转录组测序分析干旱胁迫下复合微生物菌肥对玉米幼苗抗旱性的影响

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2024.03.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探讨干旱胁迫下复合微生物菌肥对玉米幼苗抗旱性的影响，以玉米品种鄂玉16为材料，分别设置空白对照（CK）、添加解磷菌（P）、添加丛枝菌根真菌（A）和复合微生物菌肥（解磷菌+丛枝菌根真菌）（AP）4个处理，控水土培作干旱胁迫处理，取玉米叶片作生理生化指标检测及转录组测序分析。结果表明，干旱胁迫后（即第5、10和15天），丙二醛（MDA）最高为CK处理，最低为AP处理；AP处理的超氧化物歧化酶（SOD）和过氧化物酶（POD）活性均显著高于CK。整个胁迫期间，AP处理的过氧化氢酶（CAT）活性均高于CK。与CK相比，转录组测序分析检测到AP处理的玉米苗叶片中有320个差异表达基因，其中上调表达204个，下调表达116个；GO分析显示，差异表达基因富集到生物过程、细胞组分和分子功能的占比分别为34.33%、43.12%和22.55%。KEGG分析显示，差异表达基因显著富集的通路包括植物―病原互作、淀粉和蔗糖代谢、其他类型O-聚糖生物合成、玉米素生物合成、半乳糖代谢和氨基酸生物合成等。

关键词: 玉米幼苗, 干旱胁迫, 复合微生物菌肥, 转录组

Abstract:

To explore the effects of compound microbial fertilizer on drought resistance of maize seedlings under drought stress, four treatments, blank control group (CK), phosphate solubilizing bacteria addition group (P), arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi addition group (A) and compound microbial fertilizer addition group (including phosphate solubilizing bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi) (AP), were set up respectively with maize “Eyu 16” as the material, and then subjected to drought stress treatment through soil water control. Maize leaf samples were collected for physiological and biochemical index detection and transcriptome sequencing analysis. The results showed that after drought stress treatment (i.e. the fifth, tenth and fifteenth days), the highest MDA contents in maize leaves was CK, the lowest was AP treatment, and the activities of SOD and POD in maize leaves in AP treatment were significantly higher than those in CK, and the activities of CAT in maize leaves in AP treatment were higher than those in CK treatment during stress. Compared with CK, transcriptome sequencing analysis detected 320 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the leaves of maize seedlings in AP treatment, including 204 up-regulated genes and 116 down-regulated genes; the results of GO analysis showed that 34.33%, 43.12% and 22.55% of DEGs were enriched in biological processes, cell components and molecular functions, respectively. The results of KEGG analysis showed that the significant enrichment pathways included plant pathogen interaction, starch and sucrose metabolism, other types of O-glycan biosynthesis, zeatin biosynthesis, galactose metabolism and amino acid biosynthesis.

Key words: Maize seedling, Drought stress, Compound microbial fertilizer, Transcriptome

卿晨, 刘正学, 李彦杰. 转录组测序分析干旱胁迫下复合微生物菌肥对玉米幼苗抗旱性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2024 (3): 32–39

Qing Chen, Liu Zhengxue, Li Yanjie. Effects of Compound Microbial Fertilizer on Drought Resistance of Maize Seedlings under Drought Stress by Transcriptome Analysis[J]. Crops, 2024(3): 32–39

