| Literature DB >> 29271931 |
Meiling Gao1,2, Siyu Yao3, Yang Liu4, Haining Yu5, Pinsan Xu6, Wenhui Sun7, Zhongji Pu8, Hongman Hou9, Yongming Bao10,11.
Abstract
Leaf spot disease caused by the fungus Fusarium proliferatum (Matsushima) Nirenberg is a destructive disease of tomato plants in China. Typical symptoms of infected tomato plants are softened and wilted stems and leaves, leading to the eventual death of the entire plant. In this study, we resorted to transcriptional profile analysis to gain insight into the repertoire of effectors involved in F. proliferatum-tomato interactions. A total of 61,544,598 clean reads were de novo assembled to provide a F. proliferatum reference transcriptome. From these, 75,044 unigenes were obtained, with 19.46% of the unigenes being assigned to 276 Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways, with 22.3% having a homology with genes from F. fujikuroi. A total of 18,075 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified, 720 of which were found to code for secreted proteins. Of these, 184 were identified as candidate effectors, while 79.89% had an upregulated expression. Moreover, 17 genes that were differentially expressed in RNA-seq studies were randomly selected for validation by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). The study demonstrates that transcriptome analysis could be an effective method for identifying the repertoire of candidate effectors and may provide an invaluable resource for future functional analyses of F. proliferatum pathogenicity in F. proliferatum and tomato plant-host interactions.Entities:
Keywords: DEGs; Fusarium proliferatum; effector; pathogenicity; tomato plants
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29271931 PMCID: PMC5795981 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19010031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Preparation of Fusarium proliferatum-infected tomato leaves (Solanum lycopersicum) for transcriptome analysis. Leaves were obtained 0, 12, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h after inoculation (hpi) with a conidial suspension of F. proliferatum.
Summary of the RNA-Seq data.
| cDNA Library | Raw Reads | Clean Reads | Clean Bases (Gb) | Error (%) | Q20 (%) 1 | Q30 (%) 2 | GC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KC | 52,509,182 | 37,091,012 | 6.46 | 0.03 | 96.28 | 92.16 | 51.58 |
| KS_1 | 63,479,768 | 61,614,408 | 7.70 | 0.03 | 96.13 | 92.29 | 53.15 |
1 Q20: percentage of bases with a Phred value >20; 2 Q30: percentage of bases with a Phred value >30.
Sequence summary of transcriptome assembly statistics.
| Category | Total Number | Min Length (bp) | Mean Length (bp) | Median Length (bp) | Max Length (bp) | N50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | 89,716 | 201 | 853 | 471 | 17,632 | 1443 |
| Unigenes | 75,044 | 201 | 767 | 419 | 17,632 | 1283 |
Figure 2Distribution of transcript and unigene length in the assembled F. proliferatum reference transcriptome.
Annotationresults of the assembled unigenes.
| Database | Number of Unigenes | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Annotated in Nr | 46,292 | 61.68 |
| Annotated in Nt | 62,514 | 83.3 |
| Annotated in KO | 21,172 | 28.21 |
| Annotated in SwissPort | 39,854 | 53.10 |
| Annotated in Pfam | 37,595 | 50.09 |
| Annotated in GO | 38,947 | 51.89 |
| Annotated in KOG | 24,338 | 32.43 |
| Annotated in all databases | 12,073 | 16.08 |
| Annotated in at least one database | 71,787 | 95.78 |
| Total unigenes | 75,044 | 100 |
KO: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes Orthology; GO: Gene ontology; KGO: euKaryotic Ortholog Groups.
Figure 3Species distribution of F. Proliferatum unigenes. (A) Similarity distribution of top Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST)hits for each unigene; (B) e-value distribution of BLAST hits with a cut off e-value of 1 × 10−5; (C) Species distribution for top BLAST hits in the Nr database.
Figure 4euKaryotic Ortholog Groups (KOG) functional categories for F. proliferatum.
Figure 5Pathway assignment based on the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG). (A) Classification based on cellular processes categories; (B) classification based on environmental-information processing categories; (C) classification based on genetic-information processing categories; (D) classification based on metabolism categories; and (E) classification based on organismal-system categories.
Figure 6Validation of the expression of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in F. proliferatum by Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR).
Figure 7Expression levels of ten F. proliferatum candidate effector genes at six different time points (0, 12, 24, 48, 72 and 96 hpi) as determined by qRT–PCR analyses. The β-tubulin and ubiquitin genes were used as two internal control genes for normalization.