Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Transcriptome analysis of Nicotiana benthamiana infected by Tobacco curly shoot virus

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1Email author
Virology Journal201815:138

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-018-1044-1

  • Received: 4 January 2018
  • Accepted: 14 August 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Tobacco curly shoot virus (TbCSV) is a monopartite begomovirus associated with betasatellite (Tobacco curly shoot betasatellite, TbCSB), which causes serious leaf curl disease on tomato and tobacco in China. It is interesting that TbCSV induced severe upward leaf curling in Nicotiana benthamiana, but in the presence of TbCSB, symptoms changed to be downward leaf curling. However, the mechanism of interactions between viral pathogenicity, host defense, viral-betasatellite interactions and virus-host interactions remains unclear.

Methods

In this study, RNA-seq was used to analyze differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in N. benthamiana plants infected by TbCSV (Y35A) and TbCSV together with TbCSB (Y35AB) respectively.

Results

Through mapping to N. benthamiana reference genome, 59,814 unigenes were identified. Transcriptome analysis revealed that a total of 4081 and 3196 DEGs were identified in Y35AB vs CK (control check) and Y35A vs CK, respectively. Both GO and KEGG analyses were conducted to classify the DEGs. Ten of the top 15 GO terms were enriched in both DEGs of Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK, and these enriched GO terms mainly classified into three categories including biological process, cellular component and molecular function. KEGG pathway analysis indicated that 118 and 111 pathways were identified in Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK, respectively, of which nine and six pathways were significantly enriched. Three major pathways in Y35AB vs CK involved in metabolic pathways, carbon metabolism and photosynthesis, while those in Y35A vs CK were related to Ribosome, Glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism and DNA replication. We observed that 8 PR genes were significantly up-regulated and 44 LRR-RLK genes were significantly differentially expressed in Y35A treatment or in Y35AB treatment. In addition, 7 and 13 genes were identified to be significantly changed in biosynthesis and signal transduction pathway of brassinosteroid (BR) and jasmonic acid (JA) respectively.

Conclusions

These results presented here would be particularly useful to further elucidate the response of the host plant against virus infection.

Keywords

  • Begomovirus
  • Tobacco curly shoot virus
  • Betasatellite
  • Nicotiana benthamiana
  • RNA-seq

Background

Tobacco curly shoot virus (TbCSV), a monopartite begomovirus (genus Begomovirus, family Geminiviridae), was isolated from tobacco in Yunnan province, China in 2002 [1]. Some TbCSV isolates were identified associating with a betasatellite molecule (Tobacco curly shoot betasatellite, TbCSB) [2]. TbCSV is one of the most important pathogens causing leaf curl disease on tomato and tobacco, and is a severe constraint to crop yields. TbCSV consists of a circular single-stranded DNA genome that encodes 6 proteins, including AV1 (coat protein, CP) and AV2 in virion-sense strand whilst AC1 (replication-related, Rep), AC2 (transcriptional activator, TrAP), AC3 (replication enhancer, REn) and AC4 in complementary-sense strand [1]. TbCSB is a small circular single-stranded DNA molecule which encodes a sole protein βC1 [2].

Viral infection is a complicated procedure involving in the interaction between viruses and host plants. Understanding host responses to viral infection is advantageous in the development of effective strategies for virus control. In recent years, the interactions between viruses and host plants were clarified through analysis of transcriptomics [35]. RNA-seq is a recently developed approach to transcriptome profiling via deep-sequencing technologies, which provides a far more precise measurement of levels of transcripts and their isoforms than other methods [6]. Thus, this technique was widely applied in interpretation the interaction between virus infection and host plant. The multiple resistance mechanisms against cotton leaf curl disease (CLCuD) were revealed by the transcriptome analysis based on an RNA-seq in a naturally immune cotton species (Gossypium arboreum) caused by CLCuD [7]. The technology of transcriptomics and proteomics were employed to study the differential host gene expression during Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus (MYMIV) and Mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) infection under natural conditions [8]. The differential regulations of host genes revealed to be involved in cell cycle, cell-wall biogenesis, chloroplast, photosynthesis, hormone and sulphur assimilation pathways which may contribute to symptom development in soybean plants [8]. Recently, a research performed RNA-seq-based transcriptome sequencing of Jatropha curcas mosaic virus-infected and healthy leaf tissues of J. curcas, which provides a repertoire of molecular components after viral infection [9]. Similarly, several host genes were identified to be involved in different cellular and physiological processes during the infection of other viruses, including South African cassava mosaic virus (SACMV) [10], Tomato yellow leaf curl Sardinia virus (TYLCSV), Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus (MYMIV) [11, 12], and Chilli leaf curl virus (ChiLCV) [13].

At present, it has been reported that the infectious clone of TbCSV induced severe upward leaf curling in N. benthamiana, but in the presence of TbCSB the symptom changed to a downward leaf curl [14]. Thus, TbCSV may represent an evolutionary intermediate between the truly monopartite begomoviruses and those that require the association of betasatellite [14]. Moreover, studies showed that AC2 and AC4 proteins of TbCSV mediate suppression of RNA silencing [15], and βC1 protein of TbCSB could bind single- and double- stranded DNA to suppress host RNA silencing activities [16]. However, it remains unclear that the molecular mechanism of viral pathogenicity, host defense and viral-host interactions. In this study, in order to get insights into the molecular mechanisms in response to TbCSV infection in N. benthamiana plants, the transcriptome analysis of N. benthamiana infected by TbCSV or TbCSV/TbCSB was performed, including differentially expressed genes, GO enrichment, KEGG enrichment, pathogenesis-related (PR) protein genes, LRR-RLK genes, brassinosteroid and jasmonic acid pathways. These data contribute to a better knowledge on the molecular mechanisms of TbCSV- and TbCSV/TbCSB- host interaction, and serve as a basis for devising new strategies to control TbCSV/TbCSB disease complex.

Methods

Virus sources and agroinoculation

The infectious clones of TbCSV isolate Y35 (pBinY35A-1.9) (Y35A) and its betasatellite (pBinY35β-2.0) (Y35B) were provided by Professor Xueping Zhou in the Biotechnology Institute of Zhejiang University. Both viral infectious clones were introduced into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain EHA105. N. benthamiana (accession: Nb-1) plants were grown in a greenhouse under a 16 h light and 8 h dark cycle at 26 °C. The Agrobacterium with infectious clones was infiltrated into N. benthamiana leaves at 4–6 leaf stage as previously described [2].

