4.8 Editorial Material

Widespread Contamination of Arabidopsis Embryo and Endosperm Transcriptome Data Sets

Journal

PLANT CELL
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 608-617

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.16.00845

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Research Council under the European Union [637888]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [637888] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [W1207] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A major goal of global gene expression profiling in plant seeds has been to investigate the parental contributions to the transcriptomes of early embryos and endosperm. However, consistency between independent studies has been poor, leading to considerable debate. We have developed a statistical tool that reveals the presence of substantial RNA contamination from maternal tissues in nearly all published Arabidopsis thaliana endosperm and early embryo transcriptomes generated in these studies. We demonstrate that maternal RNA contamination explains the poor reproducibility of these transcriptomic data sets. Furthermore, we found that RNA contamination from maternal tissues has been repeatedly misinterpreted as epigenetic phenomena, which has resulted in inaccurate conclusions regarding the parental contributions to both the endosperm and early embryo transcriptomes. After accounting for maternal RNA contamination, no published genome-wide data set supports the concept of delayed paternal genome activation in plant embryos. Moreover, our analysis suggests that maternal and paternal genomic imprinting are equally rare events in Arabidopsis endosperm. Our publicly available software (https://github.com/Gregor-Mendel-Institute/tissue-enrichment-test) can help the community assess the level of contamination in transcriptome data sets generated from both seed and non-seed tissues.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available