4.7 Article

MuMADS1 and MaOFP1 regulate fruit quality in a tomato ovate mutant

期刊

PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 989-1001

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pbi.12843

关键词

MuMADS1; MaOFP1; fruit quality; regulation; tomato ovate mutant

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC) [31471924]
  2. Central Public-Interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund for Innovative Research Team Program of CATAS [1630052017018]
  3. earmarked fund for Modern Agro-industry Technology Research System [CARS-31]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fruit ripening and quality are common botanical phenomena that are closely linked and strictly regulated by transcription factors. It was previously discovered that a banana MADS-box protein named MuMADS1 interacted with an ovate family protein named MaOFP1 to regulate banana fruit ripening. To further investigate the role of MuMADS1 and MaOFP1 in the regulation of fruit quality, a combination of genetic transformation and transcriptional characterization was used. The results indicated that the co-expression of MuMADS1 and MaOFP1 in the ovate mutant could compensate for fruit shape and inferior qualities relating to fruit firmness, soluble solids and sugar content. The number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) was 1395 in WT vs. ovate, with 883 up-regulated and 512 down-regulated genes, while the numbers of DEGs gradually decreased with the transformation of MuMADS1 and MaOFP1 into ovate. 'Starch and sucrose metabolism' constituted the primary metabolic pathway, and the gene numbers in this pathway were obviously different when MuMADS1 and MaOFP1 were integrated into ovate. A series of metabolic genes involved in cell wall biosynthesis were up-regulated in the WT vs. ovate, which probably resulted in the firmer texture and lower sugar contents in the ovate fruit. These results demonstrate that MuMADS1 and MaOFP1 are coregulators of fruit quality, facilitating the dissection of the molecular mechanisms underlying fruit quality formation.

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