| Literature DB >> 35769996 |
Ziman Wang1, Shaojie Zhu1, Shixin Yin1, Zihan Zhao1, Zhe Zheng1,2,3,4, Yuewen Deng1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Pearl color is regulated by genetics, biological pigments, and organic matrices and an important factor that influences the pearl economic value. The epigenetic regulation mechanism underlying pearl pigmentation remains poorly understood. In this study, we collected the mantle pallial (MP) and mantle central (MC) of the golden-lipped strain, and MP of the silver-lipped strain of pearl oyster Pinctada fucata martensii. The whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) technology was employed to investigate the possible implication of epigenetic factors regulating nacre color variation. Our results revealed approximately 2.5% of the cytosines in the genome of the P. fucata martensii were methylated, with the CG methylation type was in most abundance. Overall, we identified 12, 621 differentially methylated regions (DMRs) corresponding to 3,471 DMR-associated genes (DMGs) between the two comparison groups. These DMGs were principally enriched into KEGG metabolic pathways including ABC transporters, Terpenoid backbone biosynthesis, and fatty acid degradation. In addition, integrating information about DMGs, DEGs, and function annotation indicated eight genes LDLR, NinaB, RDH, CYP, FADS, fn3, PU-1, KRMP as the candidate genes related to pigmentation of nacre color. A further study proved that the pigment in nacre is violaxanthin. The results of our study provide the support that there is an association between nacre color formation and DNA methylation profiles and will help to reveal the epigenetic regulation of nacre pigmentation formation in pearl oyster P. fucata martensii.Entities:
Keywords: DNA methylation; Pinctada fucata martensii; carotenoids; epigenetic regulation; nacre color
Year: 2022 PMID: 35769996 PMCID: PMC9234178 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.888771
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.772
FIGURE 1(A) Golden-lipped pearl oyster; (B) sliver-lipped pearl oyster.
The color parameters of the nacre area covered by MP and MC tissues.
| Sample | L∗ | a∗ | b∗ | ΔE∗ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YMP | 79.66 ± 4.05a | −4.21 ± 1.15a | 9.23 ± 0.78a | 17.82 ± 3.66a |
| YMC | 81.37 ± 3.30a | −0.95 ± 2.26b | 2.18 ± 0.58b | 13.47 ± 3.41b |
| WMP | 83.33 ± 4.53a | −3.46 ± 1.74ab | −0.25 ± 2.67c | 12.34 ± 4.44b |
| WMC | 81.89 ± 3.730a | −1.63 ± 1.52b | 0.04 ± 0.69bc | 13.03 ± 3.44b |
The superscripts of different letters in the table indicate significant differences, p < 0.05.
FIGURE 2Raman spectra of nacre of Pinctada fucata martensii.
FIGURE 3HPLC separation of carotenoids in nacre. (A): The chromatogram of the carotenoid standard; (B): The chromatogram of carotenoids in shell nacre sample.
Read quality and genome coverage of WGBS.
| Sample | BCE(%) | Clean reads | Mapping rate (%) | Sequence depth | C (%) | CG (%) | CHG(%) | CHH(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YMP1 | 99.03 | 257407838 | 64.95 | 25.39 | 2.33 | 12.45 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| YMP2 | 99.02 | 257124096 | 65.00 | 25.38 | 2.33 | 12.51 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| YMP3 | 99.01 | 271793294 | 64.66 | 26.69 | 2.44 | 13.26 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| YMC1 | 99.01 | 262048260 | 63.51 | 25.28 | 2.37 | 12.65 | 0.77 | 0.78 |
| YMC2 | 99.00 | 271775282 | 64.81 | 26.75 | 2.36 | 12.62 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| YMC3 | 99.01 | 240688780 | 63.26 | 23.13 | 2.34 | 12.29 | 0.77 | 0.79 |
| WMP1 | 99.00 | 294883988 | 64.57 | 28.92 | 2.39 | 12.77 | 0.77 | 0.78 |
| WMP2 | 98.90 | 243861722 | 64.41 | 23.85 | 2.49 | 13.24 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
| WMP3 | 98.97 | 211141580 | 64.63 | 20.72 | 2.43 | 13.02 | 0.79 | 0.79 |
FIGURE 4GO and KEGG function enrich in DMR-related genes. (A) Statistics of the top 20 GO terms enriched for DMGs in YMP vs. WMP; (B) statistics of the top 20 GO terms enriched for DMGs in YMP vs. YMC; (C) statistics of the top 20 pathways enriched for DMGs in YMP vs. WMP; (D) statistics of the top 20 pathways enriched for DMGs in YMP vs. YMC.
Information and quality of RNA-seq.
| Sample | Raw reads | Clean reads | Q20 (%) | Q30 (%) | GC (%) | Unique_Mapped (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WMP-1 | 41239682 | 40497034 | 97.45% | 92.93% | 46.28% | 68.94% |
| WMP-2 | 40622248 | 39864594 | 97.52% | 93.11% | 45.31% | 73.54% |
| WMP-3 | 38714112 | 38129994 | 97.38% | 92.75% | 44.26% | 73.68% |
| YMP-1 | 37829736 | 36916170 | 97.48% | 93.00% | 45.66% | 69.45% |
| YMP-2 | 38343990 | 37790198 | 97.60% | 93.29% | 45.63% | 71.78% |
| YMP-3 | 39151150 | 38487494 | 97.42% | 92.84% | 45.83% | 73.82% |
| YMC-1 | 38695014 | 38104662 | 97.31% | 92.56% | 41.92% | 71.44% |
| YMC-2 | 40294512 | 39771026 | 97.43% | 92.85% | 42.27% | 72.39% |
| YMC-3 | 42678394 | 42096998 | 97.29% | 92.50% | 41.70% | 73.02% |
FIGURE 5GO and KEGG function enrich in DEGs. (A) Statistics of the top 20 GO terms enriched for DEGs in YMP vs. WMP; (B) statistics of the top 20 GO terms enriched for DEGs in YMP vs. YMC; (C) statistics of the pathways enriched for DEGs in YMP vs. WMP; (D) statistics of the top 20 pathways enriched for DEGs in YMP vs. YMC.
FIGURE 6Correlation of DMR-related genes and DEGs. (A) Up-stream 2k; (B) genebody; (C) down-stream 2k.