| Literature DB >> 35010233 |
Zecheng Jiang1, Rui Li2, Yue Tang1, Ziyu Cheng1, Minjie Qian2, Wen Li2, Yuanzhi Shao3.
Abstract
Postharvest anthracnose, caused by the fungus Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, is one of the most important postharvest diseases of mangoes worldwide. Bacillus siamensis (B. siamensis), as a biocontrol bacteria, has significant effects on inhibiting disease and improving the quality of fruits and vegetables. In this study, pre-storage application of B. siamensis significantly induced disease resistance and decreased disease index (DI) of stored mango fruit. To investigate the induction mechanisms of B. siamensis, comparative transcriptome analysis of mango fruit samples during the storage were established. In total, 234,808 unique transcripts were assembled and 56,704 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified by comparative transcriptome analysis. Gene ontology (GO) enrichment and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis of DEGs showed that most of the DEGs involved in plant-pathogen interaction, plant hormone signal transduction, and biosynthesis of resistant substances were enriched. Fourteen DEGs related to disease-resistance were validated by qRT-PCR, which well corresponded to the FPKM value obtained from the transcriptome data. These results indicate that B. siamensis treatment may act to induce disease resistance of mango fruit by affecting multiple pathways. These findings not only reveal the transcriptional regulatory mechanisms that govern postharvest disease, but also develop a biological strategy to maintain quality of post-harvest mango fruit.Entities:
Keywords: Bacillus siamensis; disease resistance; gene expression; mango fruit; transcriptome analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35010233 PMCID: PMC8750277 DOI: 10.3390/foods11010107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Primers used in the qRT-PCR analysis.
| Primers | Gene Symbol | Sequences |
|---|---|---|
| ACTIN-F | AATGGAACTGGAATGGTCAAGGC | |
| Unigene0007915-F |
| GCTCTCTTCTTCCCCTCCT |
| Unigene0044045-F |
| CTCGGCCATCAGATCTCACA |
| Unigene0050535-F |
| CCTAACGGGAGATATTCCTGTCAATGG |
| Unigene0003608-F |
| ATCAGGAGGGGAGAGAAAG |
| Unigene0014220-F |
| CCTAACCGCCGATCAGCCATTG |
| Unigene0053866-F |
| CTTCAAACAACGACAACAGCCTAAGC |
| Unigene0027317-F |
| GACGACGAAGCCTGTCACCATC |
| Unigene0049558-F |
| ACTCTTCAGATTACACTGCCGCAATAG |
| Unigene0019931-F |
| CGTCATTACCGGGTTCATCAG |
| Unigene0038013-F |
| CACATTCAAGAGGACTGGAGGATTCTG |
| Unigene0031800-F |
| ACGGCTTCCATATTCACGCTCTTG |
| Unigene0020382-F |
| CATCACCAGAAGCACCACCAGAC |
| Unigene0008516-F |
| CTCCGTCAAGAACTGCGTCACC |
| Unigene0006190-F |
| AAGAGGACGAGAGCCAA |
Figure 1Effect of B. siamensis treatment on appearance and anthracnose symptoms (A) and disease index (B) of mango fruit stored at 25 °C for 9 days. Bars with different lowercase letters indicate significant differences based on a t-test at the p ≤ 0.05 level. Each value represents the mean ± SE of three replicates.
Summary of transcriptome data for mango fruit as well as detailed bioinformatics annotations and analyses.
|
| Number |
| Raw reads (paired-end) | 850,798,964 |
| clean reads (paired-end) | 839,584,440 |
| GC content percentage | 38.9311 |
| Total unigenes(average length; N50; min–max length) | 56,704 (1114; 2058; 201–17,696) |
|
| |
| Gene annotation against Nr (%) | 35,499 (62.60) |
| Gene annotation against Swiss-Prot (%) | 24,644 (43.46) |
| Gene annotation against KOG (%) | 20,152 (35.54) |
| Gene annotation against KEGG (%) | 33,217 (58.58) |
| All unigenes annotated (%) | 35,648 (62.87) |
Figure 2Statistics of differentially expressed genes in all mango fruit groups. (A) Bar chart of the number of all DEGs. (B) Violins in all groups (the white dot in the middle of the box is the median, the upper and lower edge of the box type is 75%, and the upper and lower limit is 90%).
Figure 3Transcriptomic profiles of mango fruit during storage at 25 °C. (A) GO functional classification of the DEGs. (B) Significant enrichment analysis of KEGG of the DEGs. Six pathways that are associated with disease resistance are highlighted in the orange box.
Figure 4Analyze the different expressed genes in the three comparison mango fruit groups. (A) Bar chart of the number of DEG in three groups. (B) Venn diagram of DEGs among three different comparisons. (C) Volcano plot of DEGs.
Figure 5Heat map of gene expression profiles of six disease-resistant pathways that are significantly enriched in stored mango fruits.
Figure 6Expression pattern of 14 representative DEGs by qRT-PCR in mango fruits during storage. The expression levels of each unigenes are expressed as a ratio relative to 0 d of samples, which was set at 1. The heat map shows the change of the FPKM value of each gene. Error bars indicate standard errors of the means (n = 3). Bars with different lower-case letters indicate significant differences based on a t-test at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
Figure 7Mechanism diagram of mango defense response to B. siamensis. Through several branched and multi-component pathways, mangoes defense-related genes are transcribed.The up-arrow indicates the promoting effect and the down-arrow indicates the inhibiting effect.