Global transcriptome profiling reveals differential regulatory, metabolic and hormonal networks during somatic embryogenesis in Coffea arabica.
Cell fate
Coffee
Molecular markers
Molecular networks
Somatic embryogenesis
Totipotency
Transcriptomics
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Jan 2023
24 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
27
09
2022
accepted:
22
12
2022
entrez:
24
1
2023
pubmed:
25
1
2023
medline:
27
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Somatic embryogenesis (SE) is one of the most promising processes for large-scale dissemination of elite varieties. However, for many plant species, optimizing SE protocols still relies on a trial and error approach. We report the first global scale transcriptome profiling performed at all developmental stages of SE in coffee to unravel the mechanisms that regulate cell fate and totipotency. RNA-seq of 48 samples (12 developmental stages × 4 biological replicates) generated 90 million high quality reads per sample, approximately 74% of which were uniquely mapped to the Arabica genome. First, the statistical analysis of transcript data clearly grouped SE developmental stages into seven important phases (Leaf, Dedifferentiation, Primary callus, Embryogenic callus, Embryogenic cell clusters, Redifferentiation and Embryo) enabling the identification of six key developmental phase switches, which are strategic for the overall biological efficiency of embryo regeneration. Differential gene expression and functional analysis showed that genes encoding transcription factors, stress-related genes, metabolism-related genes and hormone signaling-related genes were significantly enriched. Second, the standard environmental drivers used to control SE, i.e. light, growth regulators and cell density, were clearly perceived at the molecular level at different developmental stages. Third, expression profiles of auxin-related genes, transcription factor-related genes and secondary metabolism-related genes were analyzed during SE. Gene co-expression networks were also inferred. Auxin-related genes were upregulated during dedifferentiation and redifferentiation while transcription factor-related genes were switched on from the embryogenic callus and onward. Secondary metabolism-related genes were switched off during dedifferentiation and switched back on at the onset of redifferentiation. Secondary metabolites and endogenous IAA content were tightly linked with their respective gene expression. Lastly, comparing Arabica embryogenic and non-embryogenic cell transcriptomes enabled the identification of biological processes involved in the acquisition of embryogenic capacity. The present analysis showed that transcript fingerprints are discriminating signatures of cell fate and are under the direct influence of environmental drivers. A total of 23 molecular candidates were successfully identified overall the 12 developmental stages and can be tested in many plant species to optimize SE protocols in a rational way.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Somatic embryogenesis (SE) is one of the most promising processes for large-scale dissemination of elite varieties. However, for many plant species, optimizing SE protocols still relies on a trial and error approach. We report the first global scale transcriptome profiling performed at all developmental stages of SE in coffee to unravel the mechanisms that regulate cell fate and totipotency.
RESULTS
RESULTS
RNA-seq of 48 samples (12 developmental stages × 4 biological replicates) generated 90 million high quality reads per sample, approximately 74% of which were uniquely mapped to the Arabica genome. First, the statistical analysis of transcript data clearly grouped SE developmental stages into seven important phases (Leaf, Dedifferentiation, Primary callus, Embryogenic callus, Embryogenic cell clusters, Redifferentiation and Embryo) enabling the identification of six key developmental phase switches, which are strategic for the overall biological efficiency of embryo regeneration. Differential gene expression and functional analysis showed that genes encoding transcription factors, stress-related genes, metabolism-related genes and hormone signaling-related genes were significantly enriched. Second, the standard environmental drivers used to control SE, i.e. light, growth regulators and cell density, were clearly perceived at the molecular level at different developmental stages. Third, expression profiles of auxin-related genes, transcription factor-related genes and secondary metabolism-related genes were analyzed during SE. Gene co-expression networks were also inferred. Auxin-related genes were upregulated during dedifferentiation and redifferentiation while transcription factor-related genes were switched on from the embryogenic callus and onward. Secondary metabolism-related genes were switched off during dedifferentiation and switched back on at the onset of redifferentiation. Secondary metabolites and endogenous IAA content were tightly linked with their respective gene expression. Lastly, comparing Arabica embryogenic and non-embryogenic cell transcriptomes enabled the identification of biological processes involved in the acquisition of embryogenic capacity.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present analysis showed that transcript fingerprints are discriminating signatures of cell fate and are under the direct influence of environmental drivers. A total of 23 molecular candidates were successfully identified overall the 12 developmental stages and can be tested in many plant species to optimize SE protocols in a rational way.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36694132
