| Literature DB >> 35283887 |
Jie Zhang1,2, Jianying Li1,2, Sumbul Saeed1,2, William D Batchelor3, Muna Alariqi1,2, Qingying Meng2, Fuhui Zhu2, Jiawei Zou2, Zhongping Xu1,2, Huan Si1,2, Qiongqiong Wang1,2, Xianlong Zhang1,2, Huaguo Zhu4, Shuangxia Jin1,2, Daojun Yuan1,2.
Abstract
Sap-sucking insects cause severe damage to cotton production. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) play vital regulatory roles in various development processes and stress response, however, the function of lncRNAs during sap-sucking insect infection in cotton is largely unknown. In this study, the transcriptome profiles between resistant (HR) and susceptible (ZS) cotton cultivars under whitefly infestation at different time points (0, 4, 12, 24, and 48 h) were compared. A total of 6,651 lncRNAs transcript and 606 differentially expressed lncRNAs were identified from the RNA-seq data. A co-expression network indicated that lncA07 and lncD09 were potential hub genes that play a regulatory role in cotton defense against aphid infestation. Furthermore, CRISPR/Cas9 knock-out mutant of lncD09 and lncA07 showed a decrease of jasmonic acid (JA) content, which potentially lead to increased susceptibility toward insect infestation. Differentially expressed genes between wild type and lncRNA knock-out plants are enriched in modulating development and resistance to stimulus. Additionally, some candidate genes such as Ghir_A01G022270, Ghir_D04G014430, and Ghir_A01G022270 are involved in the regulation of the JA-mediated signaling pathway. This result provides a novel insight of the lncRNA role in the cotton defense system against pests.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR/Cas9; JA signaling; RNA-Seq; cotton; lncRNA; plant-herbivore interaction; sap-sucking insect
Year: 2022 PMID: 35283887 PMCID: PMC8905227 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.784511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Identification and characterization of cotton lncRNAs expressed in response to whitefly infestation. (A) The GC content of lincRNA and mRNA transcripts in the At- and Dt-sub-genome and ungrouped G. hirsutum genome scaffolds (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P < 2.2e-16). (B) Comparison of lncRNA and mRNA transcript lengths. (C) The number of exons in the lincRNAs and mRNAs. (D) Comparison of transcript expression levels (FPKM) between lincRNAs and mRNAs. **Represents p < 0.01.
FIGURE 2Differentially expressed lncRNAs in cotton response to whitefly infestation. (A) Analysis of differentially expressed lincRNAs between HR and ZS plants at different time points during whitefly infestation. (B) The number of lincRNAs in different groups. (C) Identification of lincRNA and pre-miRNA pairs in the At- and Dt-sub-genome of G. hirsutum. I: Chromosome length; II–IV: Distribution transposable element, mRNA, and lincRNA densities in 1 Mb size windows; V: Alignment of lincRNAs and pre-miRNAs between the At- and Dt- sub-genome. Purple and green links indicate the lincRNA and pre-miRNA pairs, respectively. (D) Expression profile of homologous lincRNAs in the At- and Dt-sub-genome of cotton following whitefly infestation (Wilcoxon rank sum test, **represents p < 0.01).
FIGURE 3The prediction of lncRNA function and verification of the spatio-temporal expression profile of the selected lncRNAs between the HR and ZS plants after whitefly infestation. (A) GO enrichment analysis of lincRNAs (Fisher’s exact test, P < 0.05). (B) A co-expression network is shown. Each node represents one gene, while each line connects two nodes. The purple and green nodes represent lincRNAs and protein-coding genes (PCGs), respectively. The size of the nodes represents the gene interactions. (C) Three lincRNAs interacted closely with PCGs. (D) qRT-PCR analysis of lncD09 and lncA07 expression in cotton following whitefly infestation. The y-axis indicates the relative expression level (REL), which was calculated based on the 2–ΔΔCt ratio using GhUBQ7 as a reference. Error bars indicated the standard deviation (S.D) across two biological replicates. *Represents p < 0.05.
FIGURE 4LncRNA ORF prediction and relative expression in different tissues. (A) Seven coding short peptide sequences were predicted by lncD09 gene. (B) Ten coding short peptide sequences were predicted by lncA07 gene.
FIGURE 5Editing efficiency and editing type of knock out mutants. (A) Analysis of editing efficiency of lncD09 in T0 generation. (B) Analysis of editing efficiency of lncA07 in T0 generation. (C) Analysis editing type of lncD09. (D) Analysis editing type of lncA07.
FIGURE 6Study on insect resistance of T1 transgenic lines. (A) Statistics on the results of aphids in each line of lncD09 gene and picture of aphid infestations. (B) Statistics on the results of aphids in each line of lncA07 gene and picture of aphid infestations; Error bars represent the standard deviation of three biological replicates; **Represents p < 0.01, *represents 0.01 < p < 0.05.
FIGURE 7Transcriptome data analysis of knock-out mutants. (A) Gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of lncD09 mutants. (B) KEGG pathway annotation information and analysis of the first 20 enrichment pathways of differentially expressed genes. (C) The expression level of DEGs in JA mediated signaling pathway.
FIGURE 8Transcriptome data analysis of knock-out mutants. (A) Gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of lncA07 mutants. (B) The control and transgenic materials demonstrated different gene expression patterns. (C) KEGG pathway annotation information and analysis of the first 20 enrichment pathways of differentially expressed genes. (D) The expression level of DEGs in chitinase activity.
FIGURE 9The change of hormone content in transgenic plants. (A) The JA content in different lncD09 lines and the control line. (B) The ABA content in different lncD09 lines and the control line. (C) The JA content in different lncA07 lines and the control line. (D) The ABA content in different lncA07 lines and the control line. *Represents p < 0.05, **represents p < 0.01, ***represents p < 0.001, ****represents p < 0.0001, ns represents p > 0.05.