图/表 8

表1

图1

表2

图2

表3

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 28

[1]	徐昆, 朱秀芳, 刘莹, 等. 气候变化下干旱对中国玉米产量的影响. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(11):149-158.
[2]	郭艳阳, 刘佳, 朱亚利, 等. 玉米叶片光合和抗氧化酶活性对干旱胁迫的响应. 植物生理学报, 2018, 54(12):1839-1846.
[3]	李敏, 陈利顶, 杨小茹, 等. 城乡复合生态系统土壤微生物群落特征及功能差异:研究进展与展望. 土壤学报, 2021, 58(6):1368-1380.
[4]	王怀嵩, 张涛. 农业土壤健康评价体系研究进展. 生态与农村环境学报, 2022, 38(9):1093-1100.
[5]	Oksana C, Gerlinde B D D, Martine P D V. Soil microbiota as game-changers in restoration of degraded lands. Science, 2022, 375:6584.
[6]	Wang Z H, Song Y. Toward understanding the genetic bases underlying plant‐mediated “cry for help” to the microbiota. iMeta, 2022, 1 (1):1-12.
[7]	隋丽, 万婷玉, 路杨, 等. 内生真菌对植物促生、抗逆作用研究进展. 中国生物防治学报, 2021, 37(6):1325-1331. doi: 10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2021.06.024
[8]	张士功, 刘国栋, 刘更另. 植物营养与作物抗旱性. 植物学通报, 2001, 18(1):64-69,63.
[9]	Sedri M H, Amini A, Golchin A. Evaluation of nitrogen effects on yield and drought tolerance of rainfed wheat using drought stress indices. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology, 2019, 22(3):235-242.
[10]	姜焕焕, 李嘉钦, 陈刚, 等. 解磷微生物及其在盐碱土中的应用研究进展. 土壤, 2021, 53(6):1125-1131.
[11]	Vries F T, Griffiths R I, Knight C G, et al. Harnessing rhizosphere microbiomes for drought-resilient crop production. Science, 2020, 368(6488):270-274. doi: 10.1126/science.aaz5192 pmid: 32299947
[12]	Phillips J M, Hayman D S. Improved procedures for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Transactions of the British Mycological Society, 1970, 55(1):158-161.
[13]	Trapnell C, Williams B A, Pertea G, et al. Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotechnology, 2010, 28(5):511-515. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1621 pmid: 20436464
[14]	杨华庚, 颜速亮, 陈慧娟, 等. 干旱胁迫对中粒种咖啡幼苗膜脂过氧化,抗氧化酶活性和渗透调节物质含量的影响. 热带作物学报, 2014, 35(5):944-949.
[15]	金思雨, 彭祚登. 刺槐和油松干旱胁迫响应研究进展. 西北林学院学报, 2022, 37(4):79-91.
[16]	王乐乐, 王权, 黄亚茹, 等. 水稻叶片气孔导度及叶肉导度对干旱胁迫的响应机理研究进展. 生命科学, 2022, 34(4):448- 458.
[17]	王硕, 贾潇倩, 何璐, 等. 作物对干旱胁迫的响应机制及提高作物抗旱能力的调控措施研究进展. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(29):31-44. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1042
[18]	陈丽飞, 刘越, 李雪萌, 等. 植物抗旱性研究进展. 吉林农业, 2019(2):78-79.
[19]	梁炜文, 周红英, 杨景竣, 等. 干旱胁迫对落羽杉幼苗生理特性的影响. 广西林业科学, 2022, 51(4):489-493. doi: 10.19692/j.issn.1006-1126.20220406
[20]	张仁和, 郑友军, 马国胜, 等. 干旱胁迫对玉米苗期叶片光合作用和保护酶的影响. 生态学报, 2011, 31(5):1303-1311.
[21]	孔亚丽, 朱春权, 曹小闯, 等. 土壤微生物介导植物抗盐性机理的研究进展. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(10):2073-2083. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.10.004
[22]	Kour D, Yadav A N. Bacterial mitigation of drought stress in plants: Current perspectives and future challenges. Current Microbiology, 2022, 79(9):1-19.
[23]	Gu Y, Banerjee S, Dini-Andreote F, et al. Small changes in rhizosphere microbiome composition predict disease outcomes earlier than pathogen density variations. The ISME Journal, 2022, 16(10):2448-2456.
[24]	Sharma V, Sekhwal M K, Swami A K, et al. Identification of drought responsive proteins using gene ontology hierarchy. Bioinformation, 2012, 8(13):595-599. doi: 10.6026/97320630008595 pmid: 22829738
[25]	李彦杰, 刘仁华, 周大祥, 等. 三峡库区消落带野生狗牙根对水淹适生性的转录组分析. 生态学报, 2018, 38(23):8434- 8441.
[26]	马玥, 苏宝玲, 韩艳刚, 等. 岳桦幼苗光合特性和非结构性碳水化合物积累对干旱胁迫的响应. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(2):513-520. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202102.028
[27]	商成慧, 周泽宇, 崔文雪, 等. 大豆脯氨酸积累相关基因家族鉴定及干旱胁迫表达分析. 植物遗传资源学报, 2022, 23(6):1793-1806.
[28]	张世英, 刘易超, 贾树强, 等. 中华金叶榆盆栽苗对干旱胁迫的生理响应与转录组分析. 河北农业大学学报, 2022, 45(1):69-78.

