Transcriptome analysis reveals the effect of grafting on gossypol biosynthesis and gland formation in cotton.
Cotton
Differentially expressed genes
Gossypol content
Gossypol synthesis related genes
Grafting
Pigment gland density
Real-time PCR analysis
Transcriptome analysis
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jan 2023
16 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
15
03
2022
accepted:
15
12
2022
entrez:
15
1
2023
pubmed:
16
1
2023
medline:
18
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Gossypol is a unique secondary metabolite and sesquiterpene in cotton, which is mainly synthesized in the root system of cotton and exhibits many biological activities. Previous research found that grafting affected the density of pigment glands and the gossypol content in cotton. This study performed a transcriptome analysis on cotton rootstocks and scions of four grafting methods. The gene expression of mutual grafting and self-grafting was compared to explore the potential genes involved in gossypol biosynthesis. A total of six differentially expressed enzymes were found in the main pathway of gossypol synthesis-sesquiterpene and triterpene biosynthesis (map00909): lupeol synthase (LUP1, EC:5.4.99.41), beta-amyrin synthase (LUP2, EC:5.4.99.39), squalene monooxygenase (SQLE, EC:1.14.14.17), squalene synthase (FDFT1, EC:2.5.1.21), (-)-germacrene D synthase (GERD, EC:4.2.3.75), ( +)-delta-cadinene synthase (CADS, EC:4.2.3.13). By comparing the results of the gossypol content and the density of the pigment gland, we speculated that these six enzymes might affect the biosynthesis of gossypol. It was verified by qRT-PCR analysis that grafting could influence gene expression of scion and stock. After suppressing the expression of the LUP1, FDFT1, and CAD genes by VIGS technology, the gossypol content in plants was significantly down-regulated. These results indicate the potential molecular mechanism of gossypol synthesis during the grafting process and provide a theoretical foundation for further research on gossypol biosynthesis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Gossypol is a unique secondary metabolite and sesquiterpene in cotton, which is mainly synthesized in the root system of cotton and exhibits many biological activities. Previous research found that grafting affected the density of pigment glands and the gossypol content in cotton.
RESULTS
RESULTS
This study performed a transcriptome analysis on cotton rootstocks and scions of four grafting methods. The gene expression of mutual grafting and self-grafting was compared to explore the potential genes involved in gossypol biosynthesis. A total of six differentially expressed enzymes were found in the main pathway of gossypol synthesis-sesquiterpene and triterpene biosynthesis (map00909): lupeol synthase (LUP1, EC:5.4.99.41), beta-amyrin synthase (LUP2, EC:5.4.99.39), squalene monooxygenase (SQLE, EC:1.14.14.17), squalene synthase (FDFT1, EC:2.5.1.21), (-)-germacrene D synthase (GERD, EC:4.2.3.75), ( +)-delta-cadinene synthase (CADS, EC:4.2.3.13). By comparing the results of the gossypol content and the density of the pigment gland, we speculated that these six enzymes might affect the biosynthesis of gossypol. It was verified by qRT-PCR analysis that grafting could influence gene expression of scion and stock. After suppressing the expression of the LUP1, FDFT1, and CAD genes by VIGS technology, the gossypol content in plants was significantly down-regulated.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These results indicate the potential molecular mechanism of gossypol synthesis during the grafting process and provide a theoretical foundation for further research on gossypol biosynthesis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36642721
doi: 10.1186/s12870-022-04010-z
pii: 10.1186/s12870-022-04010-z
pmc: PMC9841644
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gossypol
KAV15B369O
