4.7 Article

Integrated metabolomic and transcriptomic analysis provides insights into the flavonoid formation in different Glycyrrhiza species

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 208, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117796

关键词

Licorice; Glycyrrhiza; Multiomics; Characteristic flavonoids; Regulatory network; Transcription factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the characteristic flavonoids (CFs) of three licorice species were identified through integrated metabolic and transcriptomic analysis. The key regulators of CF biosynthesis were also identified. These findings provide valuable information for understanding the biosynthesis of CFs and future breeding of Glycyrrhiza varieties.
Medicinal licorice is obtained from the roots and rhizomes of three species, Glycyrrhiza inflata, G. glabra, and G. urelensis. Previous studies have reported chemical differences among these species, but the detailed composition of specialized metabolites and the underlying molecular basis for the formation of characteristic compounds remain unclear. Here, we performed integrated metabolic and transcriptomic analysis to identify the characteristic flavonoids (CFs) of these three licorice species as well as the key regulators of their biosynthesis. A total of 866 metabolites including 251 flavonoids were identified. Among them, 71 flavonoids were differentially accumulated in three licorice species. Transcriptome analysis showed that a set of the structural genes involved in CF biosynthesis were differentially expressed among the three licorice species. In addition, weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) was used to construct a regulatory network for CF biosynthesis. A candidate transcription factor GibHLH69 was proved to promote GiCHS20 expression and contribute to the accumulation of multiple CFs in G. inflata. These results provide valuable information for further understanding the biosynthesis of CFs and future breeding of Glycyrrhiza varieties.

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