4.7 Article

Insights into the species-specific metabolic engineering of glucosinolates in radish (Raphanus sativus L.) based on comparative genomic analysis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-16306-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Plan of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2016YFD0100204-02, 2013BAD01B04]
  2. 973 Program [2013CB127000]
  3. 863 program [2012AA021801-04, 2012AA100101]
  4. Science and Technology Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences [CAAS-XTCX2016017, 2016016-4-4, 2016001-5-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glucosinolates (GSLs) and their hydrolysis products present in Brassicales play important roles in plants against herbivores and pathogens as well as in the protection of human health. To elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying the formation of species-specific GSLs and their hydrolysed products in Raphanus sativus L., we performed a comparative genomics analysis between R. sativus and Arabidopsis thaliana. In total, 144 GSL metabolism genes were identified, and most of these GSL genes have expanded through whole-genome and tandem duplication in R. sativus. Crucially, the differential expression of FMOGS-OX2 in the root and silique correlates with the differential distribution of major aliphatic GSL components in these organs. Moreover, MYB118 expression specifically in the silique suggests that aliphatic GSL accumulation occurs predominantly in seeds. Furthermore, the absence of the expression of a putative non-functional epithiospecifier (ESP) gene in any tissue and the nitrile-specifier (NSP) gene in roots facilitates the accumulation of distinctive beneficial isothiocyanates in R. sativus. Elucidating the evolution of the GSL metabolic pathway in R. sativus is important for fully understanding GSL metabolic engineering and the precise genetic improvement of GSL components and their catabolites in R. sativus and other Brassicaceae crops.

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