4.8 Article

Desiccation Tolerance Evolved through Gene Duplication and Network Rewiring in Lindernia

期刊

PLANT CELL
卷 30, 期 12, 页码 2943-2958

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.18.00517

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [MCB-1817347]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although several resurrection plant genomes have been sequenced, the lack of suitable dehydration-sensitive outgroups has limited genomic insights into the origin of desiccation tolerance. Here, we utilized a comparative system of closely related desiccation-tolerant (Lindernia brevidens) and - sensitive (Lindernia subracemosa) species to identify gene- and pathway-level changes associated with the evolution of desiccation tolerance. The two high-quality Lindernia genomes we assembled are largely collinear, and over 90% of genes are conserved. L. brevidens and L. subracemosa have evidence of an ancient, shared whole-genome duplication event, and retained genes have neofunctionalized, with desiccation-specific expression in L. brevidens. Tandem gene duplicates also are enriched in desiccation-associated functions, including a dramatic expansion of early light-induced proteins from 4 to 26 copies in L. brevidens. A comparative differential gene coexpression analysis between L. brevidens and L. subracemosa supports extensive network rewiring across early dehydration, desiccation, and rehydration time courses. Many LATE EMBRYOGENESIS ABUNDANT genes show significantly higher expression in L. brevidens compared with their orthologs in L. subracemosa. Coexpression modules uniquely upregulated during desiccation in L. brevidens are enriched with seed-specific and abscisic acid-associated cis-regulatory elements. These modules contain a wide array of seed-associated genes that have no expression in the desiccation-sensitive L. subracemosa. Together, these findings suggest that desiccation tolerance evolved through a combination of gene duplications and network-level rewiring of existing seed desiccation pathways.

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

4.8
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