Analysis of the transcriptome of the needles and bark of Pinus radiata induced by bark stripping and methyl jasmonate.


Journal

BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Jan 2022
Historique:
received: 02 03 2021
accepted: 30 11 2021
entrez: 14 1 2022
pubmed: 15 1 2022
medline: 18 1 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Plants are attacked by diverse insect and mammalian herbivores and respond with different physical and chemical defences. Transcriptional changes underlie these phenotypic changes. Simulated herbivory has been used to study the transcriptional and other early regulation events of these plant responses. In this study, constitutive and induced transcriptional responses to artificial bark stripping are compared in the needles and the bark of Pinus radiata to the responses from application of the plant stressor, methyl jasmonate. The time progression of the responses was assessed over a 4-week period. Of the 6312 unique transcripts studied, 86.6% were differentially expressed between the needles and the bark prior to treatment. The most abundant constitutive transcripts were related to defence and photosynthesis and their expression did not differ between the needles and the bark. While no differential expression of transcripts were detected in the needles following bark stripping, in the bark this treatment caused an up-regulation and down-regulation of genes associated with primary and secondary metabolism. Methyl jasmonate treatment caused differential expression of transcripts in both the bark and the needles, with individual genes related to primary metabolism more responsive than those associated with secondary metabolism. The up-regulation of genes related to sugar break-down and the repression of genes related with photosynthesis, following both treatments was consistent with the strong down-regulation of sugars that has been observed in the same population. Relative to the control, the treatments caused a differential expression of genes involved in signalling, photosynthesis, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism as well as defence and water stress. However, non-overlapping transcripts were detected between the needles and the bark, between treatments and at different times of assessment. Methyl jasmonate induced more transcriptional responses in the bark than bark stripping, although the peak of expression following both treatments was detected 7 days post treatment application. The effects of bark stripping were localised, and no systemic changes were detected in the needles. There are constitutive and induced differences in the needle and bark transcriptome of Pinus radiata. Some expression responses to bark stripping may differ from other biotic and abiotic stresses, which contributes to the understanding of plant molecular responses to diverse stresses. Whether the gene expression changes are heritable and how they differ between resistant and susceptible families identified in earlier studies needs further investigation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Plants are attacked by diverse insect and mammalian herbivores and respond with different physical and chemical defences. Transcriptional changes underlie these phenotypic changes. Simulated herbivory has been used to study the transcriptional and other early regulation events of these plant responses. In this study, constitutive and induced transcriptional responses to artificial bark stripping are compared in the needles and the bark of Pinus radiata to the responses from application of the plant stressor, methyl jasmonate. The time progression of the responses was assessed over a 4-week period.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of the 6312 unique transcripts studied, 86.6% were differentially expressed between the needles and the bark prior to treatment. The most abundant constitutive transcripts were related to defence and photosynthesis and their expression did not differ between the needles and the bark. While no differential expression of transcripts were detected in the needles following bark stripping, in the bark this treatment caused an up-regulation and down-regulation of genes associated with primary and secondary metabolism. Methyl jasmonate treatment caused differential expression of transcripts in both the bark and the needles, with individual genes related to primary metabolism more responsive than those associated with secondary metabolism. The up-regulation of genes related to sugar break-down and the repression of genes related with photosynthesis, following both treatments was consistent with the strong down-regulation of sugars that has been observed in the same population. Relative to the control, the treatments caused a differential expression of genes involved in signalling, photosynthesis, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism as well as defence and water stress. However, non-overlapping transcripts were detected between the needles and the bark, between treatments and at different times of assessment. Methyl jasmonate induced more transcriptional responses in the bark than bark stripping, although the peak of expression following both treatments was detected 7 days post treatment application. The effects of bark stripping were localised, and no systemic changes were detected in the needles.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
There are constitutive and induced differences in the needle and bark transcriptome of Pinus radiata. Some expression responses to bark stripping may differ from other biotic and abiotic stresses, which contributes to the understanding of plant molecular responses to diverse stresses. Whether the gene expression changes are heritable and how they differ between resistant and susceptible families identified in earlier studies needs further investigation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35026979
doi: 10.1186/s12864-021-08231-8
pii: 10.1186/s12864-021-08231-8
pmc: PMC8759178
doi:

