Transcriptome Analysis of Sucrose Induced Areca Taro in Vitro and Key Genes Screening

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0463

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the relevant mechanisms underlying corm development and identify key genes regulating this process in Areca taro (Colocasia esculenta cv. Binlang), this study used in vitro plantlets of Guangdong Tanbu Wengang Areca taro as experimental materials. Transcriptome sequencing was performed on the corms of in vitro taro cultured under different sucrose concentration treatments to screen differentially expressed genes (DEGs) associated with corm development, and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) technology was employed to verify the expression profiles of candidate genes. The results showed that a total of 89,320 unigenes were obtained from 4 comparison groups, with 20,458 DEGs identified, including 9,925 upregulated genes and 10,533 downregulated genes. GO functional enrichment analysis revealed that these DEGs were mainly enriched in biological processes, particularly in responses to biological stimuli and cellular oxidation-detoxification. KEGG pathway enrichment analysis indicated that the pathways enriched by these DEGs were mainly phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, plant hormone signal transduction, starch and sucrose metabolism, and plant-pathogen interaction. In addition, 15 core candidate genes were selected from the starch and sucrose metabolism pathways and plant hormone signal transduction pathways in this study. The expression patterns of genes verified by qRT-PCR were basically consistent with the transcriptome sequencing results. This study provides important data support for investigating the molecular mechanism of taro corm expansion and lays a theoretical foundation for further deciphering the regulatory network of Areca taro corm development.

Key words: Areca taro, sucrose, in vitro taro corms, transcriptome analysis, tuber development

LUO Yanyu, WEI Liguo, LIU Weiguang, YANG Zhijian, ZHANG Jinzhong, CHEN Jiwei, HUANG Shaoli. Transcriptome Analysis of Sucrose Induced Areca Taro in Vitro and Key Genes Screening[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(6): 54-63.