DNA extraction and PCR detection

Leaf samples were collected at 20 days-post inoculation (dpi) and total DNA were extracted using CTAB method [17]. The TbCSV-specific primers (TbCSV-F, 5′-ATGCCTCAGCCAAGAAAACTTTT-3′; TbCSV-R, 5′-TCAACACGACGACGTCTGTTCCC-3′) and TbCSB-specific primers (TbCSB-F, 5′-ATGACAATTAAATACAACAACAAG-3′; TbCSB-R, 5′-TCATACATTAGCTATTGTCCC-3′) were designed to amplify fragments of 1086 bp and 357 bp in size, respectively. PCR reactions were performed in a 20 μL volume with reaction mixtures containing 10 μL of 2 × Taq Master Mix (Novoprotein Scientific Inc., Shanghai, China), 0.5 μL of DNA, 0.25 μM of each primer and a proper volume of ddH2O. The PCR reaction conditions were as follows: 94 °C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation for 30 s at 94 °C, annealing for 30 s at 52 °C, extension for 30–65 s at 72 °C (depending on primer pairs used in distinct reactions), and a final extension for 10 min at 72 °C.

Materials for RNA sequencing

Leaf tissues of N. benthamiana plants were sampled at 20 dpi, and were immediately frozen and ground in liquid nitrogen and stored at − 80 °C. After PCR detection, RNA-seq was performed for stored samples. Three treatments were setting as follows: plants infected with TbCSV alone (Y35A treatment); plants infected with TbCSV and TbCSB (Y35AB treatment); uninfected plants as control (CK). There are three biological replicates per treatment respectively.

RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis

Total RNA was extracted from N. benthamiana leaf tissues with RNAiso Plus (TAKARA Bio, Inc) as manufacturer’s protocol. All RNA samples were first treated with gDNA Eraser (TAKARA Bio, Inc) and reverse-transcribed using a Prime Script RT reagent Kit (Perfect Real Time) according to manufacturer’s instructions.

Library preparation for transcriptome sequencing

A total amount of 3 μg RNA per sample was used as input for RNA sample preparations. Sequencing libraries were generated using NEBNext® Ultra™ RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina® (NEB, USA) following manufacturer’s recommendations and index codes were added to attribute sequences to each sample. Briefly, mRNA was purifed by using poly-T oligo-attached magnetic beads. After fragmentation, the cDNA was synthesized, and NEBNext Adaptors with hairpin loop structures were ligated to prepare for hybridization. PCR products were purifed (AMPure XP system), and library quality was assessed by Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 system [18]. Finally, nine libraries were successfully constructed, and were sequenced using HiSeq™ 2500 equipment (Illumina, SanDiego, CA, USA) by 50 bp single-end (SE50) methods.

Quality control

For sequence quality control, raw data (raw reads) of fastq format were firstly processed through in-house perl scripts. In this step, clean data (clean reads) were obtained by removing reads containing adapter, reads containing ploy-N and low quality reads from raw data. Meanwhile, Q20, Q30, GC-content and sequence duplication level of clean data were calculated. All the downstream analyses were based on the clean data with high quality [19].

Reads mapping to the reference genome

The draft sequence of the N. benthamiana reference genome have been downloaded from the SGN ftp site (ftp://ftp.solgenomics.net/genomes/Nicotiana_benthamiana/assemblies) directly [20]. Index of the reference genome was built using Bowtie v2.2.3 (Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA) [21] and single-end clean reads were aligned to the reference genome using TopHat v2.0.12 (Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA) (mismatch = 2) [22]. The TopHat was selected as the mapping tool for that TopHat can generate a database of splice junctions based on the gene model annotation file and thus a better mapping result than other non-splice mapping tools [23].

Quantification of gene expression level

HTSeq v0.6.1 was used to count reads numbers mapped to each gene [24]. And then FPKM (Fragments per kilobase of transcript sequence per millions base pairs sequenced) of each gene was calculated based on the length of the gene and reads count mapped to this gene. FPKM, expected number of Fragments Per Kilobase of transcript sequence per Millions base pairs sequenced, considers the effect of sequencing depth and gene length for the reads count at the same time, and is currently the most commonly used method for estimating gene expression levels [25].

Differential gene expression analysis

Differential expression analysis of Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK was performed using the DESeq R package (1.18.0) (parameters: negative binomial distribution-based statistic, BH-FDR corrected p-value < 0.05) [26], which provides statistical routines for determining differential expression in digital gene expression data using a model based on the negative binomial distribution. The resulting p-values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg’s approach for controlling the false discovery rate (FDR).

GO term and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis

Gene Ontology (GO; http://www.geneontology.org) enrichment analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) was implemented by the GOseq R package (corrected p-value < 0.05) [27], in which gene length bias was corrected. GO terms with corrected p-value less than 0.05 were considered significantly enriched by differential expressed genes. REVIGO was used for analysis of the enriched GO terms (http://revigo.irb.hr). KEGG (http://www.genome.jp/kegg) is a database resource for understanding high-level functions and utilities of the biological system from molecular-level information, especially large-scale molecular datasets generated by genome sequencing and other high-throughput experimental technologies. And KOBAS software was used to test the statistical enrichment of differential expression genes in KEGG pathways (corrected p-value < 0.05) [28].

Quantitative real-time PCR validation

To validate the RNA-seq data, quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) was conducted to examine the selected pattern of DEGs. For reverse transcription, 1 μg of total RNA was treated with gDNA Eraser (TAKARA Bio, Inc) and reverse-transcribed using a Prime Script RT reagent Kit (Perfect Real Time) and oligo (dT) as the primer according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Primer sets were designed using AlleleID software (v6.0) (Additional file 1: Table S1). RT-qPCR was conducted by using NovoStart® SYBR qPCR Super Mix Plus (Novoprotein, Shanghai, China) on CFX 96 Real-Time System (Bio-Rad). Actin was used as a reference for calculating relative abundances using the 2-Ct method [29]. All RT-qPCR experiments were performed in triplicate.

Results

Plants with typical viral symptoms in Y35A and Y35AB treatments

At 20 dpi, Y35A inoculated plants showed slight upward leaf curling and Y35AB inoculated plants showed severe downward leaf curl (Fig. 1a-c). PCR detection showed that they are consistent with expectations (Fig. 1d-e). Symptom observation and virus detection results showed that these plants were reliable for follow-up RNA-seq. Leaf tissues at same positions were collected from every treatment for RNA-seq.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Comparison of N. benthamiana plant symptoms of virus-infected with healthy control at 20 dpi. a Co-inoculation of TbCSV and TbCSB (Y35AB). b Solitary inoculation of TbCSV (Y35A). c Healthy control (CK). d Specific detection of TbCSV DNA-A in the nine plants for sequencing by PCR with primers TbCSV-F/TbCSV-R. e Specific detection of TbCSB in the nine plants for sequencing by PCR with primers TbCSB-F/TbCSB-R. M1: BM2000 + 1.5 kb DNA Marker; M2: DNA Marker I; 1–3: Y35AB plants; 4–6: Y35A plants; 7–9: CK plants; P: positive control; N: negative control, respectivly

Overview of transcriptome sequencing

To profile gene expression during virus infection, RNA-seq libraries were constructed for the control- and virus-inoculated N. benthamiana plants. 5.76 GB clean bases data and 59,814 unigenes were obtained from nine samples. There were 11834496–13118731, 12537134–15503750 and 11290015–12633203 clean reads in the three treatments of Y35AB, Y35A, and CK. The proportion of total reads that mapped to N. benthamiana genome of each sample was more than 96.09%, and that of uniquely mapped was above 72.69%. More than 95.58% of the clean reads had quality scores at the Q30 (an error probability for base calling of 0.1%) level [30]. Furthermore, the GC content ranges from 43.58 to 44.38%. The sequencing data are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Summary of the results of RNA-seq data

Sample name

Y35AB-1

Y35AB-2

Y35AB-3

Y35A-1

Y35A-2

Y35A-3

CK-1

CK-2

CK-3

mean

Raw reads

12166453

11965470

13272880

15527372

12560210

14214740

12646000

11302705

11794017

12827761

Clean reads

12032720

11834496

13118731

15503750

12537134

14192135

12633203

11290015

11782562

12769416

Clean bases

0.60G

0.59G

0.66G

0.78G

0.63G

0.71G

0.63G

0.56G

0.59G

0.64

Total mapped

11620770

11438690

12605297

14934455

12075773

13732342

12346163

11139553

11524248

12379699

96.58%

96.66%

96.09%

96.33%

96.32%

96.76%

97.73%

98.67%

97.81%

96.99%

Uniquely mapped

8961324

8847537

9609766

11389720

9176512

10320807

9238644

8316046

8564617

9380553

74.47%

74.76%

73.25%

73.46%

73.19%

72.72%

73.13%

73.66%

72.69%

73.48%

Q30 (%)

95.74

95.68

95.58

96.20

96.08

96.14

95.76

95.70

95.80

95.85

GC contents (%)

43.58

43.75

44.11

44.15

44.23

44.38

43.93

43.80

43.92

43.98

Note: Clean reads: Reads from sequencing after filtering low-quality reads. Clean bases: The number of clean reads is multiplied by the length and converted to G. Q30: The percentage of bases with a Phred value >30

Analysis of DEGs

An adjusted p-value < 0.05 by DESeq was used to identify DEGs. In the Y35AB vs CK, 4081 DEGs (Fig. 2a, Additional file 2: Table S2), including 1775 up-regulated and 2306 down-regulated genes, were identified (Fig. 2c). And 3196 transcripts (1391 up-regulated and 1805 down-regulated genes) showed significant changes in Y35A vs CK (Fig. 2b, c and Additional file 3: Table S3). However, a total of 1232 DEGs in Y35AB vs CK overlap with those in Y35A vs CK, including 445 up-regulated and 786 down-regulated genes (Fig. 2c).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Volcano plots and Venn diagrams of DEGs (a-b). DEGs of Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK displayed by volcano plots. The abscissa shows the fold change difference in the expression of genes in different groups, and the vertical coordinates indicate the adjusted p-values for the differences in expression. Genes without significant differences are indicated by blue dots. The up-regulated genes are represented by red dots, and the down-regulated genes are represented by green dots. Venn diagrams showing the overlap in DEGs between Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK (c)

GO enrichment analysis

Gene Ontology, an internationally standardized gene function classification system, was used to classify the DEGs. The results were enriched in Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK, and 124 and 76 of them were significantly enriched, respectively. Further, the top 15 GO functional annotation terms were listed, and 10 of them were shared between Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK, associated with biological process, metabolic process, cellular process, organic substance metabolic process, primary metabolic process, cellular metabolic process, nitrogen compound metabolic process, biosynthetic process, cellular nitrogen compound metabolic process and organic substance biosynthetic process (Fig. 3, Additional files 4 and 5: Tables S4 and S5). Furthermore, it was found that these enriched GO terms mainly classified into biological process.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Most of the top 15 GO terms of three categories significantly enriched in DGEs of Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK. MF, molecular function; BP, biological process; CC, cellular component

KEGG pathway enrichment analysis

In order to further clarify molecular and biological functions of the genes, these DEGs were mapped to the KEGG database. KEGG pathway analysis indicated that 118 and 111 pathways were identified in Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK, respectively, of which nine and six were significantly enriched with p-value< 0.05. The significantly enrichment analysis showed that DEGs of Y35AB vs CK involved in metabolic pathways, carbon metabolism, photosynthesis, carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms, glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism, porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism, DNA replication, pentose phosphate pathway and nitrogen metabolism. While, DEGs involved in ribosome, glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism, DNA replication, circadian rhythm-plant, photosynthesis-antenna proteins and nitrogen metabolism were significantly enriched in Y35A vs CK (Fig. 4, Additional files 6 and 7: Tables S6 and S7).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

KEGG pathways of the more or main significantly enriched in DGEs. The rich factor reflects the degree of enriched DGEs in a given pathway. The number of enriched DGEs in the pathway is indicated by the circle area, and the circle color represents the ranges of the corrected p-value

Metabolic pathway was the major pathway which contains the largest number of DEGs in both Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK, but DEGs involved in metabolic pathway were not significantly different in Y35A vs CK, it further indicated that the presence of TbCSB differentially changed metabolic pathways in N. benthamiana. The rich factor of porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism pathway in Y35AB vs CK was near 1.00, the results showed that almost all genes in this pathway differentially expressed in TbCSV associated with betasatellite infected plants. Nevertheless, ribosome pathway might play an important role in response to TbCSV infection for the number of enriched DEGs in ribosome pathway wasnear to that enriched in metabolic pathways, and the rich factor was more than 0.75.