Substances chimiques

Acetates 0
Cyclopentanes 0
Oxylipins 0
methyl jasmonate 900N171A0F

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

52

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Plant Cell Physiol. 2000 Aug;41(8):982-7
pubmed: 11038059
Plant J. 2017 Nov;92(4):710-726
pubmed: 28857307
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D506-D515
pubmed: 30395287
BMC Bioinformatics. 2013 Mar 09;14:91
pubmed: 23497356
J Exp Bot. 2012 May;63(9):3367-77
pubmed: 22140246
J Chem Ecol. 2022 Jan;48(1):51-70
pubmed: 34611747
BMC Plant Biol. 2012 Oct 05;12:180
pubmed: 23035776
Plant Cell. 1995 Jul;7(7):1085-1097
pubmed: 12242399
Plant Mol Biol. 2017 Nov;95(4-5):359-374
pubmed: 28861810
Phytochemistry. 2013 Oct;94:113-22
pubmed: 23768645
BMC Genomics. 2017 Jul 24;18(1):558
pubmed: 28738815
Theor Appl Genet. 1996 May;92(7):827-31
pubmed: 24166547
New Phytol. 2006;170(4):657-75
pubmed: 16684230
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 27;11(6):e0155638
pubmed: 27348423
Nat Biotechnol. 2011 May 15;29(7):644-52
pubmed: 21572440
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2009;47:153-76
pubmed: 19400642
Plant Environ Interact. 2021 Jun 09;2(3):137-147
pubmed: 37283859
Nature. 2009 Jul 23;460(7254):510-4
pubmed: 19578359
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
Genome Biol. 2003;4(7):221
pubmed: 12844352
BMC Plant Biol. 2019 Jan 3;19(1):2
pubmed: 30606115
BMC Genomics. 2013 Nov 08;14:768
pubmed: 24209714
Plant Cell Environ. 2006 Aug;29(8):1545-70
pubmed: 16898017
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 29;10(4):e0124564
pubmed: 25924061
Int J Biol Macromol. 2016 Mar;84:142-52
pubmed: 26687241
BMC Plant Biol. 2018 Oct 12;18(1):231
pubmed: 30309315
Plant Cell. 2003 Jan;15(1):165-78
pubmed: 12509529
J Exp Bot. 2013 Dec;64(18):5443-56
pubmed: 24078667
Planta. 2004 Nov;220(1):118-28
pubmed: 15349778
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 5;7(1):4693
pubmed: 28680045
Plant Physiol. 2009 Sep;151(1):367-78
pubmed: 19571310
Protoplasma. 2014 Nov;251(6):1427-39
pubmed: 24748066
Theor Appl Genet. 2016 Dec;129(12):2413-2427
pubmed: 27586153
Tree Physiol. 2003 Apr;23(6):361-71
pubmed: 12642238
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e34006
pubmed: 22470508
Oecologia. 1998 May;114(4):531-540
pubmed: 28307902
R Soc Open Sci. 2016 Nov 16;3(11):160637
pubmed: 28018654
Plant Mol Biol. 1997 May;34(2):243-54
pubmed: 9207840
Ecol Lett. 2014 May;17(5):537-46
pubmed: 24818235
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 5;14(7):e0219272
pubmed: 31276530
Plant Physiol. 2004 Aug;135(4):2134-49
pubmed: 15299142
Plant Physiol. 2002 Jul;129(3):1003-18
pubmed: 12114556
Heredity (Edinb). 2021 Dec;127(6):498-509
pubmed: 34663917
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):45-8
pubmed: 10592178
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jan 1;26(1):139-40
pubmed: 19910308
Tree Physiol. 2018 Mar 1;38(3):442-456
pubmed: 29040752
Genome Res. 1998 Mar;8(3):186-94
pubmed: 9521922
Funct Ecol. 2011 Apr;25(2):312-324
pubmed: 21532968
Genome Biol Evol. 2011;3:851-67
pubmed: 21852250
BMC Bioinformatics. 2004 Sep 06;5:125
pubmed: 15350197
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Oct 18;10:1349
pubmed: 31681397
J Chem Ecol. 1994 Jun;20(6):1281-328
pubmed: 24242341
Plant Cell. 2004 Nov;16(11):3132-47
pubmed: 15494554
Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2012;28:489-521
pubmed: 22559264
Nature. 2010 Feb 18;463(7283):913-8
pubmed: 20164922
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D419-D426
pubmed: 30407594
J Integr Plant Biol. 2010 Jan;52(1):86-97
pubmed: 20074143
BMC Genomics. 2013 Dec 16;14:884
pubmed: 24341615
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2020 Apr;62:29-37
pubmed: 31580950
Plant Physiol. 2005 Jan;137(1):369-82
pubmed: 15618433
Nat Methods. 2017 Apr;14(4):417-419
pubmed: 28263959
BMC Genomics. 2020 Jan 8;21(1):28
pubmed: 31914917
Plant Physiol. 2006 Mar;140(3):1009-21
pubmed: 16415217
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 5;13(11):e0205835
pubmed: 30395612
Front Genet. 2019 Feb 25;10:126
pubmed: 30858865
Ann Bot. 2015 Jun;115(7):1015-51
pubmed: 26019168
Front Plant Sci. 2014 Jun 23;5:293
pubmed: 25002866
Front Plant Sci. 2014 Nov 04;5:592
pubmed: 25408694
BMC Genomics. 2015 May 06;16:352
pubmed: 25943104
Tree Physiol. 2018 Mar 1;38(3):423-441
pubmed: 29177514
Mol Plant Pathol. 2014 Oct;15(8):858-64
pubmed: 24646208
Nat Rev Genet. 2007 Nov;8(11):845-56
pubmed: 17943192
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43:229-60
pubmed: 16078884
Tree Physiol. 2010 Oct;30(10):1349-59
pubmed: 20660491
BMC Genomics. 2013 Aug 13;14:548
pubmed: 23941306

Auteurs

J S Nantongo (JS)

School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 5, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia. jsnantongo@yahoo.com.
National Forestry Resources Research Institute, Mukono, Uganda. jsnantongo@yahoo.com.

B M Potts (BM)

School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 5, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia.
ARC Training Centre for Forest Value, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

T Frickey (T)

Scion, Rotorua, New Zealand.

E Telfer (E)

Scion, Rotorua, New Zealand.

H Dungey (H)

Scion, Rotorua, New Zealand.

H Fitzgerald (H)

School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 5, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia.

J M O'Reilly-Wapstra (JM)

School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 5, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia.
ARC Training Centre for Forest Value, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH