38.9–87.4%, respectively. The photoperiod is normal in the tropical area as 12 h per day. The experimental design used was split plot in a randomized complete block design with the main plot being salinity stress treatments (normal (0 mM NaCl) and saline (25 mM NaCl)) and the subplot was the genotypes. Forty-two rice genotypes were used, consisting of 36 doubled-haploid lines from 4 crosses (F1–F11 = Inpara 5/IR77674, F12–F52 = IR77674/Inpari 29, F53 = IR78788/Inpari 29, and F54–F56 = Dendang/Inpari 30) [28], four cultivated varieties (Ciherang, Inpara 5, Inpari 29, Inpari 34 Salin Agritan): Pokkali (salinity tolerant check variety) and IR29 (salinity sensitive check variety). The concentration of NaCl used was 0 (electrical conductivity (EC) = 0.46 dS m−1) and 25 mM NaCl or 17.55 in 4 L water and 8 kg soil (EC = 5.6–5.8 dS m−1). The NaCl concentration was adjusted with the critical EC as reported by Anshori et al. [29]. The experiment was replicated three times so that there were 252 experimental units, each consisting of one plant in one pot. The soil description used before the NaCl application is as follows: soil type: Latosol, cation exchange capacity (CEC) = 16.43 cmol (+) kg−1, Ca = 5.62 cmol (+) kg−1, Mg = 1.11cmol (+) kg−1, K = 0.6 cmol (+) kg−1, Na = 0.24 cmol (+) kg−1, N total (Kjeldahl) = 0.09%, C-organic (Walkley and Black) = 2.31%, exchangable Al = 0.06 cmol (+) kg−1, pH (H2O) = 5.95, P Bray I = 2.74 ppm.
The experimental procedure was conducted according to Anshori et al. [29]. The salinity stress (NaCl) treatment was applied at the early vegetative stage or 22 days after germination (DAG) and it was employed until the end of the reproductive stage or 2 weeks (101 DAG) before harvest time. The NaCl solution was added to the media according to the treatment and stirred slowly until the soil became muddy. The preparation of saline media had been completed 3 days before transplanting. Before transplanting, i.e., at 20 DAG, all seedlings were treated with 3 dS m−1 or 1.755 g/L salinity stress solution to prevent osmotic stress in the chamber for two days. Electrical conductivity (EC) was measured in standing water to verify the level of salinity stress. The maintenance of the plants included watering, fertilizing, and weeding. Watering was carried out at least once a day to keep the water condition relatively the same every day. NPK 15:15:15 fertilizer (6 g per pot) was applied one week after planting (WAP) and urea fertilizer (1.5 g per-pot) was applied at 3 and 7 WAP. Plants were harvested when 80% of the panicles had turned yellow. The observations were conducted on the following traits: vegetative and reproductive plant height, number of total tillers, number of productive tillers, days to flowering, flag leaf length, panicle length, number of grains (filled, unfilled, and total) per panicle, 100-grain weight, percentage of filled grains, and yield (g per-plant). The level of EC was monitored during experiment at 1, 2 and 3 months after planting (Figure 1).
Data were analyzed with the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Relative performance decrease between normal and saline conditions was calculated. The mean squares from the ANOVA were the basis for calculating repeatability [24]. Phenotypic and genetic correlations in each environment were calculated for selecting secondary characters [30,31]. Trait average in each treatment was used to calculate the stress tolerance index (STI) as described by Fernandez [32]. The use of STI is intended to increase and stabilize the genotype variance in the saline environment. The STI results were correlated and analyzed further using stepwise multiple regression [33] and path analysis [34]. Determination of the weight of the selection index was based on factor analysis [25]. The weight of a secondary character in the selection index model was corrected with its repeatability and its direct effect on the yield. The statistical software used in this analysis were META R [35], STAR 2.0.1, R with Agricolae package [36], and Minitab 17.
The relative decrease in each character was estimated by the following formula [21]:
Relative decrease(RD)=χ0−χsχ0 | (1) |
where: X0 = genotype value under normal condition; Xs = genotype value under saline condition.
zn=(xi−μ0)√σ2 | (2) |
where: zn = Standardized of STI variable; xi = STI value of genotypes; µ0 = STI average of population; σ2 = STI variance of population.
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and relative decrease (from normal to saline conditions) for all characters are shown in Table 1. The genotype and salinity treatment (G x E) interaction effect was significant on the number of filled grains, number of unfilled grains, 100-grains weight, percentage of filled grains, and yield. The relative decreases of the number of total tillers, number of productive tillers, number of filled grains, and yield were greater than 50%. Based on the ANOVA and relative decrease, the number of filled grains and the yield were identified as the traits least impacted by saline conditions.
Character | MS of stress (E) | MS of Genotype (G) | MS G*E | CV | Average | RD (%) | |
Normal | Saline | ||||||
VH (cm) | 43279.61ns | 272.41** | 109.55ns | 10.22 | 117.89 ±12 | 89.85 ± 16.85 | 23.78 |
GH (cm) | 5900.88ns | 203.75** | 85.71ns | 9.25 | 93.85 ± 7.58 | 82.52 ±14.11 | 12.08 |
TT | 1707.76* | 8.51** | 3.96ns | 24.50 | 9.4 ± 2.2 | 3.8 ± 1.9 | 59.45 |
PT | 1630.18* | 10.54** | 4.46ns | 27.12 | 9.6 ± 2.4 | 4.1 ± 2.3 | 57.45 |
DF | 656.30ns | 26.69** | 13.37ns | 4.15 | 89.3 ±11.7 | 92.0 ± 11.3 | −3.04 |
FLL (cm) | 9462.65* | 161.90** | 48.37ns | 14.53 | 48.99 ± 8.37 | 36.30 ± 6.82 | 25.91 |
PL (cm) | 1254.97* | 38.39** | 13.95ns | 14.97 | 29.36 ± 4.47 | 24.96 ± 3.92 | 14.98 |
NFG | 340249.31* | 1087.72** | 903.71** | 25.19 | 120.4 ± 26.9 | 44.3 ± 27.3 | 63.17 |
NUG | 3277.55ns | 410.57** | 249.71** | 38.97 | 24.5 ± 10.4 | 30.7 ± 18.3 | −25.42 |
NTG | 276737.81* | 2351.67** | 708.74ns | 20.02 | 144.9 ± 30.4 | 75.1 ±31.7 | 48.18 |
100w (g) | 27.50* | 0.26** | 0.17* | 14.88 | 2.52 ± 0.16 | 1.78 ± 0.64 | 29.52 |
PFG (%) | 46091.85ns | 218.50ns | 300.38* | 20.36 | 83.15 ± 6.57 | 53.61 ± 25.7 | 35.52 |
Yield (g) | 29676.44* | 43.72ns | 52.38* | 36.66 | 26.58 ± 8.32 | 3.98 ±3.89 | 85.01 |
Note: * significantly influential at 5% level, ** significantly influential at 1%, ns not significant; C = characters, CV = coefficient of variation, MS = means square, RD = relative decrease; 100W: 100-grain weight, DF = days to flowering, FLL = flag leaf length, GH = generative plant height, NFT = number of filled grains, NTG = number of total grains, NUG = number of unfilled grains, PFG = percentage of filled grains, PL = panicle length, PT = number of productive tillers, TT = number of total tillers, VH = vegetative plant height. |
The amount of interaction variance and the relative decrease could be indicators for the complexity of the trait and stress degree of the environment on rice growth characters [15,21,37,38,39]. Based on this study, the salinity treatment has a large effect on the genotype yield as the main character (Table 1). The high influence of the environment on the yield indicated that the selection of genotypes should be analyzed in-depth by including genetic variance in each analysis [40]. Krishnamurthy et al. [41] also reported that environmental influences have a large impact on the yield, so selecting the characters with considerably large genetic variance would be useful. If such characters were correlated with yield decrease, then they might imply tolerance. The consideration of genetic variance in salinity selection has been reported by Mohammadi et al. [42] in the selection of salinity tolerant rice and by Yadav et al. [43] in determining the important characters under salinity stress.
The high environment effect and G x E reduce genetic variance, especially for polygenic characters such as the yield [30]. The low genetic variance of yield indicates that the selection index required additional secondary characters which are stable (i.e., less affected by environment) and have a strong correlation with yield. Such secondary characters may be used to predict the yield of genotypes in other environments [18]. To determine the stable secondary characters under high environment effect, the analysis should be performed independently between normal and stress conditions. This approach has been used by Garg et al. [44] to determine the important characters involved in drought stress based on the high heritability in both stress and normal environments. Therefore, the independent analysis between normal and saline conditions could be the basis for identifying the secondary characters.
The determination of selection characters in this research was analyzed through two approaches. The first approach was an analysis of phenotypic and genetic correlations towards normal and saline conditions independently. Based on phenotypic and genetic correlations shown in Table 2, the normal condition has a more stable correlation than the saline condition. It was shown on the low difference between phenotypic (P) and genetic (G) correlations in normal conditions rather than saline conditions, especially on characters with significant phenotypic correlation to the yield. Based on the correlation stability with regard to the yield under normal and saline conditions, the productive tiller trait was stable under both normal (rP/rG = 0.63/0.60) and saline conditions (rP/rG = 0.79/0.62).
C | VH | TT | DF | GH | PT | FLL | PL | NFG | NUG | NTG | 100W | PFG |
Normal | ||||||||||||
Yld-P | 0.22 | 0.65∗∗_ | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.63∗∗_ | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.40* | 0.09 | 0.36 | 0.02 | 0.13 |
Yld-G | 0.23 | 0.76∗∗_ | 0.16 | −0.16 | 0.60∗∗_ | −0.24 | 0.44∗∗_ | 0.2 | 0.26 | 0.23 | −0.26 | −0.14 |
Saline | ||||||||||||
Yld-P | 0.64∗∗_ | 0.65∗∗_ | −0.07 | 0.62∗∗_ | 0.74∗∗_ | 0.39 | 0.27 | 0.84∗∗_ | −0.04 | 0.56∗_ | 0.53∗_ | 0.62∗∗_ |
Yld-G | 1.00∗∗_ | 0.23 | NA | 1.00∗∗_ | 0.62∗∗_ | 0.17 | −0.62∗∗_ | 0.93∗∗_ | 0.09 | 0.56∗_ | 0.87∗∗_ | 0.72∗∗_ |
Notes: * significant correlation at α = 5%, ** significant correlation at α = 1%, 100W: 100-grain weight, C = characters, DF = days to flowering, FLL = flag leaf length, GH = generative plant height, NFT = number of filled grains, NTG = number of total grains, NUG = number of unfilled grains, PFG = percentage of filled grains, PL = panicle length, PT = number of productive tillers, TT = number of total tillers, VH = vegetative plant height. Yld-P: phenotypic correlation with yield, Yld-G: genotypic correlation with yield. |
Phenotypic and genetic correlation analyses and the employment of a tolerance index are useful for identification of secondary traits. The use of phenotypic and genetic correlation in the normal and saline environment was reported by Krishnamurthy et al. [41] for determining the selection character supporting rice yield. The phenotypic and genetic correlation could identify the effect of the environment on the correlation variance. The greater the difference between the two correlations, the greater the role of the environment in influencing the phenotype correlation among these characters [45,46,47]. The difference can be an indicator to identify the stable secondary characters to the yield.