Screening of Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK common highly expressed DEGs

FPKM reflecting both the effect of sequencing depth and gene length for the read count, and is a commonly used method for estimating gene expression levels [31]. The fold change in gene expression was used to distinguish differentially expressed genes between samples because of the significance of digital gene expression profiles [32]. The intersection of highly expressed DGEs in Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK was considered. Finally, 17 DEGs were identified (|log2(Fold change)| ≥ 1 and FPKM≥50) from significantly enriched KEGG pathways, these 17 genes were shared between Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK all down-regulated, and involved in six pathways, including photosynthesis, porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism, metabolic pathways, carbon metabolism, carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms, and glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism. Additionally, six DEGs that not enriched in any pathway were screened (|log2 (Fold change) | ≥ 2 and FPKM≥50), including four up-regulated and two down-regulated. In total, 23 candidate genes were screened as shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Screened candidate genes in Y35AB and Y35A

Gene symbol

Unigene ID

Protein properties

log2FCa

log2FCb

pathway

PsaFa

Niben101Scf 00271g04024

photosystem I reaction center subunitIII, chloroplastic-like

-1.4180

-1.1769

Photosynthesis

PsaFb

Niben101Scf 02156g05001

photosystem I reaction center subunit III, chloroplastic-like

-1.5190

-1.6335

Photosynthesis

PsaFc

Niben101Scf 04964g00002

photosystem I reaction center subunit III, chloroplastic-like

-1.5257

-1.2865

Photosynthesis

PsaNa

Niben101Scf 17701g01020

photosystem I reaction center subunit N, chloroplastic-like

-1.6702

-1.5537

Photosynthesis

PsaNb

Niben101Scf 35628g00001

photosystem I reaction center subunit N, chloroplastic-like

-1.3129

-1.0396

Photosynthesis

ChlHa

Niben101Scf 04388g00011

magnesium-chelatase subunit ChlH, chloroplastic-like

-1.6623

-2.1794

Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism

ChlHb

Niben101Scf 07214g00015

magnesium-chelatase subunit ChlH, chloroplastic-like

-1.4638

-1.8585

Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism

BchP

Niben101Scf 06249g03002

geranylgeranyl diphosphate reductase, chloroplastic-like

-1.8576

-1.0521

Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism

HemA

Niben101Scf 10063g00003

glutamyl-tRNA reductase 1,chloroplastic-like

-1.4101

-2.0903

Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism

DXS

Niben101Scf 00246g04005

probable 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase, chloroplastic-like

-1.0040

-1.0126

Metabolic pathways

GME1-X1

Niben101Scf 01696g06050

GDP-mannose 3,5-epimerase 1-like,transcript variant X1

-1.6022

-1.1137

Metabolic pathways

CAB3A

Niben101Scf 03961g00004

chlorophyll a-b binding protein 50, chloroplastic-like

-1.1418

-1.0719

Metabolic pathways

GDCSa

Niben101Scf 02480g02012

glycine dehydrogenase (decarboxylating), mitochondrial-like

-1.5732

-1.1698

Carbon metabolism

GDCSb

Niben101Scf 03839g04019

glycine dehydrogenase (decarboxylating), mitochondrial-like

-1.1991

-1.0395

Carbon metabolism

rbcS

Niben101Scf 02381g04022

ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase small chain S41, chloroplastic-like

-1.2691

0.7603

Carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms

FBA1

Niben101Scf 02864g04008

fructose-bisphosphate aldolase 1,chloroplastic-like

-1.3167

-1.0072

Carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms

glsF

Niben101Scf 04198g01002

ferredoxin-dependent glutamate synthase, chloroplastic-like

-1.1161

-1.0704

Glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism

GRP

Niben101Scf 03052g00011

glycine-rich protein-like

2.1379

1.4647

No pathway enriched

GRP3a

Niben101Scf 01084g05013

glycine-rich protein 3-like

3.9423

3.1735

No pathway enriched

GRP3b

Niben101Scf 01084g03004

glycine-rich protein 3-like

2.0529

1.8836

No pathway enriched

CAX3

Niben101Scf 01329g00002

vacuolar cation/proton exchanger 3-like

-2.2799

-1.2535

No pathway enriched

FSD1

Niben101Scf 03679g03009

Fe superoxide dismutas ,chloroplastic-like

-2.1527

-1.9924

No pathway enriched

PU

Niben101Scf 10524g02015

putative uncharacterized protein

2.0616

0.9243

No pathway enriched

FC Fold change

aY35AB vs. CK

bY35A vs. CK

Validation of the selected genes by RT-qPCR

To validate the RNA-seq data, 12 genes were selected randomly for RT-qPCR analysis from the Table 2, including genes GDCSa, GDCSb, PsaFa, PsaFb, PsaFc, PsaNa, PsaNb, glsF, CAX3, GRP, GRP3a and PU. The results indicated that the genes expression patterns by RT-qPCR were consistent with that by transcriptome sequencing (Fig. 5), the fold changes between RNA-seq and RT-qPCR were different which maybe caused by the sensitive of methodology or the used samples between RNA-seq and RT-qPCR were not the same one.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Comparison of relative expression levels determined by RNA-seq and qPCR on 12 genes selected. All qPCR reactions were used three biological replica samples, repeated three times, and the data are presented as the mean ± SD. Relative expression levels are calculated from Ct values according to the 2–ΔΔCt method. Actin was the reference gene for these qPCR experiments. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences compared with CK, “*” indicate significant difference (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05), “**” indicate extremely significant difference (P < 0.01)

Analysis of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes

An important feature of the plant defense in response to pathogen attack is the induction and accumulation of various PR proteins which are also a part of systematic acquired resistance (SAR). There were 29 PR genes identified by a local BLAST in RNA-seq dataset and online BLAST analysis based on reported PR family genes in N. tabacum. Among them, eight genes (27.6%) were significantly up-regulated, including PR-2 (Glucan endo-1,3-beta-glucosidase-like), PR-3 (Chitinase 8, glycoside hydrolase), PR-5 (Pathogenesis-related thaumatin superfamily protein), PR-11 (Chitinase-3-like protein 2), PR-17 (Plant basic secretory protein family protein), of them four genes were found in Y35AB vs CK, and five genes were observed in Y35A vs CK (Table 3).
Table 3

