| Literature DB >> 31973177 |
He Du1, Reina L Tong2, Xueyi Huang1, Bingrong Liu1, Runmei Huang1, Zhiqiang Li1.
Abstract
Termites have a distinct polyphenism controlled by concise hormonal and molecular mechanisms. Workers undergo double molts to transform into soldiers (worker-presoldier-soldier). Juvenile hormone analogs, such as methoprene, can induce workers to transform into presoldiers. However, the molecular mechanism underlying the worker-to-presoldier transformation in Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki is still not clear. We sequenced the transcriptome of workers four days after they had fed on methoprene-treated filter paper and control group workers, which fed on acetone-treated filter paper. The transcriptome of C. formosanus was assembled using the de novo assembly method. Expression levels of unigenes in the methoprene-treated group and the control group were compared. The differentially expressed genes were further analyzed by Gene Ontology (GO) term enrichment analysis and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway enrichment analysis. Tetrapyrrole binding, oxidoreductase activity, and metal ion binding were the only three enriched GO terms. Juvenile hormone synthesis was the first ranked enriched pathway. Carbohydrate, amino acid, and lipid metabolism pathways were also enriched. These three pathways may be related to fat body development, which is critical for presoldier formation. Our results have demonstrated the significance of JH synthesis pathways, and pathways related to fat body development in the artificial induction of presoldiers.Entities:
Keywords: caste regulation; juvenile hormone; methoprene bioassay
Year: 2020 PMID: 31973177 PMCID: PMC7074503 DOI: 10.3390/insects11020071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Summary of the sequencing quality of six samples.
| Sample | Reads Len | GC | Adapter (%) | Low Quality (%) | Before Filter | After Filter | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reads Num | Data (bp) | Q20 (%) | Q30 (%) | Reads Num (%) | Data (bp) | Q20 (%) | Q30 (%) | |||||
| C-1 | 150 | 42.42% | 65,366 (0.15%) | 370,632 (0.43%) | 43,436,706 | 6,515,505,900 | 6,358,215,678 (97.59%) | 6,082,493,543 (93.35%) | 43,186,024 (99.42%) | 6,406,109,175 | 6,269,904,593 (97.87%) | 6,003,693,525 (93.72%) |
| C-2 | 150 | 42.74% | 77,716 (0.20%) | 332,628 (0.42%) | 3,9552,300 | 5,932,845,000 | 5,805,725,329 (97.86%) | 5,579,018,441 (94.04%) | 39,308,270 (99.38%) | 5,821,866,687 | 5,713,502,183 (98.14%) | 5,496,049,001 (94.40%) |
| C-3 | 150 | 42.56% | 73,332 (0.15%) | 395,232 (0.41%) | 48,329,198 | 7,249,379,700 | 7,101,010,753 (97.95%) | 6,830,421,183 (94.22%) | 48,058,250 (99.44%) | 7,132,398,497 | 7,004,858,972 (98.21%) | 6,743,894,191 (94.55%) |
| M-1 | 150 | 42.37% | 59,430 (0.14%) | 325,132 (0.37%) | 43,451,442 | 6,517,716,300 | 6,395,677,154 (98.13%) | 6,165,076,910 (94.59%) | 43,229,446 (99.49%) | 6,420,441,241 | 6,315,469,623 (98.37%) | 6,092,847,541 (94.90%) |
| M-2 | 150 | 42.46% | 127,050 (0.28%) | 500,052 (0.55%) | 45,789,528 | 6,868,429,200 | 6,711,965,107 (97.72%) | 6,442,092,243 (93.79%) | 45,412,452 (99.18%) | 6,734,642,039 | 6,602,981,101 (98.05%) | 6,344,371,629 (94.21%) |
| M-3 | 150 | 42.78% | 51,240 (0.12%) | 307,992 (0.37%) | 41,601,322 | 6,240,198,300 | 6,106,260,337 (97.85%) | 5,861,841,825 (93.94%) | 41,396,086 (99.51%) | 6,147,435,726 | 6,030,263,909 (98.09%) | 5,793,613,090 (94.24%) |
Note: C = control group. M = methoprene-treated group. Workers in the control group were fed with acetone-treated filter paper; workers in the treated group were fed with methoprene-treated filter paper.
Figure 1The correlation of samples. (a) Heatmap that shows the correlation coefficient among samples. The correlation of samples from the same groups was stronger than that from different groups; (b) Principal component analysis (PCA) of the six samples. PCA analysis showed that the samples in M group were more likely to cluster together, with a similar pattern in C group. See note for Table 1.
Figure 2Correlation between qPCR data and RNA-Seq data. Each point represents the ratio of the average expression level of a gene in the M group to that in the C group. The data were log2 transformed. See note for Table 1.
Figure 3Bubble chart that shows the top 20 enriched GO terms in the cellular component part. No GO terms were enriched in this part. Note: The y-axis is the name of the GO term, the x-axis is the rich factor. Rich factor is the ratio of the number of the DEGs in a GO term to the number of total genes annotated to the GO term.
Figure 4Bubble chart that shows the top 20 enriched GO terms in the molecular function part. There were three GO terms in the function part enriched. See note for Figure 3.
Figure 5Bubble chart that shows the top 20 enriched GO terms in the biological process part. There were also no parts enriched in this part. See note for Figure 3.
Figure 6Bubble chart that shows the top 20 enriched pathways according to the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) enrichment analysis. Note: the y-axis is the name of the pathway, the x-axis is the rich factor. Rich factor is the ratio of the number of the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in a pathway to the number of total genes annotated to the pathway.