4.7 Article

Comparative analysis of B-BOX genes and their expression pattern analysis under various treatments in Dendrobium officinale

期刊

BMC PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12870-019-1851-6

关键词

BBX; D; officinale; Abiotic stress; qRT-PCR; Evolution

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31640068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundStudies have demonstrated that BBX (B-BOX) genes play crucial roles in regulatory networks controlling plant growth, developmental processes and stress response. Nevertheless, comprehensive study of BBX genes in orchids (Orchidaceae) is not well studied. The newly released genome sequences of Dendrobium officinale and Phalaenopsis equestris have allowed a systematic analysis of these important BBX genes in orchids.ResultsHere we identified 19 (DoBBX01-19) and 16 (PeBBX01-16) BBX genes from D. officinale and P. equestris, respectively, and clustered into five clades (I-V) according to phylogenetic analysis. Thirteen orthologous, two DoBBXs paralogous and two PeBBXs paralogous gene pairs were validated. This gene family mainly underwent purifying selection, but five domains experienced positive selection during evolution. Noteworthy, the expression patterns of root, root_tips, stem, leaf, speal, column, lip, and flower_buds revealed that they might contribution to the formation of these tissues. According to the cis-regulatory elements analysis of BBX genes, qRT-PCR experiments were carried out using D. officinale PLBs (protocorm-like bodies) and displayed that these BBX genes were differentially regulated under AgNO3, MeJA (Methyl Jasmonate), ABA (abscisic acid) and SA (salicylic acid) treatments.ConclusionsOur analysis exposed that DoBBX genes play significant roles in plant growth and development, and response to different environmental stress conditions of D. officinale, which provide aid in the selection of appropriate candidate genes for further functional characterization of BBX genes in plants.

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