相关文章 15

[1]	宋慧, 王涛, 邢璐, 刘俊芳, 张扬, 刘金荣, 陈红旗, 冯佰利. 不同谷子品种喷施咪唑啉酮除草剂后的转录组分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2024, (3): 13–22
[2]	薛鑫雨, 詹文博, 陈新宜, 周瑞祥, 王永霞, 薛瑞丽, 李华, 汪月霞, 李艳. 灌浆期干旱胁迫对不同小麦品种的生理性状与根系生长的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2024, (3): 192–200
[3]	张玉, 杨文静, 刘璇, 聂峰杰, 张丽, 石磊, 张国辉, 郭志乾, 巩檑. 马铃薯细胞壁蔗糖转化酶基因StCWIN1启动子克隆与表达及其在干旱胁迫下的作用分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2024, (2): 54–61
[4]	窦维泽, 姜雯, 冯艺川, 金卓, 全雪丽, 吴松权. 过氧化氢诱导膜荚黄芪不定根毛蕊异黄酮葡萄糖苷积累的转录组分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2024, (1): 48–56
[5]	姜珊, 刘佳, 曹亮, 任春元, 金喜军, 张玉先. 外源褪黑素对干旱胁迫下红小豆幼苗生长和产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2023, (4): 202–209
[6]	刘松涛, 田再民, 刘子刚, 高志佳, 张静, 贺东刚, 黄智鸿, 兰鑫. 基于转录组测序揭示玉米抗倒伏相关基因和代谢通路[J]. 作物杂志, 2023, (4): 31–37
[7]	单嘉烨, 张学伟, 鄢敏, 杨建, 王飞, 何佶弦, 胡刚, 王宇辰, 景延秋, 雷强. 喷施稀土微肥对干旱胁迫下烤烟生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2023, (2): 100–105
[8]	张丽霞, 郭晓彦, 史鹏飞, 聂良鹏, 凌敬伟, 申培林, 丁丽, 张琳, 吕玉虎, 潘兹亮. 旺长期干旱胁迫对红麻生长发育、产量及效益的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2023, (1): 184–189
[9]	尹希龙, 石杨, 李王胜, 兴旺. 甜菜幼苗光合生理对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 152–158
[10]	张瑞栋, 梁晓红, 刘静, 南怀林, 王颂宇, 曹雄. 种子引发对干旱胁迫下高粱种子发芽及生理特性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 234–240
[11]	闻丹妮, 鲍聆然, 刘蒙蒙, 沈波. OsWD40过表达水稻根系响应盐胁迫的转录组分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 42–53
[12]	李王胜, 王雪倩, 尹希龙, 石杨, 刘大丽, 谭文勃, 兴旺. 甜菜种质资源苗期耐旱性综合评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 54–60
[13]	庞星月, 万林, 李素, 王宇航, 刘晨, 肖晓璐, 李心昊, 马霓. 外源SLs和纳米K₂MoO₄对干旱胁迫下油菜种子萌发的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (4): 214–220
[14]	魏晓凯, 景延秋, 何佶弦, 顾会战, 雷强, 俞世康, 张启莉, 李俊举. 外源亚精胺对烤烟幼苗干旱胁迫的缓解效应研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (3): 143–148
[15]	谭秦亮, 程琴, 潘成列, 朱鹏锦, 李佳慧, 宋奇琦, 农泽梅, 周全光, 庞新华, 吕平. 干旱胁迫对甘蔗新品种桂热2号生理指标的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (3): 161–167

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

基因编号Gene ID	正向引物Forward primer (5′-3′)	反向引物Reverse primer (5′-3′)	产物大小Product length (bp)
Zm00001d042553	ATCAGGGAGCTGAAGGTTGC	TCACTACCCGCCTTCTACCA	181
Zm00001d012391	GCGGACCTGTTGGAGTTGAT	AAGGGAAGTCCAGCCATTCG	166
Zm00001d037547	AGGACCAAGTTTGCCAGGTC	CAGTGAATCCTGATGGGCGG	148
Zm00001d052316	GGAGCAGGTGGAAGCCATAAA	TACAAATCCACCGACCCAGA	217
Zm00001d051362	GAAACTGGGTCTACTGGGTCG	CCATTCATCCAGAGCGGAGA	152
newGene_1600	AGGGAGAAGGCAAAGTGGTG	GCCACTTTGGTTGGTTACGC	137
maize-GAPDH	TACCGACTTCCTTGGTGACAG	ATACACAAGCAGCAACCATCC	207

样本Sample	ReadSum	BaseSum	GC含量GC content (%)	Q20 (%)	Q30 (%)
AP1	55 717 049	16 664 072 650	44.89	98.04	93.96
AP2	58 628 704	17 549 116 484	43.61	97.95	93.76
AP3	59 557 613	17 831 272 662	43.77	97.95	93.75
CK1	59 340 105	17 752 302 060	43.63	97.92	93.68
CK2	62 524 897	18 710 041 996	43.78	98.10	94.15
CK3	62 101 920	18 587 242 720	43.95	97.94	93.75

类型 Type	数量 Number	总数 Total	注释的差异表达基因数量Number of annotated differentially expressed genes
类型 Type	数量 Number	总数 Total	COG	GO	KEGG	KOG	NR	Pfam	Swiss-Prot	eggNOG
上调表达Up-regulated	204	320	100	244	197	140	303	253	224	255
下调表达Down-regulated	116	320	100	244	197	140	303	253	224	255