The second approach for determining selection characters involved the use of stress tolerance index (STI) as the basis for stepwise multiple regression analysis and path analysis. Before these analyses, the STI was subjected to correlation analysis to the yield. This analysis showed that all characters were highly significantly correlated with yield except for days to flowering and panicle length (Figure 2). Number of total tillers (r = 0.65), number of productive tillers (r = 0.73), number of filled grains (r = 0.72) and percentage of filled grains (r = 0.61) were the better characters as having correlation coefficient of more than 0.6. These characters could be the basis for secondary characters in stepwise multiple regression and path analysis.
The use of tolerance index was a good approach to apply in determining the genotype adaptability under stress [48], especially on the low yield genetic variance level. The index assessed the yield stability by considering the response in normal and stress conditions [32] so that the selection was more representative compared to direct selection in a saline environment. According to Anshori et al. [29], there were three tolerance indices which were well used in the pot salinity screening, namely stress tolerance index (STI), geometric mean productivity (GMP), and yield stability index (YSI). The STI tolerance index was selected as the tolerance index in this experiment. The STI index is considered the average response of all genotypes under normal conditions so that the selection is more dynamic than GMP and YSI indices which focus on individual genotypes. The use of STI was also reported by Krishnamurthy et al. [41] in rice and Singh et al. [49] in wheat to evaluate salinity tolerance in a genotype.
Determination of characters for in-depth analysis based on high STI correlation became necessary for determining the secondary characters. It was also consistent with assumptions in path analysis, such as independent and dependent variables should have a linear and strong relationship with each other [50]. The high STI correlation has a strong relationship with the yield tolerance response under salinity stress. Therefore, these characters were expected to provide better information regarding the specific relationships to the yield.
The results of stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that the number of productive tillers and the number of filled grains were the best secondary characters in predicting the yield STI (Table 3). This was also supported by the path analysis which showed that the number of productive tillers (direct effect = 0.67) and the number of filled grains (direct effect = 0.55) had a significant direct effect on the yield STI (Table 4). Based on these two approaches, the number of productive tillers was determined to be the most appropriate character associated with yield in the development of the selection index model.
Variabel | Estimate | Std. Error | t value | Pr(>|t|) |
(Intercept) | −0.082 | 0.013 | −6.159 | 0.000** |
Productive tiller | 0.269 | 0.025 | 10.635 | 0.000** |
Number of filled grains | 0.291 | 0.028 | 10.435 | 0.000** |
Notes = ** significant at 1%, Multiple R-squared: 0.7519 dan Adjusted R-squared: 0.748. |
Characters | Total tillers | Number of Productive tillers | Number of filled grains | Percentage of filled grains | Corelation total |
Number of total tillers | −0.13 | 0.61 | 0.20 | −0.04 | 0.65 |
Number of productive tillers | −0.12 | 0.67 | 0.22 | −0.04 | 0.73 |
Number of filled grains | −0.05 | 0.26 | 0.55 | −0.05 | 0.72 |
Percentage of filled grain | −0.07 | 0.38 | 0.36 | −0.07 | 0.61 |
Stepwise multiple regression analysis can determine the independent characters in predicting the main character [51]. Whereas path analysis can determine the direct and indirect effects of independent variables on the main character [21,25,41,52,53]. Thus, stepwise multiple regression analysis and path analysis are good combinations to determine the specific supporting characters of the main variable [21,25,29]. Based on all analyses, the number of productive tillers is the best stable secondary character which could be used as selection character under salinity screening in the pot. This character had been reported by Anshori et al. [20], Anshori et al. [21], and Mohammadi et al. [42]. On other hand, the other study of Anshori et al. [29] showed different from the result, where the total tiller trait was the best selection character for pot screening under salinity stress. However, their study only used two genotypes, Pokkali (tolerant check) and IR 29 (sensitive check): while we used 42 genotypes in this study. Therefore, the productive tiller is suitable for supporting the yield in line selection under salinity stress.
The results of factor analysis showed that there were four representative factors with an eigenvalue above 1 (Table 5). Based on factor analysis, the days to flowering, the 100-grain weight, and the percentage of filled grains were strongly influenced the selected doubled-haploid populations. Meanwhile, the yield as the main character had the greatest variance in factor 2 (0.3). While the value did not reach the standard of 0.32, the yield score was still good considering the large environmental variance. The yield in factor 2 was grouped with the number of total tillers and the number of productive tillers. This was a strong indication that the number of productive tillers is a stable selection character for yield under salinity stress under greenhouse condition. Based on factor 2, the selection index was formulated as 0.3 (productivity) + 0.416 (productive tillers). However, the index needs to be corrected considering that the number of productive tillers had a direct effect of 0.67 on the yield with a total general variance of the path analysis of 0.512 (Table 4) and a combination (normal and saline conditions) repeatability of 0.58 (Supplement 1). Based on the results of direct effect and repeatability, the final selection index formed as follows:
Selection Index=0.3(yield)+0.416 x 0.67 x 0.512 x 0.58 (productive tillers) | (3) |
or |
Selection Index=0.3(yield)+0.083 (productive tillers) | (4) |
Characters | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Communality |
Vegetative plant height | 0.259 | −0.100 | 0.056 | −0.173 | 0.632 |
Number of total tillers | −0.143 | 0.412 | 0.009 | 0.118 | 0.883 |
Days to flowering | 0.394 | −0.168 | 0.091 | 0.256 | 0.647 |
Generative plant height | 0.182 | −0.014 | −0.113 | 0.161 | 0.658 |
Number of productive tillers | −0.168 | 0.416 | −0.003 | 0.005 | 0.919 |
Flag leaves length | −0.059 | −0.029 | 0.052 | −0.731 | 0.871 |
Panicle length | −0.053 | −0.064 | −0.248 | −0.25 | 0.659 |
Number of filled grains | 0.079 | 0.097 | −0.169 | 0.083 | 0.830 |
Number of unfilled grains | −0.153 | −0.006 | −0.402 | 0.078 | 0.828 |
Number of total grains | −0.054 | 0.071 | −0.362 | 0.126 | 0.940 |
Weight of 100-grains | 0.310 | −0.143 | 0.099 | −0.223 | 0.731 |
Percentage of filled grains | 0.304 | −0.006 | 0.170 | −0.022 | 0.845 |
Yield | −0.09 | 0.300 | −0.078 | −0.066 | 0.825 |
Eigenvalue | 5.427 | 2.531 | 1.246 | 1.066 | 10.269 |
Variance | 0.417 | 0.195 | 0.096 | 0.082 | 0.790 |
The results indicated that based on index selection values there were 19 genotypes (15 doubled-haploid (DH) lines) tolerant to salinity through the saline soil screening in pots under a greenhouse condition (Table 6).
R | Genotype | PT (0) | Yld (0) (g) | PT (1) | Yld (1) (g) | STI PT | STI Yld | zSTI PT | zSTI Yld | Index |
1 | F11 | 10.3 | 23.32 | 7.0 | 10.19 | 0.79 | 0.34 | 1.84 | 2.30 | 0.84 |
2 | F42 | 11.0 | 32.19 | 5.7 | 7.20 | 0.68 | 0.33 | 1.27 | 2.20 | 0.77 |
3 | F10 | 8.7 | 22.77 | 7.7 | 9.67 | 0.72 | 0.31 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 0.72 |
4 | F41 | 11.0 | 29.06 | 5.7 | 6.70 | 0.68 | 0.28 | 1.27 | 1.56 | 0.57 |
5 | F22 | 12.7 | 34.95 | 4.3 | 5.64 | 0.60 | 0.28 | 0.84 | 1.60 | 0.55 |
6 | F26 | 11.7 | 29.96 | 5.3 | 6.35 | 0.68 | 0.27 | 1.26 | 1.48 | 0.55 |
7 | Inpari 34 Salin Agritan | 12.7 | 25.51 | 7.3 | 6.10 | 1.01 | 0.22 | 3.02 | 0.88 | 0.51 |
8 | F2 | 10.7 | 27.49 | 5.0 | 5.39 | 0.58 | 0.21 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.29 |
9 | F49 | 11.3 | 37.17 | 4.3 | 3.97 | 0.53 | 0.21 | 0.51 | 0.74 | 0.26 |
10 | F44 | 10.0 | 24.79 | 4.3 | 6.11 | 0.47 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.81 | 0.26 |
11 | F37 | 9.0 | 21.24 | 4.7 | 6.90 | 0.46 | 0.21 | 0.10 | 0.72 | 0.23 |
12 | F20 | 9.0 | 34.79 | 3.0 | 4.38 | 0.29 | 0.22 | −0.76 | 0.83 | 0.19 |
13 | F45 | 11.0 | 32.74 | 4.3 | 3.54 | 0.52 | 0.17 | 0.43 | 0.19 | 0.09 |
14 | F28 | 8.7 | 20.89 | 4.7 | 5.83 | 0.44 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 0.09 |
15 | F8 | 7.5 | 22.25 | 5.0 | 5.56 | 0.41 | 0.18 | −0.16 | 0.33 | 0.09 |
16 | Pokkali | 9.0 | 21.00 | 3.3 | 5.94 | 0.33 | 0.18 | −0.59 | 0.35 | 0.06 |
17 | Inpara 5 | 11.3 | 27.93 | 5.0 | 3.54 | 0.62 | 0.14 | 0.94 | −0.10 | 0.05 |
18 | Inpari 29 | 6.0 | 19.25 | 4.5 | 6.35 | 0.29 | 0.17 | −0.76 | 0.30 | 0.03 |
19 | F14 | 6.3 | 27.39 | 2.7 | 4.62 | 0.18 | 0.18 | −1.34 | 0.38 | 0.00 |
20 | F56 | 14.0 | 35.47 | 5.3 | 1.93 | 0.81 | 0.10 | 1.98 | −0.62 | −0.02 |
41 | IR29 | 8.7 | 25.58 | 2.3 | 1.34 | 0.22 | 0.05 | −1.15 | −1.22 | −0.46 |
42 | Ciherang | 9.0 | 22.19 | 2.3 | 0.60 | 0.23 | 0.02 | −1.11 | −1.58 | −0.57 |
Notes: PT = productive tiller, STI = stress tolerance index, Yld =Yield, zSTI= STI standardized. |
The determination of the main character in the factor analysis was based on a factor loading score above 0.32, which is the standard for factor analysis based on PCA variance [54]. In this study, factor analysis had sufficient power to detect good secondary characters from random data or data with a high environment effect [27]. Therefore, factor loading could be employed as the basis for weighting of character priority in the selection index.
