Comparative transcriptome and coexpression network analysis reveals key pathways and hub candidate genes associated with sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) drought tolerance
© 2024. The Author(s)..
BACKGROUND: Drought severely limits sunflower production especially at the seedling stage. To investigate the response mechanism of sunflowers to drought stress, we utilized two genotypes of sunflower materials with different drought resistances as test materials. The physiological responses were investigated under well-watered (0 h) and drought-stressed conditions (24 h, 48 h, and 72 h).
RESULTS: ANOVA revealed the greatest differences in physiological indices between 72 h of drought stress and 0 h of drought stress. Transcriptome analysis was performed after 72 h of drought stress. At 0 h, there were 7482 and 5627 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the leaves of K55 and K58, respectively, and 2150 and 2527 DEGs in the roots of K55 and K58, respectively. A total of 870 transcription factors (TFs) were identified among theDEGs, among which the high-abundance TF families included AP2/ERF, MYB, bHLH,and WRKY. Five modules were screened using weighted gene coexpressionnetwork analysis (WGCNA), three and two of which were positively and negatively, respectively, related to physiological traits. KEGG analysis revealedthat under drought stress, "photosynthesis", "carotenoid biosynthesis", "starch and sucrose metabolism", "ribosome", "carotenoid biosynthesis", "starch and sucrose metabolism", "protein phosphorylation" and "phytohormone signaling" are six important metabolic pathways involved in the response of sunflower to drought stress. Cytoscape software was used to visualize the three key modules, and the hub genes were screened. Finally, a total of 99 important candidate genes that may be associated with the drought response in sunflower plants were obtained, and the homology of these genes was compared with that in Arabidopsis thaliana.
CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our findings could lead to a better understanding of drought tolerance in sunflowers and facilitate the selection of drought-tolerant sunflower varieties.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:24 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
BMC plant biology - 24(2024), 1 vom: 27. März, Seite 224 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Shi, Huimin [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
36-88-4 |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 29.03.2024 Date Revised 30.03.2024 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s12870-024-04932-w |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM370286413 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM370286413 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240331001403.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240329s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12870-024-04932-w |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1357.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM370286413 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38539093 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Shi, Huimin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparative transcriptome and coexpression network analysis reveals key pathways and hub candidate genes associated with sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) drought tolerance |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 29.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 30.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2024. The Author(s). | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Drought severely limits sunflower production especially at the seedling stage. To investigate the response mechanism of sunflowers to drought stress, we utilized two genotypes of sunflower materials with different drought resistances as test materials. The physiological responses were investigated under well-watered (0 h) and drought-stressed conditions (24 h, 48 h, and 72 h) | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: ANOVA revealed the greatest differences in physiological indices between 72 h of drought stress and 0 h of drought stress. Transcriptome analysis was performed after 72 h of drought stress. At 0 h, there were 7482 and 5627 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the leaves of K55 and K58, respectively, and 2150 and 2527 DEGs in the roots of K55 and K58, respectively. A total of 870 transcription factors (TFs) were identified among theDEGs, among which the high-abundance TF families included AP2/ERF, MYB, bHLH,and WRKY. Five modules were screened using weighted gene coexpressionnetwork analysis (WGCNA), three and two of which were positively and negatively, respectively, related to physiological traits. KEGG analysis revealedthat under drought stress, "photosynthesis", "carotenoid biosynthesis", "starch and sucrose metabolism", "ribosome", "carotenoid biosynthesis", "starch and sucrose metabolism", "protein phosphorylation" and "phytohormone signaling" are six important metabolic pathways involved in the response of sunflower to drought stress. Cytoscape software was used to visualize the three key modules, and the hub genes were screened. Finally, a total of 99 important candidate genes that may be associated with the drought response in sunflower plants were obtained, and the homology of these genes was compared with that in Arabidopsis thaliana | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our findings could lead to a better understanding of drought tolerance in sunflowers and facilitate the selection of drought-tolerant sunflower varieties | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a GO and KEGG | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Homology alignment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Seedling drought | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sunflower | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Transcription factor | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Transcriptome | |
| 650 | 4 | |a WGCNA | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Starch |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 9005-25-8 |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Carotenoids |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 36-88-4 |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Sucrose |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 57-50-1 |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hou, Jianhua |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Dandan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hu, Haibo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Yanxia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wu, Yang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yi, Liuxi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC plant biology |d 2001 |g 24(2024), 1 vom: 27. März, Seite 224 |w (DE-627)NLM115627529 |x 1471-2229 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:24 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g day:27 |g month:03 |g pages:224 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-04932-w |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 24 |j 2024 |e 1 |b 27 |c 03 |h 224 | ||