| Literature DB >> 28859136 |
Aqin Cao1, Jie Jin1, Shaoqing Li1, Jianbo Wang1.
Abstract
Inter-specific hybridization and backcrossing commonly occur in plants. The use of progeny generated from inter-specific hybridization and backcrossing has been developed as a novel model system to explore gene expression divergence. The present study investigated the analysis of gene expression and miRNA regulation in backcrossed introgression lines constructed from cultivated and wild rice. High-throughput sequencing was used to compare gene and miRNA expression profiles in three progeny lines (L1710, L1817 and L1730), with different plant heights resulting from the backcrossing of introgression lines (BC2F12) and their parents (O. sativa and O. longistaminata). A total of 25,387 to 26,139 mRNAs and 379 to 419 miRNAs were obtained in these rice lines. More differentially expressed genes and miRNAs were detected in progeny/O. longistaminata comparison groups than in progeny/O. sativa comparison groups. Approximately 80% of the genes and miRNAs showed expression level dominance to O. sativa, indicating that three progeny lines were closer to the recurrent parent, which might be influenced by their parental genome dosage. Approximately 16% to 64% of the differentially expressed miRNAs possessing coherent target genes were predicted, and many of these miRNAs regulated multiple target genes. Most genes were up-regulated in progeny lines compared with their parents, but down-regulated in the higher plant height line in the comparison groups among the three progeny lines. Moreover, certain genes related to cell walls and plant hormones might play crucial roles in the plant height variations of the three progeny lines. Taken together, these results provided valuable information on the molecular mechanisms of hybrid backcrossing and plant height variations based on the gene and miRNA expression levels in the three progeny lines.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28859136 PMCID: PMC5578646 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Morphological phenotypes characterizations of the three progeny lines and their parents.
(A) The rice height of five lines. (B) The third internode length of five lines. (C) The cell length of third internode in five lines. (D) The cell number of third internode in five lines. Asterisks indicate a significant difference (P< 0.01) between progeny line and their parents through t-test.
Fig 2Venn diagram analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis in the five lines.
(A) Venn diagram analysis of co-expressed and specially expressed genes in the five lines. (B) Hierarchical cluster analysis of all gene models in five lines. The branch length indicates the degree of variance, and the color represents the logarithmic intensity of expressed genes. Lines groups are shown as columns, individual expressed genes are arrayed in rows.
Fig 3Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in three progeny lines.
A and B stand for O. sativa and O. longistaminata, respectively.
Fig 4GO analysis of DEGs in the three progeny lines.
(A) GO analysis of DEGUHP in the three progeny lines. GO analysis of up/down-regulated DEGs in the L1710/L1817 comparison group (B), the L1710/L1730 comparison group (C) and the L1817/L1730 comparison group (D). The x-axis represents the name of the GO subcategories. The right y-axis indicates the number of genes expressed in a given sub-category. The left y-axis indicates log (10) scale, the percent of a specific category of genes in that main category. GO terms with P value<0.05 were denoted by one star, GO terms with P value<0.01 were denoted by two stars.
Top 10 up/down-regulated KEGG pathways in the three progeny lines.
| Up-regulated pathways | Down-regulated pathways | Up-regulated pathways | Down-regulated pathways | Up-regulated pathways | Down-regulated pathways | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-vs-L1710 | B-vs-L1710 | A-vs-L1710 | B-vs-L1710 | A-vs-L1817 | B-vs-L1817 | A-vs-L1817 | B-vs-L1817 | A-vs-L1730 | B-vs-L1730 | A-vs-L1730 | B-vs-L1730 | |
| Metabolic pathways (1,394.3) | Photosynthesis—antenna proteins (-809.3) | Glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism (-769.3) | Histidine metabolism (-1,290.5) | Ribosome (2,216.3) | Metabolic pathways (-2,502.9) | |||||||
| Metabolic pathways (-1,233.0) | Protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum (-706.9) | Plant hormone signal transduction (517.1) | Carotenoid biosynthesis (521.2) | Photosynthesis (-459.4) | Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites (-925.9) | Base excision repair (214.9) | Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites (-1,455.7) | Metabolic pathways (-3,510.3) | ||||
| Glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism (706.9) | Spliceosome (-497.2) | Carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms (-136.2) | Protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum (-684.1) | Oxidative phosphorylation (194.9) | Plant hormone signal transduction (-1,657.4) | |||||||
