| Literature DB >> 32488033 |
Ambreen Gul1,2, Abdul Qayyum Rao3, Ghulam Hussain1, Adnan Iqbal1, Salah Ud Din1, Aneela Yasmeen1, Naila Shahid1, Ammara Ahad1, Ayesha Latif1, Saira Azam1, Tahir Rehman Samiullah1, Samina Hassan1,4, Ahmad Ali Shahid1, Tayyab Husnain1.
Abstract
Whitefly infestation of cotton crop imparts enormous damage to cotton yield by severely affecting plant health, vigour and transmittingEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32488033 PMCID: PMC7265412 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65249-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Bioinformatics analysis of ZmASN Protein. (A) Secondary structure containing both alpha and beta subunits. Protein motifs include: 2 sheets (A and B), 1 βαβ unit, 6 β hairpins , 3 β bulges, 13 β strands , 10 helices , 10 helix-helix interacts, 46 β turns, 9 γ turns, and 1 disulphide bond . (B) Solvent accessibility profile depicting 52.3% exposed, 40.46% buried, and 77.07% intermediate amino acid residues. (C) Amino acid composition shows 13.07% alanine, 9.54% glycine, 8.48% serine, 7.07% threonine, 6.71% lysine, 6.71% glutamic acid, 6.71% valine, 4.95% asparagine, and the remainder others. (D) Phylogenetic analysis of ZmASN protein with Oryza sativa, Arabidopsis thaliana, Gossypium hirsutum, and Glycine max. (E) Cartoon representation of subunit α shown in blue (chain A) and red (chain C) and subunit β in yellow (chain B) and green (chain D). (F) Ramachandran plot analysis of ZmASN protein model. The plots statistics is shown at the bottom of the plot. (G) Super positioning of active sites of ZmASN (yellow ribbon) and 2gez.1 (pink ribbon). Conserved residues of the active site of both proteins are labelled (2gez numbering). (H) Stereodiagram of the superposition of ZmASN and 2a8i.1. Superposition of subunits α and of subunits β of both proteins; subunit α of 2a8i3 is shown in red and subunit β is shown in purple. The ZmASN subunit α is shown in spring green and subunits β in blue; the RMSD value is 0.14 Å. (I) Subunit α comparison with a color coding of 2a8i) red and magenta; : cyan and yellow. (J) Subunit β comparison with a color coding of 2a8i: cyan and purple; : yellow and coral.
Transformation efficiency of cotton.
| Seedlings in selection media | Plants survived in soil | Survival efficiency % | PCR positive plants in soil | Transformation Efficiency % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 552 | 60 | 10.86 | 14 | 2.54 |
Figure 2Relative expression of ZmASN gene in the young leaves of different transgenic lines. Mean fold change was measured using GhAct as internal control. The bars represent the mean of three biological replicates, and three technical replicates for each biological replicate. Graph is plotted as mean + SD. The significance of the data is determined by one-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s multiple comparison test at p < 0.0001 and is indicated by **** above bars whereas ns represents non-significant.
Figure 3Quantification of free amino acid from cotton seeds of transgenic cotton lines and non-transgenic cotton lines in the T0 generation. (A) Free or unbound aspartic acid concentration. (B) Free or unbound glutamic acid concentration. (C) Free or unbound asparagine concentration. The bars represent the mean of five biological replicates and two technical replicates of each biological replicates. Graphs are plotted as mean + SD. The significance is determined by two-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s multiple comparison test at p < 0.0001 and is indicated by ****.
Figure 4Quantification of free amino acid from phloem sap of transgenic cotton lines and non-transgenic cotton lines in the T1 generation. (A) Free or unbound aspartic acid concentration. (B) Free or unbound glutamic acid concentration. (C) Free or unbound asparagine concentration. (D) Free or unbound glutamine concentration. The bars represent mean of five biological replicates and two technical replicates of each biological replicates. Graphs are plotted as mean + SD. The significance is determined by two-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s multiple comparison test at p < 0.0001 and is indicated by ****.
Figure 5Scanning electron microscope images of mature cotton fiber grown under field conditions. (A) Mature cotton fiber of non-transgenic cotton plant scanned at 100 µm, 50 µm, and at 10 µm showing the fiber surface. (B) Mature cotton fiber of ZmASN transgenic plant scanned at 100 µm, 50 µm, and at 10 µm resolution showing the fiber surface.
Figure 6Whitefly bioassay of ZmASN transgenic lines (T2-generation). (A) Graph represents the % mortality of whitefly adults after 72hrs of infestation on non-transgenic control plants compared with different transgenic cotton lines and reduction in the number of nymphs on the control plant is compared with different transgenic cotton lines. Two-way ANOVA for statistical analysis at p < 0.0001 and Dunnett’s multiple comparison test was used to measure the level of significance as ****. The data was collected as n = 6 replicates. (B) Transgenic cotton plant after whitefly infestation. (C) Healthy leaves of transgenic cotton plant. (D) Bollworm infestation in transgenic cotton line and (E) No-virus after whitefly infestation. (F) Non-transgenic control cotton plant, G) Bollworm infestation on control cotton plant. (H,I) Stunted growth of plant and CLCuV symptoms after whitefly infestation on non-transgenic control cotton plant.
Figure 7Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) assay of ZmASN transgenic cotton plant. (A) Karyogram of non-transgenic control cotton plant performed on metaphase chromosomes without fluorescent signal. (B) Karyogram of ZmASN transgenic cotton plant showing the fluorescent signal determines the gene integration and location on the chromosome number 1. The single fluorescent signal is a depiction of hemizygosity of the integrated transgene. (C) Subset showing the transgene integration at chromosome 01.