The yield was the main character, so that its weight should be greater than the number of productive tillers character in the selection index. The direct effect value and heritability may be employed to correct the secondary character weighting. The use of path analysis as the weighting basis for the selection index in rice has also been reported by Sabouri et al. [55]. Meanwhile, the use of repeatability or heritability is also used in the formation of the Smith-Hazel selection index combined with economic correlations and weightings on selection character [56]. Based on these, the combination of direct effect from path analysis and repeatability could be an alternative for determining the index weight of the supporting character, especially in the low-yield genetic variance. Therefore, the productive tiller character must be corrected by direct effect and repeatability to increase its effectiveness and genetic stability in predicting the yield.
The determination of selected genotypes was based on the positive standardization value concept from the selection index. This concept has been reported by Tobi et al. [40] on Moroccan sugar beet. The high index value of a genotype indicates the genotype has the same variance direction with a high value of the yield and the number of productive tillers. Meanwhile, the positive index values were around 0, indicating that there was the larger positive value of a character toward other characters with negative values directions. Another assumption was that both characters have the same positive direction of variance, but both have a low value.
Based on the results of index selection, the index was considered better to use than only used the yield on pot artificial screening. It was proven by P values of regression of index that was significant (0.027), whereas the pot yield has no significant regression (0.056). Besides, the index could group Pokkali and Inpari 34 Salin Agritan as the tolerant varieties while Ciherang and IR 29 as sensitive varieties. The classification of Pokkali as tolerant and IR 29 as sensitive control varieties was consistent with the findings of Safitri et al. [15] who also conducted salinity screening in pots under a greenhouse condition. Besides, based on the regression analysis to Sukra yield by Anshori et al. [21] (Figure 3), this index has p-value of 0.027 or less than alpha of 0.05 and there was no outlier in prediction interval regression. This regression analysis is a good validation concept and has been reported by Fadhli et al. [52], Farid et al. [53], and Anshori et al. [21]. This result indicates that the use of the selection index model in this screening was more beneficial in selecting the salinity tolerant rice line than solely using the yield character on pot artificial screening. Therefore, the selected 15 DH lines that are classified as salinity tolerant based on the model could be subjected to further evaluations.
Number of productive tillers is the best yield-supporting character in the salinity screening under greenhouse condition. Stress tolerance index (STI), path analysis, stepwise regression analysis and factor analysis could be used in the development of a salinity selection index model. The selection index model for salinity screening is 0.3 (yield) + 0.083 (productive tillers). The index can distinguish tolerant and non-tolerant varieties and 15 doubled haploid rice lines are identified as tolerant lines under salinity stress in soil artificial screening. These lines are recommended for further evaluation in developing the rice variety adapted to salinity stress.
We acknowledge the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia for providing financial support to this research through the PMDSU Scholarship and Research Scheme with contract number 136/SP2H/LT/DRPM/IV/2017. The authors wish to express their gratitude toward the Indonesian Center for Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Research and Development for providing the facilities for this study.
[1] |
Cosnes J, Gower-Rousseau C, Seksik P, et al. (2011) Epidemiology and natural history of inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterol 140: 1785–1794. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.01.055
![]() |
[2] |
Shanahan F, Bernstein CN (2009) The evolving epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 25: 301–305. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0b013e32832b12ef
![]() |
[3] | Economou M, Pappas G (2008) New global map of Crohn's disease: Genetic, environmental, and socioeconomic correlations. Inflamm Bowel Dis 4: 709–720. |
[4] |
Mulder DJ, Noble AJ, Justinich CJ, et al. (2014) A tale of two diseases: the history of inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 8: 341–348. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.009
![]() |
[5] | Hanauer SB (2006) Inflammatory bowel disease: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and therapeutic opportunities. Inflamm Bowel Dis 12: S3–S9. |
[6] |
Dubinsky M (2008) Special issues in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 14: 413–420. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.413
![]() |
[7] |
Diefenbach KA, Breuer CK (2006) Pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 12: 3204–3212. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i20.3204
![]() |
[8] |
Ekbom A, Helmick C, Zack M, et al. (1991) The epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease: a large, population-based study in Sweden. Gastroenterol 100: 350–358. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(91)90202-V
![]() |
[9] |
CROHN BB, Rosenberg H (1925) The sigmoidoscopic picture of chronic ulcerative colitis (non-specific). Am J Med Sci 170: 220–227. doi: 10.1097/00000441-192508010-00006
![]() |
[10] |
Rutter MD, Saunders BP, Wilkinson KH, et al. (2006) Thirty-year analysis of a colonoscopic surveillance program for neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterol 130: 1030–1038. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.12.035
![]() |
[11] |
Beaugerie L, Svrcek M, Seksik P, et al. (2013) Risk of colorectal high-grade dysplasia and cancer in a prospective observational cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol 145: 166–175. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.03.044
![]() |
[12] |
Eaden J, Abrams K, Mayberry J (2001) The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Gut 48: 526–535. doi: 10.1136/gut.48.4.526
![]() |
[13] |
Canavan C, Abrams K, Mayberry J (2006) Meta-analysis: colorectal and small bowel cancer risk in patients with Crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 23: 1097–1104. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02854.x
![]() |
[14] | Itzkowitz SH, Yio X (2004) Inflammation and cancer IV. Colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: the role of inflammation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 287: G7–G17. |
[15] | Kornfeld D, Ekbom A, Ihre T, et al. (1997) Is there an excess risk for colorectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis and concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis? A population based study. Gut 41: 522–525. |
[16] |
Matula S, Croog V, Itzkowitz S, et al. (2005) Chemoprevention of colorectal neoplasia in ulcerative colitis: the effect of 6-mercaptopurine. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3: 1015–1021. doi: 10.1016/S1542-3565(05)00738-X
![]() |
[17] |
Terdiman JP, Steinbuch M, Blumentals WA, et al. (2007) 5-Aminosalicylic acid therapy and the risk of colorectal cancer among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 13: 367–371. doi: 10.1002/ibd.20074
![]() |
[18] |
Kiesslich R, Goetz M, Lammersdorf K, et al. (2007) Chromoscopy-guided endomicroscopy increases the diagnostic yield of intraepithelial neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterol 132: 874–882. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.01.048
![]() |
[19] |
Schneider MR, Hoeflich A, Fischer JR, et al. (2000) Interleukin-6 stimulates clonogenic growth of primary and metastatic human colon carcinoma cells. Cancer Lett 151: 31–38. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3835(99)00401-2
![]() |
[20] |
Sakamoto K, Maeda S, Hikiba Y, et al. (2009) Constitutive NF-κB activation in colorectal carcinoma plays a key role in angiogenesis, promoting tumor growth. Clin Cancer Res 15: 2248–2258. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1383
![]() |
[21] |
Kang KA, Zhang R, Kim GY, et al. (2012) Epigenetic changes induced by oxidative stress in colorectal cancer cells: methylation of tumor suppressor RUNX3. Tumor Biol 33: 403–412. doi: 10.1007/s13277-012-0322-6
![]() |
[22] |
Ning Y, Manegold PC, Hong YK, et al. (2011) Interleukin-8 is associated with proliferation, migration, angiogenesis and chemosensitivity in vitro and in vivo in colon cancer cell line models. Int J Cancer 128: 2038–2049. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25562
![]() |
[23] |
Huch M, Koo BK (2015) Modeling mouse and human development using organoid cultures. Development 142: 3113–3125. doi: 10.1242/dev.118570
![]() |
[24] | Van Limbergen J, Geddes K, Henderson P, et al. (2013) Paneth cell marker CD24 in NOD2 knockout organoids and in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Gut:gutjnl-2013-305077. |
[25] |
van de Wetering M, Francies HE, Francis JM, et al. (2015) Prospective derivation of a living organoid biobank of colorectal cancer patients. Cell 161: 933–945. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.053
![]() |
[26] |
Fatehullah A, Tan SH, Barker N (2016) Organoids as an in vitro model of human development and disease. Nat Cell Biol 18: 246–254. doi: 10.1038/ncb3312