doi: 10.1186/s12864-022-09098-z
pii: 10.1186/s12864-022-09098-z
pmc: PMC9875526
doi:
Substances chimiques
Indoleacetic Acids
0
Transcription Factors
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
41Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Genomics. 2017 Dec 29;18(1):998
pubmed: 29284399
Tree Physiol. 2015 Jun;35(6):678-90
pubmed: 25877768
BMC Plant Biol. 2011 May 19;11:92
pubmed: 21595964
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
Plant J. 1998 Sep;15(6):755-64
pubmed: 9807814
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Nov 22;12:751866
pubmed: 34880884
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 17;8(7):e69261
pubmed: 23874927
BMC Plant Biol. 2012 Jul 20;12:110
pubmed: 22817809
Genome Biol. 2002 Jun 18;3(7):RESEARCH0034
pubmed: 12184808
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 03;10(6):e0126414
pubmed: 26038822
Trends Plant Sci. 2007 Jun;12(6):245-52
pubmed: 17499544
BMC Genomics. 2021 Mar 12;22(1):183
pubmed: 33711923
Planta. 2015 Jan;241(1):179-91
pubmed: 25249475
BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Mar 20;7 Suppl 1:S7
pubmed: 16723010
Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1359:167-207
pubmed: 26619863
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 17;7(1):8583
pubmed: 28819177
J Plant Res. 2015 May;128(3):389-97
pubmed: 25810222
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Sep 20;20(19):
pubmed: 31547069
Sci Rep. 2016 Mar 14;6:23050
pubmed: 26973288
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56372
pubmed: 23418563
PeerJ. 2019 Oct 16;7:e7752
pubmed: 31637116
Plant Cell Physiol. 1998 Nov;39(11):1184-93
pubmed: 9891417
Planta. 2005 Dec;222(6):977-88
pubmed: 16034595
Planta. 2015 Apr;241(4):967-85
pubmed: 25534944
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jul 18;114(29):E5995-E6004
pubmed: 28673986
Front Plant Sci. 2012 Jan 31;3:8
pubmed: 22639635
Bioinformatics. 2016 Sep 15;32(18):2847-9
pubmed: 27207943
Genome Res. 2003 Nov;13(11):2498-504
pubmed: 14597658
Plant Cell. 1993 Oct;5(10):1411-1423
pubmed: 12271037
Front Plant Sci. 2018 Nov 20;9:1658
pubmed: 30524454
Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2018;164:161-185
pubmed: 29392354
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000 Oct 29;355(1402):1499-510
pubmed: 11128003
Plant Cell Rep. 2017 Jun;36(6):843-858
pubmed: 28255787
Am J Bot. 2004 Nov;91(11):1743-56
pubmed: 21652321
Front Plant Sci. 2018 Nov 12;9:1630
pubmed: 30483287
BMC Genomics. 2015 Apr 16;16:301
pubmed: 25887996
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Feb 28;10:118
pubmed: 30873184
Physiol Plant. 2018 Aug;163(4):530-551
pubmed: 29607503
Front Plant Sci. 2022 Jun 29;13:931105
pubmed: 35845676
BMC Genomics. 2020 Jan 2;21(1):4
pubmed: 31898486
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 30;9(10):e111407
pubmed: 25356773
Plant Physiol. 2008 Apr;146(4):1663-72
pubmed: 18305206
Plant Reprod. 2019 Mar;32(1):77-91
pubmed: 30610360
Front Plant Sci. 2018 Sep 06;9:1283
pubmed: 30237806
BMC Plant Biol. 2015 May 16;15:121
pubmed: 25976599
Nat Plants. 2015 Jun 29;1:15089
pubmed: 27250255
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Mar 28;10:240
pubmed: 30984207
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Jan 16;19(1):
pubmed: 29337875
Bioinformatics. 2006 Jun 15;22(12):1540-2
pubmed: 16595560
Mol Cell Proteomics. 2016 Jun;15(6):2108-24
pubmed: 27073181
Am J Bot. 2003 Jul;90(7):973-9
pubmed: 21659195
Plant Cell. 2002 Aug;14(8):1737-49
pubmed: 12172019
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 23;6:21652
pubmed: 26902837
J Exp Bot. 2012 Jun;63(11):4191-212
pubmed: 22511801
Nature. 2009 Dec 3;462(7273):665-8
pubmed: 19898494
Plant Cell Rep. 2008 Mar;27(3):435-41
pubmed: 17968553
Cell. 1998 Jun 26;93(7):1195-205
pubmed: 9657152
Trends Plant Sci. 2008 Dec;13(12):624-30
pubmed: 19010711
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Aug 21;8:1460
pubmed: 28871271
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Feb 07;10:77
pubmed: 30792725
Plants (Basel). 2022 Aug 02;11(15):
pubmed: 35956493
Genes Dev. 2011 Oct 1;25(19):2025-30
pubmed: 21979915
Mol Plant. 2011 Jul;4(4):616-25
pubmed: 21357646
Mol Plant. 2012 Mar;5(2):334-8
pubmed: 22155950
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jul 3;45(W1):W122-W129
pubmed: 28472432
Plant Cell Physiol. 2018 Apr 1;59(4):651-655
pubmed: 29584903
Development. 2016 May 1;143(9):1442-51
pubmed: 27143753
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jun 06;34(10):3150-60
pubmed: 16757580
Mol Gen Genet. 1999 Mar;261(2):259-66
pubmed: 10102360
Neurosci Lett. 2003 Mar 13;339(1):62-6
pubmed: 12618301