Screened PRP family genes

PR family

Unigene ID

Protein properties

log2FCa

qvaluea

log2FCb

qvalueb

PR1

Niben101Scf13926g01014

Cysteine-rich secretory protein, allergen V5/Tpx-1-related

    

Niben101Scf03376g03004

Cysteine-rich secretory protein, allergen V5/Tpx-1-related

    

Niben101Scf00107g03008

Cysteine-rich secretory protein, allergen V5/Tpx-1-related

    

Niben101Scf01999g07002

Cysteine-rich secretory protein, allergen V5/Tpx-1-related

    

PR2

Niben101Scf01001g00005

Glucan endo-1,3-beta-glucosidase-like, Glycoside hydrolase, family 17

    

Niben101Scf01001g00004

Glucan endo-1,3-beta-glucosidase-like, Glycoside hydrolase, family 17

    

Niben101Scf01001g00003

Glucan endo-1,3-beta-glucosidase-like, Glycoside hydrolase, family 17

  

Inf

0.023496

Niben101Ctg13736g00004

Glucan endo-1,3-beta-glucosidase-like, Glycoside hydrolase, family 17

  

Inf

1.94E-04

Niben101Scf04869g03002

Glucan endo-1,3-beta-glucosidase-like, Glycoside hydrolase, family 17

3.9490

0.038646

5.4381

2.14E-04

 

Niben101Scf01001g00006

Glucan endo-1,3-beta-glucosidase-like, Glycoside hydrolase, family 17

    

PR3

Niben101Scf02041g00002

Chitinase 8, Glycoside hydrolase, family 19

  

5.1058

1.99E-05

PR4

Niben101Scf01400g00014

Thaumatin-like protein

    

Niben101Scf03436g01016

Thaumatin-like protein

    

PR5

Niben101Scf00126g00008

Pathogenesis-related thaumatin superfamily protein

0.9949

0.027102

  

Niben101Scf05554g05006

Pathogenesis-related thaumatin superfamily protein

1.4585

3.24E-08

  

PR6

Niben101Scf00953g05001

Cysteine-rich secretory protein, allergen V5/Tpx-1-related

    

Niben101Scf04053g01004

Cysteine-rich secretory protein, allergen V5/Tpx-1-related

    

PR9

Niben101Scf03460g04004

Peroxidase 53, Haem peroxidase

    

Niben101Scf07182g05012

Peroxidase 53, Haem peroxidase

    

PR10

Niben101Scf03526g00006

Major pollen allergen Bet v 1-M/N, Bet v I type allergen

    

Niben101Scf10735g00016

Major pollen allergen Bet v 1-M/N, Bet v I type allergen

    

Niben101Scf02474g01024

Major pollen allergen Bet v 1-M/N, Bet v I type allergen

    

Niben101Scf01938g04007

Major pollen allergen Bet v 1-M/N, Bet v I type allergen

    

PR11

Niben101Scf06295g04023

Chitinase-3-like protein 2, Glycoside hydrolase superfamily

4.4843

0.007133

  

Niben101Scf01789g04010

Chitinase-3-like protein 2, Glycoside hydrolase superfamily

    

PR17

Niben101Scf03385g02011

Plant basic secretory protein family protein, uncharacterised protein family

  

2.7696

6.69E-04

Niben101Scf03385g01006

Plant basic secretory protein family protein, uncharacterised protein family

    

Niben101Scf01341g01002

Plant basic secretory protein family protein, uncharacterised protein family

    

Niben101Ctg10643g00004

Plant basic secretory protein family protein, uncharacterised protein family

    

log2FC > 0, up-regulated, log2FC < 0, down-regulated. Inf: the readcount of control (CK) was zero. Blank lattices show genes expression has no significant difference

FC Fold change

aY35AB vs. CK

bY35A vs. CK

Analysis of LRR-RLKs genes

Leucine-rich repeat receptor-like protein kinases (LRR-RLKs) are the largest of receptor-like kinases in plants and play crucial roles in development and stress responses. In the present study, We combined RNA-seq dataset obtained LRR-RLK sequences with previously NCBI reported sequences to perform analysis, results showed that a total of 71 unigenes were identified potential LRR-RLK genes in RNA-seq dataset, however, 44 significantly different unigenes were observed. Among them, 18 unigenes were found in Y35AB vs CK with 10 unigenes down-regulated and the other 8 unigenes up-regulated, and 32 unigenes expressed in Y35A vs CK, with 20 and 12 unigenes were down-regulated and up-regulated, respectively. Five unigenes were commonly regulated in both Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK, including one up-regulated and four down-regulated unigenes (Table 4).
Table 4

Screened DEGs of LRR-RLKs

Unigene ID

Protein properties

log2FCa

qvaluea

log2FCb

qvalueb

Niben101Scf13404g00002

Brassinosteroid LRR receptor kinase-like; BRI1

  

-0.8361

0.000272

Niben101Scf07123g01015

Elicitor-inducible leucine-rich repeats receptor-like protein

  

5.5080

0.000289

Niben101Scf00104g02013

F-box/LRR-repeat protein 17-like

  

0.8664

0.021066

Niben101Scf04252g00009

F-box/LRR-repeat protein 17-like

  

1.8551

0.003213

Niben101Scf09559g00005

F-box/LRR-repeat MAX2 homolog A-like

0.8581

0.018415

  

Niben101Scf15394g00006

F-box/LRR-repeat protein 14-like

-0.8927

0.013552

  

Niben101Scf20268g00001

LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase ERECTA

  

-0.7116

0.011214

Niben101Scf05301g03002

LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase ERL1

-0.7516

0.013687

-0.7589

0.013627

Niben101Scf00247g01007

LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase ERL1

  

-0.5633

0.024694

Niben101Scf11723g02003

LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase ERL1

-0.6679

0.026512

-0.7100

0.017084

Niben101Scf03619g03004

LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase FEI2

-0.5426

0.018415

  

Niben101Scf03925g01010

LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase GSO1

2.3343

0.007479

3.1551

0.041202

Niben101Scf02203g04006

Plant intracellular Ras-group-related LRR protein 4-like

  

-0.6640

0.048845

Niben101Scf00206g00014

putative F-box/LRR-repeat protein At5g02700

1.5307

0.020135

  

Niben101Scf00073g04006

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g07650

  

