| Literature DB >> 25004790 |
Carole Leavel Bassett1, Angela M Baldo, Jacob T Moore, Ryan M Jenkins, Doug S Soffe, Michael E Wisniewski, John L Norelli, Robert E Farrell.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individual plants adapt to their immediate environment using a combination of biochemical, morphological and life cycle strategies. Because woody plants are long-lived perennials, they cannot rely on annual life cycle strategies alone to survive abiotic stresses. In this study we used suppression subtractive hybridization to identify genes both up- and down-regulated in roots during water deficit treatment and recovery. In addition we followed the expression of select genes in the roots, leaves, bark and xylem of 'Royal Gala' apple subjected to a simulated drought and subsequent recovery.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25004790 PMCID: PMC4110548 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-14-182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Figure 1Diagram of water deficit experiment conducted with ‘Royal Gala’. A total of twenty-five trees were selected for the experiment. Five trees were sampled (leaves, bark and roots) at the beginning of the experiment (T = 0), after one week acclimation in the growth chamber. The controls, water deficit and recovery treatments are indicated in the boxes. Black arrows indicate how the experiment was conducted in time. Subtractions are indicated next to the red arrows showing the direction of subtraction, forward or reverse. For example, the forward subtraction between T1E and T1C (AAF) involves T1E cDNA as the tester and ten times concentrated T1C cDNA as the driver. Genes isolated from this subtraction represent those whose levels are upregulated in response to two weeks of water deficit treatment. In the reverse subtraction (AAR), T1C is the tester and T1E (ten times concentrated) is the driver. The reverse subtraction identifies genes downregulated in response to water deficit. The two controls (T1C and T2C) were subtracted to account for differences in gene abundance as a consequence of age (three weeks vs four weeks). This subtraction resulted in only a few sequences.
Sequences up-regulated after two weeks of simulated drought (T1E tester vs T1C driver)
| Contig1AAF | Major latex protein | C01AAF | Ω-hydroxypalmitate-O-feruloyl |
| Contig8AAF | Major latex protein | | transferase-like |
| A09AAF | Major latex protein | | |
| Contigs2/3AAF | Metallothioneine2 | C05AAF | 60S ribosomal protein L38 |
| | Metallothioneine | | |
| A11AAF | Metallothioneine fragment | | |
| D09AAF | Metallothioneine | | |
| Contig 4AAF | Putative PIP2-5 homolog3 | C08AAF | Phospholipase C3-like |
| Contig5AAF | Reticulon B2-like | C09AAF | Mitochondrial import receptor |
| A06AAF | ATP citrate synthase | C10AAF | SAUR family protein |
| A10AAF | Adenosylhomocysteinase | D05AAF | NPR1 |
| A12AAF | Actin | D11AAF | Cyclophilin |
| B02AAF | Mal d 14 | D12AAF | Leucine zipper homeobox |
| B03AAF | Bypass 1 |
1There were 8 unidentified or hypothetical genes in the AAF subtraction.
2Contig2_AAF is most closely related to Arabidopsis MT2B and Contig3_AAF is most closely related to MT2A.
3Plasma Membrane Intrinsic Protein. Nearly identical to the PIP2 in the BBF subtraction.
4This clone is identical to the mal d 1l translated product [61].
Sequences down-regulated after two weeks of simulated drought (T1E tester vs T1C driver)
| Contig1AAR | 5-methyltetrahydropteroyltriglutamate homocysteine methyltransferase |
| Contig7/B11AAR | Germin-like gene |
| Contig8AAR | Mal d 12 |
| Contig9/10AAR | Putative PIP2-4 homolog3 |
| B04AAR | α-L-fucosidase 2 |
| B05AAR | LEDI-3-like protein |
| D01AAR | WD-repeat protein 5 |
| D07AAR | Mavicyanin4 |
1There were 14 unidentified and 3 hypothetical genes from this subtraction.
2This EST differs considerably from Mal d 1l [61] and is most closely related to Mal d 1.03A01 [62].
3Appears to be a different family member from the PIPs in the AAF and BBF subtractions.
