4.7 Article

Patterns of homoeologous gene expression shown by RNA sequencing in hexaploid bread wheat

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-276

关键词

Wheat; Wheat transcriptome; mRNA-Seq; Diploidization; Homoeologues; Polyploidy

资金

  1. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F020759/1]
  3. BBSRC [BB/F020759/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F020759/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) has a large, complex and hexaploid genome consisting of A, B and D homoeologous chromosome sets. Therefore each wheat gene potentially exists as a trio of A, B and D homoeoloci, each of which may contribute differentially to wheat phenotypes. We describe a novel approach combining wheat cytogenetic resources (chromosome substitution 'nullisomic-tetrasomic' lines) with next generation deep sequencing of gene transcripts (RNA-Seq), to directly and accurately identify homoeologue-specific single nucleotide variants and quantify the relative contribution of individual homoeoloci to gene expression. Results: We discover, based on a sample comprising similar to 5-10% of the total wheat gene content, that at least 45% of wheat genes are expressed from all three distinct homoeoloci. Most of these genes show strikingly biased expression patterns in which expression is dominated by a single homoeolocus. The remaining similar to 55% of wheat genes are expressed from either one or two homoeoloci only, through a combination of extensive transcriptional silencing and homoeolocus loss. Conclusions: We conclude that wheat is tending towards functional diploidy, through a variety of mechanisms causing single homoeoloci to become the predominant source of gene transcripts. This discovery has profound consequences for wheat breeding and our understanding of wheat evolution.

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