| Literature DB >> 34294838 |
Min Yin1, Hengyu Ma1, Mengjia Wang1, Guang Chu1, Yuanhui Liu1, Chunmei Xu1, Xiufu Zhang1, Danying Wang1, Song Chen2.
Abstract
Hybrid japonica cultivars, such as the Yongyou series, have shown high yield potential in the field in both the early and late growing seasons. Moreover, understanding the responses of rice flowering dates to temperature and light is critical for improving yield performance. However, few studies have analyzed flowering genes in high-yielding japonica cultivars. Based on the five sowing date experiments from 2019 to 2020, select the sensitive cultivar Yongyou 538 and the insensitive cultivar Ninggeng 4 and take their flag leaves and panicles for transcriptome analysis. The results showed that compared with sowing date 1 (6/16), after the sowing date was postponed (sowing date 5, 7/9), 4480 and 890 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were detected in the leaves and panicles in Ninggeng 4, 9275 and 2475 DEGs were detected in the leaves and panicles in Yongyou 538, respectively. KEGG pathway analysis showed that both Ninggeng 4 and Yongyou 538 regulated rice flowering through the plant circadian rhythm and plant hormone signal transduction pathways. Gene expression analysis showed that Os01g0566050 (OsELF3-2), Os01g0182600 (OsGI), Os11g0547000 (OsFKF1), Os06g0275000 (Hd1), and Os09g0513500 (FT-1) were expressed higher and Os02g0771100 (COP1-1) was expressed lower in Yongyou 538 compared with Ninggeng 4 as the climate conditions changed, which may be the key genes that regulate the flowering process with the change of temperature and light resources in sensitive cultivar Yongyou 538 in the late season.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34294838 PMCID: PMC8298600 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94552-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Difference in biomass and yields of different treatments from 2019 to 2020.
| Year | Treatment | Vegetative stage (g m−2) | Reproductive stage (g m−2) | Grain filling stage (g m−2) | Yield (t h m−2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ninggeng 4 | Yongyou 538 | Ninggeng 4 | Yongyou 538 | Ninggeng 4 | Yongyou 538 | Ninggeng 4 | Yongyou 538 | ||
| 2019 | 1 | 493 ± 48 a | 654 ± 52 a | 338 ± 23 a | 1000 ± 55 a | 696 ± 122 b | 215 ± 101 b | 8.5 ± 0.1 a | 9.5 ± 0.7 b |
| 2 | 313 ± 8 c | 478 ± 26 b | 319 ± 31 a | 909 ± 73 a | 745 ± 44 ab | 347 ± 198 b | 9.3 ± 0.6 a | 10.1 ± 0.5 b | |
| 3 | 465 ± 36 ab | 507 ± 19 b | 25 ± 35 c | 248 ± 48 c | 929 ± 101 a | 943 ± 121 a | 7.2 ± 0.4 b | 9.5 ± 0.4 b | |
| 4 | 439 ± 28 ab | 478 ± 15 b | 249 ± 60 ab | 463 ± 15 b | 654 ± 64 b | 915 ± 23 a | 8.5 ± 0.5 a | 11.6 ± 0.3 a | |
| 5 | 394 ± 18 bc | 395 ± 19 c | 217 ± 22 b | 516 ± 69 b | 790 ± 55 ab | 801 ± 35 a | 9.1 ± 0.5 a | 10.0 ± 0.6 b | |
| 2020 | 1 | 377 ± 3 ab | 553 ± 26 a | 452 ± 29 b | 564 ± 41 ab | 454 ± 91 b | 519 ± 54 a | 6.7 ± 0.2 ab | 9.3 ± 0.4 a |
| 2 | 400 ± 14 a | 509 ± 35 a | 266 ± 39 c | 447 ± 84 b | 857 ± 88 a | 666 ± 155 a | 6.1 ± 0.1 b | 8.1 ± 0.4 b | |
| 3 | 351 ± 17 b | 428 ± 18 b | 482 ± 14 b | 629 ± 49 a | 359 ± 76 b | 596 ± 101 a | 6.1 ± 0.3 b | 8.7 ± 0.5 ab | |
| 4 | 343 ± 28 b | 398 ± 16 b | 331 ± 31 c | 577 ± 69 ab | 588 ± 118 b | 698 ± 86 a | 7.2 ± 0.6 a | 8.5 ± 0.0 ab | |
| 5 | 168 ± 9 c | 365 ± 16 b | 602 ± 26 a | 597 ± 39 ab | 536 ± 54 b | 572 ± 68 a | 6.9 ± 0.4 ab | 8.0 ± 0.0 b | |
| Year (Y) | 107.6*** | 28.8*** | 264.0*** | 9.4** | 42.9*** | 0.8 ns | 170.5*** | 110.4*** | |
| Sowing (S) | 34.8*** | 58.2*** | 26.6*** | 33.4*** | 6.0** | 18.1*** | 10.3*** | 6.5** | |
| Y*S | 31.4*** | 6.0** | 63.2*** | 61.9*** | 13.3*** | 13.3*** | 6.1** | 10.6*** | |
Data are mean and sd. Means followed by different letters at the same year are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD test (P < 0.05).
***Means P < 0.001; **means 0.001 ≤ P < 0.01; *means 0.01 ≤ P < 0.05; ns means P ≥ 0.05.
Difference in growth period (effective accumulated temperature) of different treatments from 2019 to 2020.
| Year | Treatment | Vegetative stage d (°C) | Reproductive stage d (°C) | Grain filling stage d (°C) | Growth period d (°C) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ninggeng 4 | Yongyou 538 | Ninggeng 4 | Yongyou 538 | Ninggeng 4 | Yongyou 538 | Ninggeng 4 | Yongyou 538 | ||
| 2019 | 1 | 51 (890) | 64 (1150) | 20 (395) | 24 (408) | 35 (556) | 49 (594) | 106 (1841) | 137 (2153) |
| 2 | 49 (883) | 59 (1080) | 19 (374) | 25 (427) | 43 (641) | 52 (575) | 111 (1899) | 136 (2082) | |
| 3 | 49 (918) | 53 (998) | 21 (367) | 26 (446) | 39 (581) | 54 (557) | 109 (1866) | 133 (2001) | |
| 4 | 48 (911) | 55 (1046) | 20 (338) | 20 (329) | 40 (563) | 58 (557) | 108 (1811) | 133 (1932) | |
| 5 | 48 (935) | 50 (977) | 17 (273) | 23 (365) | 43 (557) | 59 (514) | 108 (1765) | 132 (1856) | |
| 2020 | 1 | 51 (850) | 61 (1059) | 24 (522) | 27 (555) | 43 (641) | 53 (597) | 118 (2014) | 141 (2211) |
| 2 | 49 (826) | 59 (1039) | 23 (498) | 25 (498) | 45 (622) | 54 (577) | 117 (1946) | 138 (2114) | |
| 3 | 47 (826) | 54 (983) | 22 (464) | 25 (487) | 48 (613) | 55 (558) | 117 (1903) | 134 (2028) | |
| 4 | 45 (821) | 50 (937) | 22 (219) | 25 (461) | 49 (563) | 59 (564) | 116 (1829) | 134 (1962) | |
| 5 | 42 (803) | 46 (893) | 24 (454) | 29 (472) | 51 (528) | 56 (512) | 117 (1786) | 131 (1876) | |
Relation between yield and temperature and light resources in vegetative stage of different treatments from 2019 to 2020.
| Variety | Effective accumulated temperature | Accumulated ligth hours | Accumulated solar radiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ninggeng 4 | 0.7* | 0.8** | 0.6 ns |
| Yongyou 538 | 0.5 ns | 0.7* | 0.4 ns |
Comparison of the sequencing data for the two japonica cultivars sown on two sowing dates with the reference genome.
