| Literature DB >> 32670388 |
Yufeng Hu1,2, Dalin Song1,2, Lei Gao1,2, Babatope Samuel Ajayo1,2, Yongbin Wang2, Huanhuan Huang2, Junjie Zhang3, Hanmei Liu3, Yinghong Liu2, Guowu Yu2, Yongjian Liu2, Yangping Li1,2, Yubi Huang1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endosperm-trait related genes are associated with grain yield or quality in maize. There are vast numbers of these genes whose functions and regulations are still unknown. The biolistic system, which is often used for transient gene expression, is expensive and involves complex protocol. Besides, it cannot be used for simultaneous analysis of multiple genes. Moreover, the biolistic system has little physiological relevance when compared to cell-specific based system. Plant protoplasts are efficient cell-based systems which allow quick and simultaneous transient analysis of multiple genes. Typically, PEG-calcium mediated transfection of protoplast is simple and cost-effective. Notably, starch granules in cereal endosperm may diminish protoplast yield and integrity, if the isolation and transfection conditions are not accurately measured. Prior to this study, no PEG-calcium mediated endosperm protoplast system has been reported for cereal crop, perhaps, because endosperm cells accumulate starch grains.Entities:
Keywords: Endosperm; Genes’ functions; Maize; Protoplast; Response surface; Transient system
Year: 2020 PMID: 32670388 PMCID: PMC7346502 DOI: 10.1186/s13007-020-00636-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Methods ISSN: 1746-4811 Impact factor: 4.993
Experimental and coded levels used in box-behnken design for studying the effects of cellulase (x1), macerozyme (x2), mannitol (x3) and hydrolysis time (x4) on yield of isolated protoplasts along with the predicted mean and observed responses, and FDA results
| Experimental factor | Coded symbol | Coded variable levels | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Centre | High | |||||||||
| −1 | 0 | +1 | |||||||||
| Cellulase (%) | X1 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 2.00 | |||||||
| Macerozyme (%) | X2 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | |||||||
| Mannitol | X3 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.80 | |||||||
| Hydrolysis time (h) | X4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | |||||||
Fig. 1Schematic overview of protoplast isolation
Quadratic model ANOVA and optimization for protoplast yield
| Source | Sum of squares | DF | Mean square | F-value | p-value | R-square |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 178.89 | 14 | 12.78 | 30.91 | ||
| X1-Cellulase Conc. | 35.31 | 1 | 35.31 | 85.4 | < 0.0001 | |
| X2-Pectinase Conc. | 41.06 | 1 | 41.06 | 99.32 | < 0.0001 | |
| X3-Mannitol | 20.6 | 1 | 20.6 | 49.83 | < 0.0001 | |
| X4-Hydrolysis time | 0.32 | 1 | 0.32 | 0.78 | 0.3924 | |
| X1X2 | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 0.26 | 0.6211 | |
| X1X3 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.7316 | |
| X1X4 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.73 | 0.4067 | |
| X2X3 | 0.68 | 1 | 0.68 | 1.65 | 0.2203 | |
| X2X4 | 2.84E−14 | 1 | 2.84E−14 | 6.87E−14 | 1 | |
| X3X4 | 1.76 | 1 | 1.76 | 4.25 | 0.0584 | |
| X12 | 62.27 | 1 | 62.27 | 150.61 | < 0.0001 | |
| X22 | 79.95 | 1 | 79.95 | 193.38 | < 0.0001 | |
| X32 | 47.89 | 1 | 47.89 | 115.82 | < 0.0001 | |
| X42 | 79.1 | 1 | 79.1 | 191.32 | < 0.0001 | |
| Residual | 5.79 | 14 | 0.41 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 5.26 | 10 | 0.53 | 3.94 | ||
| Pure error | 0.53 | 4 | 0.13 | |||
| Corrected total | 184.68 | 28 | ||||
N Significant, NS non-significant, SE standard error, CI confidence interval
Fig. 2Normal plots for predicted Vs observed protoplast yields and transfection efficiencies. a Normal plot for predicted Vs observed protoplast yields. b Normal plot for predicted Vs observed protoplast transfection efficiencies
Quadratic model ANOVA and optimization for protoplast transfection efficiency
| Source | Sum of squares | DF | Mean square | F-value | p-value | R-Square |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 43,683,750 | 9 | 4,853,750 | 41.82,179 | < | |
| X1-Protoplast Conc. | 8,769,727 | 1 | 8,769,727 | 75.56,336 | < 0.0001 | |
| X2-Total Plasmid DNA | 22,592.06 | 1 | 22,592.06 | 0.194662 | 0.666,314 | |
| X3-Endosperm Age | 55,999.63 | 1 | 55,999.63 | 0.482514 | 0.499,513 | |
| X1X2 | 2.88 | 1 | 2.88 | 2.48E−05 | 0.996101 | |
| X1X3 | 5703.12 | 1 | 5703.12 | 0.04914 | 0.82801 | |
| X2X3 | 208,658 | 1 | 208658 | 1.797878 | 0.202929 | |
| X12 | 10,755,781 | 1 | 10,755,781 | 92.67597 | < 0.0001 | |
| X22 | 12,379,165 | 1 | 12,379,165 | 106.6637 | < 0.0001 | |
| X32 | 20,139,145 | 1 | 20,139,145 | 173.5267 | < 0.0001 | |
| Residual | 1,508,753 | 13 | 116,057.9 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 713,758.2 | 5 | 142,751.6 | 1.436,504 | ||
| Pure Error | 794,994.8 | 8 | 99,374.34 | |||
| Corrected Total | 45,192,503 | 22 |
N Significant, NS non-significant, SE standard error, CI confidence interval
Experimental and coded levels used in central composite design for studying the effects of protoplast concentration (x1), total plasmid DNA (X2), and endosperm age (x3) on protoplast transfection efficiency along with the predicted mean and observed responses
| Experimental factor | Coded symbol | Coded variable levels | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest | Low | Centre | High | Highest | ||||
| -α (−1.68) | −1 | 0 | +1 | +α (+1.68) | ||||
| Protoplast Conc. (× 106) cells/ml | X1 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.5 | ||
| Total plasmid DNA (µg) | X2 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 15 | ||
| Endosperm age (DAP) | X3 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
Fig. 3Application of endosperm protoplast system in protein immunoblotting, subcellular localization, BiFC and promoter activation analysis. a Expression of GFP protein, b subcellular localization of ZmBt1, c interaction of O2 and PBF1 proteins by BiFC assay, d positive activation of ZmBt1 promoter by ZmMYB14; mean ± SE, t test, p < 0.001 (**), n = 3