干旱胁迫下甜菜种子萌发响应转录组分析

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0424

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究旨在筛出甜菜中响应干旱胁迫的重要调控基因，为中国选育抗旱甜菜品种提供参考。以糖用甜菜‘KWS2314’种子为试材，对其萌发过程中的3个阶段进行转录组测序。通过WGCNA分析测得出关键基因模块。对差异表达基因进行GO分析后，发现植物应对干旱胁迫时，其差异基因的分子功能、细胞组分和生物学过程发生变化。在CK₀-vs-T₁，CK₀-vs-T₂，CK₁-vsT₁和CK₁-vss-T₂比较中发现分子功能的催化活性基因数量、细胞组成的细胞基因数量和生物学过程的代谢过程基因数量最多。在KEGG富集分析中，发现对照组CK₀，CK₁，CK₂和处理组T₁，T₂之间的通路显著富集。频率最高的两种途径是代谢途径通路和次级代谢产物的生物合成通路，这表明了葡萄糖、脂肪、蛋白质的代谢和干旱有着密切联系。此项工作阐明了甜菜种子在缺水环境下萌发的分子机制，为植物抗旱研究奠定了理论依据。

关键词: 甜菜, 干旱胁迫, 萌发期, 转录组, 植物代谢, RNA提取, KEGG富集分析, GO富集分析

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to screen out important regulatory genes in sugar beet in response to drought stress, and to provide reference for the selection and breeding of drought-resistant sugar beet varieties in China. The transcriptome of sugar beet ‘KWS2314’ seeds was sequenced at three stages of the germination process. Key gene modules were measured by WGCNA analysis. GO analysis of differentially expressed genes revealed changes in the molecular functions, cellular components and biological processes of the differential genes in response to drought stress in plants. The highest number of catalytically active genes for molecular functions, cellular genes for cellular composition and genes for metabolic processes for biological processes were found in the comparison of CK₀-vs-T₁, CK₀-vs-T₂, CK₁-vsT₁ and CK₁-vsT₂. In KEGG enrichment analyses, significant enrichment was found for pathways between CK₀, CK₁, CK₂ in the control group and T₁, T₂ in the treatment group. The two pathways with the highest frequencies were the metabolic pathway and the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites pathway, suggesting that the metabolism of glucose, fats, and proteins was closely linked to drought. This work elucidated the molecular mechanism of sugar beet seed germination under water deficit environment, and laid a theoretical basis for plant drought resistance research.

Key words: beets (Beta vulgaris L.), drought stress, germination period, transcriptome, plant metabolism, RNA extraction, KEGG enrichment analysis, GO enrichment analysis

岳开心, 王佳琦, 刘乃新. 干旱胁迫下甜菜种子萌发响应转录组分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(3): 114-122.

YUE Kaixin, WANG Jiaqi, LIU Naixin. Transcriptome Analysis of Sugar Beet Seed Germination Response Under Drought Stress[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(3): 114-122.

