| Literature DB >> 26442000 |
Mohammed Nuruzzaman1, Akhter M Sharoni2, Kouji Satoh3, Mohammad Rezaul Karim4, Jennifer A Harikrishna4, Takumi Shimizu5, Takahide Sasaya5, Toshihiro Omura5, Mohammad A Haque6, Sayed M Z Hasan7, Aziz Ahmad8, Shoshi Kikuchi2.
Abstract
Expression levels of the NAC gene family were studied in rice infected with Rice dwarf virus (RDV), Rice black-streaked dwarf virus (RBSDV), Rice grassy stunt virus (RGSV), Rice ragged stunt virus (RRSV), and Rice transitory yellowing virus (RTYV). Microarray analysis showed that 75 (68%) OsNAC genes were differentially regulated during infection with RDV, RBSDV, RGSV, and RRSV compared with the control. The number of OsNAC genes up-regulated was highest during RGSV infection, while the lowest number was found during RTYV infection. These phenomena correlate with the severity of the syndromes induced by the virus infections. Most of the genes in the NAC subgroups NAC22, SND, ONAC2, ANAC34, and ONAC3 were down-regulated for all virus infections. These OsNAC genes might be related to the health stage maintenance of the host plants. Interestingly, most of the genes in the subgroups TIP and SNAC were more highly expressed during RBSDV and RGSV infections. These results suggested that OsNAC genes might be related to the responses induced by the virus infection. All of the genes assigned to the TIP subgroups were highly expressed during RGSV infection when compared with the control. For RDV infection, the number of activated genes was greatest during infection with the S-strain, followed by the D84-strain and the O-strain, with seven OsNAC genes up-regulated during infection by all three strains. The Os12g03050 and Os11g05614 genes showed higher expression during infection with four of the five viruses, and Os11g03310, Os11g03370, and Os07g37920 genes showed high expression during at least three viral infections. We identified some duplicate genes that are classified as neofunctional and subfunctional according to their expression levels in different viral infections. A number of putative cis-elements were identified, which may help to clarify the function of these key genes in network pathways.Entities:
Keywords: NAC transcription factors; cis-element; differential gene expression; gene duplication; virus infections
Year: 2015 PMID: 26442000 PMCID: PMC4563162 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00676
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Differentially expressed genes under different virus infections, >0.585 = Up-regulated and <0.585 = Down regulated.
| TIP | 1.12 | 0.62 | 1.47 | 0.88 | ||||
| TIP/RIMI | −1.10 | −2.03 | 0.78 | 1.14 | ||||
| TIP | 0.70 | 0.86 | 0.82 | |||||
| TIP | 0.89 | |||||||
| TIP | 1.14 | |||||||
| TIP | −1.12 | −3.48 | 2.09 | 1.57 | ||||
| TIP | 3.57 | 5.44 | 2.14 | |||||
| NAM/CUC3 | −1.75 | |||||||
| NAM/CUC3 | ||||||||
| NAM/CUC3 | ||||||||
| NAM/CUC3 | 0.63 | |||||||
| NAM/CUC3 | ||||||||
| NAM/CUC3 | −1.02 | −0.96 | ||||||
| NAM/CUC3 | ||||||||
| NAM/CUC3 | 1.81 | |||||||
| NAM/CUC3 | ||||||||
| NAM/CUC3 | 1.51 | 1.66 | 2.46 | 2.54 | 1.72 | |||
| NAM/CUC3 | 1.89 | 2.08 | 2.25 | 1.53 | 1.48 | |||
| NAM/CUC3 | 1.69 | 2.01 | 2.95 | 2.83 | 2.17 | 1.19 | ||
| NAC1 | ||||||||
| NAC1 | ||||||||
| NAC1 | 1.23 | |||||||
| NAC1 | −3.04 | −2.60 | ||||||
| NAC1 | 1.93 | 1.70 | 1.02 | |||||
| NAC22 | −3.08 | −2.60 | −1.20 | |||||
| NAC22 | −0.68 | −0.83 | ||||||
| NAC22 | 2.05 | 3.48 | 3.29 | 1.99 | 0.71 | |||
| NAC22 | 0.86 | −0.99 | ||||||
| NAC22 | −1.13 | −0.86 | ||||||
| SND | ||||||||
| SND | 2.68 | |||||||
| SND | −1.16 | −0.81 | ||||||
| SND | −1.36 | −2.72 | ||||||
| SND | −2.19 | |||||||
| SND | ||||||||
| SND | 1.18 | 0.89 | −1.97 | |||||
| SND | −0.75 | −0.67 | −1.35 | |||||
| SND | 0.70 | |||||||
| ANAC34 | −0.67 | −0.69 | −0.94 | |||||
| ANAC34 | 1.10 | 1.00 | ||||||
| ANAC34 | −0.72 | −0.78 | ||||||
