| Literature DB >> 33985425 |
Shreya M Banerjee1, Jamie Adkins Stoll1, Camryn D Allen2,3, Jennifer M Lynch4, Heather S Harris3, Lauren Kenyon1, Richard E Connon5, Eleanor J Sterling6, Eugenia Naro-Maciel7, Kathryn McFadden8, Margaret M Lamont9, James Benge10, Nadia B Fernandez1, Jeffrey A Seminoff3, Scott R Benson11,12, Rebecca L Lewison13, Tomoharu Eguchi3, Tammy M Summers14, Jessy R Hapdei15, Marc R Rice16, Summer Martin2, T Todd Jones2, Peter H Dutton3, George H Balazs17, Lisa M Komoroske18,19.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcriptomic data has demonstrated utility to advance the study of physiological diversity and organisms' responses to environmental stressors. However, a lack of genomic resources and challenges associated with collecting high-quality RNA can limit its application for many wild populations. Minimally invasive blood sampling combined with de novo transcriptomic approaches has great potential to alleviate these barriers. Here, we advance these goals for marine turtles by generating high quality de novo blood transcriptome assemblies to characterize functional diversity and compare global transcriptional profiles between tissues, species, and foraging aggregations.Entities:
Keywords: Comparative transcriptomics; Conservation physiology; Minimally invasive sampling; Ortholog; RNA-sequencing; Sea turtle
Year: 2021 PMID: 33985425 PMCID: PMC8117300 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-021-07656-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Quality assessment metrics of unfiltered and filtered transcriptome assemblies for multiple tissue types collected from four marine turtle species
| Loggerhead | Hawksbill | Green turtle | Leatherback | Leatherback | Leatherback | Leatherback | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 132,146 | 77,392 | 280,711 | 220,458 | 489,355 | 376,736 | 347,717 | 276,709 | 216,942 | 140,332 | 243,118 | 165,611 | 163,840 | 119,574 | |
| 3032 | 2552 | 3143 | 2276 | 3221 | 2303 | 2867 | 2187 | 3618 | 2788 | 3288 | 2526 | 3050 | 2373 | |
| 675 | 707 | 574 | 529 | 606 | 575 | 597 | 553 | 666 | 629 | 632 | 601 | 673 | 593 | |
| | 91.50% | 75.36% | 95.53% | 93.58% | 94.88% | 93.94% | 95.49% | 94.95% | 92.98% | 83.22% | 92.52% | 82.02% | 94.96% | 93.89% |
| | 82.65% | 69.54% | 88.56% | 85.44% | 86.24% | 85.99% | 83.58% | 83.14% | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| | 0.23 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.42 | 0.26 | 0.37 | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.21 | 0.29 | 0.20 | 0.29 |
| | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
BUSCO completeness percentage scores based on the vertebrata database for unfiltered and filtered transcriptome assemblies for multiple tissue types collected from four marine turtle species
| Loggerhead | Hawksbill | Green turtle | Leatherback turtle | Leatherback | Leatherback | Leatherback | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 76.7 | 72.8 | 81.1 | 80.7 | 83.7 | 83.7 | 84.9 | 85 | 90.6 | 86.3 | 89.5 | 86.4 | 88.9 | 89 | |
| 37.3 | 50.9 | 33.9 | 46.6 | 31.2 | 43.4 | 32.8 | 45.4 | 40.9 | 57.2 | 39.7 | 55.5 | 37.2 | 57.5 | |
| 39.4 | 21.9 | 47.2 | 34.1 | 52.5 | 40.3 | 52.1 | 39.6 | 49.7 | 29.1 | 49.8 | 30.9 | 51.7 | 31.5 | |
| 6.3 | 7.1 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 3.1 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 5 | 3.9 | 3.7 | |
| 17 | 20.1 | 13.4 | 13.7 | 10.9 | 10.8 | 10.6 | 10.8 | 6.3 | 9.6 | 6.4 | 8.6 | 7.2 | 7.3 | |
Fig. 1Shared and unique orthogroups between transcriptome assemblies. a Shared orthogroups between blood transcriptomes from four species of marine turtles, hawksbill (E. imbricata), loggerhead (C. caretta), green (C. mydas), and leatherback (D. coriacea). Red represents a “core set” of orthogroups represented in all species and blue represents orthogroups shared among all hardshell species. The cladogram on the left represents the phylogenetic relationships between these species as reported by Duchene et al. ([31]; note that branch lengths depicted are representative of relative relationships only, and not drawn to scale to represent estimated divergence times). b orthogroups shared between four leatherback tissues (ovary, brain, blood, and lung). Red represents orthogroups shared between all four tissues and blue represents orthogroups present in tissue combinations that include blood
Fig. 2GO Slim categories in shared orthogroup sets. The number of genes in each GO slim functional category a from green turtle blood transcriptome genes that belonged to orthogroups present in all four species’ blood transcriptomes and b multi-tissue leatherback transcriptome genes that belonged to orthogroups present in all four leatherback tissues
Fig. 3Multidimensional scaling plots of global transcriptomic signatures. a All species based on filtered counts at orthogroup level, and b green turtle foraging aggregations only based on filtered counts at gene level
Fig. 4Differential gene expression between green turtle foraging aggregations. Log-fold expression changes between green turtles sampled in a California and Hawai’i, b California and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and c Hawai’i and the CNMI. Each dot represents one gene. Genes significantly upregulated and downregulated in respect to the first population listed in each pair are denoted in red and blue, respectively (FDR < 0.05). Dotted blue lines represent log fold change = ±1
Fig. 5Functional enrichment analyses. GOcircle plots display scatter plots of log fold change (logFC) for the most statistically significant GO terms. Red dots represent upregulated genes and blue dots represent down regulated genes. The inner circles display z-scores calculated as the number of up-regulated genes minus the number of down-regulated genes divided by the square root of the count for a California and Hawai’i, b California and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and c Hawai’i and the CNMI. Up-regulated means that expression is higher in the population listed second, because the population listed first is used as the reference level of expression