4.7 Article

Transcriptome-wide Analysis Of Vernalization Reveals Conserved and Species-specific Mechanisms in Brachypodium

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 8, 页码 696-709

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jipb.12050

关键词

Brachypodium; comparative analysis; RNA-Seq; vernalization

资金

  1. Main Direction Program of Knowledge Innovation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KSCX2-EW-J-1]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30970241]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several temperate cereals need vernalization to promote flowering. Little, however, is known about the vernalization-memory-related genes, and almost no comparative analysis has been performed. Here, RNA-Seq was used for transcriptome analysis in non-vernalized, vernalized and post-vernalized Brachypodium distachyon (L.) Beauv. seedlings. In total, the expression of 1,665 genes showed significant changes (fold change 4) in response to vernalization. Among them, 674 putative vernalization-memory-related genes with a constant response to vernalization were significantly enriched in transcriptional regulation and monooxygenase-mediated biological processes. Comparative analysis of vernalization-memory-related genes with barley demonstrated that the oxidative-stress response was the most conserved pathway between these two plant species. Moreover, Brachypodium preferred to regulate transcription and protein phosphorylation processes, while vernalization-memory-related genes, whose products are cytoplasmic membrane-bound-vesicle-located proteins, were preferred to be regulated in barley. Correlation analysis of the vernalization-related genes with barley revealed that the vernalization mechanism was conserved between these two plant species. In summary, vernalization, including its memory mechanism, is conserved between Brachypodium and barley, although several species-specific features also exist. The data reported here will provide primary resources for subsequent functional research in vernalization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据