![]() |
[27] |
Dharmani P, Leung P, Chadee K (2011) Tumor necrosis factor-α and Muc2 mucin play major roles in disease onset and progression in dextran sodium sulphate-induced colitis. PLoS One 6: e25058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025058
![]() |
[28] |
Heazlewood CK, Cook MC, Eri R, et al. (2008) Aberrant mucin assembly in mice causes endoplasmic reticulum stress and spontaneous inflammation resembling ulcerative colitis. PLoS Med 5: e54. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050054
![]() |
[29] |
Half E, Bercovich D, Rozen P (2009) Familial adenomatous polyposis. Orphanet J Rare Dis 4: 22. doi: 10.1186/1750-1172-4-22
![]() |
[30] |
Fodde R, Smits R (2001) Disease model: familial adenomatous polyposis. Trends Mol Med 7: 369–373. doi: 10.1016/S1471-4914(01)02050-0
![]() |
[31] |
Quesada CF, Kimata H, Mori M, et al. (1998) Piroxicam and acarbose as chemopreventive agents for spontaneous intestinal adenomas in APC gene 1309 knockout mice. JPN J Cancer Res 89: 392–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.1998.tb00576.x
![]() |
[32] | Corpet DE, Pierre F (2003) Point: From animal models to prevention of colon cancer. Systematic review of chemoprevention in min mice and choice of the model system. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12: 391–400. |
[33] |
Aoki K, Tamai Y, Horiike S, et al. (2003) Colonic polyposis caused by mTOR-mediated chromosomal instability in Apc+/Δ716 Cdx2+/− compound mutant mice. Nat Genet 35: 323–330. doi: 10.1038/ng1265
![]() |
[34] |
Heyer J, Yang K, Lipkin M, et al. (1999) Mouse models for colorectal cancer. Oncogene 18: 5325–5333. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1203036
![]() |
[35] |
Velcich A, Yang W, Heyer J, et al. (2002) Colorectal cancer in mice genetically deficient in the mucin Muc2. Science 295: 1726–1729. doi: 10.1126/science.1069094
![]() |
[36] |
Van der Sluis M, De Koning BA, De Bruijn AC, et al. (2006) Muc2-deficient mice spontaneously develop colitis, indicating that MUC2 is critical for colonic protection. Gastroenterol 131: 117–129. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.04.020
![]() |
[37] |
Zhu Y, Richardson JA, Parada LF, et al. (1998) Smad3 mutant mice develop metastatic colorectal cancer. Cell 94: 703–714. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81730-4
![]() |
[38] |
Yang X, Letterio JJ, Lechleider RJ, et al. (1999) Targeted disruption of SMAD3 results in impaired mucosal immunity and diminished T cell responsiveness to TGF-β. EMBO J 18: 1280–1291. doi: 10.1093/emboj/18.5.1280
![]() |
[39] | Perše M, Cerar A (2012) Dextran sodium sulphate colitis mouse model: traps and tricks. Biomed Res Int 2012. |
[40] |
Delker DA, McKnight SJ, Rosenberg DW (1998) The role of alcohol dehydrogenase in the metabolism of the colon carcinogen methylazoxymethanol. Toxicol Sci 45: 66–71. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/45.1.66
![]() |
[41] | Haase P, Cowen D, Knowles J (1973) Histogenesis of colonic tumours in mice induced by dimethyl hydrazine. J Pathol 109: Px. |
[42] |
Neufert C, Becker C, Neurath MF (2007) An inducible mouse model of colon carcinogenesis for the analysis of sporadic and inflammation-driven tumor progression. Nat Protoc 2: 1998–2004. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2007.279
![]() |
[43] |
Tanaka T, Kohno H, Suzuki R, et al. (2003) A novel inflammation-related mouse colon carcinogenesis model induced by azoxymethane and dextran sodium sulfate. Cancer Sci 94: 965–973. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2003.tb01386.x
![]() |
[44] |
De Robertis M, Massi E, Poeta ML, et al. (2011) The AOM/DSS murine model for the study of colon carcinogenesis: From pathways to diagnosis and therapy studies. J Carcinog 10: 9. doi: 10.4103/1477-3163.78279
![]() |
[45] | Reddy BS, Ohmori T (1981) Effect of intestinal microflora and dietary fat on 3, 2'-dimethyl-4-aminobiphenyl-induced colon carcinogenesis in F344 rats. Cancer Res 41: 1363–1367. |
[46] |
Hasegawa R, Sano M, Tamano S, et al. (1993) Dose-dependence of 2-amino-1-methy1-6-phen-ylimidazo [4, 5-b]-pyridine (PhIP) carcinogenicity in rats. Carcinogenesis 14: 2553–2557. doi: 10.1093/carcin/14.12.2553
![]() |
[47] |
Wanibuchi H, Salim EI, Morimura K, et al. (2005) Lack of large intestinal carcinogenicity of 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo [4, 5-b] pyridine at low doses in rats initiated with azoxymethane. Int J Cancer 115: 870–878. doi: 10.1002/ijc.20960
![]() |
[48] | Kobaek-Larsen M, Thorup I, Diederichsen A, et al. (2000) Review of colorectal cancer and its metastases in rodent models: comparative aspects with those in humans. Comp Med 50: 16–26. |
[49] |
Narisawa T, Magadia NE, Weisburger JH, et al. (1974) Promoting effect of bile acids on colon carcinogenesis after intrarectal instillation of N-Methyl-N' nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine in Rats. J Natl Cancer Inst 53: 1093–1097. doi: 10.1093/jnci/53.4.1093
![]() |
[50] |
Einerhand AW, Renes IB, Makkink MK, et al. (2002) Role of mucins in inflammatory bowel disease: important lessons from experimental models. Eur J GastroenterolHepatol 14: 757–765. doi: 10.1097/00042737-200207000-00008
![]() |
[51] |
Randall-Demllo S, Fernando R, Brain T, et al. (2016) Characterisation of colonic dysplasia-like epithelial atypia in murine colitis. World J Gastroenterol 22: 8334–8348. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i37.8334
![]() |
[52] |
Gorrini C, Harris IS, Mak TW (2013) Modulation of oxidative stress as an anticancer strategy. Nat Rev Drug Discov 12: 931–947. doi: 10.1038/nrd4002
![]() |
[53] |
Jackson AL, Loeb LA (2001) The contribution of endogenous sources of DNA damage to the multiple mutations in cancer. Mut Res Fund Mol Mech Mutagen 477: 7–21. doi: 10.1016/S0027-5107(01)00091-4
![]() |
[54] | Kawanishi S, Hiraku Y, Pinlaor S, et al. (2006) Oxidative and nitrative DNA damage in animals and patients with inflammatory diseases in relation to inflammation-related carcinogenesis. Biol Chem 387: 365–372. |
[55] |
Tüzün A, Erdil A, İnal V, et al. (2002) Oxidative stress and antioxidant capacity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Biochem 35: 569–572. doi: 10.1016/S0009-9120(02)00361-2
![]() |
[56] |
Nair J, Gansauge F, Beger H, et al. (2006) Increased etheno-DNA adducts in affected tissues of patients suffering from Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and chronic pancreatitis. Antioxid Redox Signal 8: 1003–1010. doi: 10.1089/ars.2006.8.1003
![]() |
[57] |
Vong LB, Yoshitomi T, Matsui H, et al. (2015) Development of an oral nanotherapeutics using redox nanoparticles for treatment of colitis-associated colon cancer. Biomaterials 55: 54–63. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.03.037
![]() |
[58] | Solomon H, Brosh R, Buganim Y, et al. (2010) Inactivation of the p53 tumor suppressor gene and activation of the Ras oncogene: cooperative events in tumorigenesis. Discov Med 9: 448–454. |
[59] | Huang H, Wang H, Lloyd RS, et al. (2008) Conformational interconversion of the trans-4-hydroxynonenal-derived (6S, 8R, 11S) 1, N 2-deoxyguanosine adduct when mismatched with deoxyadenosine in DNA. Chem Res Toxicol 22: 187–200. |
[60] |
Barrett CW, Ning W, Chen X, et al. (2013) Tumor suppressor function of the plasma glutathione peroxidase gpx3 in colitis-associated carcinoma. Cancer Res 73: 1245–1255. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-3150
![]() |
[61] |
Curtin NJ (2012) DNA repair dysregulation from cancer driver to therapeutic target. Nat Rev Cancer 12: 801–817. doi: 10.1038/nrc3399
![]() |
[62] |
Khor TO, Huang MT, Prawan A, et al. (2008) Increased susceptibility of Nrf2 knockout mice to colitis-associated colorectal cancer. Cancer Prev Res 1: 187–191. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-08-0028
![]() |
[63] | Meira LB, Bugni JM, Green SL, et al. (2008) DNA damage induced by chronic inflammation contributes to colon carcinogenesis in mice. J Clin Invest 118: 2516–2525. |
[64] |
Sohn JJ, Schetter AJ, Yfantis HG, et al. (2012) Macrophages, nitric oxide and microRNAs are associated with DNA damage response pathway and senescence in inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS One 7: e44156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044156
![]() |
[65] | Kohonen-Corish MR, Daniel JJ, te Riele H, et al. (2002) Susceptibility of Msh2-deficient mice to inflammation-associated colorectal tumors. Cancer Res 62: 2092–2097. |
[66] | Fleisher AS, Esteller M, Harpaz N, et al. (2000) Microsatellite instability in inflammatory bowel disease-associated neoplastic lesions is associated with hypermethylation and diminished expression of the DNA mismatch repair gene, hMLH1. Cancer Res 60: 4864–4868. |
[67] |
Redston MS, Papadopoulos N, Caldas C, et al. (1995) Common occurrence of APC and K-ras gene mutations in the spectrum of colitis-associated neoplasias. Gastroenterol 108: 383–392. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(95)90064-0
![]() |
[68] |
Burmer GC, Rabinovitch PS, Haggitt RC, et al. (1992) Neoplastic progression in ulcerative colitis: histology, DNA content, and loss of a p53 allele. Gastroenterol 103: 1602–1610. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(92)91184-6
![]() |
[69] |
Yashiro M (2015) Molecular alterations of colorectal cancer with inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis Sci 60: 2251–2263. doi: 10.1007/s10620-015-3646-4
![]() |
[70] |
Mikami T, Yoshida T, Numata Y, et al. (2007) Low frequency of promoter methylation of O6-Methylguanine DNA methyltransferase and hMLH1 in ulcerative colitis-associated tumors. Am J Clin Pathol 127: 366–373. doi: 10.1309/RFETXN6387KLQ1LD