Figures/Tables 11

References 35

[1]	于继英, 田子罡, 徐美娟, 等. 我国芋头资源分布和饲用情况[J]. 当代畜牧, 2018(33):22-26.
[2]	IBRAR A, PETER J L, ESPERANZA M G A, et al. Evolutionary origins of taro (Colocasia esculenta) in Southeast[J]. Ecology and evolution, 2020(10):13530-13543.
[3]	戴修纯, 罗燕羽, 黄绍力, 等. 广东省芋头产业现状与发展对策[J]. 广东农业科学, 2021, 48(6):126-135.
[4]	张雨濛. 芋球茎淀粉积累与食味品质形成的关系及其对5-ALA响应研究[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2022.
[5]	谭卫萍, 许敏娜, 肖熙鸥. 广州市文冈香芋发展现状与应对策略[J]. 南方农业, 2011, 5(5):77-79.
[6]	杨璐, 刘希元, 张广臣. 光周期、蔗糖及6-BA对马铃薯试管薯诱导的影响[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2022, https://link.cnki.net/urlid/22.1100.S.20220512.1913.004.
[7]	严华兵, 周慧文, 曾文丹. 木薯试管块根诱导技术研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2016, 37(9):1708-1713.
[8]	韩晓勇, 王立, 殷剑美, 等. 靖江香沙芋试管芋诱导影响因素研究[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2017, 58(10):1766-1769.
[9]	周逊, 徐晓舒, 易迁, 等. 不同浓度蔗糖诱导对试管姜丙二醛含量的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2013(17):104-106.
[10]	KHURI S, MOORBY J. Investigations into the role of sucrose in potato cv. estima microtuber production in vitro[J]. Annals of botany, 1995, 75(13):295-303. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1995.1024 URL
[11]	庄赛伟, 刘铭, 梅朋飞, 等. 蔗糖对参薯块茎形成及DamiR156/DaSPL的调控分析[J]. 分子植物育种, 2024, 22(7):2098-2103.
[12]	BELGUENDOUZ A, HARCHE M K, BENMAHIOUL B. Evaluation of different culture media andactivated charcoal supply on yield and quality of potato microtubers grown in vitro[J]. Journal of plant nutrition, 2021, 44(14):2123-2137. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2021.1881545 URL
[13]	卢晓月, 李大伟, 邬倩, 等. 马铃薯块茎不同发育时期转录组分析[J]. 云南师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 41(4):25-32.
[14]	高小溪. 蔗糖诱导马铃薯(S. tuberosum L.)试管薯形成的转录组分析与关键基因筛选[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2006.
[15]	赵令敏. 淀粉-蔗糖代谢对山药(Diocscorea opposita Thunb.)块茎膨大调控机制的研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2023.
[16]	赵娜, 刘宇曦, 张朝澍, 等. 不同马铃薯淀粉含量差异的转录组学解析[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(6):1503-1513.
[17]	刘星月. 红芽芋脱毒种茎诱导及形成机制初步研究[D]. 南昌: 江西农业大学, 2020.
[18]	尹明华, 白丽, 陈舒敏, 等. 广丰千金薯和铁棍山药脱毒微型块茎的转录组分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(10):2209-2219. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.10.15
[19]	黄绍力, 罗燕羽, 魏利国, 等. 槟榔芋脱毒试管芋的诱导及种苗繁育研究[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2024, 37(9):109-115.
[20]	MANFRED G, GRABHER R, BRIAN J, et al. Trinity: reconstructing a full-length transcriptome without a genome from RNA-Seq data[J]. Natural biotechnology, 2013, 29(7):644-652. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1883
[21]	STEFAN G, JUAN M G G, JAVIER T, et al. High-throughput functional annotation and data mining with the Blast2GO suite[J]. Nucleic acids research, 2008, 36(10):3420-3435. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn176 pmid: 18445632
[22]	MICHAEL I L, WOLFGANG H, SIMON A. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2[J]. Genome biology, 2014(15):550.
[23]	LIVAK S. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2-∆∆Ct method[J]. Methods, 2001, 25(4):402-408. doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262 URL
[24]	单建伟, 柳俊, 索海翠, 等. 糖信号调控马铃薯块茎发育的研究进展[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2021, 40(4):27-35.
[25]	LASTDRAGER J, HANSON J, SMEEKENS S. Sugar signals and the control of plant growth and development[J]. Journal of experimental botany, 2014, 65(3):799-807. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert474 pmid: 24453229
[26]	ROLLAND F, MOORE B, SHEEN J. Sugar sensing and signaling in plants[J]. The plant cell, 2002, 14(Suppl):185-205.
[27]	李慧敏, 梁永书, 南文斌, 等. 糖调控植物根系生长发育的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(14):108-113. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb15010181
[28]	胡云海, 蒋先明. 不同糖类和BA对马铃薯(S. Tuberosum)试管薯的影响[J]. 马铃薯杂志, 1989, 3(4):203-206.
[29]	TIWARI J K, BUCKSETH T, ZINTA R, et al. Transcriptome analysis of potato shoots, roots and stolons under nitrogen stress[J]. Scientific reports, 2020, 10(1):1152. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58167-4 pmid: 31980689
[30]	KOCH K. Sucrose metabolism: regulatory mechanisms and pivotalroles in sugar sensing and plant development[J]. Current opinion in plant biology, 2004, 7(3):235-246. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2004.03.014 URL
[31]	胡云海, 蒋先明. 植物激素对微型薯形成的影响[J]. 马铃薯杂志, 1992, 6(1):14-22.
[32]	冯璐. 植物生长物质对新品种马铃薯试管苗生长及微型薯诱导的影响[D]. 太原: 山西农业大学, 2017.
[33]	张飞, 王艳秋, 朱凯, 等. 不同耐盐性高粱在盐逆境下的比较转录组分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(22):4002-4015. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.22.006
[34]	杜文丽, 陈中钐, 许端祥, 等. 低温胁迫下苦瓜叶片转录组差异基因分析及生理响应特征[J]. 核农学报, 2021, 35(2):338-348. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2021.02.0338
[35]	徐红霞, 周慧芬, 李晓颖, 等. 低温胁迫下枇杷不同发育阶段的花果转录组比较分析[J]. 园艺学报, 2021, 48(9):1680-1694. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021- 0219

基因	序列
Actin	F：	CTAGTGGTCGCACAACAGGT
Actin	R：	TTCACGCTCAGCAGTGGTAG
Cluster-1848.46969	F：	CCTCACCATCTTCTACAATGGCAC
Cluster-1848.46969	R：	GTGATCCCTGTCTCCACCATCTTA
Cluster-1848.25136	F：	AGCTGGATTTCGAGCCCTTC
Cluster-1848.25136	R：	GCCTTTGCCAAACTGGACTG
Cluster-1848.25254	F：	GCGAGGGCCCCAAGATTTAT
Cluster-1848.25254	R：	ATCATCCCCAACGTTCCCAC
Cluster-1848.24619	F：	CTCGCAAGACGAAGCAGGTC
Cluster-1848.24619	R：	GCATTCAAATAAAGCAGGAACCCC
Cluster-1848.7261	F：	GAACGACTCGGAGGAGATGCT
Cluster-1848.7261	R：	ATCTTCCCTGCTCTTCGACTCC
Cluster-1848.26389	F：	CTGGGATGGTGACAGACATAGAGG
Cluster-1848.26389	R：	ATTCCCCTGAAATTCTCCAATGCC

