| Literature DB >> 26220297 |
Neetha Nanoth Vellichirammal1, Haichuan Wang2, Seong-Il Eyun3, Etsuko N Moriyama4, Brad S Coates5, Nicholas J Miller6, Blair D Siegfried7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a number of recent reports of insect resistance to transgenic crops expressing insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), little is known about the mechanism of resistance to these toxins. The purpose of this study is to identify genes associated with the mechanism of Cry1F toxin resistance in European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis Hübner). For this, we compared the global transcriptomic response of laboratory selected resistant and susceptible O. nubilalis strain to Cry1F toxin. We further identified constitutive transcriptional differences between the two strains.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26220297 PMCID: PMC4518661 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-015-1751-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
O. nubilalis denovo assembly statistics
| Number of reads obtained after sequencing | 775 million |
|---|---|
| Number of reads after quality filtering | 501 million |
| Number of assembled transcripts | 36,125 |
| N50 | 2.25 Kb |
| Mean length of transcripts | 1.27 Kb |
| Minimum transcript length | 201 bases |
| Maximum transcript length | 24.12 Kb |
| No of annotated transcripts | 11,967 |
Fig. 1Ortholog hit ratio analysis of the O. nubilalis transcriptome assembly. OHR values for the O. nubilalis transcripts when compared to B. mori sequences. Of the 12,446 O. nubilalis sequences with a BLAST hit, 70.42 % have an ortholog hit ratio (OHR) ≥0.5 and 50.49 % have an OHR of ≥0.8
Fig. 2Transcripts that show significant differential expression in the O. nubilalis midgut. Results shown for transcriptional response to Cry1F protoxin in the susceptible strain (S), transcriptional response to Cry1F protoxin exposure in the resistant strain (R), and Constitutive differences between the Cry1F resistant and susceptible strains. Cutoffs for estimated differential expression set at FDR adjusted p-values ≤ 0.05
Fig. 3Transcripts differentially expressed between the Cry1F resistant and susceptible O. nubilalis strains. The x-axis indicates the total numbers of genes differentially expressed in each category. Only the constitutive differences between the Cry1F resistant and susceptible strains are shown in the figure
Comparison of RNA-seq and qRT-PCR results
| Transcript | Comparison | RNA seq Fold change | RT-PCR Fold change |
|---|---|---|---|
| comp30419_c0_seq3 | Susceptible Vs Resistant | 89.6x up in susceptible | 92x up in susceptible |
| comp55172_c0_seq1 | Susceptible Vs Resistant | 311.2x up in resistant | 16x up in resistant |
| comp4659_c0_seq1 | Susceptible Vs Resistant | 10x up in susceptible | 8x up in susceptible |
| comp53943_c0_seq1 | Susceptible Vs Resistant | 248x up in susceptible | 98x up in susceptible |
| comp32281_c0_seq1 | Susceptible Vs Bt treated | 116.3x up in susceptible | 90x up in susceptible |
| comp52754_c0_seq1 | Susceptible Vs Bt treated | 59.5x up in susceptible | 90x up in susceptible |
| comp28866_c0_seq1 | Susceptible Vs Bt treated | 33.1x up in Bt treated | 75x up in Bt treated |
| comp29067_c0_seq1 | Susceptible Vs Bt treated | 33.2x up in Bt treated | 85x up in Bt treated |
Fig. 4Different gene expression comparisons in this study. 1: Cry1F toxin induced transcriptional differences in the susceptible strain, 2: Cry1F toxin induced transcriptional differences in the resistant strain, 3: Constitutive transcriptional differences between the susceptible and resistant strain, 4: Strain and Cry1F toxin interactions. S and Cry1F-S represents the susceptible and Cry1F treated susceptible strain respectively. R and Cry1F-R represents the resistant and Cry1F treated resistant strain respectively