Phytochemical and comparative transcriptome analyses reveal different regulatory mechanisms in the terpenoid biosynthesis pathways between Matricaria recutita L. and Chamaemelum nobile L.
Biosynthetic Pathways
Chamaemelum
/ chemistry
Computational Biology
/ methods
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
Gene Expression Profiling
Matricaria
/ chemistry
Molecular Sequence Annotation
Oils, Volatile
/ metabolism
Phytochemicals
/ metabolism
Protein Interaction Mapping
Protein Interaction Maps
Sequence Analysis, RNA
Terpenes
/ metabolism
Transcriptome
Chamomile
Comparative transcriptomics
Essential oil
Terpenoid biosynthesis
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Feb 2020
18 Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
28
06
2019
accepted:
13
02
2020
entrez:
20
2
2020
pubmed:
20
2
2020
medline:
27
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Matricaria recutita (German chamomile) and Chamaemelum nobile (Roman chamomile) belong to the botanical family Asteraceae. These two herbs are not only morphologically distinguishable, but their secondary metabolites - especially the essential oils present in flowers are also different, especially the terpenoids. The aim of this project was to preliminarily identify regulatory mechanisms in the terpenoid biosynthetic pathways that differ between German and Roman chamomile by performing comparative transcriptomic and metabolomic analyses. We determined the content of essential oils in disk florets and ray florets in these two chamomile species, and found that the terpenoid content in flowers of German chamomile is greater than that of Roman chamomile. In addition, a comparative RNA-seq analysis of German and Roman chamomile showed that 54% of genes shared > 75% sequence identity between the two species. In particular, more highly expressed DEGs (differentially expressed genes) and TF (transcription factor) genes, different regulation of CYPs (cytochrome P450 enzymes), and rapid evolution of downstream genes in the terpenoid biosynthetic pathway of German chamomile could be the main reasons to explain the differences in the types and levels of terpenoid compounds in these two species. In addition, a phylogenetic tree constructed from single copy genes showed that German chamomile and Roman chamomile are closely related to Chrysanthemum nankingense. This work provides the first insights into terpenoid biosynthesis in two species of chamomile. The candidate unigenes related to terpenoid biosynthesis will be important in molecular breeding approaches to modulate the essential oil composition of Matricaria recutita and Chamaemelum nobile.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Matricaria recutita (German chamomile) and Chamaemelum nobile (Roman chamomile) belong to the botanical family Asteraceae. These two herbs are not only morphologically distinguishable, but their secondary metabolites - especially the essential oils present in flowers are also different, especially the terpenoids. The aim of this project was to preliminarily identify regulatory mechanisms in the terpenoid biosynthetic pathways that differ between German and Roman chamomile by performing comparative transcriptomic and metabolomic analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We determined the content of essential oils in disk florets and ray florets in these two chamomile species, and found that the terpenoid content in flowers of German chamomile is greater than that of Roman chamomile. In addition, a comparative RNA-seq analysis of German and Roman chamomile showed that 54% of genes shared > 75% sequence identity between the two species. In particular, more highly expressed DEGs (differentially expressed genes) and TF (transcription factor) genes, different regulation of CYPs (cytochrome P450 enzymes), and rapid evolution of downstream genes in the terpenoid biosynthetic pathway of German chamomile could be the main reasons to explain the differences in the types and levels of terpenoid compounds in these two species. In addition, a phylogenetic tree constructed from single copy genes showed that German chamomile and Roman chamomile are closely related to Chrysanthemum nankingense.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This work provides the first insights into terpenoid biosynthesis in two species of chamomile. The candidate unigenes related to terpenoid biosynthesis will be important in molecular breeding approaches to modulate the essential oil composition of Matricaria recutita and Chamaemelum nobile.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32070270
doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-6579-z
pii: 10.1186/s12864-020-6579-z
pmc: PMC7029581
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oils, Volatile
0
Phytochemicals
0
Terpenes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
169Subventions
Organisme : Key Discipline of Botany of Anhui Agricultural University
ID : 2013zdxk-01
Organisme : Team of Development and Utilization of Medicinal Plant Resources of Anhui Agricultural University
ID : 2014TSTD005
Organisme : Science fund for youths in Anhui province
ID : 1808085QC57
Organisme : The stability and the introduction of talent research funding from Anhui Agricultural University
ID : yj2017-28
Organisme : Botany Teaching Team of Department of Education Anhui Province
ID : 2014jxtd008
Références
Plant Biotechnol J. 2013 Aug;11(6):671-80
pubmed: 23521778
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jul 1;34(Web Server issue):W293-7
pubmed: 16845012
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Jul 28;7:1129
pubmed: 27516768
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2014 Dec;39(24):4732-9
pubmed: 25898569
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Aug 17;7:1203
pubmed: 27582746
Planta. 2008 Jan;227(2):287-98
pubmed: 17763867
Phytochem Rev. 2018;17(1):81-111
pubmed: 29563859
BMC Plant Biol. 2015 Aug 07;15:190
pubmed: 26245644
Genome Biol. 2015 Aug 06;16:157
pubmed: 26243257
Mol Biol Evol. 2009 Jul;26(7):1641-50
pubmed: 19377059
Plant Cell. 2008 Apr;20(4):1152-68
pubmed: 18398052
Mol Med Rep. 2010 Nov 1;3(6):895-901
pubmed: 21132119
Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1999 Jun;50:47-65
pubmed: 15012203
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2006 Jun;9(3):297-304
pubmed: 16600670
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Jan;31(1):46-53
pubmed: 23222703
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014 Mar;98(6):2371-83
pubmed: 24413977
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80
pubmed: 23329690
Nat Biotechnol. 2011 May 15;29(7):644-52
pubmed: 21572440
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Mar 04;7:174
pubmed: 26973657
BMC Genomics. 2014 May 27;15:402
pubmed: 24884371
Plant Cell. 2004 Nov;16(11):3110-31
pubmed: 15522848
Genome Res. 2003 Nov;13(11):2498-504
pubmed: 14597658
J Nat Prod. 2014 Mar 28;77(3):509-15
pubmed: 24471493
Int J Mol Sci. 2015 Oct 23;16(10):25516-35
pubmed: 26512659
Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Jan 1;29(1):22-8
pubmed: 11125040
Nat Rev Genet. 2009 Jan;10(1):57-63
pubmed: 19015660
Genomics. 2020 Mar;112(2):1055-1064
pubmed: 31706023
Genome Res. 2003 Sep;13(9):2178-89
pubmed: 12952885
Genes (Basel). 2016 Sep 29;7(10):
pubmed: 27690108
Genome Res. 1997 Oct;7(10):986-95
pubmed: 9331369
Bioinformatics. 2005 Sep 15;21(18):3674-6
pubmed: 16081474
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Jan 12;6:1232
pubmed: 26793212
Nat Methods. 2008 Jul;5(7):621-8
pubmed: 18516045
BMC Genomics. 2014 Jul 12;15:588
pubmed: 25015319
Plant Physiol. 2011 Dec;157(4):2081-93
pubmed: 21988879
Pharmacogn Rev. 2011 Jan;5(9):82-95
pubmed: 22096322
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jan 18;102(3):933-8
pubmed: 15630092
J Exp Bot. 2011 Mar;62(6):2023-38
pubmed: 21199890
J Exp Bot. 2014 Aug;65(15):4317-34
pubmed: 24821952
Methods. 2001 Dec;25(4):402-8
pubmed: 11846609
PLoS One. 2010 Mar 10;5(3):e9490
pubmed: 20224823
Phytochemistry. 2002 Sep;61(2):107-14
pubmed: 12169302
Bioinformatics. 2017 Sep 15;33(18):2938-2940
pubmed: 28645171
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 19;8(11):e80464
pubmed: 24260395
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jan 1;32(Database issue):D277-80
pubmed: 14681412
PLoS One. 2013 May 08;8(5):e62714
pubmed: 23667511
Plant J. 2013 Aug;75(3):351-63
pubmed: 23607888