| Literature DB >> 29873878 |
Thomas Vanhercke1, Srinivas Belide1, Matthew C Taylor2, Anna El Tahchy1, Shoko Okada2, Vivien Rolland1, Qing Liu1, Madeline Mitchell1, Pushkar Shrestha1, Ingrid Venables1, Lina Ma1, Cheryl Blundell1, Anu Mathew1, Lisa Ziolkowski1, Nathalie Niesner1, Dawar Hussain1, Bei Dong1, Guoquan Liu3, Ian D Godwin3, Jiwon Lee4, Melanie Rug4, Xue-Rong Zhou1, Surinder P Singh1, James R Petrie1.
Abstract
Synthesis and accumulation of the storage lipid triacylglycerol in vegetative plant tissues has emerged as a promising strategy to meet the world's future need for vegetable oil. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) is a particularly attractive target crop given its high biomass, drought resistance and C4 photosynthesis. While oilseed-like triacylglycerol levels have been engineered in the C3 model plant tobacco, progress in C4 monocot crops has been lagging behind. In this study, we report the accumulation of triacylglycerol in sorghum leaf tissues to levels between 3 and 8.4% on a dry weight basis depending on leaf and plant developmental stage. This was achieved by the combined overexpression of genes encoding the Zea mays WRI1 transcription factor, Umbelopsis ramanniana UrDGAT2a acyltransferase and Sesamum indicum Oleosin-L oil body protein. Increased oil content was visible as lipid droplets, primarily in the leaf mesophyll cells. A comparison between a constitutive and mesophyll-specific promoter driving WRI1 expression revealed distinct changes in the overall leaf lipidome as well as transitory starch and soluble sugar levels. Metabolome profiling uncovered changes in the abundance of various amino acids and dicarboxylic acids. The results presented here are a first step forward towards the development of sorghum as a dedicated biomass oil crop and provide a basis for further combinatorial metabolic engineering.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990DGATzzm321990; zzm321990Sorghum bicolorzzm321990; Oleosin; WRI1; leaf; triacylglycerol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29873878 PMCID: PMC6330533 DOI: 10.1111/pbi.12959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Biotechnol J ISSN: 1467-7644 Impact factor: 9.803
Figure 1Schematic representation of the minimal expression cassettes containing Zea mays WRI1, Umbelopsis ramanniana DGAT2a and Sesamum indicum Oleosin‐L. Orange arrows represent transgenes, promoter regions are shown as green arrows and blue lines indicate terminator sequences. Ubiquitin‐1, Z. mays Ubiquitin‐1 promoter; Actin‐1, O. sativa Actin‐1 promoter; PEPC, Z. mays PEPC promoter; Nos, Rhizobium radiobacter Nopaline synthase polyadenylation signal; Lectin, Glycine max Lectin polyadenylation signal.
Figure 2Levels of total lipids (TFA) and triacylglycerol (TAG) on a dry weight basis (DW) in leaves of Sorghum bicolor primary transformants at three stages during development. Sorghum was transformed with pOIL102, pOIL197, pOIL102+pOIL197 or pOIL103+pOIL197. ‘Vegetative’, ‘Boot leaf’ and ‘Seed setting’ corresponded to stages 3–4, 5 and 7–8 of Vanderlip and Reeves (1972). Data are based on single leaf measurements for each transgenic line.
Pearson correlation coefficients† for transgene expression and total lipids (TFA) or triacylglycerol (TAG) content (% leaf dry weight) at boot leaf stage for re‐established tillers
| Constructs | Lipid class | WRI1 | DGAT2 | Oleosin‐L |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pOIL102+pOIL197 | TFA | 0.7737 | 0.6019 | 0.0772 (0.768377) |
| TAG | 0.8252 | 0.7903 | 0.3689 (0.145078) | |
| pOIL103+pOIL197 | TFA | 0.5675 | 0.6764 | −0.2299 (0.430987) |
| TAG | 0.8018 | 0.9428 | −0.0154 (0.95941) |
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.
†Significance levels are indicated between brackets.
‡ n = 17 (pOIL102+pOIL197) or 14 (pOIL103+pOIL197).
Figure 3Propagated tillers from wild‐type and four independent transgenic Sorghum bicolor lines at boot leaf (a) and seed setting (b) stages. Transgenic ‘02’ and ‘03’ events were transformed with pOIL102+pOIL197 or pOIL103+pOIL197, respectively. Scale bar: 1 m.
Figure 4Lipidome analysis of wild‐type and transgenic Sorghum bicolor leaves at boot leaf stage. (a) Quantification of major neutral, phospholipid and galactolipid classes. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals of the LS means. Means sharing a letter are not significantly different (P < 0.01, Tukey‐adjusted) within the lipid class based on one‐way ANOVA. (b) Triacylglycerol (TAG) molecular species (number of carbon atoms: number of double bonds). Lines ‘02’ and ‘03’ were transformed with pOIL102+pOIL197 or pOIL103+pOIL197, respectively. DAG, diacylglycerol; DGDG, digalactosyldiacylglycerol; LPC, lysophosphatidylcholine; MGDG, monogalactosyldiacylglycerol; PC, phosphatidylcholine; TAG, triacylglycerol. Data are based on triplicate leaves from triplicate propagated tillers for each line.
