4.7 Article

Comparative transcriptome analysis of defense response of rice to Nilaparvata lugens and Chilo suppressalis infestation

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MACROMOLECULES
Volume 163, Issue -, Pages 2270-2285

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.09.105

Keywords

Nilaparvata lugens; Chilo suppressalis; RNA-Seq

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31371950]
  2. National Genetically Modified Organisms Breeding Major Project: Technology of Environmental Risk Assessment on Transgenic Rice [2016ZX08011001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The brown planthopper (BPH, Nilaparvata lugens) and striped stem borer (SSB, Chilo suppressalis) are two of the most devastating insect pests in rice, causing significant losses of rice yield. Plants evolve multiple defense responses in the process of coexisting with pests. According to different pest infestation, the plants selectively activate related pathways and downstream gene expression. However, there are very few reports of differences in defense signaling pathways after rice was attacked by BPH or SSB. We determined the transcriptional responses of rice infested with BPH and SSB for 3 and 6 h using Illumina sequencing. By comparing the difference in gene changes caused by BPH and SSB infestation in rice, multiple signal pathways and gene expression patterns, including phytohormones, secondary metabolites, plant-pathogen interaction, reactive oxygen species, defense response, transcription factors, protease inhibitor and chitinase were found significantly different. Our results provide a basis for further exploring the molecular mechanism of rice defense response caused by BPH and SSB infestation, which will add to further understanding the interactions between plants and insects, and could provide valuable resources that could be applied in insect-resistant crop breeding. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available