4.7 Article

Transcriptomic analyses reveal the adaptive features and biological differences of guts from two invasive whitefly species

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-370

关键词

Gene expression; Genetic divergence; Gut; Transcriptome; Whitefly

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171848, 31321063]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The gut of phloem feeding insects is critical for nutrition uptake and xenobiotics degradation. However, partly due to its tiny size, genomic information for the gut of phloem feeding insects is limited. Results: In this study, the gut transcriptomes of two species of invasive whiteflies in the Bemisia tabaci complex, Middle East Asia Minor 1 (MEAM1) and Mediterranean (MED), were analyzed using the Illumina sequencing. A total of 12,879 MEAM1 transcripts and 11,246 MED transcripts were annotated with a significant Blastx hit. In addition, 7,000 and 5,771 gut specific genes were respectively identified for MEAM1 and MED. Functional analyses on these gut specific genes demonstrated the important roles of gut in metabolism of insecticides and secondary plant chemicals. To reveal the molecular difference between guts of MEAM1 and MED, a comparison between gut transcriptomes of the two species was conducted and 3,910 pairs of orthologous genes were identified. Based on the ratio of nonsynonymous and synonymous substitutions, 15 genes were found evolving under positive selection. Many of those genes are predicted to be involved in metabolism and insecticide resistance. Furthermore, many genes related to detoxification were expressed at an elevated level in the gut of MED compared to MEAM1, which might be responsible for the MED's higher resistance to insecticides and environmental stresses. Conclusion: The sequencing of MED and MEAM1 gut transcriptomes and extensive comparisons of MEAM1 and MED gut transcripts provide substantial sequence information for revealing the role of gut in whiteflies.

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