Sesquiterpenes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
37Subventions
Organisme : Cotton Quality, Stress-Resistant Functional Genomics and Recombinat ion Net-works
ID : 2016YFD0101006
Organisme : Cotton Quality, Stress-Resistant Functional Genomics and Recombinat ion Net-works
ID : 2016YFD0101006
Organisme : Cotton Quality, Stress-Resistant Functional Genomics and Recombinat ion Net-works
ID : 2016YFD0101006
Organisme : Cotton Quality, Stress-Resistant Functional Genomics and Recombinat ion Net-works
ID : 2016YFD0101006
Organisme : Cotton Quality, Stress-Resistant Functional Genomics and Recombinat ion Net-works
ID : 2016YFD0101006
Organisme : Guizhou Province High-level Innovative Talent Training Program Project
ID : [2016]4003
Organisme : Guizhou Province High-level Innovative Talent Training Program Project
ID : [2016]4003
Organisme : Guizhou Province High-level Innovative Talent Training Program Project
ID : [2016]4003
Organisme : Guizhou Province High-level Innovative Talent Training Program Project
ID : [2016]4003
Organisme : Guizhou Province High-level Innovative Talent Training Program Project
ID : [2016]4003
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Genome Biol. 2004;5(2):R7
pubmed: 14759257
New Phytol. 2012 Apr;194(2):416-429
pubmed: 22335501
Chin Med J (Engl). 2011 Jun;124(11):1678-82
pubmed: 21740776
Phytochemistry. 2003 Sep;64(1):219-25
pubmed: 12946420
Virus Res. 2020 Oct 15;288:198125
pubmed: 32835742
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1081:23-44
pubmed: 30288702
Genes (Basel). 2020 Feb 21;11(2):
pubmed: 32098112
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 28;15(4):e0232005
pubmed: 32343733
Nat Biotechnol. 2015 May;33(5):524-30
pubmed: 25893780
Nat Genet. 2018 Jun;50(6):803-813
pubmed: 29736016
Plant Physiol. 2001 Apr;125(4):1754-65
pubmed: 11299356
Nat Plants. 2015 Mar 23;1(4):15025
pubmed: 27247031
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):27-30
pubmed: 10592173
Environ Entomol. 2008 Oct;37(5):1081-5
pubmed: 19036185
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1995 Dec 20;324(2):255-66
pubmed: 8554317
BMC Bioinformatics. 2003 Sep 11;4:41
pubmed: 12969510
Plant J. 2001 Oct;28(1):95-104
pubmed: 11696190
Physiol Plant. 2019 Jul;166(3):833-847
pubmed: 30357855
FEBS Lett. 2010 Jul 16;584(14):2965-73
pubmed: 20553718
BMC Plant Biol. 2015 Oct 19;15:251
pubmed: 26480945
Genes (Basel). 2019 Feb 06;10(2):
pubmed: 30736327
Phytochemistry. 2013 Dec;96:46-56
pubmed: 24074555
Plant Cell Physiol. 2017 Aug 1;58(8):1291-1301
pubmed: 28961994
Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Apr;38(6):1767-71
pubmed: 20015970
Food Chem Toxicol. 2009 Nov;47(11):2735-41
pubmed: 19665044
BMC Genomics. 2019 Oct 25;20(1):776
pubmed: 31653200
Am J Bot. 2012 Feb;99(2):257-66
pubmed: 22268224
BMC Plant Biol. 2021 Jun 15;21(1):272
pubmed: 34130637
Nat Genet. 2000 May;25(1):25-9
pubmed: 10802651
J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Nov 20;50(24):7017-21
pubmed: 12428953
Adv Genet. 2006;56:101-29
pubmed: 16735156
Sci China Life Sci. 2016 Feb;59(2):122-9
pubmed: 26803304
Phytochemistry. 2003 Jan;62(1):31-8
pubmed: 12475616
Nat Genet. 2019 Apr;51(4):739-748
pubmed: 30886425
Physiol Plant. 2021 Dec;173(4):1926-1934
pubmed: 34431527
Nucleic Acids Res. 2021 Jan 8;49(D1):D545-D551
pubmed: 33125081
Genome Biol. 2010;11(10):R106
pubmed: 20979621
Nat Commun. 2016 Jan 22;7:10456
pubmed: 26795254
Mol Plant. 2015 Mar;8(3):486-8
pubmed: 25667001
Breast Cancer Res. 2017 Mar 9;19(1):27
pubmed: 28274247
Prog Lipid Res. 2005 Nov;44(6):357-429
pubmed: 16289312
Protein Sci. 2019 Nov;28(11):1947-1951
pubmed: 31441146
Hortic Res. 2022 Feb 19;:
pubmed: 35184197
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2019 Nov;21(6):1031-1038
pubmed: 31267637
BMC Plant Biol. 2020 Feb 27;20(1):88
pubmed: 32103722
J Agric Food Chem. 2006 Mar 8;54(5):1633-7
pubmed: 16506812
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jan 4;44(D1):D286-93
pubmed: 26582926