4.6 Article

Adaptation to high zinc depends on distinct mechanisms in metallicolous populations of Arabidopsis halleri

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 218, 期 1, 页码 269-282

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.14949

关键词

Arabidopsis halleri; divergent evolution; hyperaccumulation; intraspecific variation; iron deficiency response; reference transcriptome; zinc

资金

  1. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique-FNRS [FRFC-2.4583.08, PDR-T.0206.13]
  2. University of Liege [SFRD-12/03]
  3. Belgian Program on Interuniversity Attraction Poles (IAP) [P7/44]
  4. FRIA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zinc (Zn) hyperaccumulation and hypertolerance are highly variable traits in Arabidopsis halleri. Metallicolous populations have evolved from nearby nonmetallicolous populations in multiple independent adaptation events. To determine whether these events resulted in similar or divergent adaptive strategies to high soil Zn concentrations, we compared two A.halleri metallicolous populations from distant genetic units in Europe (Poland (PL22) and Italy (I16)). The ionomic (Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES)) and transcriptomic (RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq)) responses to growth at 5 and 150M Zn were analyzed in root and shoot tissues to examine the contribution of the geographic origin and treatment to variation among populations. These analyses were enabled by the generation of a reference A.halleri transcriptome assembly. The genetic unit accounted for the largest variation in the gene expression profile, whereas the two populations had contrasting Zn accumulation phenotypes and shared little common response to the Zn treatment. The PL22 population displayed an iron deficiency response at high Zn in roots and shoots, which may account for higher Zn accumulation. By contrast, I16, originating from a highly Zn-contaminated soil, strongly responded to control conditions. Our data suggest that distinct mechanisms support adaptation to high Zn in soils among A.halleri metallicolous populations.

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

4.6
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