基因	序列
Actin	F：	CTAGTGGTCGCACAACAGGT
Actin	R：	TTCACGCTCAGCAGTGGTAG
Cluster-1848.46969	F：	CCTCACCATCTTCTACAATGGCAC
Cluster-1848.46969	R：	GTGATCCCTGTCTCCACCATCTTA
Cluster-1848.25136	F：	AGCTGGATTTCGAGCCCTTC
Cluster-1848.25136	R：	GCCTTTGCCAAACTGGACTG
Cluster-1848.25254	F：	GCGAGGGCCCCAAGATTTAT
Cluster-1848.25254	R：	ATCATCCCCAACGTTCCCAC
Cluster-1848.24619	F：	CTCGCAAGACGAAGCAGGTC
Cluster-1848.24619	R：	GCATTCAAATAAAGCAGGAACCCC
Cluster-1848.7261	F：	GAACGACTCGGAGGAGATGCT
Cluster-1848.7261	R：	ATCTTCCCTGCTCTTCGACTCC
Cluster-1848.26389	F：	CTGGGATGGTGACAGACATAGAGG
Cluster-1848.26389	R：	ATTCCCCTGAAATTCTCCAATGCC

样本	原始碱基总数/bp	过滤后碱基总数/bp	Q₂₀/%	Q₃₀/%	GC/%
CS20-1	6,133,285,800	6,073,890,927	98.39	95.05	53.08
CS20-2	5,670,601,200	5,615,668,581	98.21	94.56	52.95
CS20-3	6,634,682,700	6,565,846,280	98.17	94.43	52.92
CS40-1	6,999,130,200	6,921,367,632	98.16	94.38	53.94
CS40-2	6,999,735,300	6,930,637,562	98.48	95.19	54.02
CS40-3	6,462,959,700	6,390,142,404	98.04	94.05	53.54
CS60-1	6,614,923,500	6,539,947,082	98.34	94.80	53.04
CS60-2	6,896,487,300	6,811,281,892	98.10	94.20	53.03
CS60-3	7,000,299,300	6,926,033,621	98.21	94.50	53.58
CS80-1	5,530,323,300	5,468,534,702	98.09	94.17	52.68
CS80-2	6,117,102,000	6,051,141,458	98.13	94.22	52.52
CS80-3	6,175,827,300	6,110,304,708	98.16	94.31	52.56
CS100-1	6,743,600,700	6,678,423,830	98.38	94.96	54.25
CS100-2	5,594,808,600	5,538,444,424	98.29	94.73	53.99
CS100-3	5,833,727,700	5,767,373,503	98.09	94.23	53.87

样本	原始碱基总数/bp	过滤后碱基总数/bp	Q₂₀/%	Q₃₀/%	GC/%
CS20-1	6,133,285,800	6,073,890,927	98.39	95.05	53.08
CS20-2	5,670,601,200	5,615,668,581	98.21	94.56	52.95
CS20-3	6,634,682,700	6,565,846,280	98.17	94.43	52.92
CS40-1	6,999,130,200	6,921,367,632	98.16	94.38	53.94
CS40-2	6,999,735,300	6,930,637,562	98.48	95.19	54.02
CS40-3	6,462,959,700	6,390,142,404	98.04	94.05	53.54
CS60-1	6,614,923,500	6,539,947,082	98.34	94.80	53.04
CS60-2	6,896,487,300	6,811,281,892	98.10	94.20	53.03
CS60-3	7,000,299,300	6,926,033,621	98.21	94.50	53.58
CS80-1	5,530,323,300	5,468,534,702	98.09	94.17	52.68
CS80-2	6,117,102,000	6,051,141,458	98.13	94.22	52.52
CS80-3	6,175,827,300	6,110,304,708	98.16	94.31	52.56
CS100-1	6,743,600,700	6,678,423,830	98.38	94.96	54.25
CS100-2	5,594,808,600	5,538,444,424	98.29	94.73	53.99
CS100-3	5,833,727,700	5,767,373,503	98.09	94.23	53.87

数据库	基因数目	占比/%
NR	46769	52.36
KOG	27192	30.44
SwissPort	22292	24.96
Pfam	24459	27.38
GO	34176	38.26
KEGG	12387	13.87
在所有数据库中得到注释	5955	6.67
至少在一个数据库中得到注释	48058	53.80
总基因	89320	100.00