4.7 Article

Transcriptome changes between compatible and incompatible graft combination of Litchi chinensis by digital gene expression profile

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-04328-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. China Litchi
  2. Longan Industry Technology Research System [CARS-33-04]
  3. YangFan Innovative & Entrepreneurial Research Team Project [2014YT02H013]
  4. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China [2015B020202010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant grafting has been practiced widely in horticulture and proved as a useful tool in science. However, the mechanisms of graft healing or graft incompatibility remain poorly understood. In this study, Litchi chinensis cv. 'Jingganghongnuo' homograft ('J/J') and 'Jingganghongnuo'/'zhuangyuanhong' heterograft ('J/Z') as compatible and incompatible combination, respectively, was used to study transcriptional changes between incompatible and compatible graft during graft union formation. Anatomical observation indicated that three stages (2 h, 14 d and 21 d after grafting) were critical for graft union formation and selected for high-throughput sequencing. Results indicated 6060 DEGs were differentially expressed in the compatible combination and 5267 DEGs exhibiting in the incompatible one. KEGG pathway enrichment analysis revealed that DEGs were involved in metabolism, wound response, phenylpropanoid biosynthesis and plant hormone signal transduction. The expression of 9 DEGs annotated in auxin pathway was up-regulated in compatible combination than that in incompatible combination. The IAA concentration confirmed that the IAA might promote the graft compatibility. In addition, 13 DEGs related to lignin biosynthesis were differentially expressed during graft healing process. Overall, our results provide abundant sequence resources for studying mechanisms underlying graft compatibility and establish a platform for further studies of litchi and other evergreen fruit trees.

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