Comparative Leaf and Root Transcriptomic Analysis of two Rice Japonica Cultivars Reveals Major Differences in the Root Early Response to Osmotic Stress

Rice

Table 2 Electrolyte leakage (EL) measurements of rice cultivars

	Start		3 h		24 h		48 h
CV	Mean	p	Mean	p	Mean	p	Mean	p
Gigante vercelli	18.6	cd	41.8	h	94.8	lm	97.2	h
Carnaroli	16.4	abc	23.8	abc	88.0	hi	95.6	gh
Loto	16.7	bc	49.5	i	89.7	il	94.4	gh
Maratelli	13.6	a	42.0	h	95.8	m	95.8	gh
Vialone Nano	24.4	fg	40.2	gh	84.8	hi	96.2	gh
Volano	25.0	g	36.2	g	83.4	h	94.0	gh
SISR215	21.6	ef	31.2	f	56.2	c	91.6	fgh
Thaibonnet	22.0	ef	30.0	ef	67.4	f	89.8	fg
Baldo	14.6	ab	21.2	a	65.0	ef	85.8	ef
Koral	20.0	de	28.5	def	66.7	ef	80.3	de
Salvo	15.8	abc	22.6	ab	61.6	de	81.2	de
Gladio	14.2	ab	22.2	ab	76.0	g	78.0	d
Venere	26.0	g	32.0	f	52.8	c	69.8	c
Arborio	21.8	ef	30.6	ef	56.6	cd	58.4	b
Asia	16.8	bc	23.6	abc	43.8	b	55.0	b
Augusto	18.2	cd	25.4	bcd	27.8	a	30.6	a
Eurosis	21.6	ef	27.0	cde	29.0	a	35.8	a

Data were taken following 0, 3, 24 and 48 h of PEG treatment. Each percentage value is the mean of 3 plants. For each sampling time, data were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance to compare the different varieties. Different letters in the same column show significant differences based on a Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.001)