| Literature DB >> 35328069 |
Gulab Rangani1, Christopher E Rouse1, Christopher Saski2, Rooksana E Noorai3, Vijay Shankar4, Amy L Lawton-Rauh5, Isabel S Werle1, Nilda Roma-Burgos1.
Abstract
Echinochloa colona and other species in this genus are a threat to global rice production and food security. Quinclorac, an auxin mimic, is a common herbicide for grass weed control in rice, and Echinochloa spp. have evolved resistance to it. The complete mode of quinclorac action and subsequent evolution of resistance is not fully understood. We analyzed the de novo transcriptome of multiple-herbicide-resistant (ECO-R) and herbicide-susceptible genotypes in response to quinclorac. Several biological processes were constitutively upregulated in ECO-R, including carbon metabolism, photosynthesis, and ureide metabolism, indicating improved metabolic efficiency. The transcriptional change in ECO-R following quinclorac treatment indicates an efficient response, with upregulation of trehalose biosynthesis, which is also known for abiotic stress mitigation. Detoxification-related genes were induced in ECO-R, mainly the UDP-glycosyltransferase (UGT) family, most likely enhancing quinclorac metabolism. The transcriptome data also revealed that many antioxidant defense elements were uniquely elevated in ECO-R to protect against the auxin-mediated oxidative stress. We propose that upon quinclorac treatment, ECO-R detoxifies quinclorac utilizing UGT genes, which modify quinclorac using the sufficient supply of UDP-glucose from the elevated trehalose pathway. Thus, we present the first report of upregulation of trehalose synthesis and its association with the herbicide detoxification pathway as an adaptive mechanism to herbicide stress in Echinochloa, resulting in high resistance.Entities:
Keywords: Echinochloa; abiotic stress; detoxification; non-target-site resistance (NTSR); quinclorac resistance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328069 PMCID: PMC8949966 DOI: 10.3390/genes13030515
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.096
Figure 1Phenotype and transcriptome analysis of quinclorac-resistant Echinochloa colona (ECO-R). (A) Response to quinclorac 21 d after treatment. Photographs of the susceptible genotype ECO-S (left), nontreated and treated (1X field dose), and the resistant genotype ECO-R (right), nontreated and treated (32X field dose). (B) Volcano plot depicting the differentially expressed genes in the nontreated ECO-R sample compared to ECO-S. The p value (−log base 10) for differential gene expression is plotted on the Y-axis. The colored dots on the left indicate genes with significantly downregulated expression and the colored dots on the right indicate genes with significantly upregulated expression. (C) CirGO (circular gene ontology) visualization of GO terms enriched in differentially expressed genes in nontreated ECO-R vs ECO-S (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Enrichment of similar GO terms between nontreated quinclorac-resistant (ECO-R) and treated quinclorac-susceptible (ECO-S) Echinochloa colona genotypes. The percentages of differentially expressed genes within each GO term are presented.
Figure 3Enrichment of GO terms in quinclorac-resistant Echinochloa colona (ECO-R) after quinclorac treatment. This enrichment response in ECO-R is relative to the treated susceptible genotype (ECO-S) transcriptome, and the percentages of differentially expressed genes within each GO term are presented.
Comparison of putative genes (with p-value < 0.01, FDR < 0.05) involved in detoxification after quinclorac treatment. The increase in expression of putative genes in quinclorac-resistant Echinochloa colona (ECO-R) compared to the susceptible genotype (ECO-S) 24 h after treatment.
| ECO-R | ECO-S | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene Family | Name | No. of Transcripts | Av. Fold Change | Name | No. of Transcripts | Av. Fold Change |
| Cytochrome |
| 9 | 9.5 |
| 1 | 338.7 |
| P450 |
| 7 | 7.6 |
| 5 | 12.2 |
|
| 3 | 3.3 |
| 2 | 107 | |
|
| 2 | 10.4 |
| 2 | 4.4 | |
|
| 4 | 11.9 |
| 1 | 46 | |
|
| 11 | 7.3 |
| 6 | 5.6 | |
|
| 6 | 7.2 | CYP71B3 | 2 | DR | |
|
| 3 | 8.9 | CYP71C2 | 1 | DR | |
| CYP71A1 | 7 | 10.6 | CYP71D8 | 1 | DR | |
| CYP71A6 | 2 | 5.7 | CYP87A3 | 4 | DR | |
| CYP71A9 | 3 | 14.7 | ||||
|
| 2 | 7.0 | ||||
| CYP71B3 | 3 | 24.1 | ||||
| CYP71C2 | 4 | 5.7 | ||||
| CYP71D8 | 3 | 7.5 | ||||
| CYP87A3 | 4 | 316.8 | ||||
| CYP94B3 | 5 | 8.5 | ||||
| UDP- | U72B1 | 2 | 6.9 | U74F2 | 7 | 2.6 |
| glucoronosyl |
| 2 | 9.4 | U72B1 | 3 | DR |
| and |
| 5 | 3.8 | U73C3 | 6 | DR |
| UDP-glucosyl | U73C3 | 5 | 5.5 |
| 1 | 4.3 |
| transferase |
| 5 | 8.1 | U73E1 | 1 | 10.9 |
| U73E1 | 6 | 3.1 | U75D1 | 3 | DR | |
| U74F2 | 2 | 5.0 | U75D1-like | 4 | DR | |
| U75D1 | 3 | 17.0 |
| 2 | 11.6 | |
| U75D1-like | 10 | 5.8 |
| 8 | 6.1 | |
|
| 1 | 4.4 |
| 3 | 9.6 | |
| U83A1 | 11 | 4.2 | unknown | 13 | 13.8 | |
|
| 3 | 3.6 | ||||
|
| 2 | 2.2 | ||||
| ABC |
| 3 | 3.2 |
| 1 | 24 |
| Transporters |
| 1 | 3.9 |
| 1 | 8.8 |
|
| 1 | 3.5 |
| 2 | 12.9 | |
|
| 1 | 383.3 |
| 13 | 4.5 | |
|
| 1 | 3.2 | unknown D | 7 | DR | |
|
| 4 | 4.9 | AB14C | 2 | DR | |
|
| 1 | 2.5 | AB25B | 7 | DR | |
|
| 7 | 4.3 | AB26B | 2 | DR | |
|
| 4 | 3.3 | AB2C | 1 | DR | |
| unknown D | 12 | 3.5 | AB4C | 3 | DR | |
| AB14C | 3 | 3.5 | AB6I | 6 | DR | |
| AB25B | 8 | 2.7 | AB7A | 1 | DR | |
| AB26B | 5 | 5.1 | AB7G | 2 | DR | |
| AB2C | 1 | 4.2 | AB10I | 1 | DR | |
| AB4C | 4 | 4.6 | ||||
| AB6I | 7 | 2.8 | ||||
| AB7A | 5 | 3.2 | ||||
| AB7G | 2 | 3.6 | ||||
| AB10I | 2 | 4.2 |
DR = Downregulated. Genes in bold are unique to each genotype.
Figure 4Validation of the expression of eight candidate genes by RT-qPCR.