Metabolites displaying significanta differences in accumulation in wild‐type vs. transgenic leaves (lines 02‐19 and 03‐48) at boot leaf stage
| Metabolite | Trend | WT1/03‐48 |
| WT1/02‐19 |
| 02‐19/03‐48 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D‐glucose | 03‐48‐1 = 02‐19‐1> WT | 0.621 | 0.004 | 0.599 | 0.028 | 1.037 | 0.844 |
| Erythronic acid‐1,4‐lactone | 03‐48‐1 = 02‐19‐1> WT | 0.508 | 0.000 | 0.607 | 0.039 | 0.836 | 0.308 |
| 2‐oxo‐glutaric acid | 03‐48‐1 = 02‐19‐1> WT | 0.381 | 0.004 | 0.294 | 0.008 | 1.298 | 0.353 |
| O‐acetylserine | 03‐48‐1 = 02‐19‐1> WT | 0.277 | 0.025 | 0.185 | 0.002 | 1.503 | 0.220 |
| L‐glutamine | 03‐48‐1 = 02‐19‐1> WT | 0.112 | 0.002 | 0.144 | 0.033 | 0.782 | 0.536 |
| Glyceric acid | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.365 | 0.000 | 0.599 | 0.011 | 0.609 | 0.001 |
| Pyroglutamic acid | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.205 | 0.000 | 0.353 | 0.006 | 0.581 | 0.003 |
| L‐threonine | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.150 | 0.002 | 0.346 | 0.001 | 0.435 | 0.022 |
| L‐Serine | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.071 | 0.000 | 0.384 | 0.016 | 0.185 | 0.001 |
| L‐Tyrosine | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.029 | 0.000 | 0.077 | 0.000 | 0.373 | 0.002 |
| L‐cysteine | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.021 | 0.001 | 0.038 | 0.000 | 0.558 | 0.088 |
| 1,6‐anhydroglucose | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.021 | 0.003 | 0.122 | 0.037 | 0.169 | 0.009 |
| L‐valine | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.012 | 0.004 | 0.031 | 0.003 | 0.396 | 0.055 |
| L‐phenylalanine | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.009 | 0.001 | 0.041 | 0.000 | 0.209 | 0.006 |
| Urea | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.015 | 0.005 | 0.499 | 0.111 |
| L‐aspartic acid | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0.024 | 0.000 | 0.293 | 0.015 |
| Beta‐alanine | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.007 | 0.023 | 0.026 | 0.050 | 0.269 | 0.085 |
| L‐methionine | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.021 | 0.001 | 0.216 | 0.019 |
| L‐isoleucine | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.004 | 0.008 | 0.028 | 0.005 | 0.143 | 0.018 |
| L‐Glutamic acid | 03‐48‐1 > 02‐19‐1 > WT | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.525 | 0.015 |
| Sorbose | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 4.232 | 0.000 | 1.898 | 0.000 | 2.230 | 0.000 |
| Ribitol | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 3.275 | 0.000 | 1.499 | 0.000 | 2.185 | 0.000 |
| 2‐ketoglyconic acid | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 3.049 | 0.000 | 1.987 | 0.000 | 1.534 | 0.010 |
| Shikimic acid | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 2.799 | 0.000 | 1.724 | 0.003 | 1.623 | 0.053 |
| Fructose | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 1.990 | 0.000 | 1.456 | 0.013 | 1.366 | 0.079 |
| Maleic acid | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 1.980 | 0.001 | 1.677 | 0.005 | 1.180 | 0.084 |
| Xylitol | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 1.704 | 0.000 | 1.684 | 0.000 | 1.012 | 0.893 |
| Maltose | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 1.439 | 0.000 | 1.371 | 0.001 | 1.050 | 0.578 |
| Arabitol | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 1.402 | 0.001 | 1.409 | 0.001 | 0.995 | 0.957 |
| Fumaric acid | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 1.322 | 0.028 | 1.293 | 0.037 | 1.022 | 0.633 |
| Malic acid | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 1.319 | 0.001 | 1.719 | 0.000 | 0.767 | 0.016 |
| Xylose | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 1.191 | 0.035 | 1.273 | 0.011 | 0.936 | 0.316 |
| Malonic acid | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 0.790 | 0.005 | 1.980 | 0.000 | 0.399 | 0.000 |
| Isoascorbic acid | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 0.694 | 0.001 | 1.499 | 0.004 | 0.463 | 0.000 |
| Ribonic acid | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 0.597 | 0.000 | 1.425 | 0.004 | 0.419 | 0.000 |
| Gulonic acid | WT > 02‐19‐1 > 03‐48‐1 | 0.485 | 0.000 | 1.473 | 0.001 | 0.330 | 0.000 |
P‐values are based on a Welch T‐test and triplicate leaves from 2 to 3 propagated tillers for each line.
Figure 5Accumulation of lipid droplets in Sorghum bicolor leaf mesophyll cells. (a–i) Confocal images showing oil content in fresh leaf cross sections of wild‐type (a,b) or transgenic tillers transformed with either pOIL102+pOIL197 (line 02–10; c,d) or pOIL103+pOIL197 (line 03–31; e–i). Lipid droplets were stained with Bodipy (green), while chloroplast autofluorescence was used to highlight the mesophyll chloroplasts (magenta). Panels g–i show a single plane taken in the region highlighted with a dashed box in e–f. (j–k) Images of wild‐type (j) and transgenic (line 03–31; h) leaf cross sections, collected by scanning electron microscopy. Cytosolic oil bodies and chloroplasts are marked by white and empty arrowheads, respectively. MC, mesophyll cell; BSC, bundle sheath cell; VB, vascular bundle. Scale bars correspond to 40 μm (a–f) and 10 μm (g–k).