Genome-wide transcriptome and physiological analyses provide new insights into peanut drought response mechanisms

Abstract

Drought is one of the main constraints in peanut production in West Texas and eastern New Mexico regions due to the depletion of groundwater. A multi-seasonal phenotypic analysis of 10 peanut genotypes revealed C76-16 (C-76) and Valencia-C (Val-C) as the best and poor performers under deficit irrigation (DI) in West Texas, respectively. In order to decipher transcriptome changes under DI, RNAseq was performed in C-76 and Val-C. Approximately 369 million raw reads were generated from 12 different libraries of two genotypes subjected to fully irrigated (FI) and DI conditions, of which ~329 million (90.2%) filtered reads were mapped to the diploid ancestors of peanut. The transcriptome analysis detected 4,508 differentially expressed genes (DEGs), 1554 genes encoding transcription factors (TFs) and a total of 514 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) among the identified DEGs. The comparative analysis between the two genotypes revealed higher and integral tolerance in C-76 through activation of key genes involved in ABA and sucrose metabolic pathways. Interestingly, one SNP from the gene coding F-box protein (Araip.3WN1Q) and another SNP from gene coding for the lipid transfer protein (Aradu.03ENG) showed polymorphism in selected contrasting genotypes. These SNPs after further validation may be useful for performing early generation selection for selecting droughtresponsive genotypes.

Identifying Traits Associated With Terminal Drought Tolerance in Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) Genotypes

“…Drought affects sesame productivity (Wang et al, 2016), growth, flower abortion, capsule development, and yield (Boureima et al, 2012;Dossa et al, 2017a,c). Several traits and genes involved in drought tolerance have been identified in oilseed crops, such as transpiration efficiency (Ratnakumar et al, 2009;Ratnakumar and Vadez, 2012;Vadez and Ratnakumar, 2016), quantitative trait loci (QTLs) in sesame (Dossa et al, 2019), and drought-responsive regulatory genes in canola (Bhardwaj et al, 2015) soybean (Chen et al, 2016), sunflower (Liang et al, 2017), and peanut (Bhogireddy et al, 2020). Most previous studies of drought in sesame were field or pot studies with few accessions (Shokoohfar and Yaghoubi, 2013;Golestani and Pakniyat, 2015;Boureima et al, 2016;Dossa et al, 2017b;Ravitej et al, 2019;Sravanthi et al, 2021).…”

Molecular study of drought response in the Mediterranean conifer Pinus pinaster Ait.: Differential transcriptomic profiling reveals constitutive water deficit‐independent drought tolerance mechanisms

“…Current sequencing technologies improve our understanding on the genetics of complex traits allowing gene function to be monitored at the entire genome level. Transcriptomic analyses are contributing to obtain a genome‐wide view of drought response associated with different physiological changes induced in different plant species, including herbaceous and woody species (Barghini, Cossu, Cavallini, & Giordani, 2015; Bhogireddy et al., 2020; Du et al., 2018; Dugas et al., 2011; Fox et al., 2018; Iovieno et al., 2016; Kakumanu et al., 2012; Oono et al., 2014; Sakuraba, Kim, Han, Lee, & Paek, 2015). Thus, comparative transcriptomic profiling provides information about differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in contrasting conditions, different organs, and/or genotypes.…”

DECUSSATEnetwork with flowering genes explains the variable effects ofqDTY12.1to rice yield under drought across genetic backgrounds

“…The downward directional character of LPB transcriptome at booting stage is an evidence of “tamed” responses, where fluxes are highly organized and targeted for effective use of the transcriptional machinery with much less trade‐offs. In contrast, HPB and WR exhibited an “untamed” hence highly active and disordered response with potentially wasteful consequences (Bhogireddy et al., 2020; Fracasso et al., 2016).…”