![]() |
[71] |
Foran E, Garrity-Park MM, Mureau C, et al. (2010) Upregulation of DNA methyltransferase-mediated gene silencing, anchorage-independent growth, and migration of colon cancer cells by interleukin-6. Mol Cancer Res 8: 471–481. doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-09-0496
![]() |
[72] | Hartnett L, Egan LJ (2012) Inflammation, DNA methylation and colitis-associated cancer. Carcinogenesis bgs006. |
[73] |
Nakazawa T, Kondo T, Ma D, et al. (2012) Global histone modification of histone H3 in colorectal cancer and its precursor lesions. Hum Pathol 43: 834–842. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2011.07.009
![]() |
[74] |
Li Q, Chen H (2012) Silencing of Wnt5a during colon cancer metastasis involves histone modifications. Epigenetics 7: 551–558. doi: 10.4161/epi.20050
![]() |
[75] |
Binder H, Steiner L, Przybilla J, et al. (2013) Transcriptional regulation by histone modifications: towards a theory of chromatin re-organization during stem cell differentiation. Phys Biol 10: 026006. doi: 10.1088/1478-3975/10/2/026006
![]() |
[76] |
Bardhan K, Liu K (2013) Epigenetics and colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Cancers 5: 676–713. doi: 10.3390/cancers5020676
![]() |
[77] |
Klose RJ, Zhang Y (2007) Regulation of histone methylation by demethylimination and demethylation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8: 307–318. doi: 10.1038/nrm2143
![]() |
[78] |
Wong JJL, Hawkins NJ, Ward RL (2007) Colorectal cancer: a model for epigenetic tumorigenesis. Gut 56: 140–148. doi: 10.1136/gut.2005.088799
![]() |
[79] |
Portela A, Esteller M (2010) Epigenetic modifications and human disease. Nat Biotechnol 28: 1057–1068. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1685
![]() |
[80] |
Glauben R, Batra A, Fedke I, et al. (2006) Histone hyperacetylation is associated with amelioration of experimental colitis in mice. J Immunol 176: 5015–5022. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.176.8.5015
![]() |
[81] |
Glauben R, Batra A, Stroh T, et al. (2008) Histone deacetylases: novel targets for prevention of colitis-associated cancer in mice. Gut 57: 613–622. doi: 10.1136/gut.2007.134650
![]() |
[82] |
Griffiths-Jones S, Grocock RJ, Van Dongen S, et al. (2006) miRBase: microRNA sequences, targets and gene nomenclature. Nucleic Acids Res 34: D140–D144. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj112
![]() |
[83] |
Wu F, Zikusoka M, Trindade A, et al. (2008) MicroRNAs are differentially expressed in ulcerative colitis and alter expression of macrophage inflammatory peptide-2α. Gastroenterol 135: 1624–1635. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.07.068
![]() |
[84] |
Olaru AV, Selaru FM, Mori Y, et al. (2011) Dynamic changes in the expression of MicroRNA-31 during inflammatory bowel disease-associated neoplastic transformation. Inflamm Bowel Dis 17: 221–231. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21359
![]() |
[85] | Shi C, Yang Y, Xia Y, et al. (2015) Novel evidence for an oncogenic role of microRNA-21 in colitis-associated colorectal cancer. Gut 308–455. |
[86] | Svrcek M, El-Murr N, Wanherdrick K, et al. (2013) Overexpression of microRNAs-155 and 21 targeting mismatch repair proteins in inflammatory bowel diseases. Carcinogenesis bgs408. |
[87] |
Polytarchou C, Hommes DW, Palumbo T, et al. (2015) MicroRNA214 is associated with progression of ulcerative colitis, and inhibition reduces development of colitis and colitis-associated cancer in mice. Gastroenterol 149: 981–992. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.05.057
![]() |
[88] | Cristóbal I, Manso R, Gónzález-Alonso P, et al. (2015) Clinical value of miR-26b discriminating ulcerative colitis-associated colorectal cancer in the subgroup of patients with metastatic disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 21: E24–E25. |
[89] |
Ludwig K, Fassan M, Mescoli C, et al. (2013) PDCD4/miR-21 dysregulation in inflammatory bowel disease-associated carcinogenesis. Virchows Arch 462: 57–63. doi: 10.1007/s00428-012-1345-5
![]() |
[90] |
Yang L, Belaguli N, Berger DH (2009) MicroRNA and colorectal cancer. World J Surg 33: 638–646. doi: 10.1007/s00268-008-9865-5
![]() |
[91] |
Kanaan Z, Rai SN, Eichenberger MR, et al. (2012) Differential MicroRNA expression tracks neoplastic progression in inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal cancer. Hum Mutat 33: 551–560. doi: 10.1002/humu.22021
![]() |
[92] |
Feng R, Chen X, Yu Y, et al. (2010) miR-126 functions as a tumour suppressor in human gastric cancer. Cancer Lett 298: 50–63. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2010.06.004
![]() |
[93] |
Fasseu M, Tréton X, Guichard C, et al. (2010) Identification of restricted subsets of mature microRNA abnormally expressed in inactive colonic mucosa of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. PloS One 5: e13160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013160
![]() |
[94] | Wang W, Li X, Zheng D, et al. (2015) Dynamic changes and functions of macrophages and M1/M2 subpopulations during ulcerative colitis-associated carcinogenesis in an AOM/DSS mouse model. Mol Med Rep 11: 2397–2406. |
[95] |
Francescone R, Hou V, Grivennikov SI (2015) Cytokines, IBD, and colitis-associated cancer. Inflamm Bowel Dis 21: 409–418. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000236
![]() |
[96] |
Sarra M, Pallone F, MacDonald TT, et al. (2010) IL-23/IL-17 axis in IBD. Inflamm Bowel Dis 16: 1808–1813. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21248
![]() |
[97] | Reinecker HC, Steffen M, Witthoeft T, et al. (1993) Enhand secretion of tumour necrosis factor-alpha, IL-6, and IL-1β by isolated lamina ropria monouclear cells from patients with ulcretive cilitis and Crohn's disease. Clin Exp Immunol 94: 174–181. |
[98] | Banks C, Bateman A, Payne R, et al. (2003) Chemokine expression in IBD. Mucosal chemokine expression is unselectively increased in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. J Pathol 199: 28–35. |
[99] |
Wiercinska-Drapalo A, Flisiak R, Jaroszewicz J, et al. (2005) Plasma interleukin-18 reflects severity of ulcerative colitis. World J Gastroenterol 11: 605–608. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i4.605
![]() |
[100] |
Bisping G, Lügering N, Lütke-Brintrup S, et al. (2001) Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) reveal increased induction capacity of intracellular interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) in peripheral CD8+ lymphocytes co-cultured with intestinal epithelial cells. Clin Exp Immunol 123: 15–22. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2249.2001.01443.x
![]() |
[101] | Hyun YS, Han DS, Lee AR, et al. (2012) Role of IL-17A in the development of colitis-associated cancer. Carcinogenesis bgs106. |
[102] |
Onizawa M, Nagaishi T, Kanai T, et al. (2009) Signaling pathway via TNF-α/NF-κB in intestinal epithelial cells may be directly involved in colitis-associated carcinogenesis. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 296: G850–G859. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00071.2008
![]() |
[103] |
Matsumoto S, Hara T, Mitsuyama K, et al. (2010) Essential roles of IL-6 trans-signaling in colonic epithelial cells, induced by the IL-6/soluble–IL-6 receptor derived from lamina propria macrophages, on the development of colitis-associated premalignant cancer in a murine model. J Immunol 184: 1543–1551. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0801217
![]() |
[104] |
Atreya R, Mudter J, Finotto S, et al. (2000) Blockade of interleukin 6 trans signaling suppresses T-cell resistance against apoptosis in chronic intestinal inflammation: evidence in crohn disease and experimental colitis in vivo. Nat Med 6: 583–588. doi: 10.1038/75068
![]() |
[105] | Popivanova BK, Kitamura K, Wu Y, et al. (2008) Blocking TNF-α in mice reduces colorectal carcinogenesis associated with chronic colitis. J Clin Invest 118: 560–570. |
[106] |
Fukata M, Chen A, Vamadevan AS, et al. (2007) Toll-like receptor-4 promotes the development of colitis-associated colorectal tumors. Gastroenterol 133: 1869–1869. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.09.008
![]() |
[107] |
Garrett WS, Punit S, Gallini CA, et al. (2009) Colitis-associated colorectal cancer driven by T-bet deficiency in dendritic cells. Cancer Cell 16: 208–219. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.07.015
![]() |
[108] |
Allen IC, TeKippe EM, Woodford RMT, et al. (2010) The NLRP3 inflammasome functions as a negative regulator of tumorigenesis during colitis-associated cancer. J Exp Med 207: 1045–1056. doi: 10.1084/jem.20100050
![]() |
[109] |
Allen IC, Wilson JE, Schneider M, et al. (2012) NLRP12 suppresses colon inflammation and tumorigenesis through the negative regulation of noncanonical NF-κB signaling. Immunity 36: 742–754. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.03.012
![]() |
[110] |
Chen GY, Liu M, Wang F, et al. (2011) A functional role for Nlrp6 in intestinal inflammation and tumorigenesis. J Immunol 186: 7187–7194. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1100412
![]() |
[111] | Eckmann L, Greten T (2004) IKKbeta links inflam. mation and tumorigenesis in a mouse model of colitis-associated cancer. Cell 118: 285–296. |
[112] |
Cooks T, Pateras IS, Tarcic O, et al. (2013) Mutant p53 prolongs NF-κB activation and promotes chronic inflammation and inflammation-associated colorectal cancer. Cancer Cell 23: 634–646. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.03.022
![]() |
[113] |