图/表 12

参考文献 26

[1]	梅书洋, 何敏敏, 耿贵, 等. 外源钙对干旱胁迫下甜菜幼苗生长的影响[J]. 中国糖料, 2022, 44(3):34-40.
[2]	龙佳丽, 邹奕, 邳植, 等. 转录组测序揭示激素介导的信号通路参与甜菜低温应答[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(31):5-14.
[3]	张阳, 宁艳东, 兰西, 等. 我国甜菜育种产业发展现状与展望[J]. 中国糖料, 2023, 45(1):8-13.
[4]	潘军, 迪力拜尔·阿木提, 高腾云. 甜菜及其副产品的营养价值及瘤胃动态降解率[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(12):163-167.
[5]	SONIA S. The influence of extruded sugar beet pulp on cookies' nutritional, physical and sensory characteristics[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(9):5317.
[6]	周艳丽, 卢秉福. 甜菜纤维开发与利用[J]. 中国糖料, 2010(2):3.
[7]	马佳琪, 龚海标, 李娥, 等. 甜菜提取物及复方对化学性肝损伤的保护作用研究[J]. 今日药学, 2021, 31(6):8.
[8]	杨华. 细胞分裂素调控种子发育,休眠与萌发的研究进展[J]. 植物学报, 2021, 56(2):14.
[9]	王晓峰. 种子的胚胎萌发[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 1999, 35(2):89-95.
[10]	贾风勤, 邓利, 兰健花, 等. 环境因子对苋菜种子萌发特征的影响[J]. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学), 2022, 42(6):56-62.
[11]	许静. 青藏高原东缘高寒草甸植物种子的萌发行为及其对环境因素的响应[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2014.
[12]	孙海艳, 史梦雅, 李荣德, 等. 我国甜菜种业发展现状分析及对策建议[J]. 中国种业, 2021(3):1-4.
[13]	LIU Y, PENG L, GAO X. AtPPRT3, a novel E3 ubiquitin ligase, plays a positive role in ABA signaling[J]. Plant cell reports, 2020, 39(11):1467-1478.
[14]	刘世鹏. 水分胁迫对枣树苗期生长及生理特性的影响[D]. 贵阳: 贵州大学, 2006.
[15]	张健龙, 易科, 张一岚, 等. 干旱胁迫对不同彩粒小麦苗期生长发育的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2020, 29(6):842-850.
[16]	马玉慧, 张小虎, 马小乐, 等. 干旱胁迫下春小麦品种(系)萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价[J]. 分子植物育种, 2022, 20(19):6459-6473.
[17]	闫兴富, 周立彪, 思彬彬, 等. 不同温度下PEG-6000模拟干旱对柠条锦鸡儿种子萌发的胁迫效应[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(7):1989-1996.
[18]	高昆, 曹艳东. 干旱胁迫对白花前胡种子萌发和幼苗生理生化特性的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2022, 50(12):130-138.
[19]	王铭凡, 尚金程, 杨诗琪, 等. 干旱胁迫对3种石竹科植物种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响[J]. 现代园艺, 2023, 46(1):57-60.
[20]	陈燕妮, 刘飞. 干旱胁迫对‘大同34号’谷子种子萌发和幼苗生长发育的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(15):55-58. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb15110006
[21]	郭瑞锋, 任月梅, 杨忠, 等. 草甘膦铵盐诱导谷子雄性不育的转录组分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(10):35-43. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0198
[22]	王运浩. 基于第三代测序技术的转录组学分析工具的开发与人类转录组的特征分析[D]. 北京: 中国科学院大学.
[23]	祁云霞, 刘永斌, 荣威恒. 转录组研究新技术:RNA-Seq及其应用[J]. 遗传, 2011, 33(11):12.
[24]	马洪娜, 王海燕, 黄丽容, 等. 钙离子胁迫对越南槐种子萌发的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2022(10):100-103,109.
[25]	杨晓, 马子豪, 马婕, 等. 粗茎秦艽种子萌发过程的转录组及关键因子分析[J]. 中草药, 2021, 52(1):219-226.
[26]	白雪, 曹帅, 向殿军, 等. 低温条件下蓖麻种子萌发期转录组分析[J]. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(12):3834-3844.

