| Literature DB >> 35140739 |
Annika Wieghaus1, Kai-Uwe Roelfs2, Richard M Twyman3, Dirk Prüfer1,2, Christian Schulze Gronover2.
Abstract
The Russian dandelion (Taraxacum koksaghyz, family Asteraceae) produces large amounts of natural rubber in the laticifers of its roots. This species has been proposed as an alternative source of natural rubber to augment or partly replace the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) but domestication would require genetic improvement to increase rubber yields and agronomic optimization to facilitate harvesting and processing. Optimization has focused thus far on the size and shape of the roots, the primary storage organ for natural rubber and inulin. However, the corresponding genetic factors are poorly understood. Here we describe the comparative transcriptomic analysis of root tissues from T. koksaghyz plant sets featuring different root sizes and shapes, aiming to identify differentially expressed genes correlating with root length or root diameter in the upper root and root tip. The resulting datasets revealed multiple candidate genes for each trait and root part, including a glucan endo-1,3-β-d-glucosidase, an allene oxide synthase 3, and a TIFY10A/JAZ1 homolog. These three genes were tested by qRT-PCR in outdoor-grown plants with diverse root morphology, and the expression of two genes correlated with the appropriate root morphotype, confirming the effectiveness of our method. We evaluated the candidate genes to gain insight into their potential functions in root development. Such candidate genes could be suitable for marker-assisted breeding programs in the future.Entities:
Keywords: Taraxacum koksaghyz; breeding; natural rubber; root; transcriptomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35140739 PMCID: PMC8819189 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2021.784883
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
FIGURE 1Characterization of the three plant pools selected for MACE. The primary root length and the volume of the upper 5 cm of the root in 12-week-old T. koksaghyz wild-type plants were determined after harvesting. The plants were then assigned to three plant pools (A) Pictures of plants representing the three pools. Scale bar = 1 cm (B) Primary root length (C) Volume of the upper 5 cm of the primary root, determined by measuring the root diameter immediately below the leaf rosette and 5 cm further down. The boxes delimit values from the 25th to the 75th percentile of each dataset, the horizontal line in the box represents the median, the filled square represents the mean, and the lower and upper whiskers represent values that differ least from 25th percentile –1.5*IQR or 75th percentile +1.5*IQR, respectively (n = 15–35 plants, normal distribution confirmed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, statistical significance confirmed using a two-tailed t-test; n. s = not significant; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001).
Summary of MACE alignment statistics in six libraries mapped to the reference genome.
| Pool A | Pool B | Pool C | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper root | Root tip | Upper root | Root tip | Upper root | Root tip | |
| Total base pairs | 535,992,378 | 444,400,123 | 600,607,725 | 754,363,862 | 508,730,146 | 777,887,360 |
| Total clean reads | 5,288,641 | 4,551,524 | 4,941,227 | 6,265,938 | 4,807,513 | 6,479,601 |
| Mapped reads | 4,619,116 (87.34%) | 3,956,571 (86.93%) | 4,293,960 (86.90%) | 5,415,759 (86.43%) | 4,179,649 (86.94%) | 5,593,472 (86.32%) |
| Unique matches among mapped reads | 3,608,474 (78.12%) | 2,941,045 (74.33%) | 3,370,356 (78.49%) | 4,221,179 (77.94%) | 3,202,090 (76.61%) | 4,302,574 (76.92%) |
| Multi-position among mapped reads | 750,024 (16.24%) | 798,720 (20.19%) | 654,546 (15.24%) | 856,771 (15.82%) | 745,256 (17.83%) | 928,985 (16.61%) |
| Split-reads among mapped reads | 260,618 (5.64%) | 216,806 (5.48%) | 269,058 (6.27%) | 337,809 (6.24%) | 232,303 (5.56%) | 361,913 (6.47%) |
| Unmapped reads | 669,525 (12.66%) | 594,953 (13.07%) | 647,267 (13.10%) | 850,179 (13.57%) | 627,864 (13.06%) | 886,129 (13.68%) |
FIGURE 2Venn diagram of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) identified by pairwise comparison of plant pools differing in root morphology. All pairwise comparisons between the pools were set in relation to each other based on log2 fold change values in order to identify shared DEGs (A) Schematic Venn diagram illustrating the identification of DEGs related to primary root volume or primary root length (B) Venn diagram showing DEGs identified by comparison among the pools in the upper root (C) Venn diagram showing DEGs identified by comparison among the pools in the root tip. Pool A = plants with medium to long and thick roots (high value for primary root length and volume in the upper 5 cm of the primary root). Pool B = plants with short, thin roots. Pool C = Plants with long, thin roots. RV = DEGs influencing primary root volume; R = DEGs influencing primary root length; ↑ = DEGs with positive log2 fold changes (more abundant in the first pool in each comparison); ↓ = DEGs with negative log2 fold changes (more abundant in the second pool in each comparison); ↑↑ = DEGs with positive log2 fold changes for all comparisons (more abundant in the first pool of each comparison); ↓↓ = DEGs with negative log2 fold changes for all comparisons (more abundant in the second pool of each comparison); ↑↓ = DEGs with opposing log2 fold change values (positive in one comparison but negative in the other).