Grivennikov S, Karin E, Terzic J, et al. (2009) IL-6 and Stat3 are required for survival of intestinal epithelial cells and development of colitis-associated cancer. Cancer Cell 15: 103–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.01.001
![]() |
[114] |
Bollrath J, Phesse TJ, von Burstin VA, et al. (2009) gp130-mediated Stat3 activation in enterocytes regulates cell survival and cell-cycle progression during colitis-associated tumorigenesis. Cancer Cell 15: 91–102. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.01.002
![]() |
[115] |
Ghosh S, Karin M (2002) Missing pieces in the NF-κB puzzle. Cell 109: S81–S96. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00703-1
![]() |
[116] |
Karin M (2006) Nuclear factor-κB in cancer development and progression. Nature 441: 431–436. doi: 10.1038/nature04870
![]() |
[117] |
Greten FR, Eckmann L, Greten TF, et al. (2004) IKKβ links inflammation and tumorigenesis in a mouse model of colitis-associated cancer. Cell 118: 285–296. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2004.07.013
![]() |
[118] |
Rose-John S (2012) IL-6 trans-signaling via the soluble IL-6 receptor: importance for the pro-inflammatory activities of IL-6. Int J Biol Sci 8: 1237–1247. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.4989
![]() |
[119] |
Yu H, Pardoll D, Jove R (2009) STATs in cancer inflammation and immunity: a leading role for STAT3. Nat Rev Cancer 9: 798–809. doi: 10.1038/nrc2734
![]() |
[120] |
Pickert G, Neufert C, Leppkes M, et al. (2009) STAT3 links IL-22 signaling in intestinal epithelial cells to mucosal wound healing. J Exp Med 206: 1465–1472. doi: 10.1084/jem.20082683
![]() |
[121] |
Putoczki TL, Thiem S, Loving A, et al. (2013) Interleukin-11 is the dominant IL-6 family cytokine during gastrointestinal tumorigenesis and can be targeted therapeutically. Cancer Cell 24: 257–271. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.06.017
![]() |
[122] | Chichlowski M, Sharp JM, Vanderford DA, et al. (2008) Helicobacter typhlonius and Helicobacter rodentium differentially affect the severity of colon inflammation and inflammation-associated neoplasia in IL10-deficient mice. Comp Med 58: 534–541. |
[123] |
Uronis JM, Mühlbauer M, Herfarth HH, et al. (2009) Modulation of the intestinal microbiota alters colitis-associated colorectal cancer susceptibility. PloS One 4: e6026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006026
![]() |
[124] |
O'mahony L, Feeney M, O'halloran S, et al. (2001) Probiotic impact on microbial flora, inflammation and tumour development in IL-10 knockout mice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 15: 1219–1225. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.01027.x
![]() |
[125] |
Tözün N, Vardareli E (2016) Gut microbiome and gastrointestinal cancer: les liaisons dangereuses. J Clin Gastroenterol 50: S191–S196. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000714
![]() |
[126] | Yamamoto M, Matsumoto S (2016) Gut microbiota and colorectal cancer. Genes and Environ 38: 1–7. |
[127] |
Abreu MT (2010) Toll-like receptor signalling in the intestinal epithelium: how bacterial recognition shapes intestinal function. Nat Rev Immunol 10: 131–144. doi: 10.1038/nri2707
![]() |
[128] | Grivennikov SI (2013) Inflammation and colorectal cancer: colitis-associated neoplasia, In: Seminars in immunopathology, Springer-Verlag, 229–244. |
[129] |
Lowe EL, Crother TR, Rabizadeh S, et al. (2010) Toll-like receptor 2 signaling protects mice from tumor development in a mouse model of colitis-induced cancer. PloS One 5: e13027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013027
![]() |
[130] |
Fukata M, Chen A, Vamadevan AS, et al. (2007) Toll-like receptor-4 promotes the development of colitis-associated colorectal tumors. Gastroenterol 133: 1869–1869. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.09.008
![]() |
[131] | Araki T, Toiyama Y, Okita Y, et al. (2016) Surgical treatment for ulcerative colitis-associated cancer or dysplasia, In: Colitis-associated cancer, Springer-Verlag, 109–130. |
[132] |
Nio K, Higashi D, Kumagai H, et al. (2016) Efficacy and safety analysis of chemotherapy for advanced colitis-associated colorectal cancer in Japan. Anticancer Drugs 27: 457–463. doi: 10.1097/CAD.0000000000000338
![]() |
[133] |
Impellizzeri D, Esposito E, Mazzon E, et al. (2011) Oleuropein aglycone, an olive oil compound, ameliorates development of arthritis caused by injection of collagen type II in mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 339: 859–869. doi: 10.1124/jpet.111.182808
![]() |
[134] |
Giner E, Recio MC, Ríos JL, et al. (2013) Oleuropein protects against dextran sodium sulfate-induced chronic colitis in mice. J Nat Prod 76: 1113–1120. doi: 10.1021/np400175b
![]() |
[135] | Acquaviva R, Di Giacomo C, Sorrenti V, et al. (2012) Antiproliferative effect of oleuropein in prostate cell lines. Int J Oncol 41: 31. |
[136] |
Elamin MH, Daghestani MH, Omer SA, et al. (2013) Olive oil oleuropein has anti-breast cancer properties with higher efficiency on ER-negative cells. Food Chem Toxicol 53: 310–316. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.12.009
![]() |
[137] |
Giner E, Recio MC, Ríos JL, et al. (2016) Chemopreventive effect of oleuropein in colitis-associated colorectal cancer in c57bl/6 mice. Mol Nutr Food Res 60: 242–255. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201500605
![]() |
[138] |
Zhang M, Viennois E, Prasad M, et al. (2016) Edible ginger-derived nanoparticles: a novel therapeutic approach for the prevention and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and colitis-associated cancer. Biomaterials 101: 321–340. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.06.018
![]() |
[139] | Lin L, Sun Y, Wang D, et al. (2015) Celastrol ameliorates ulcerative colitis-related colorectal cancer in mice via suppressing inflammatory responses and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Front Pharmacol 6. |
[140] |
Shaker ME, Ashamallah SA, Houssen ME (2014) Celastrol ameliorates murine colitis via modulating oxidative stress, inflammatory cytokines and intestinal homeostasis. Chem Biol Interact 210: 26–33. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2013.12.007
![]() |
[141] |
Fung KY, Cosgrove L, Lockett T, et al. (2012) A review of the potential mechanisms for the lowering of colorectal oncogenesis by butyrate. Br J Nutr 108: 820–831. doi: 10.1017/S0007114512001948
![]() |
[142] |
Hu Y, Le Leu RK, Christophersen CT, et al. (2016) Manipulation of the gut microbiota using resistant starch is associated with protection against colitis-associated colorectal cancer in rats. Carcinogenesis 37: 366–375. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgw019
![]() |
[143] | Kong ZL, Kao NJ, Hu JY, et al. (2016) Fucoxanthin-rich brown algae extract decreases inflammation and attenuates colitis-associated colon cancer in mice. J Food Nutr Res 4: 137–147. |
[144] |
Pandurangan AK, Saadatdoust Z, Hamzah H, et al. (2015) Dietary cocoa protects against colitis-associated cancer by activating the Nrf2/Keap1 pathway. Biofactors 41: 1–14. doi: 10.1002/biof.1195
![]() |
[145] | Wu WT, Tsai YT, Chen HL (2016) Konjac glucomannan and inulin oligosaccharide attenuated the progression of colitic-associated colon carcinogenesis and modulated immune response in mice. FASEB J 30: 1174. |
[146] | Periasamy S, Liu CT, Wu WH, et al. (2015) Dietary Ziziphus jujuba fruit influence on aberrant crypt formation and blood cells in colitis-associated colorectal cancer in mice. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev:16: 7561–7566. |
[147] |
Viennois E, Xiao B, Ayyadurai S, et al. (2014) Micheliolide, a new sesquiterpene lactone that inhibits intestinal inflammation and colitis-associated cancer. Lab Invest 94: 950–965. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.2014.89
![]() |
[148] | Kunchari Kalaimathi S, Sudhandiran G (2016) Fisetin ameolirates the azoxymethane and dextran sodium sulfate induced colitis associated colorectal cancer. Int J Pharm Clin Res 8: 551–560. |
[149] |
Yasui Y, Hosokawa M, Mikami N, et al. (2011) Dietary astaxanthin inhibits colitis and colitis-associated colon carcinogenesis in mice via modulation of the inflammatory cytokines. Chem Biol Interact 193: 79–87. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2011.05.006
![]() |
[150] | Yang X, Zhang F, Wang Y, et al. (2013) Oroxylin A inhibits colitis-associated carcinogenesis through modulating the IL-6/STAT3 signaling pathway. Inflamm Bowel Dis 19: 1990–2000. |
[151] |
Kannengiesser K, Maaser C, Heidemann J, et al. (2008) Melanocortin-derived tripeptide KPV has anti-inflammatory potential in murine models of inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 14: 324–331. doi: 10.1002/ibd.20334
![]() |
[152] |
Viennois E, Ingersoll SA, Ayyadurai S, et al. (2016) Critical role of PepT1 in promoting colitis-associated cancer and therapeutic benefits of the anti-inflammatory PepT1-mediated tripeptide KPV in a murine model. CMGH Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol 2: 340–357. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2016.01.006
![]() |
[153] |
Seraj MJ, Umemoto A, Kajikawa A, et al. (1997) Effects of dietary bile acids on formation of azoxymethane-induced aberrant crypt foci in F344 rats. Cancer Lett 115: 97–103. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3835(97)04719-8
![]() |
[154] |
Tung BY, Emond MJ, Haggitt RC, et al. (2001) Ursodiol use is associated with lower prevalence of colonic neoplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Ann Intern Med 134: 89–95. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-2-200101160-00008
![]() |
[155] |
