3.8 Article

RNA-seq data comparisons of wild soybean genotypes in response to soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines)

期刊

GENOMICS DATA
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 36-39

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.gdata.2017.08.001

关键词

Glycine soja; RNA-seq; Soybean cyst nematode (SCN); Expression; Transcriptome

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [R15GM122029]
  2. North Carolina Biotechnology Center [2014-CFG-8005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] is an important crop rich in vegetable protein and oil, and is a staple food for human and animals worldwide. However, soybean plants have been challenged by soybean cyst nematode (SCN, Heterodera glycines), one of the most damaging pests found in soybean fields. Applying SCN-resistant cultivars is the most efficient and environmentally friendly strategy to manage SCN. Currently, soybean breeding and further improvement in soybean agriculture are hindered by severely limited genetic diversity in cultivated soybeans. G. soja is a soybean wild progenitor with much higher levels of genetic diversity compared to cultivated soybeans. In this study, transcriptomes of the resistant and susceptible genotypes of the wild soybean, Glycine soja Sieb & Zucc, were sequenced to examine the genetic basis of SCN resistance. Seedling roots were treated with infective second-stage juveniles (J2s) of the soybean cyst nematode (HG type 2.5.7) for 3, 5, 8 days and pooled for library construction and RNA sequencing. The transcriptome sequencing generated approximately 245 million (M) high quality (Q > 30) raw sequence reads (125 bp in length) for twelve libraries. The raw sequence reads were deposited in NCBI sequence read archive (SRA) database, with the accession numbers SRR5227314-25. Further analysis of this data would be helpful to improve our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of soybean-SCN interaction and facilitate the development of diverse SCN resistance cultivars.

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

3.8
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