| Sample | Cultivar | Treatment | Clean reads | Q20 (%) | Q30 (%) | Total mapped |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf | Ninggeng 4 | CK | 52,871,935 | 98.92 | 96.34 | 51,199,106 (96.84%) |
| T | 53,099,148 | 98.95 | 96.44 | 51,340,507 (96.69%) | ||
| Yongyou 538 | CK | 47,050,997 | 98.95 | 96.49 | 45,200,802 (96.07%) | |
| T | 45,630,931 | 98.50 | 95.36 | 43,236,611 (94.75%) | ||
| Panicle | Ninggeng 4 | CK | 49,277,341 | 98.84 | 96.14 | 46,713,541 (94.80%) |
| T | 51,622,847 | 98.89 | 96.27 | 49,835,160 (96.54%) | ||
| Yongyou 538 | CK | 47,498,167 | 98.91 | 96.35 | 44,736,859 (94.19%) | |
| T | 50,557,107 | 98.92 | 96.39 | 48,051,996 (95.04%) |
Total reads: The number of sequences after filtering (clean reads); Q20, Q30: The percentage of bases with quality greater than 20 or 30; Total mapped: Number of clean reads that can be mapped to the genome.
Figure 1DEGs in the leaves (A) and panicles (B); flowering DEGs in the leaves (C) and panicles (D); and Venn diagrams of the DEGs in the leaves (E) and panicles (F) among the pairwise comparisons. This figure was created using Microsoft Excel 2010 and Adobe Illustraor CS6.
Figure 2KEGG pathways of the flowering DEGs in the leaves and panicles of Ninggeng 4 and Yongyou 538 in response to different sowing dates. This figure was created using Origin 2021.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of part of plant circadian rhythm pathway (map04712)[26]. This figure was created using Microsoft PowerPoint 2010.
Figure 4DEGs in the plant circadian rhythm pathway in the leaves (A) and panicles (B) of Ninggeng 4 and Yongyou 538 sown on two sowing dates. This figure was created using Origin 2021.
DEGs in the plant hormone signal transduction pathway in the leaves and panicles of Ninggeng 4 and Yongyou 538.
| Plant hormone | NCK versus NT | YCK versus YT | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf | Panicle | Leaf | Panicle | |||||
| Upregulated | Downregulated | Upregulated | Downregulated | Upregulated | Downregulated | Upregulated | Downregulated | |
| IAA | 4 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 12 | 1 | 5 |
| CTK | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 2 |
| GA | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
| ABA | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 7 | 3 | 7 |
| ETH | 2 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 2 |
| BR | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| JA | 7 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 8 |
| SA | 4 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
IAA: Auxin; CTK: Cytokinin; GA: Gibberellin; ABA: Abscisic acid; ETH: Ethylene; BR: Brassinosteroid; JA: Jasmonic acid; SA: Salicylic acid.
Figure 5The relative expression of DEGs in the leaves (A–D) and panicles (E,F) of Ninggeng 4 and Yongyou 538 sown on two sowing dates. This figure was created using Origin 2021 and Adobe Illustraor CS6. Values are the means and sds. Means followed by different letters in the same test method are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD test (P < 0.05).
Figure 6Changes in the climate resources from 2019 to 2020. This figure was created using Microsoft Excel 2010.
Sowing and transplanting date of different treatments from 2019 to 2020.
| Year | Treatment | Sowing date | Transplanting date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 1 | 2019/6/16 | 2019/7/3 |
| 2 | 2019/6/21 | 2019/7/9 | |
| 3 | 2019/6/27 | 2019/7/17 | |
| 4 | 2019/7/2 | 2019/7/23 | |
| 5 | 2019/7/9 | 2019/7/30 | |
| 2020 | 1 | 2020/6/10 | 2020/6/29 |
| 2 | 2020/6/17 | 2020/7/6 | |
| 3 | 2020/6/24 | 2020/7/13 | |
| 4 | 2020/7/1 | 2020/7/20 | |
| 5 | 2020/7/8 | 2020/7/27 |
qRT-PCR primers.
| Gene | Forward primer | Reverse primer |
|---|---|---|
| 5′-GATGAGCACCAAGATGTTAGG-3′ | 5′-CAGGCTTTGCAGATTCCAG-3′ | |
| 5′-AACAGCGAGCATCAAGCG-3′ | 5′-CACCAATGGCACCAACAA-3′ | |
| 5′-CAGCGGAAGATTACGATT-3′ | 5′-CGATGATACATAGCCACCT-3′ | |
| 5′-ACTTTGTTGGGCTGTCTG-3′ | 5′-TAGGGCTATCGCTCTTCC-3′ |