| Literature DB >> 35327981 |
Aye Aye Myat1, Yu Zhou1, Yuan Gao1, Xiang Zhao1, Chengzhen Liang1, Muhammad Ali Abid1, Peilin Wang1, Umar Akram1,2, Mubashir Abbas1, Muhammad Askari1, Sandui Guo1, Rui Zhang1, Zhigang Meng1.
Abstract
Crop molecular breeding primarily focuses on increasing the trait of plant yield. An elongator-associated protein, KTI12, is closely associated with plant biomass and yield. KTI12 is involved in developmental processes of most organs, including the leaf, root, flower, and seed, through regulating cell division and differentiation. Previous work has shown that in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), GhKTI12 regulates plant height, flowering, and tolerance to salt and drought stress. However, little is known about the molecular regulation mechanism of GhKTI12 in plant developmental processes. In this study, we identified the main GhKTI12 (Gh_D02G144400) gene and transformed it into tobacco (Nicotonia tabacum cv NC89). From seven transgenic lines, we obtained three (OE5, OE6 and OE8) with high expression of GhKTI12; compared with wild type plants, these three lines exhibited larger plant size, later flowering, and higher seed yield. Microscopic observation revealed that the number of leaf epidermal cells and stem parenchyma cells was increased by ~55%. Biochemical analysis showed that chlorophyll content and starch accumulation were significantly increased in younger leaves at the top canopy of transgenic plants, which may contribute to improved photosynthetic rate and, in turn, increased seed yield. To understand the molecular mechanism of GhKTI12 in transgenic plants development, two lines (OE6 and OE8) with higher expression levels of GhKTI12 were used as representative plants to conduct RNA-seq analysis. Through transcriptome analysis of the plant's shoot apical meristematic tissue of these two lines, we identified 518 upregulated genes and 406 downregulated genes common to both overexpression lines. A large number of cellular component genes associated with cell division and differentiation, such as RD21, TET8, KTN80, AOX1, AOX2, CP1, and KIC, were found to be upregulated, and genes showing the most downregulation included MADS-box genes related to flowering time, such as MADS6, AP1, AP3, AGL8, AGL6, SEP1, and SEP2. Downregulation of these genes caused delayed flowering time and longer vegetative stage during development. Combined with the upregulation of the yield-related gene RD21, the GhKTI12 transgenic plants could produce a higher seed yield. We here show that the overexpression of GhKTI12 could positively improve key agronomic traits in tobacco by regulating cell proliferation, photosynthesis, and organ development, and suggest that homologs of GhKTI12 may also be important in the genetic improvement of other crop plants.Entities:
Keywords: GhKTI12; biomass; seed yield; transgenic tobacco
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35327981 PMCID: PMC8953243 DOI: 10.3390/genes13030426
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.096
Figure 1Phylogenetic analysis of GhKTI12 homologs and identification of transgenic plants. (a) Phylogenetic analysis of GhKTI12 homologs in plants. NJ tree is generated by MEGA-X software using full protein sequences. Numbers in each branch indicate distance genetic variation between species. GhKTI12 was shown as A0A1U8JSZ7 (upland cotton). (b) Vector constructions of GhKTI12 based on PCAMBIA2300-35S backbone. (c) qRT-PCR analysis of relative transcript level of GhKTI12 in T0 transgenic tobacco lines (Line 1–7). Bars in the graph show the standard mean error. Asterisks indicates significant differences between wild type (WT) and GhKTI12 transgenic plants analyzed by Student’s t-test, p < 0.01.
Figure 2Flowering time and plant height analysis in GhKTI12 transgenic plants. (a–c) Plant height (Scale = 10 cm) and initial bolting morphology of WT and GhKTI12 transgenic tobacco. Statistical comparison of morphological analysis in (d) Initial bolting time. (e) Plant height (Scale = 10 cm). Bars in the graph show the standard mean error. Asterisks indicates significant differences between wild type (WT) and GhKTI12 transgenic plants analyzed by Student’s t-test, p < 0.01 (**). Data were collected from 10 representative plants.
Figure 3Effect of GhKTI12 on tobacco leaf development. (a,b) Comparison of leaves size from three different positions (5th, 8th, and 12th) between WT and GhKTI12 transgenic plants from 4-month-old plants, the leaf length and leaf width were measured (n = 10). (c) Microscopic observation of palisade cell in the upper epidermis of third leaf in wild type and transgenic plant. (Bars = 100 um.) (n = 5). (d) Relative percentage of epidermis palisade cell number and cell size in GhKTI12 transgenic tobacco compared with wild type (n = 10). All data was taken from T2 generation. Bars in the graph show the standard mean error. Asterisks indicates significant differences between wild type (WT) and GhKTI12 transgenic plants analyzed by Student’s t-test, p < 0.01.
Figure 4Analysis of root morphological and seed production in transgenic plants. (a–c) Comparison of roots morphological between wild type and GhKTI12 transgenic plants. (d) Total number of capsules per each plant (n = 10). (e) Seed yield per individual tobacco plant (n = 10). Bars in the graph show the standard mean error. Asterisks indicates significant differences between wild type (WT) and GhKTI12 transgenic plants analyzed by Student’s t-test p < 0.01 (**). Data were collected from 10 representative plants.
Comparison of biomass production between GhKTI12 transgenic and wild type (WT) tobacco plants.
| Genotype | Fresh Weight (g) | Dry Weight (g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | Stem | Root | Total Weight (g) | Leaves | Stem | Root | Total Weight (g) | |
| WT | 110.66 ± 9.11 | 148.73 ± 14.23 | 20.47 ± 2.03 | 279.86 | 26.05 ± 2.11 | 29.93 ± 2.06 | 3.76 ± 0.71 | 59.74 |
| OE-5 | 173.15 ± 13.18 | 232.58 ± 15.02 | 32.01 ± 2.92 | 437.74 | 40.74 ± 3.98 | 43.26 ± 3.80 | 8.26 ± 0.94 | 92.26 |
| OE-6 | 163.93 ± 15.16 | 220.19 ± 17.81 | 30.3 ± 2.82 | 414.42 | 38.57 ± 3.56 | 43.46 ± 3.72 | 7.82 ± 0.72 | 89.85 |
| OE-8 | 165.01 ± 14.48 | 221.64 ± 17.67 | 30.52 ± 2.65 | 417.17 | 38.82 ± 3.64 | 44.42 ± 3.17 | 7.87 ± 0.97 | 91.11 |
Data were collected at harvesting time. Standard deviation (SD) were calculated from mean value of 10 sample plants.
Figure 5Contents analysis of chlorophyll, sucrose and starch in GhKTI12 transgenic tobacco leaves. (a) Chlorophyll content in GhKTI12 transgenic plants and wild-type plants (n = 10). (b) Sucrose content in leaves at different leaf ages. (c) Starch content in leaves at different leaf ages. All data were taken from T2 generation. Bars in the graph show the standard mean error. Asterisks indicates significant differences between wild type (WT) and GhKTI12 transgenic plants analyzed by Student’s t-test, (*) p < 0.05; (**) p < 0.01.
Figure 6Analysis of upregulated genes in GhKTI12 transgenic plants. GO Histogram of Annotated (a) upregulated genes (URGs) in three different functional categories. (b) The heat map of DEGs associated with enriched cellular components.
Figure 7Analysis of downregulated gene related to plant flowering in GhKTI12 transgenic plants. (a) Top 12 GO enrichment analysis of downregulated genes (DRGs) in molecular function. (b) The heat map of DGEs associated with flowering time related genes.