4.7 Article

Long-term boron-deficiency-responsive genes revealed by cDNA-AFLP differ between Citrus sinensis roots and leaves

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00585

关键词

boron-deficiency; cDNA-AFLP; Citrus sinensis; leaves; roots; transcript-derived fragment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171947]
  2. earmarked fund for China Agriculture Research System [CARS-27]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seedlings of Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck were supplied with boron (B)-deficient (without H3BO3) or -sufficient (10 mu M H3BO3) nutrient solution for 15 weeks. We identified 54 (38) and 38 (45) up (down)-regulated cDNA-AFLP bands (transcript-derived fragments, TDFs) from B-deficient leaves and roots, respectively. These TDFs were mainly involved in protein and amino acid metabolism, carbohydrate and energy metabolism, nucleic acid metabolism, cell transport, signal transduction, and stress response and defense. The majority of the differentially expressed TDFs were isolated only from B-deficient roots or leaves, only seven TDFs with the same GenBank ID were isolated from the both. In addition, ATP biosynthesis-related TDFs were induced in B-deficient roots, but unaffected in B-deficient leaves. Most of the differentially expressed TDFs associated with signal transduction and stress defense were down-regulated in roots, but up-regulated in leaves. TDFs related to protein ubiquitination and proteolysis were induced in B-deficient leaves except for one TDF, while only two down-regulated TDFs associated with ubiquitination were detected in B-deficient roots. Thus, many differences existed in long-term B-deficiency-responsive genes between roots and leaves. In conclusion, our findings provided a global picture of the differential responses occurring in B-deficient roots and leaves and revealed new insight into the different adaptive mechanisms of C. sinensis roots and leaves to B-deficiency at the transcriptional level.

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