-1.4546

0.005161

Niben101Scf00244g03004

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g06840

-0.6603

0.021347

  

Niben101Scf00418g02007

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g37250

  

-0.5934

0.047527

Niben101Scf00920g09027

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At5g48740

-1.1084

0.000766

  

Niben101Scf01061g08014

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g20940

  

-1.0192

0.001468

Niben101Scf01278g09008

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g56140

  

0.9239

0.023952

Niben101Scf02357g08010

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g07650

-0.6424

0.001803

  

Niben101Scf02665g15003

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g06840

-0.5769

0.044996

  

Niben101Scf02827g07005

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At3g47570

  

2.3756

0.027087

Niben101Scf03098g00011

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g34110

  

-1.2224

3.35E-06

Niben101Scf03262g02006

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At2g24230

  

-0.6865

0.030882

Niben101Scf03445g05005

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g26540

  

-0.8802

0.000669

Niben101Scf03735g07013

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g36180

2.0409

0.002356

  

Niben101Scf05348g01026

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g12460

  

-1.3373

3.02E-05

Niben101Scf05405g07003

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At3g47570

  

2.0599

0.003076

Niben101Scf05405g07006

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At3g47570

  

1.5589

0.022376

Niben101Scf05767g05006

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g20940

  

-0.8478

0.000497

Niben101Scf05977g01008

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g12460

  

-1.2826

8.11E-05

Niben101Scf06144g00013

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g20940

  

-0.9557

7.81E-05

Niben101Scf06151g02014

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g67720

0.7683

0.046840

  

Niben101Scf06562g02013

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g26540

-0.5968

0.021640

-0.9943

2.01E-05

Niben101Scf06789g03005

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g67720

0.9483

0.042093

0.9711

0.042650

Niben101Scf07034g06018

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g36180

  

-0.8501

0.034812

Niben101Scf07515g02006

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g56140

  

0.6846

0.005558

Niben101Scf07681g01013

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g20940

  

-0.7450

0.014076

Niben101Scf07695g01023

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g30520

0.7628

0.001146

  

Niben101Scf07736g01007

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At1g63430

  

0.6791

0.006612

Niben101Scf08134g02008

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g37250

-0.5193

0.047055

-0.7817

0.000797

Niben101Scf10101g00023

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At4g30520

0.6651

0.002463

  

Niben101Scf11047g00001

probable LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase At2g16250

  

0.7640

0.047280

log2FC > 0, up-regulated, log2FC < 0, down-regulated. Blank lattices show genes expression has no significant difference

FC Fold change

aY35AB vs. CK

bY35A vs. CK

Analysis of brassinosteroid and jasmonic acid pathway

Plant hormones are not only essential for growth and development, but also play crucial roles in plant defense responses [33, 34]. The transcriptome data showed that only one brassinosteroid (BR) synthesis-related gene, 3-epi-6-deoxocathasterone 23-monooxygenase (CYP90C1/D1) was significantly decreased upon virus infection (Fig. 6a), it is likely result in a reduction of brassinosteroid. By contrast, expressions of jasmonic acid (JA) -ralated biosynthesis genes DOX1, HPL1, SAMT-X1 were decreased and PLA1/A2, loxF, KAT2, SAMT-X2 were significantly increased upon virus infection (Fig. 6b). We conjecture that the expression level of jasmonic acid might was increase. In addition, part of BR and JA signaling genes expression level were also altered, BRI1, BZR2, CYCD3-X2 were down-regulated and BZR1, CYCD3-X1 were up-regulated in BR signal transduction pathway, and JAR1, COI1, MYC2 were down- regulated and JAZ1, JAZ2 were up-regulated in JA signal transduction pathway (Fig. 6c). All synthesis- and signal transduction- related significantly difference expressed unigenes of BR and JA pathway shown in Table 5.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

DEGs of BR and JA in biosynthesis and signal transduction pathway. a BR biosynthesis pathway, b JA biosynthesis pathway, c signal transduction pathway of BR and JA, respectively. Genes with red background were up-regulated, green background were down-regulated, yellow background some were up-regulated and some were down-regulated

Table 5

Significant difference expression unigenes of BR and JA pathway

 

Gene symbol

Unigene ID

Protein properties

log2FCa

qvaluea

log2FCb

qvalueb

BR

CYP90C1/D1

Niben101Scf05764g04013

3-epi-6-deoxocathasterone 23-monooxygenase

-0.8193

0.019172

  

BRI1

Niben101Scf13404g00002

Brassinosteroid LRR receptor kinase-like, BRI1

  

-0.8361

2.72E-04

BZR1

Niben101Scf03110g05009

Brassinosteroid resistant 1

0.5592

0.025611

  

BZR2

Niben101Scf06112g01006

Brassinosteroid resistant 2

  

-1.2497

7.36E-07

CYCD3-X1

Niben101Scf05643g01012

Cyclin D3, 3 protein, plant

1.3753

1.44E-07

  

CYCD3-X1

Niben101Scf02445g10017

Cyclin D3, 3 protein, plant

1.2863

0.002511

  

CYCD3-X2

Niben101Scf00107g02002

Cyclin D3, 2 protein, plant

-0.8767

0.017675

-1.2925

2.43E-04

JA

PLA1/A2

Niben101Scf00711g02004

Triacylglycerol lipase SDP1-like; Phospholipase A1/A2

1.8227

0.003036

  

DOX1

Niben101Scf07070g02002

Alpha-dioxygenase

-3.8126

7.60E-13

-3.9498

7.95E-14

loxF

Niben101Scf05407g00001

Linoleate 9S-lipoxygenase-like

0.9407

0.021540

  

HPL1

Niben101Scf00313g08016

Fatty acid hydroperoxide lyase, HPL1

-1.2170

1.14E-09

-0.9629

7.37E-07

HPL1

Niben101Scf02207g11009

Fatty acid hydroperoxide lyase, HPL1

-1.4966

1.06E-05

  

KAT2

Niben101Scf10189g02009

3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase 2, peroxisomal

  

0.6201

0.007053

SAMT-X1

Niben101Scf05122g00005

Salicylate carboxymethyltransferase-like

-1.4545

2.97E-11

-0.8505

2.96E-04

SAMT-X2

Niben101Scf01146g12006

Salicylate carboxymethyltransferase-like

  

