| Literature DB >> 35948667 |
Xinqi Cheng1,2, Fangqin Pang1,2, Wengang Tian3, Xinxin Tang1,2, Lan Wu1,2, Xiaoming Hu1,2, Huaguo Zhu4,5.
Abstract
In previous study, ectopic expression of GhSAMDC1 improved vegetative growth and early flowering in tobacco, which had been explained through changes of polyamine content, polyamines and flowering relate genes expression. To further disclose the transcript changes of ectopic expression of GhSAMDC1 in tobacco, the leaves from wild type and two transgenic lines at seedling (30 days old), bolting (60 days old) and flowering (90 days old) stages were performed for transcriptome analysis. Compared to wild type, a total of 938 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were found to be up- or down-regulated in the two transgenic plants. GO and KEGG analysis revealed that tobacco of wild-type and transgenic lines were controlled by a complex gene network, which regulated multiple metabolic pathways. Phytohormone detection indicate GhSAMDC1 affect endogenous phytohormone content, ABA and JA content are remarkably increased in transgenic plants. Furthermore, transcript factor analysis indicated 18 transcript factor families, including stress response, development and flowering related transcript factor families, especially AP2-EREBP, WRKY, HSF and Tify are the most over-represented in those transcript factor families. In conclusion, transcriptome analysis provides insights into the molecular mechanism of GhSAMDC1 involving rapid vegetative growth and early flowering in tobacco.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35948667 PMCID: PMC9365820 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18064-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Phenotype of wild type and transgenic plants. (a–c) Phenotype of wild type and transgenic plants at seedling, bolting and flowering stages, respectively.
Figure 2Primary analysis of transcriptome datas. (a) Heat map of Pearson correlation coefficient between samples; (b) Violin diagram of gene expression level in wild type and transgenic lines at different stages; (c) Heat map for cluster analysis of the differentially expressed transcripts. The color scale corresponds to the log2 (FPKM) values of genes in various samples, red represented up-regulated expression and blue represented down-regulated expression.
Figure 3Analysis of gene expression differences between wild type and transgenic lines. (a) Diagram showing the number of genes up- and down-regulated genes between wild type and transgenic lines at different stages; (b) Venn diagrams for differentially expressed genes between wild type and transgenic lines.
Figure 4GO annotations and KEGG enrichmentanalysis of the DEGs between wild type and transgenic line 4–3 at different stages. (a–c) GO annotations of the DEGs between wild type and transgenic line 4–3 at different stages; (d–f) KEGG enrichment analysis of the DEGs between wild type and transgenic line 4–3 at different stages.
Figure 5Protein–protein interaction network analysis of DEGs between transgenic 4–3 and wild type at flowering stage. The STRING database (http://string-db.org/) was used to analyze the protein–protein interaction network based on the proteins corresponding to all DEGs.
Figure 6Relative expression analysis of 6 DEGs by qRT-PCR.
Figure 7Plant hormone content of wild type and transgenic lines at different stages.