4.7 Article

Comparative Analysis of the Cytology and Transcriptomes of the Cytoplasmic Male Sterility Line H276A and Its Maintainer Line H276B of Cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.)

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms18112240

Keywords

cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.); cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS); microspore development; transcriptome; differentially expressed genes (DEGs)

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31360348]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the tetrad stage of microspore development in a new cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) line, H276A, was identified using paraffin sections at the abortion stage. To explore the molecular mechanism underlying CMS in cotton, a comparative transcriptome analysis between the CMS line H276A and its maintainer line H276B at the tetrad stage was conducted using an Illumina HiSeq 4000 platform. The comparison of H276A with H276B revealed a total of 64,675 genes, which consisted of 59,255 known and 5420 novel genes. An analysis of the two libraries with a given threshold yielded a total of 3603 differentially expressed genes (DEGs), which included 1363 up- and 2240 down-regulated genes. Gene Ontology (GO) annotation showed that 2171 DEGs were distributed into 38 categories, and a Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis showed that 2683 DEGs were classified into 127 groups. Thirteen DEGs were randomly selected and detected by quantitative reverse-transcribed PCR (qRT-PCR), and the results indicated that the transcriptome sequencing results were reliable. The bioinformatic analysis results in conjunction with previously reported data revealed key DEGs that might be associated with the male sterility features of H276A. Our results provide a comprehensive foundation for understanding anther development and will accelerate the study of the molecular mechanisms of CMS in cotton.

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