| Photosynthesis (-486.0) | Ubiquitin mediated proteolysis (-445.9) | Propanoate metabolism (-112.4) | Metabolic pathways (-654.4) | Ribosome biogenesis in eukaryotes (163.2) | RNA transport (177.7) | Histidine metabolism (-1,373.8) | ||||||
| Plant hormone signal transduction (503.6) | Carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms (-330.7) | ABC transporters (155.5) | Fatty acid eBation (213.0) | Pentose and glucuronate interconversions (-77.4) | Ubiquitin mediated proteolysis (131.8) | Plant hormone signal transduction (-498.7) | ||||||
| Cysteine and methionine metabolism (346.2) | Circadian rhythm–plant (-288.9) | Cyanoamino acid metabolism (-51.7) | Mismatch repair (124.4) | Phenylalanine metabolism (-483.4) | ||||||||
| Ribosome (140.0) | Peroxisome (-274.2) | Fatty acid eBation (148.9) | ABC transporters (184.6) | Histidine metabolism (-36.4) | DNA replication (122.6) | Ribosome biogenesis in eukaryotes (150.9) | Photosynthesis—antenna proteins (-432.9) | Protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum (-691.1) | ||||
| Phosphatidylinositol signaling system (109.0) | Propanoate metabolism (-106.9) | Ribosome (141.8) | Cysteine and methionine metabolism (183.6) | Arginine and proline metabolism (-32.6) | Spliceosome (-453.5) | Nucleotide excision repair (113.4) | Homologous recombination (132.9) | Photosynthesis (-431.3) | ||||
| Phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan biosynthesis (263.4) | Endocytosis (-34.6) | Endocytosis (-262.3) | Phenylpropanoid biosynthesis (141.5) | Glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism (158.1) | Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism (-29.7) | Ubiquitin mediated proteolysis (-400.4) | RNA transport (111.7) | Endocytosis (-316.3) | ||||
| 10 | Stilbenoid, diarylheptanoid and gingerol biosynthesis (94.8) | Zeatin biosynthesis (-34.0) | Glucosinolate biosynthesis (-222.8) | Ribosome (151.5) | SNARE interactions in vesicular transport (91.1) | SNARE interactions in vesicular transport (125.0) | Protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum (-299.9) | |||||
The numbers in parentheses represent the RPKM value (up or down) of all genes identified in one pathway of progeny and their parents. Pathways marked with bold font indicate significantly enriched pathways (P ≤0.05). A and B stand for O. sativa and O. longistaminata, respectively.
Fig 5Pathway of plant hormone signal transduction analysis in the three progeny lines.
The up/down regulation of plant hormone signal transduction pathway in the progeny/O. sativa comparison groups (A) and the progeny/O. longistaminata comparison groups (B). Red standing for up-regulated and blue standing for down-regulated.
Fig 6Parental expression level dominance (ELD) genes and GO analysis of ELD genes in progeny lines.
(A) Twelve patterns of DEGs in the three progeny lines. GO analysis of ELD-A genes (B) and ELD-B genes (C) in the three progeny lines. GO terms with P value<0.05 were denoted by one star. ELD-A gene indicate the gene expression level in progeny is similar to that in O. sativa, but different from that in O. longistaminata; ELD-B indicate the gene expression level in progeny is similar to that in O. longistaminata, but different from that in O. sativa.
Fig 7The number of differentially expressed miRNAs in the three progeny lines.
FC, standing for fold change.
Differentially expressed miRNAs and their target genes in three progeny lines.
| Comparison groups | Number of up-regulated miRNA | Number of down-regulated miRNA | Number of target genes of up-regulated miRNA | Number of target genes of down-regulated miRNA | Number of coherent target genes of up-regulated miRNA | Number of coherent target genes of down-regulated miRNAs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | 17 | 772 | 454 | 1 | 4 | |
| 14 | 18 | 321 | 702 | 1 | 7 | |
| 35 | 36 | 549 | 1131 | 5 | 19 | |
| 74 | 144 | 1655 | 2550 | 60 | 112 | |
| 69 | 166 | 1584 | 2741 | 46 | 93 | |
| 76 | 159 | 1693 | 2626 | 53 | 110 | |
| 16 | 34 | 553 | 1069 | 6 | 4 | |
| 31 | 61 | 789 | 1412 | 22 | 3 | |
| 33 | 22 | 683 | 648 | 0 | 6 |
A and B stand for O. sativa and O. longistaminata, respectively.
Fig 8Integrated networks of differentially expressed miRNAs and their coherent target genes in three progeny lines compared with O. sativa.
(A), (B) and (C) represent in L1710, L1817 and L1730. Round rectangle represent miRNAs; Ellipse represent coherent target genes; red represent up-regulated; blue represent down-regulated.
Fig 11Integrated network of differentially expressed miRNAs and their coherent target genes in L1730 compared with O. longistaminata.
Round rectangle represent miRNAs; Ellipse represent coherent target genes; red represent up-regulated; blue represent down-regulated.
Fig 12GO analysis of coherent target genes of differentially expressed miRNAs in the three progeny lines.
Up-regulated (A) and down-regulated (B) miRNA in progeny lines compared with O. sativa. Up-regulated (C) and down-regulated (D) miRNA in progeny lines compared with O. longistaminata.