4.7 Article

Decline in RNA integrity of dry-stored soybean seeds correlates with loss of germination potential

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 68, Issue 9, Pages 2219-2230

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erx100

Keywords

Age; degradation; germination tests; RIN; RNA; seed longevity; seed storage; soybean; viability

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the relationship between germination ability and damage to RNA in soybean seeds (cv 'Williams 82') stored dry at 5 degrees C for 1-27 years. Total germination of 14 age cohorts harvested between 2015 and 1989 ranged from 100% to 3%. Germination decline followed classic seed viability kinetics, with symptomatic seed aging beginning after 17 years of storage. RNA integrity was assessed in dry seeds by electrophoresis of total RNA, followed by calculation of the RNA integrity number (RIN, Agilent Bioanalyzer software), which evaluates RNA fragment size distributions. Analysis of RNA extracted from cotyledons, embryonic axes, plumules, and seed coats across the range of age cohorts showed consistent RNA degradation: older seeds had over-representation of small RNAs compared with younger seeds, which had nearly a 2: 1 ratio of 25S and 18S rRNAs. RIN values for cotyledons and embryonic axes from the same seed were correlated. Decline in RIN tracked reduced germination, with a pronounced decrease in RIN after 17 years of storage. This led to a high correlation between the mean RIN of cotyledon RNA and the total germination percentage (R-2= 0.91, P<0.0001). Despite this relationship, germinable and non-germinable seeds within cohorts could not be distinguished unless the RIN was <3.5, indicating substantial deterioration. Our work demonstrates that seed RNA incurs damage over time, observable in fragment size distributions. Under the experimental conditions used here, RIN appears to be a promising surrogate for germination tests used to monitor viability of stored seeds.

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