1.6487

0.010833

JAR1

Niben101Scf01076g00005

Jasmonic acid-amino synthetase

-0.6477

0.003456

-0.8340

0.001705

COI1

Niben101Scf02280g08005

Coronatine-insensitive 1, COI1

-0.6123

0.024317

-0.8990

2.81E-04

JAZ1

Niben101Scf00298g01006

Jasmonate ZIM-domain protein 1

0.7577

0.039355

  

JAZ2

Niben101Scf07798g03026

Jasmonate ZIM domain-containing protein

  

0.7728

3.95E-04

MYC2

Niben101Scf15224g00002

Transcription factor MYC2

  

-0.6238

0.042856

log2FC > 0, up-regulated, log2FC < 0, down-regulated. Blank lattices show genes expression has no significant difference

FC Fold change

aY35AB vs. CK

bY35A vs. CK

Discussion

TbCSV is a serious threat to many crops in China. In this study, RNA-seq -based transcriptomic characterization and comparative analysis of TbCSV-infected N. benthamiana with control plants was used to shed some light on understanding the molecular interactions of this pathosystem. 4081 and 3196 DEGs were screened from Y35AB vs CK and Y35A vs CK, respectively. Among the top 15 enriched physiological pathways, the porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism, photosynthesis and pentose phosphate pathway were significantly affected in Y35AB vs CK. It suggested that, the disorder of these pathways might be responsible to the more serious leaf curling symptom on Y35AB-infected N. benthamiana plants. In addition, previous reports showed that βC1, an essential pathogenicity protein encoded by betasatellite, is required for symptom induction and RNA silencing suppression [2, 16, 3537]. Thus, βC1 protein might contribute to the specific changes of those genes or biological pathways in Y35AB-infected plants.

In our study, the DEGs expression with high levels that mainly concerned with photosynthesis-related genes including photosynthesis, porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolismand carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms were down-regulated in N. benthamiana plants infected with TbCSV. Meanwhile, the KEGG pathway analysis showed significant enrichments of the photosynthesis, and the porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism pathway in Y35AB-infected plants, with higher rich factor. It has been reported that photosynthesis-related genes could be affected upon virus infection such as Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) [38], Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) [39], Rice stripe virus (RSV) [40, 41] and Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV) [42]. And the chloroplast, one of the most dynamic organelles ofplant cell, plays an active part in the defense response and is crucial for inter organelle signaling [43]. Therefore, viruses need to suppress the chloroplast-mediated defense by employing pathogenicity factors, such as effector proteins, for successful infections [44, 45]. Furthermore, a previous study showed that a Radish leaf curl betasatellite (RaLCB) damages the structural and functional integrity of chloroplasts, leading to inhibition of photosynthesis and symptom formation [46]. Some photosynthesis-related genes were down-regulated during both Y35A and Y35AB infections, indicating that these genes might participate in the interaction between TbCSV and N. benthamiana.

An important feature of the plant defense response to pathogen attack is the induction and accumulation of various PR proteins, which are also a part of systematic acquired resistance (SAR) [47]. Previously, PR proteins were divided into five families based on their localization, isoelectric point, molecular mass, and biological activity [48]. PR proteins are currently categorized into 17 families. At present, besides PR-6 is predicted by automated computational analysis based on a genomic sequence (gene ID: LOC107768382), nine out of 17 families, including PR-1, PR-2 [49], PR-3, PR-4, PR-5 [50], PR-9 [51], PR-10 [52], PR-11 [53], PR-17 [54] families were reported that associated with the acquired resistance to pathogen infections. Among these PR proteins, PR-1 is generally considered as a marker gene of disease resistance [55]. Based on NCBI retrieval and local BLAST analysis, 29 PR genes in N. benthamiana were identified. In the present study, the expression levels of 8 PR genes were found to be significantly regulated in virus-infected N. benthamiana plants (Table 3). It was previously reported that in pathogens-infected wheat, the genes encoding peroxidase, PR-1, PR-2, PR-3, PR-4, and PR-5 were induced after 6–12 h and reached the highest levels at 36–48 h [56, 57]. In our research, leaf tissues of N. benthamiana plants for RNA-seq assays were collected at 20 dpi, and the transcript levels of some PR genes (8 out of 29) were regulated significantly. For subsequent research, the expression of PR genes can be determined in a time course study. Based on our research, we speculated that some types of PR proteins might play roles in defense response to TbCSV infection.

In plants, many cellular signaling transductions are mediated by receptor-like kinases (RLKs). Leucine-rich repeat receptor-like protein kinases (LRR-RLKs) are the largest group of receptor-like kinases in plants and play crucial roles in development and stress responses [58]. LRR-RLKs regulate a wide range of plant growth and development, including meristem development [59, 60], secondary growth [61], microsporogenesis and embryogenesis [62]. Besides, some LRR-RLKs mediated plant resistance against bacterial [63, 64] or viral pathogens [65, 66]. In this study, 71 LRR-RLKs genes were identified. Among them, 44 were differentially expressed in virus-infected N. benthamiana plants. The results showed that these LRR-RLKs genes might play important roles in N. benthamiana responses to TbCSV infection. By contrast, in the present of TbCSB, less number of LRR-RLKs genes were regulated (Table 4).

BR and JA are two important plant hormones that play crucial roles in plant growth and development [67] and also involved in plant defense responses to pathogen infections [6870]. In the BR signaling pathway, BRASSINAZOLE RESISTANT (BZR) is a transcription factor, which orchestrating plant developmental and physiological processes by regulating BR-target gene expression [71, 72]. BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE 1 (BRI1) is a brassinosteroid receptor, of which ubiquitously expresses plasma membrane-localized protein kinase [73], belonging to an LRR-RLKs subfamily [74]. For the JA signaling transduction, the perception of JA is mediated by the co-receptor CORONATINE INSENSITIVE 1 (COI1), which is an F-box protein cooperated with a family of the JASMONATE ZIM-domain (JAZ) transcriptional proteins. Upon the pathogens infection, bioactive JAs promote direct interaction between COI1 and JAZ proteins and then trigger the SCF-COI1 complex, resulting in poly-ubiquitination and degradation of the JAZ proteins. Ultimately, a variety of transcription factors could be activated for the expression of the JA-responsive genes [75]. Besides, MYC2 is a bHLH (basic helix-loop-helix) transcription factor and a positive regulator of JA responses [76]. A study has shown that rhizobacterium-mediated induction of JA reduces the symptoms of CMV infection in Arabidopsis thaliana ecotype Columbia plants [77]. In this study, BRI1, BZR1, BZR2, CYCD3, JAR1, COI1, JAZ and MYC2 genes were significantly regulated under the infection of TbCSV (Fig. 6). It suggested that BR and JA pathways played a role in response to TbCSV infection.