4A blue copper protein.
Sequences downregulated after a week of recovery from simulated drought (T2E driver vs T1E tester)
| Contig5BBF | Protease inhibitor-like | F05BBF | Programmed cell death protein |
| E03/E12/F08/G05/H08BBF | Metallothionein2 | F10BBF | Histone H2B |
| E05BBF | High affinity nitrate transporter | G01/H09BBF | Mal d 1 |
| E07BBF | Major latex protein | G09BBF | High molec weight HSP4 |
| E08BBF | Isoflavone reductase | H01BBF | Copper chaperone |
| E10BBF | Putative PIP2-5 homolog3 | | |
| E11BBF | DNA binding protein-like | E06BBF | SAT5 |
1There were six unidentified and one hypothetical genes from this subtraction.
2F08BBF is related to Arabidopsis MT2B; G05BBF is related to MT2A; the remaining three ESTs could represent as many as three different metallothioneine family members.
3See note 3 Table 1.
4Probable HSP70 family member.
Sequences upregulated after a week of recovery from simulated drought (T2E tester vs T1E driver)
| Contig1/G12BBR | Cysteine protease |
| G11BBR | Ankyrin repeat protein-like |
| H10BBR | Glutathione S transferase |
| Contig2/H11BBR | Early nodulin 16 precursor-like2 |
| H04BBR | Blue copper protein-like |
1There were five unidentified and one hypothetical genes from this subtraction.
2Binds copper.
Comparison of the high affinity nitrate transporter from the BBF subtraction with the class 2 high affinity nitrate transporter family from
| NRT2.1 | 893 | 100% | 0 | 80% |
| NRT2.2 | 817 | 96% | 0 | 76% |
| NRT2.3 | 792 | 99% | 0 | 73% |
| NRT2.4 | 904 | 100% | 0 | 81% |
| NRT2.5 | 611 | 91% | 2e-179 | 61% |
| NRT2.6 | 790 | 99% | 0 | 73% |
| NRT2.7 | 441 | 80% | 4e-128 | 50% |
aThere was no significant similarity between the BBF sequence and the Arabidopsis class 1 or class 3 genes.
bThe total score of an alignment is calculated as the sum of substitution and gap scores.
cThe percentage of query residues that align with the subject residues.
dThe Expect value represents the number of different alignments that is expected to occur in a database search by chance. Value of 0 means the expect value was less than e-179.
eThe extent to which two amino acid sequences have the same residues at the same positions in an alignment.
Figure 2Quantitative analysis of expression during water deficit and recovery. Expression was assessed by quantitative RT-PCR as described in Methods. Concentrations were determined by normalization with TEF2, and the results from two independent experiments are shown. Standard error bars are indicated on the columns. A: Root; B: Bark and Xylem; C: Leaf. Con1 and Con2: well watered control plants for water deficit treatment and recovery, respectively, Drt: water deficit treatment and Rec: recovery. Light gray columns = 2005 experiment; dark gray and black (xylem) columns = 2008 experiment.
Figure 3Quantitative analysis of expression during water deficit and recovery. Expression was assessed by quantitative RT-PCR as described in Methods. Concentrations were determined by normalization with TEF2, and the results from two independent experiments were averaged. Standard error bars are indicated on the columns. A: Root; B: Bark and Xylem; C: Leaf. Con1 and Con2: well watered control plants for water deficit treatment and recovery, respectively, Drt: water deficit treatment and Rec: recovery. Light gray columns = 2005 experiment; dark gray and black (xylem) columns = 2008 experiment.
Figure 4Quantitative analysis of MpNPR1-2 expression during water deficit and recovery. Expression was assessed by quantitative RT-PCR as described in Methods. Concentrations were determined by normalization with TEF2, and the results from two independent experiments were averaged. Standard error bars are indicated on the columns. A: Root; B: Bark and Xylem; C: Leaf. Con1 and Con2: well watered control plants for water deficit treatment and recovery, respectively, Drt: water deficit treatment and Rec: recovery. Light gray columns = 2005 experiment; dark gray and black (xylem) columns = 2008 experiment.