Sample	Raw Data/bp	Clean Data/bp	Q₂₀	Q₃₀	GC	Unique Mapped	Total Mapped
CK_0-1	4015136400	3908736301	3865132844(98.88%)	3780811876 (96.73%)	1752434279 (44.83%)	20306745 (77.29%)	86294 (0.33%)
CK_0-2	3452243700	3360921517	3324126022(98.91%)	3253066000 (96.79%)	1494551812 (44.47%)	17606385 (77.77%)	29516 (0.13%)
CK_0-3	4157282700	4054654609	4012874557(98.97%)	3931194813 (96.96%)	1810225173 (44.65%)	21328121 (78.13%)	38694 (0.14%)
CK_1-1	4908352500	4785188792	4734721755(98.95%)	4636926883 (96.90%)	2109856110 (44.09%)	26332738 (81.81%)	49342(0.15%)
CK_1-2	3741820200	3643599151	3603783236(98.91%)	3527243074 (96.81%)	1598639332 (43.88%)	20060356 (81.78%)	27542 (0.11%)
CK_1-3	3834366900	3734643359	3694382356(98.92%)	3616869341 (96.85%)	1641703431 (43.96%)	20570774 (81.81%)	24234 (0.10%)
CK_2-2	4148845800	4044849175	4001466558(98.93%)	3917398794 (96.85%)	1793615419 (44.34%)	22300578 (82.03%)	62088 (0.23%)
CK_2-3	4029155400	3928829095	3887089882(98.94%)	3806141295 (96.88%)	1745218024 (44.42%)	21383028 (81.12%)	113498(0.43%)
T_1-1	3889116300	3789447684	3748084608(98.91%)	3668189438 (96.80%)	1676717579 (44.25%)	20745470 (81.31%)	17916 (0.07%)
T_1-2	3815753400	3717906743	3677220879(98.91%)	3598762386 (96.80%)	1637289436 (44.04%)	20357734 (81.34%)	24192 (0.10%)
T_1-3	3579039600	3488414938	3450870514(98.92%)	3378393988 (96.85%)	1526231684 (43.75%)	18975223 (80.81%)	23938 (0.10%)
T_2-1	5526353100	5382089298	5320896703(98.86%)	5200861905 (96.63%)	2337616496 (43.43%)	29350117 (81.01%)	47594 (0.13%)
T_2-2	4746729600	4622904916	4572123977(98.90%)	4471783961 (96.73%)	2014963121 (43.59%)	25370967 (81.52%)	41824 (0.13%)
T_2-3	3836340900	3741758636	3702362953(98.95%)	3623798346 (96.85%)	1622487457 (43.36%)	20456965 (81.24%)	33038 (0.13%)

Sample	Raw Data/bp	Clean Data/bp	Q₂₀	Q₃₀	GC	Unique Mapped	Total Mapped
CK_0-1	4015136400	3908736301	3865132844(98.88%)	3780811876 (96.73%)	1752434279 (44.83%)	20306745 (77.29%)	86294 (0.33%)
CK_0-2	3452243700	3360921517	3324126022(98.91%)	3253066000 (96.79%)	1494551812 (44.47%)	17606385 (77.77%)	29516 (0.13%)
CK_0-3	4157282700	4054654609	4012874557(98.97%)	3931194813 (96.96%)	1810225173 (44.65%)	21328121 (78.13%)	38694 (0.14%)
CK_1-1	4908352500	4785188792	4734721755(98.95%)	4636926883 (96.90%)	2109856110 (44.09%)	26332738 (81.81%)	49342(0.15%)
CK_1-2	3741820200	3643599151	3603783236(98.91%)	3527243074 (96.81%)	1598639332 (43.88%)	20060356 (81.78%)	27542 (0.11%)
CK_1-3	3834366900	3734643359	3694382356(98.92%)	3616869341 (96.85%)	1641703431 (43.96%)	20570774 (81.81%)	24234 (0.10%)
CK_2-2	4148845800	4044849175	4001466558(98.93%)	3917398794 (96.85%)	1793615419 (44.34%)	22300578 (82.03%)	62088 (0.23%)
CK_2-3	4029155400	3928829095	3887089882(98.94%)	3806141295 (96.88%)	1745218024 (44.42%)	21383028 (81.12%)	113498(0.43%)
T_1-1	3889116300	3789447684	3748084608(98.91%)	3668189438 (96.80%)	1676717579 (44.25%)	20745470 (81.31%)	17916 (0.07%)
T_1-2	3815753400	3717906743	3677220879(98.91%)	3598762386 (96.80%)	1637289436 (44.04%)	20357734 (81.34%)	24192 (0.10%)
T_1-3	3579039600	3488414938	3450870514(98.92%)	3378393988 (96.85%)	1526231684 (43.75%)	18975223 (80.81%)	23938 (0.10%)
T_2-1	5526353100	5382089298	5320896703(98.86%)	5200861905 (96.63%)	2337616496 (43.43%)	29350117 (81.01%)	47594 (0.13%)
T_2-2	4746729600	4622904916	4572123977(98.90%)	4471783961 (96.73%)	2014963121 (43.59%)	25370967 (81.52%)	41824 (0.13%)
T_2-3	3836340900	3741758636	3702362953(98.95%)	3623798346 (96.85%)	1622487457 (43.36%)	20456965 (81.24%)	33038 (0.13%)