4.6 Article

Leaf Size Development Differences and Comparative Transcriptome Analyses of Two Poplar Genotypes

Journal

GENES
Volume 12, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes12111775

Keywords

Populus; leaf size; cell cycle; cell division; growth-regulating factor

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [32071797]
  2. National Key Program on Transgenic Research [2018ZX08020002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Investigating the leaf characteristics and gene expression patterns of Populus deltoides 'Danhong' and Populus simonii 'Tongliao1' revealed that the difference in leaf size was due to cell numbers and gene expression differences, with growth-regulating factors playing a key role in regulating leaf size disparity between the two genotypes.
The plant leaf, the main organ of photosynthesis, is an important regulator of growth. To explore the difference between leaf size of Populus deltoides 'Danhong' (Pd) and Populus simonii 'Tongliao1' (Ps), we investigated the leaf length, leaf width, leaf thickness, leaf area, leaf mass per area (LMA), and cell size of leaves from two genotypes and profiled the transcriptome-wide gene expression patterns through RNA sequencing. Our results show that the leaf area of Pd was significantly larger than that of Ps, but the epidermal cell area was significantly smaller than that of Ps. The difference of leaf size was caused by cell numbers. Transcriptome analysis also revealed that genes related to chromosome replication and DNA repair were highly expressed in Pd, while genes such as the EXPANSIN (EXPA) family which promoted cell expansion were highly expressed in Ps. Further, we revealed that the growth-regulating factors (GRFs) played a key role in the difference of leaf size between two genotypes through regulation of cell proliferation. These data provide a valuable resource for understanding the leaf development of the Populus genus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available