FIGURE 3Heat maps of root volume (RV) and root length (RL) candidate genes. Heat maps visualizing all RV and RL candidate genes identified in different root parts with their corresponding log2 fold change values for pairwise comparisons among the three plant pools. Each row depicts the log2 fold change values of the comparisons with blue, white and red boxes representing negative, close-to-zero and positive values, as indicated by the corresponding scale bars. Shown are RV candidate genes identified in (A) the upper root and (B) the root tip, as well as RL candidate genes identified in (C) the upper root, and (D) the root tip. Each row shows log2 fold change values of pairwise comparisons between the plant pools. Pool A = plants with medium to long and thick roots (high value for primary root length and volume in the upper 5 cm of the primary root). Pool B = plants with short, thin roots. Pool C = Plants with long, thin roots. RV = DEGs influencing primary root volume. RL = DEGs influencing primary root length.
Summary of the GO enrichment analysis at deeper GO levels.
| Candidate gene set | GO term (↑/↓) | GO class and level |
|---|---|---|
| upper root - RV candidate genes | hydrolase activity ( | molecular function, level 3 |
| root tip - RV candidate genes | intrinsic component of membrane ( | cellular component, level 3/4 |
| integral component of membrane ( | cellular component, level 4 | |
| nuclear part ( | cellular component, level 4 | |
| response to endogenous stimulus ( | biological process, level 3 | |
| cellular component organization ( | biological process, level 3 | |
| regulation of metabolic process ( | biological process, level 3/4 | |
| response to chemical ( | biological process, level 3 | |
| cellular metabolic process ( | biological process, level 3 | |
| primary metabolic process ( | biological process, level 3 | |
| response to acid chemical ( | biological process, level 4 | |
| response to hormone ( | biological process, level 4 | |
| drug metabolic process ( | biological process, level 4 | |
| cellular macromolecule metabolic process ( | biological process, level 4 | |
| response to oxygen-containing compound ( | biological process, level 4 | |
| upper root - RL candidate genes | non-membrane-bounded organelle ( | cellular component, level 3 |
| membrane-bounded organelle ( | cellular component, level 3 | |
| intracellular non-membrane-bounded organelle ( | cellular component, level 4 | |
| intracellular membrane-bounded organelle ( | cellular component, level 4 | |
| small molecule metabolic process ( | biological process, level 3 | |
| root tip - RL candidate genes | cell periphery ( | cellular component, level 3/4 |
↑, enriched in candidate genes compared to all transcripts; ↓, underrepresented in candidate genes compared to all transcripts.
FIGURE 4Expression analysis of three candidate genes identified in the T. koksaghyz root transcriptome. Gene expression in single T. koksaghyz wild-type plants was determined by qRT-PCR. Normalized gene expression of GWHPAAAA042727 (A) and GWHPAAAA036026 (B) was plotted against the primary root volume in the upper 5 cm, and normalized gene expression of GWHPAAAA022842 (C) was plotted against the primary root length. Normal distribution of all parameters was confirmed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff-test, and outliers were identified using Grubbs’s test. Red line = regression line; R = Pearson’s R correlation coefficient; R 2 = coefficient of determination; n = 33–38.