4.7 Article

Genomic and Transcriptomic Dissection of the Large-Effect Loci Controlling Drought-Responsive Agronomic Traits in Wheat

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy12061264

关键词

wheat; drought; whole-genome re-sequencing; RNA-sequencing; QTL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified a large number of gene polymorphisms and mutations in two popular winter wheat cultivars and found time-point specific and cultivar-preferential responsive gene expression patterns related to abiotic stress response. Unexpected pathways associated with stress responses were also discovered.
Drought tolerance is one of the most important targets for wheat breeding. Previous population genetics studies have uncovered 20 large-effect quantitative trait loci (QTLs) that contribute to stress-responsive agronomic traits. Here, we identified 19,035,814 single nucleotide polymorphisms and 719,049 insertion/deletion variations in the genomes of two popular winter wheat cultivars, Lu-Mai 14 and Han-Xuan 10, using a whole-genome re-sequencing assay. There were 4972 loss-offunction mutations carried by protein-coding genes, such as CCAI/LHY, AGOI, ABI3/VPI, EIN3, TPP, and ARFs. We carried out a time-course abscisic acid (ABA)-treatment experiment and profiled 61,251 expressed genes in the roots using a strand-specific RNA sequencing approach. A large number of genes showed time-point specific and/or cultivar-preferential responsive expression patterns. Gene ontology enrichment analysis revealed that ABA-responsive genes were associated with stress-related functions. Among the 20 QTLs, we uncovered 306 expressed genes with high- and/or moderateeffect variations and 472 differentially expressed genes. Detailed analysis and verification of the homozygous genomic variations in the candidate genes encoding sulfotransferase, proteinase, kinase, nitrate transporter, and transcription factors suggested previously unexpected pathways associated with abiotic stress responses in wheat.

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