Xie L, Jiang FC, Zhang LM, et al. (2016) Targeting of MyD88 homodimerization by novel synthetic inhibitor TJ-M2010-5 in preventing colitis-associated colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 108: djv364. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv364
![]() |
[156] |
Amini-Khoei H, Momeny M, Abdollahi A, et al. (2016) Tropisetron suppresses colitis-associated cancer in a mouse model in the remission stage. Int Immunopharmacol 36: 9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2016.04.014
![]() |
[157] |
Drechsler S, Bruntsch U, Eggert J, et al. (1997) Comparison of three tropisetron-containing antiemetic regimens in the prophylaxis of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced emesis and nausea. Support Care Cancer 5: 387–395. doi: 10.1007/s005200050097
![]() |
[158] |
Koh SJ, Kim JM, Kim I-K, et al. (2011) Fluoxetine inhibits NF-κB signaling in intestinal epithelial cells and ameliorates experimental colitis and colitis-associated colon cancer in mice. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 301: G9–G19. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00267.2010
![]() |
[159] |
Tanaka T, Kochi T, Shirakami Y, et al. (2016) Cimetidine and clobenpropit attenuate inflammation-associated colorectal carcinogenesis in male ICR mice. Cancers 8: 25. doi: 10.3390/cancers8020025
![]() |
[160] |
Masini E, Fabbroni V, Giannini L, et al. (2005) Histamine and histidine decarboxylase up-regulation in colorectal cancer: correlation with tumor stage. Inflamm Res 54: S80–S81. doi: 10.1007/s00011-004-0437-3
![]() |
[161] |
Miyamoto S, Epifano F, Curini M, et al. (2008) A novel prodrug of 4'-geranyloxy-ferulic acid suppresses colitis-related colon carcinogenesis in mice. Nutr Cancer 60: 675–684. doi: 10.1080/01635580802008286
![]() |
[162] |
Yao J, Xie J, Xie B, et al. (2016) Therapeutic effect of hydroxychloroquine on colorectal carcinogenesis in experimental murine colitis. Biochem Pharmacol 115: 51–63. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2016.06.004
![]() |
[163] |
Dai Y, Jiao H, Teng G, et al. (2014) Embelin reduces colitis-associated tumorigenesis through limiting IL-6/STAT3 signaling. Mol Cancer Ther 13: 1206–1216. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0378
![]() |
[164] |
Liang J, Nagahashi M, Kim EY, et al. (2013) Sphingosine-1-phosphate links persistent STAT3 activation, chronic intestinal inflammation, and development of colitis-associated cancer. Cancer Cell 23: 107–120. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.11.013
![]() |
[165] | Kawamori T, Kaneshiro T, Okumura M, et al. (2009) Role for sphingosine kinase 1 in colon carcinogenesis. FASEB J 23: 405–414. |
[166] |
Snider AJ, Kawamori T, Bradshaw SG, et al. (2009) A role for sphingosine kinase 1 in dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis. FASEB J 23: 143–152. doi: 10.1096/fj.08-118109
![]() |
[167] |
Wang D, DuBois RN (2010) The role of COX-2 in intestinal inflammation and colorectal cancer. Oncogene 29: 781–788. doi: 10.1038/onc.2009.421
![]() |
[168] |
Kohno H, Suzuki R, Sugie S, et al. (2005) Suppression of colitis-related mouse colon carcinogenesis by a COX-2 inhibitor and PPAR ligands. BMC Cancer 5: 1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-5-1
![]() |
[169] |
Setia S, Nehru B, Sanyal SN (2014) The PI3K/Akt pathway in colitis associated colon cancer and its chemoprevention with celecoxib, a Cox-2 selective inhibitor. Biomed Pharmacother 68: 721–727. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2014.07.006
![]() |
[170] |
Glauben R, Sonnenberg E, Zeitz M, et al. (2009) HDAC inhibitors in models of inflammation-related tumorigenesis. Cancer Lett 280: 154–159. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2008.11.019
![]() |
[171] | Wei TT, Lin YT, Tseng RY, et al. (2016) Prevention of colitis and colitis-associated colorectal cancer by a novel polypharmacological Histone deacetylase inhibitor. Am Assoc Cancer Res 22: 4158–4169. |
[172] |
Reinhard A, Bressenot A, Dassonneville R, et al. (2015) Photodynamic therapy relieves colitis and prevents colitis-associated carcinogenesis in mice. Inflamm Bowel Dis 21: 985–995. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000354
![]() |
[173] |
Zhang D, Mi M, Jiang F, et al. (2015) Apple polysaccharide reduces NF-kb mediated colitis-associated colon carcinogenesis. Nutr Cancer 67: 177–190. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2015.965336
![]() |
[174] |
Yang Y, Cai X, Yang J, et al. (2014) Chemoprevention of dietary digitoflavone on colitis-associated colon tumorigenesis through inducing Nrf2 signaling pathway and inhibition of inflammation. Mol Cancer 13: 48. doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-13-48
![]() |
[175] | Tian Y, Wang K, Wang Z, et al. (2013) Chemopreventive effect of dietary glutamine on colitis-associated colon tumorigenesis in mice. Carcinogenesis bgt088. |
[176] |
Tian Y, Wang K, Fan Y, et al. (2016) Chemopreventive effect of dietary glutamineon colitis-associated colorectal cancer is associated with modulation of the DEPTOR/mTOR signaling pathway. Nutrients 8: 261. doi: 10.3390/nu8050261
![]() |
1. | Tai-Ling Liu, Ray C. Hsiao, Yu-Min Chen, Po-Chun Lin, Cheng-Fang Yen, Sources of Information about COVID-19 Vaccines for Children and Its Associations with Parental Motivation to Have Their Children Vaccinated in Taiwan, 2023, 11, 2076-393X, 1337, 10.3390/vaccines11081337 | |
2. | Gregory Pavela, Tamika Smith, Victoria McDonald, Leah Bryan, Robin Riddle, Using behavioral theory to understand partisan differences in COVID-19 vaccination and booster intentions, 2024, 47, 0160-7715, 169, 10.1007/s10865-023-00445-3 | |
3. | Margaux Delporte, Dries De Witte, Stefaan Demarest, Geert Verbeke, Geert Molenberghs, Vera Hoorens, Do health beliefs about COVID‐19 predict morbidity? A longitudinal study, 2023, 17, 1751-9004, 10.1111/spc3.12852 | |
4. | Samuel Olusegun Itodo, Stephen Olaide Aremu, Jeremiah John Oloche, Samuel Ali Agada, Edwin Inalegwu Alonyenu, Miracle Chekwube Itodo, Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among the working population in urban areas of Benue State, North-Central Nigeria, 2025, 22, 3005-0774, 10.1186/s12982-025-00597-4 |
Character | MS of stress (E) | MS of Genotype (G) | MS G*E | CV | Average | RD (%) | |
Normal | Saline | ||||||
VH (cm) | 43279.61ns | 272.41** | 109.55ns | 10.22 | 117.89 ±12 | 89.85 ± 16.85 | 23.78 |
GH (cm) | 5900.88ns | 203.75** | 85.71ns | 9.25 | 93.85 ± 7.58 | 82.52 ±14.11 | 12.08 |
TT | 1707.76* | 8.51** | 3.96ns | 24.50 | 9.4 ± 2.2 | 3.8 ± 1.9 | 59.45 |
PT | 1630.18* | 10.54** | 4.46ns | 27.12 | 9.6 ± 2.4 | 4.1 ± 2.3 | 57.45 |
DF | 656.30ns | 26.69** | 13.37ns | 4.15 | 89.3 ±11.7 | 92.0 ± 11.3 | −3.04 |
FLL (cm) | 9462.65* | 161.90** | 48.37ns | 14.53 | 48.99 ± 8.37 | 36.30 ± 6.82 | 25.91 |
PL (cm) | 1254.97* | 38.39** | 13.95ns | 14.97 | 29.36 ± 4.47 | 24.96 ± 3.92 | 14.98 |
NFG | 340249.31* | 1087.72** | 903.71** | 25.19 | 120.4 ± 26.9 | 44.3 ± 27.3 | 63.17 |
NUG | 3277.55ns | 410.57** | 249.71** | 38.97 | 24.5 ± 10.4 | 30.7 ± 18.3 | −25.42 |
NTG | 276737.81* | 2351.67** | 708.74ns | 20.02 | 144.9 ± 30.4 | 75.1 ±31.7 | 48.18 |
100w (g) | 27.50* | 0.26** | 0.17* | 14.88 | 2.52 ± 0.16 | 1.78 ± 0.64 | 29.52 |
PFG (%) | 46091.85ns | 218.50ns | 300.38* | 20.36 | 83.15 ± 6.57 | 53.61 ± 25.7 | 35.52 |
Yield (g) | 29676.44* | 43.72ns | 52.38* | 36.66 | 26.58 ± 8.32 | 3.98 ±3.89 | 85.01 |
Note: * significantly influential at 5% level, ** significantly influential at 1%, ns not significant; C = characters, CV = coefficient of variation, MS = means square, RD = relative decrease; 100W: 100-grain weight, DF = days to flowering, FLL = flag leaf length, GH = generative plant height, NFT = number of filled grains, NTG = number of total grains, NUG = number of unfilled grains, PFG = percentage of filled grains, PL = panicle length, PT = number of productive tillers, TT = number of total tillers, VH = vegetative plant height. |
C | VH | TT | DF | GH | PT | FLL | PL | NFG | NUG | NTG | 100W | PFG |
Normal | ||||||||||||
Yld-P | 0.22 | 0.65∗∗_ | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.63∗∗_ | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.40* | 0.09 | 0.36 | 0.02 | 0.13 |
Yld-G | 0.23 | 0.76∗∗_ | 0.16 | −0.16 | 0.60∗∗_ | −0.24 | 0.44∗∗_ | 0.2 | 0.26 | 0.23 | −0.26 | −0.14 |
Saline | ||||||||||||
Yld-P | 0.64∗∗_ | 0.65∗∗_ | −0.07 | 0.62∗∗_ | 0.74∗∗_ | 0.39 | 0.27 | 0.84∗∗_ | −0.04 | 0.56∗_ | 0.53∗_ | 0.62∗∗_ |
Yld-G | 1.00∗∗_ | 0.23 | NA | 1.00∗∗_ | 0.62∗∗_ | 0.17 | −0.62∗∗_ | 0.93∗∗_ | 0.09 | 0.56∗_ | 0.87∗∗_ | 0.72∗∗_ |
Notes: * significant correlation at α = 5%, ** significant correlation at α = 1%, 100W: 100-grain weight, C = characters, DF = days to flowering, FLL = flag leaf length, GH = generative plant height, NFT = number of filled grains, NTG = number of total grains, NUG = number of unfilled grains, PFG = percentage of filled grains, PL = panicle length, PT = number of productive tillers, TT = number of total tillers, VH = vegetative plant height. Yld-P: phenotypic correlation with yield, Yld-G: genotypic correlation with yield. |
Variabel | Estimate | Std. Error | t value | Pr(>|t|) |
(Intercept) | −0.082 | 0.013 | −6.159 | 0.000** |
Productive tiller | 0.269 | 0.025 | 10.635 | 0.000** |
Number of filled grains | 0.291 | 0.028 | 10.435 | 0.000** |
Notes = ** significant at 1%, Multiple R-squared: 0.7519 dan Adjusted R-squared: 0.748. |
Characters | Total tillers | Number of Productive tillers | Number of filled grains | Percentage of filled grains | Corelation total |
Number of total tillers | −0.13 | 0.61 | 0.20 | −0.04 | 0.65 |
Number of productive tillers | −0.12 | 0.67 | 0.22 | −0.04 | 0.73 |
Number of filled grains | −0.05 | 0.26 | 0.55 | −0.05 | 0.72 |
Percentage of filled grain | −0.07 | 0.38 | 0.36 | −0.07 | 0.61 |
