4.7 Article

Transcriptome sequencing and analysis of rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis Muell.) to discover putative genes associated with tapping panel dryness (TPD)

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12864-015-1562-9

关键词

Rubber tree; TPD; Transcriptome; Latex biosynthesis; Jasmonate synthesis

资金

  1. Hainan Province Major Science and Technology Project [ZDZX2013023]
  2. Western Plan and Subject Key Areas Construction Project of Hainan University [ZXBJH-XK001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Tapping panel dryness (TPD) involves in the partial or complete cessation of latex flow thus seriously affect latex production in rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Numerous studies have been conducted to define its origin and nature, but the molecular nature and mechanism of TPD occurrence remains unknown. This study is committed to de novo sequencing and comparative analysis of the transcriptomes of healthy (H) and TPD-affected (T) rubber trees to identify the genes and pathways related to the TPD. Results: Total raw reads of 34,632,012 and 35,913,020 bp were obtained from H and T library, respectively using Illumina Hiseq 2000 sequencing technology. De novo assemblies yielded 141,456 and 169,285 contigs, and 96,070 and 112,243 unigenes from H and T library, respectively. Among 73597 genes, 22577 genes were identified as differential expressed genes between H and T library via comparative transcript profiling. A majority of genes involved in natural rubber biosynthesis and jasmonate synthesis with most potential relevance in TPD occurrence were found to be differentially expressed. Conclusions: In TPD-affected trees, the expression of most genes related to the latex biosynthesis and jasmonate synthesis was severely inhibited and is probably the direct cause of the TPD. These new de novo transcriptome data sets provide a significant resource for the discovery of genes related to TPD and improve our understanding of the occurrence and maintainace of TPD.

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