Transcriptomics of plant responses to apical damage reveals no negative correlation between tolerance and defense

作者: Daniel R. Scholes , Ken N. Paige

DOI: 10.1007/S11258-015-0500-X

关键词:

摘要: While one may expect the loss of plant tissue by animal herbivores to be universally detrimental a plant’s fitness, wide range tolerance responses exists, including undercompensation (lower fitness when damaged), equal compensation, and even overcompensation (increased damaged). Theory predicts that these could constrained investment into defensive chemicals structures produced for improving resistance in damaged tissues, thus induced defense considered alternative strategies selection pressure imposed herbivory. To determine which genetic pathways underlie differences compensatory (i.e., growth fitness) damage loss, test their relation with involved defense, we performed controlled greenhouse study measure total gene expression via RNA-sequencing undamaged mechanically plants three Arabidopsis thaliana genotypes differ performances: Columbia-4, Landsberg erecta, recombinant inbred line (RIL) from Columbia-4 × Landsberg erecta cross. Among many responded clipping, Columbia-4 significantly up-regulated genes secondary chemistry equally compensated while RIL both undercompensated down-regulated pathways. The genotypes’ different performances are positively correlated differential investments metabolism following loss. This identifies post-damage regulation growth, developmental signaling, environmental response A. thaliana, provides first transcriptomic evidence counter presumed tradeoff between plant-herbivore interactions.

参考文章(69)
Madhura H. Siddappaji, Daniel R. Scholes, Ken N. Paige, The Genetic Basis of Overcompensation in Plants: A Synthesis International Journal of Modern Botany. ,vol. 3, pp. 34- 42 ,(2013)
Kirk A. Stowe, Defense and Tolerance: Is the Distinction between these Two Plant Strategies Useful? International Journal of Modern Botany. ,vol. 3, pp. 1- 4 ,(2013)
Peter Tiffin, Mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage: what do we know? Evolutionary Ecology. ,vol. 14, pp. 523- 536 ,(2000) , 10.1023/A:1010881317261
Steven P. Lund, Dan Nettleton, Davis J. McCarthy, Gordon K. Smyth, Detecting Differential Expression in RNA-sequence Data Using Quasi-likelihood with Shrunken Dispersion Estimates Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology. ,vol. 11, pp. 8- ,(2012) , 10.1515/1544-6115.1826
Christian Breuer, Keiko Sugimoto-Shirasu, Endoreduplication and Cell‐size Control in Plants eLS. ,(2007) , 10.1002/9780470015902.A0020097
Donald A. Levin, The Role of Trichomes in Plant Defense The Quarterly Review of Biology. ,vol. 48, pp. 3- 15 ,(1973) , 10.1086/407484
Joyce Maschinski, Thomas G. Whitham, The Continuum of Plant Responses to Herbivory: The Influence of Plant Association, Nutrient Availability, and Timing The American Naturalist. ,vol. 134, pp. 1- 19 ,(1989) , 10.1086/284962
Fran Supek, Matko Bošnjak, Nives Škunca, Tomislav Šmuc, REVIGO Summarizes and Visualizes Long Lists of Gene Ontology Terms PLoS ONE. ,vol. 6, pp. e21800- ,(2011) , 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0021800
D. W. Hilbert, D. M. Swift, J. K. Detling, M. I. Dyer, Relative growth rates and the grazing optimization hypothesis. Oecologia. ,vol. 51, pp. 14- 18 ,(1981) , 10.1007/BF00344645