Characters | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Communality |
Vegetative plant height | 0.259 | −0.100 | 0.056 | −0.173 | 0.632 |
Number of total tillers | −0.143 | 0.412 | 0.009 | 0.118 | 0.883 |
Days to flowering | 0.394 | −0.168 | 0.091 | 0.256 | 0.647 |
Generative plant height | 0.182 | −0.014 | −0.113 | 0.161 | 0.658 |
Number of productive tillers | −0.168 | 0.416 | −0.003 | 0.005 | 0.919 |
Flag leaves length | −0.059 | −0.029 | 0.052 | −0.731 | 0.871 |
Panicle length | −0.053 | −0.064 | −0.248 | −0.25 | 0.659 |
Number of filled grains | 0.079 | 0.097 | −0.169 | 0.083 | 0.830 |
Number of unfilled grains | −0.153 | −0.006 | −0.402 | 0.078 | 0.828 |
Number of total grains | −0.054 | 0.071 | −0.362 | 0.126 | 0.940 |
Weight of 100-grains | 0.310 | −0.143 | 0.099 | −0.223 | 0.731 |
Percentage of filled grains | 0.304 | −0.006 | 0.170 | −0.022 | 0.845 |
Yield | −0.09 | 0.300 | −0.078 | −0.066 | 0.825 |
Eigenvalue | 5.427 | 2.531 | 1.246 | 1.066 | 10.269 |
Variance | 0.417 | 0.195 | 0.096 | 0.082 | 0.790 |
R | Genotype | PT (0) | Yld (0) (g) | PT (1) | Yld (1) (g) | STI PT | STI Yld | zSTI PT | zSTI Yld | Index |
1 | F11 | 10.3 | 23.32 | 7.0 | 10.19 | 0.79 | 0.34 | 1.84 | 2.30 | 0.84 |
2 | F42 | 11.0 | 32.19 | 5.7 | 7.20 | 0.68 | 0.33 | 1.27 | 2.20 | 0.77 |
3 | F10 | 8.7 | 22.77 | 7.7 | 9.67 | 0.72 | 0.31 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 0.72 |
4 | F41 | 11.0 | 29.06 | 5.7 | 6.70 | 0.68 | 0.28 | 1.27 | 1.56 | 0.57 |
5 | F22 | 12.7 | 34.95 | 4.3 | 5.64 | 0.60 | 0.28 | 0.84 | 1.60 | 0.55 |
6 | F26 | 11.7 | 29.96 | 5.3 | 6.35 | 0.68 | 0.27 | 1.26 | 1.48 | 0.55 |
7 | Inpari 34 Salin Agritan | 12.7 | 25.51 | 7.3 | 6.10 | 1.01 | 0.22 | 3.02 | 0.88 | 0.51 |
8 | F2 | 10.7 | 27.49 | 5.0 | 5.39 | 0.58 | 0.21 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.29 |
9 | F49 | 11.3 | 37.17 | 4.3 | 3.97 | 0.53 | 0.21 | 0.51 | 0.74 | 0.26 |
10 | F44 | 10.0 | 24.79 | 4.3 | 6.11 | 0.47 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.81 | 0.26 |
11 | F37 | 9.0 | 21.24 | 4.7 | 6.90 | 0.46 | 0.21 | 0.10 | 0.72 | 0.23 |
12 | F20 | 9.0 | 34.79 | 3.0 | 4.38 | 0.29 | 0.22 | −0.76 | 0.83 | 0.19 |
13 | F45 | 11.0 | 32.74 | 4.3 | 3.54 | 0.52 | 0.17 | 0.43 | 0.19 | 0.09 |
14 | F28 | 8.7 | 20.89 | 4.7 | 5.83 | 0.44 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 0.09 |
15 | F8 | 7.5 | 22.25 | 5.0 | 5.56 | 0.41 | 0.18 | −0.16 | 0.33 | 0.09 |
16 | Pokkali | 9.0 | 21.00 | 3.3 | 5.94 | 0.33 | 0.18 | −0.59 | 0.35 | 0.06 |
17 | Inpara 5 | 11.3 | 27.93 | 5.0 | 3.54 | 0.62 | 0.14 | 0.94 | −0.10 | 0.05 |
18 | Inpari 29 | 6.0 | 19.25 | 4.5 | 6.35 | 0.29 | 0.17 | −0.76 | 0.30 | 0.03 |
19 | F14 | 6.3 | 27.39 | 2.7 | 4.62 | 0.18 | 0.18 | −1.34 | 0.38 | 0.00 |
20 | F56 | 14.0 | 35.47 | 5.3 | 1.93 | 0.81 | 0.10 | 1.98 | −0.62 | −0.02 |
41 | IR29 | 8.7 | 25.58 | 2.3 | 1.34 | 0.22 | 0.05 | −1.15 | −1.22 | −0.46 |
42 | Ciherang | 9.0 | 22.19 | 2.3 | 0.60 | 0.23 | 0.02 | −1.11 | −1.58 | −0.57 |
Notes: PT = productive tiller, STI = stress tolerance index, Yld =Yield, zSTI= STI standardized. |
Character | MS of stress (E) | MS of Genotype (G) | MS G*E | CV | Average | RD (%) | |
Normal | Saline | ||||||
VH (cm) | 43279.61ns | 272.41** | 109.55ns | 10.22 | 117.89 ±12 | 89.85 ± 16.85 | 23.78 |
GH (cm) | 5900.88ns | 203.75** | 85.71ns | 9.25 | 93.85 ± 7.58 | 82.52 ±14.11 | 12.08 |
TT | 1707.76* | 8.51** | 3.96ns | 24.50 | 9.4 ± 2.2 | 3.8 ± 1.9 | 59.45 |
PT | 1630.18* | 10.54** | 4.46ns | 27.12 | 9.6 ± 2.4 | 4.1 ± 2.3 | 57.45 |
DF | 656.30ns | 26.69** | 13.37ns | 4.15 | 89.3 ±11.7 | 92.0 ± 11.3 | −3.04 |
FLL (cm) | 9462.65* | 161.90** | 48.37ns | 14.53 | 48.99 ± 8.37 | 36.30 ± 6.82 | 25.91 |
PL (cm) | 1254.97* | 38.39** | 13.95ns | 14.97 | 29.36 ± 4.47 | 24.96 ± 3.92 | 14.98 |
NFG | 340249.31* | 1087.72** | 903.71** | 25.19 | 120.4 ± 26.9 | 44.3 ± 27.3 | 63.17 |
NUG | 3277.55ns | 410.57** | 249.71** | 38.97 | 24.5 ± 10.4 | 30.7 ± 18.3 | −25.42 |
NTG | 276737.81* | 2351.67** | 708.74ns | 20.02 | 144.9 ± 30.4 | 75.1 ±31.7 | 48.18 |
100w (g) | 27.50* | 0.26** | 0.17* | 14.88 | 2.52 ± 0.16 | 1.78 ± 0.64 | 29.52 |
PFG (%) | 46091.85ns | 218.50ns | 300.38* | 20.36 | 83.15 ± 6.57 | 53.61 ± 25.7 | 35.52 |
Yield (g) | 29676.44* | 43.72ns | 52.38* | 36.66 | 26.58 ± 8.32 | 3.98 ±3.89 | 85.01 |
Note: * significantly influential at 5% level, ** significantly influential at 1%, ns not significant; C = characters, CV = coefficient of variation, MS = means square, RD = relative decrease; 100W: 100-grain weight, DF = days to flowering, FLL = flag leaf length, GH = generative plant height, NFT = number of filled grains, NTG = number of total grains, NUG = number of unfilled grains, PFG = percentage of filled grains, PL = panicle length, PT = number of productive tillers, TT = number of total tillers, VH = vegetative plant height. |
C | VH | TT | DF | GH | PT | FLL | PL | NFG | NUG | NTG | 100W | PFG |
Normal | ||||||||||||
Yld-P | 0.22 | 0.65∗∗_ | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.63∗∗_ | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.40* | 0.09 | 0.36 | 0.02 | 0.13 |
Yld-G | 0.23 | 0.76∗∗_ | 0.16 | −0.16 | 0.60∗∗_ | −0.24 | 0.44∗∗_ | 0.2 | 0.26 | 0.23 | −0.26 | −0.14 |
Saline | ||||||||||||
Yld-P | 0.64∗∗_ | 0.65∗∗_ | −0.07 | 0.62∗∗_ | 0.74∗∗_ | 0.39 | 0.27 | 0.84∗∗_ | −0.04 | 0.56∗_ | 0.53∗_ | 0.62∗∗_ |
Yld-G | 1.00∗∗_ | 0.23 | NA | 1.00∗∗_ | 0.62∗∗_ | 0.17 | −0.62∗∗_ | 0.93∗∗_ | 0.09 | 0.56∗_ | 0.87∗∗_ | 0.72∗∗_ |
Notes: * significant correlation at α = 5%, ** significant correlation at α = 1%, 100W: 100-grain weight, C = characters, DF = days to flowering, FLL = flag leaf length, GH = generative plant height, NFT = number of filled grains, NTG = number of total grains, NUG = number of unfilled grains, PFG = percentage of filled grains, PL = panicle length, PT = number of productive tillers, TT = number of total tillers, VH = vegetative plant height. Yld-P: phenotypic correlation with yield, Yld-G: genotypic correlation with yield. |
Variabel | Estimate | Std. Error | t value | Pr(>|t|) |
(Intercept) | −0.082 | 0.013 | −6.159 | 0.000** |
Productive tiller | 0.269 | 0.025 | 10.635 | 0.000** |
Number of filled grains | 0.291 | 0.028 | 10.435 | 0.000** |
Notes = ** significant at 1%, Multiple R-squared: 0.7519 dan Adjusted R-squared: 0.748. |
Characters | Total tillers | Number of Productive tillers | Number of filled grains | Percentage of filled grains | Corelation total |
Number of total tillers | −0.13 | 0.61 | 0.20 | −0.04 | 0.65 |
Number of productive tillers | −0.12 | 0.67 | 0.22 | −0.04 | 0.73 |
Number of filled grains | −0.05 | 0.26 | 0.55 | −0.05 | 0.72 |
Percentage of filled grain | −0.07 | 0.38 | 0.36 | −0.07 | 0.61 |
Characters | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Communality |
Vegetative plant height | 0.259 | −0.100 | 0.056 | −0.173 | 0.632 |
Number of total tillers | −0.143 | 0.412 | 0.009 | 0.118 | 0.883 |
Days to flowering | 0.394 | −0.168 | 0.091 | 0.256 | 0.647 |
Generative plant height | 0.182 | −0.014 | −0.113 | 0.161 | 0.658 |
Number of productive tillers | −0.168 | 0.416 | −0.003 | 0.005 | 0.919 |
Flag leaves length | −0.059 | −0.029 | 0.052 | −0.731 | 0.871 |
Panicle length | −0.053 | −0.064 | −0.248 | −0.25 | 0.659 |
Number of filled grains | 0.079 | 0.097 | −0.169 | 0.083 | 0.830 |
Number of unfilled grains | −0.153 | −0.006 | −0.402 | 0.078 | 0.828 |
Number of total grains | −0.054 | 0.071 | −0.362 | 0.126 | 0.940 |
Weight of 100-grains | 0.310 | −0.143 | 0.099 | −0.223 | 0.731 |
Percentage of filled grains | 0.304 | −0.006 | 0.170 | −0.022 | 0.845 |
Yield | −0.09 | 0.300 | −0.078 | −0.066 | 0.825 |
Eigenvalue | 5.427 | 2.531 | 1.246 | 1.066 | 10.269 |
Variance | 0.417 | 0.195 | 0.096 | 0.082 | 0.790 |
R | Genotype | PT (0) | Yld (0) (g) | PT (1) | Yld (1) (g) | STI PT | STI Yld | zSTI PT | zSTI Yld | Index |
1 | F11 | 10.3 | 23.32 | 7.0 | 10.19 | 0.79 | 0.34 | 1.84 | 2.30 | 0.84 |
2 | F42 | 11.0 | 32.19 | 5.7 | 7.20 | 0.68 | 0.33 | 1.27 | 2.20 | 0.77 |
3 | F10 | 8.7 | 22.77 | 7.7 | 9.67 | 0.72 | 0.31 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 0.72 |
4 | F41 | 11.0 | 29.06 | 5.7 | 6.70 | 0.68 | 0.28 | 1.27 | 1.56 | 0.57 |
5 | F22 | 12.7 | 34.95 | 4.3 | 5.64 | 0.60 | 0.28 | 0.84 | 1.60 | 0.55 |
6 | F26 | 11.7 | 29.96 | 5.3 | 6.35 | 0.68 | 0.27 | 1.26 | 1.48 | 0.55 |
7 | Inpari 34 Salin Agritan | 12.7 | 25.51 | 7.3 | 6.10 | 1.01 | 0.22 | 3.02 | 0.88 | 0.51 |
8 | F2 | 10.7 | 27.49 | 5.0 | 5.39 | 0.58 | 0.21 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.29 |
9 | F49 | 11.3 | 37.17 | 4.3 | 3.97 | 0.53 | 0.21 | 0.51 | 0.74 | 0.26 |
10 | F44 | 10.0 | 24.79 | 4.3 | 6.11 | 0.47 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.81 | 0.26 |
11 | F37 | 9.0 | 21.24 | 4.7 | 6.90 | 0.46 | 0.21 | 0.10 | 0.72 | 0.23 |
12 | F20 | 9.0 | 34.79 | 3.0 | 4.38 | 0.29 | 0.22 | −0.76 | 0.83 | 0.19 |
13 | F45 | 11.0 | 32.74 | 4.3 | 3.54 | 0.52 | 0.17 | 0.43 | 0.19 | 0.09 |
14 | F28 | 8.7 | 20.89 | 4.7 | 5.83 | 0.44 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 0.09 |
15 | F8 | 7.5 | 22.25 | 5.0 | 5.56 | 0.41 | 0.18 | −0.16 | 0.33 | 0.09 |
16 | Pokkali | 9.0 | 21.00 | 3.3 | 5.94 | 0.33 | 0.18 | −0.59 | 0.35 | 0.06 |
17 | Inpara 5 | 11.3 | 27.93 | 5.0 | 3.54 | 0.62 | 0.14 | 0.94 | −0.10 | 0.05 |
18 | Inpari 29 | 6.0 | 19.25 | 4.5 | 6.35 | 0.29 | 0.17 | −0.76 | 0.30 | 0.03 |
19 | F14 | 6.3 | 27.39 | 2.7 | 4.62 | 0.18 | 0.18 | −1.34 | 0.38 | 0.00 |
20 | F56 | 14.0 | 35.47 | 5.3 | 1.93 | 0.81 | 0.10 | 1.98 | −0.62 | −0.02 |
41 | IR29 | 8.7 | 25.58 | 2.3 | 1.34 | 0.22 | 0.05 | −1.15 | −1.22 | −0.46 |
42 | Ciherang | 9.0 | 22.19 | 2.3 | 0.60 | 0.23 | 0.02 | −1.11 | −1.58 | −0.57 |
Notes: PT = productive tiller, STI = stress tolerance index, Yld =Yield, zSTI= STI standardized. |