| ANAC34 | ||||||||
| ANAC34 | 1.12 | 1.82 | 1.49 | 0.84 | ||||
| ANAC34 | −0.69 | 1.02 | 1.33 | 3.23 | 2.95 | |||
| ANAC34 | ||||||||
| ANAC34 | 1.51 | |||||||
| ANAC34 | 1.11 | |||||||
| SNAC | −1.96 | −1.15 | −1.61 | |||||
| SNAC | 1.68 | 2.08 | 0.94 | |||||
| SNAC | 1.20 | 1.11 | ||||||
| SNAC | ||||||||
| SNAC | 2.63 | 2.01 | ||||||
| SNAC | 1.35 | |||||||
| SNAC | ||||||||
| SNAC | 1.05 | 1.08 | 0.61 | |||||
| SNAC | 2.74 | |||||||
| SNAC | 2.15 | 2.89 | 3.15 | 1.91 | ||||
| SNAC | 2.72 | 1.73 | ||||||
| SNAC | 3.57 | 1.21 | 2.36 | |||||
| SNAC | 0.68 | |||||||
| SNAC | 3.27 | 2.33 | ||||||
| ONAC4 | −1.46 | |||||||
| ONAC4 | −1.04 | −0.79 | ||||||
| ONAC4 | 1.12 | 1.04 | −1.36 | |||||
| ONAC4 | 1.46 | 1.79 | 2.18 | 0.73 | 1.35 | |||
| ONAC4 | 1.63 | 1.57 | 2.17 | 0.70 | 1.76 | |||
| ONAC4 | −0.94 | −0.91 | −3.35 | −1.63 | ||||
| ONAC4 | 1.49 | 1.69 | 0.59 | |||||
| ONAC4 | −0.70 | |||||||
| ONAC4 | ||||||||
| ONAC4 | ||||||||
| ONAC4 | ||||||||
| ONAC2 | 0.77 | 0.59 | ||||||
| ONAC2 | ||||||||
| ONAC2 | ||||||||
| ONAC2 | ||||||||
| ONAC2 | −0.68 | −1.19 | −1.63 | |||||
| ONAC2 | ||||||||
| ONAC2 | ||||||||
| ONAC2 | −1.58 | |||||||
| ONAC2 | −0.97 | |||||||
| ONAC2 | ||||||||
| ONAC2 | ||||||||
| ONAC2 | ||||||||
| ONAC3 | −1.49 | |||||||
| ONAC3 | ||||||||
| ONAC3 | −0.84 | |||||||
| ONAC3 | ||||||||
| ONAC3 | ||||||||
| ONAC3 | 1.33 | 1.49 | ||||||
| ONAC3 | ||||||||
| ONAC3 | −2.05 | −0.96 | ||||||
| ONAC3 | ||||||||
| ONAC5 | ||||||||
| ONAC5 | 0.98 | 1.66 | ||||||
| ONAC5 | ||||||||
| ONAC1 | 0.67 | |||||||
| ONAC1 | ||||||||
| ONAC1 | ||||||||
| ONAC1 | ||||||||
| ONAC1 | −1.36 | |||||||
| ONAC1 | ||||||||
| ONAC7 | 2.91 | |||||||
| ONAC7 | 1.39 | 3.11 | ||||||
| ONAC7 | 1.72 | 1.48 | 2.13 | 1.29 | 3.85 | 1.62 | ||
| ONAC7 | 1.98 | |||||||
| ONAC7 | ||||||||
| ONAC6 | 3.14 | |||||||
| ONAC6 | −2.20 | |||||||
| NEO | −1.09 | −1.86 | −1.96 | |||||
| NEO | ||||||||
| OMNAC | 0.68 | 0.68 |
Not differentially expressed genes are indicated as blank space. For convenience, the “LOC_” prefix has been omitted from the Osa1 locus IDs in the manuscript.
The OsNAC genes have been classified into 16 subgroups in rice (Nuruzzaman et al., .
RDV, Rice dwarf virus (RDV, three virus strains D84, -O, and-S); RBSDV, Rice black-streaked dwarf fijivirus; RGSV, Rice grassy stunt virus; RRSV, Rice ragged stunt orayzavirus; RTYV, Rice transitory yellowing virus.
Figure 1Disease phenotype or virus accumulation in infected rice plants by different virus infections.
Figure 2Number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in rice seedlings (A) infected with RDV (3-strain) (B) infected with RBSDV, RGSV, RRSV, and RTYV respectively. Y-axis represents the number of DEGs and different viruses are indicated on the X-axis. (C) Common or specific up- or down-regulated genes are mentioned among all the virus infections. Red color indicated the common up-regulated genes and blue color indicated the common down-regulated genes. These genes are specific up- or -down regulated to following virus infection: RDV-84, 01g64310, 03g21030, and 04g35660; RDV-O, 10g38834 and 11g45950; RDV-S, 06g04090 and 01g09550; RBSDV, 01g09550 and 01g59640; RGSV, 08g44820, 07g48550, 06g46270, 03g03540, 08g33910, 03g60080, 07g12340, 11g08210, 08g42400, 02g34970, 01g01470, 10g25620, and 07g31410; RRSV, 12g43530, 07g17180, and 11g31360; RTYV, 07g27330. Elaborations of virus infection are in Table 1.
The 10 genes expressed (up-regulated) by at least three biotic treatments.
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| NAC22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| ANAC34 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
The OsNAC genes have been classified into 16 subgroups in rice (Nuruzzaman et al., .
Figure 3Evaluation of the expression levels of selected DEGs by semi-quantitative RT-PCR during RDV-84 and RDV-O virus infections.