Physiological and transcriptional response to drought stress among bioenergy grass Miscanthus species.

Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) Drought Electrolyte leakage Gene ontology Miscanthus RNA-seq Relative water content

Journal

Biotechnology for biofuels
ISSN: 1754-6834
Titre abrégé: Biotechnol Biofuels
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101316935

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Mar 2021
Historique:
received: 21 07 2020
accepted: 23 02 2021
entrez: 7 3 2021
pubmed: 8 3 2021
medline: 8 3 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Miscanthus is a commercial lignocellulosic biomass crop owing to its high biomass productivity, resilience and photosynthetic capacity at low temperature. These qualities make Miscanthus a particularly good candidate for temperate marginal land, where yields can be limited by insufficient or excessive water supply. Differences in response to water stress have been observed among Miscanthus species, which correlated to origin. In this study, we compared the physiological and molecular responses among Miscanthus species under excessive (flooded) and insufficient (drought) water supply in glasshouse conditions. A significant biomass loss was observed under drought conditions in all genotypes. M. x giganteus showed a lower reduction in biomass yield under drought conditions compared to the control than the other species. Under flooded conditions, biomass yield was as good as or better than control conditions in all species. 4389 of the 67,789 genes (6.4%) in the reference genome were differentially expressed during drought among four Miscanthus genotypes from different species. We observed the same biological processes were regulated across Miscanthus species during drought stress despite the DEGs being not similar. Upregulated differentially expressed genes were significantly involved in sucrose and starch metabolism, redox, and water and glycerol homeostasis and channel activity. Multiple copies of the starch metabolic enzymes BAM and waxy GBSS-I were strongly up-regulated in drought stress in all Miscanthus genotypes, and 12 aquaporins (PIP1, PIP2 and NIP2) were also up-regulated in drought stress across genotypes. Different phenotypic responses were observed during drought stress among Miscanthus genotypes from different species, supporting differences in genetic adaption. The low number of DEGs and higher biomass yield in flooded conditions supported Miscanthus use in flooded land. The molecular processes regulated during drought were shared among Miscanthus species and consistent with functional categories known to be critical during drought stress in model organisms. However, differences in the regulated genes, likely associated with ploidy and heterosis, highlighted the value of exploring its diversity for breeding.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Miscanthus is a commercial lignocellulosic biomass crop owing to its high biomass productivity, resilience and photosynthetic capacity at low temperature. These qualities make Miscanthus a particularly good candidate for temperate marginal land, where yields can be limited by insufficient or excessive water supply. Differences in response to water stress have been observed among Miscanthus species, which correlated to origin. In this study, we compared the physiological and molecular responses among Miscanthus species under excessive (flooded) and insufficient (drought) water supply in glasshouse conditions.
RESULTS RESULTS
A significant biomass loss was observed under drought conditions in all genotypes. M. x giganteus showed a lower reduction in biomass yield under drought conditions compared to the control than the other species. Under flooded conditions, biomass yield was as good as or better than control conditions in all species. 4389 of the 67,789 genes (6.4%) in the reference genome were differentially expressed during drought among four Miscanthus genotypes from different species. We observed the same biological processes were regulated across Miscanthus species during drought stress despite the DEGs being not similar. Upregulated differentially expressed genes were significantly involved in sucrose and starch metabolism, redox, and water and glycerol homeostasis and channel activity. Multiple copies of the starch metabolic enzymes BAM and waxy GBSS-I were strongly up-regulated in drought stress in all Miscanthus genotypes, and 12 aquaporins (PIP1, PIP2 and NIP2) were also up-regulated in drought stress across genotypes.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Different phenotypic responses were observed during drought stress among Miscanthus genotypes from different species, supporting differences in genetic adaption. The low number of DEGs and higher biomass yield in flooded conditions supported Miscanthus use in flooded land. The molecular processes regulated during drought were shared among Miscanthus species and consistent with functional categories known to be critical during drought stress in model organisms. However, differences in the regulated genes, likely associated with ploidy and heterosis, highlighted the value of exploring its diversity for breeding.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33676571
doi: 10.1186/s13068-021-01915-z
pii: 10.1186/s13068-021-01915-z
pmc: PMC7937229
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

60

Subventions

Organisme : FP7 International Cooperation
ID : FP7-KBBE-2011-5-289461

Références

Plant J. 2008 May;54(4):559-68
pubmed: 18476863
Plant Physiol. 1992 Jan;98(1):198-205
pubmed: 16668614
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2008 Jun;19(3):202-9
pubmed: 18513940
Nat Biotechnol. 2015 Mar;33(3):290-5
pubmed: 25690850
Genome Biol. 2002;3(1):RESEARCH0001
pubmed: 11806824
Plant Cell. 2016 Aug;28(8):1860-78
pubmed: 27436713
Int J Genomics. 2017;2017:9184731
pubmed: 29318138
Science. 2010 Aug 13;329(5993):790-2
pubmed: 20705851
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):27-30
pubmed: 10592173
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:595-624
pubmed: 18444909
Plant Physiol. 1981 Dec;68(6):1222-5
pubmed: 16662082
BMC Plant Biol. 2019 Apr 11;19(1):139
pubmed: 30975080
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Dec 5;:
pubmed: 31806758
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
Genome Biol. 2010;11(2):R12
pubmed: 20128909
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015 Jun;25:1-9
pubmed: 25899330
J Exp Bot. 2016 Mar;67(6):1819-26
pubmed: 26792489
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 6;14(3):e0212671
pubmed: 30840683
Plant J. 2014 Feb;77(3):367-79
pubmed: 24274116
Bioinformatics. 2005 Sep 15;21(18):3674-6
pubmed: 16081474
Antioxid Redox Signal. 2013 Sep 20;19(9):998-1011
pubmed: 23581681
J Agric Food Chem. 2003 Jul 2;51(14):3973-6
pubmed: 12822932
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):15-21
pubmed: 23104886
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Jan;40(Database issue):D1178-86
pubmed: 22110026
Plant Cell Physiol. 2017 Jan 1;58(1):e4
pubmed: 28013278
Plant Mol Biol. 2005 Oct;59(3):469-84
pubmed: 16235111
Plant Cell. 2004 Jan;16(1):215-28
pubmed: 14671024
Nature. 2011 Jun 22;474(7352):S6-8
pubmed: 21697842
Phytochemistry. 2011 Jun;72(8):723-9
pubmed: 21420135
Front Plant Sci. 2013 Nov 25;4:468
pubmed: 24324474
BMC Plant Biol. 2016 May 21;16(1):115
pubmed: 27208977

Auteurs

Jose J De Vega (JJ)

Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UZ, UK.

Abel Teshome (A)

John Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK.
Teagasc Crop Science Department, Oak Park, Carlow, R93XE12, Ireland.
Feed and Forage Development, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Manfred Klaas (M)

Teagasc Crop Science Department, Oak Park, Carlow, R93XE12, Ireland.

Jim Grant (J)

Teagasc Statistics and Applied Physics Research Operations Group, Ashtown, Dublin 15, D15 DY05, Ireland.

John Finnan (J)

Teagasc Crop Science Department, Oak Park, Carlow, R93XE12, Ireland.

Susanne Barth (S)

Teagasc Crop Science Department, Oak Park, Carlow, R93XE12, Ireland. susanne.barth@teagasc.ie.

Classifications MeSH