Conclusion

In this study, a genome-wide transcript profile was obtianed for N. benthamiana plant infected by TbCSV or plus TbCSB using RNA-seq approaches, and genes involved in plant defense system were found to be significantly regulated after TbCSV and TbCSV /TbCSB infection. The information provided in our study would be particularly useful for investigating the molecular mechanisms concerning begomovirus-host interaction and excavate resistance genes.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Professor Xueping Zhou in the Biotechnology Institute of Zhejiang University for providing the infectious clones of TbCSV isolate Y35 (Y35A) and its betasatellite (Y35B).

Funding

This research work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. XDJK2017A006 and XDJK2015D039), National Natural Science Founding of China (Grant No. 31772127), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2015 M572431), and Chongqing Postdoctoral Science special Foundation (Xm2015120).

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials described in the manuscript are available in the Additional files 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Authors’ contributions

LQ conceived and designed the study and revised the paper. KL, GW, ML and MM performed the experiments and made analysis of the data. JD, MS and XS participated preparation including discussion and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All the authors consent to publish.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
College of Plant Protection, Southwest University, Chongqing, 400716, People’s Republic of China

References

  1. Xie Y, Zhou XP, Zhang ZK, Qi YJ. Tobacco curly shoot virus isolated in Yunnan is a distinct species of Begomovirus. Chin Sci Bull. 2002;47:197–200.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Zhou XP, Xie Y, Tao XR, Zhang ZK, Li ZH, Fauquet CM. Characterization of DNAβ associated with begomoviruses in China and evidence for co-evolution with their cognate viral DNA-A. J Gen Virol. 2003;84:237–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Pacheco R, Garcia-Marcos A, Manzano A, Garcia De Lacoba M, Camanes G, Garcia-Agustin P, Ramon Diaz-Ruiz J, Tenllado F. Comparative analysis of transcriptomic and hormonal responses to compatible and incompatible plant-virus interactions that lead to cell death. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2012;25:709–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kamitani M, Nagano AJ, Honjo MN, Kudoh H, Kummerli R. RNA-Seq reveals virus-virus and virus-plant interactions in nature. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2016;92:1–11.Google Scholar
  5. Miozzi L, Napoli C, Sardo L, Accotto GP. Transcriptomics of the interaction between the monopartite phloem-limited geminivirus Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Sardinia Virus and Solanum lycopersicum highlights a role for plant hormones, autophagy and plant immune system fine tuning during infection. PLoS One. 2014;9:e89951.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M. RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10:57–63.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Naqvi RZ, Zaidi SS, Akhtar KP, Strickler S, Woldemariam M, Mishra B, Mukhtar MS, Scheffler BE, Scheffler JA, Jander G, et al. Transcriptomics reveals multiple resistance mechanisms against cotton leaf curl disease in a naturally immune cotton species, Gossypium arboreum. Sci Rep. 2017;7:15880.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Pavan Kumar BK, Kanakala S, Malathi VG, Gopal P, Usha R. Transcriptomic and proteomic analysis of yellow mosaic diseased soybean. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol. 2016;26:224–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Sood A, Chauhan RS. Comparative NGS transcriptomics unravels molecular components associated with mosaic virus infection in a bioenergy plant species, Jatropha curcas L. BioEnergy Res. 2017;10:129–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Pierce EJ, Rey MEC. Assessing global transcriptome changes in response to South African Cassava Mosaic Virus [ZA-99] infection in susceptible Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS One. 2013;8:e67534.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Yadav RK, Chattopadhyay D. Differential soybean gene expression during early phase of infection with Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus. Mol Biol Rep. 2014;41:5123–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kundu A, Patel A, Paul S, Pal A. Transcript dynamics at early stages of molecular interactions of MYMIV with resistant and susceptible genotypes of the leguminous host, vigna mungo. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124687.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Kushwaha N, Sahu PP, Prasad M, Chakraborty S. Chilli leaf curl virus infection highlights the differential expression of genes involved in protein homeostasis and defense in resistant chilli plants. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99:4757–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Li ZH, Xie Y, Zhou XP. Tobacco curly shoot virus DNAβ is not necessary for infection but intensifies symptoms in a host-dependent manner. Phytopathology. 2005;95:902–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cui XF, Zhou XP. AC2 and AC4 proteins of Tomato yellow leaf curl China virus and Tobacco curly shoot virus mediate suppression of RNA silencing. Chin Sci Bull. 2004;49:2607–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Cui XF, Li GX, Wang DW, Hu DW, Zhou XP. A Begomovirus DNAβ-encoded protein binds DNA, functions as a suppressor of RNA silencing, and targets the cell nucleus. J Virol. 2005;79:10764–75.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Abarshi MM, Mohammed IU, Wasswa P, Hillocks RJ, Holt J, Legg JP, Seal SE, Maruthi MN. Optimization of diagnostic RT-PCR protocols and sampling procedures for the reliable and cost-effective detection of Cassava brown streak virus. J Virol Methods. 2010;163:353–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Xiong HC, Guo HJ, Xie YD, Zhao LS, Gu JY, Zhao SR, Li JH, Liu LX. RNAseq analysis reveals pathways and candidate genes associated with salinity tolerance in a spaceflight-induced wheat mutant. Sci Rep. 2017;7:2731.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen JW, Hou K, Qin P, Liu H, Bin Y, Yang WT, Wu W. RNA-Seq for gene identification and transcript profiling of three Stevia rebaudiana genotypes. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:571–81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Deng XG, Zhu T, Peng XJ, Xi DH, Guo H, Yin Y, Zhang DW, Lin HH. Role of brassinosteroid signaling in modulating tobacco mosaic virus resistance in Nicotiana benthamiana. Sci Rep. 2016;6:20579.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9:357.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim D, Pertea G, Trapnell C, Pimentel H, Kelley R, Salzberg SL. TopHat2: accurate alignment of transcriptomes in the presence of insertions, deletions and gene fusions. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R36.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Trapnell C, Roberts A, Goff L, Pertea G, Kim D, Kelley DR, Pimentel H, Salzberg SL, Rinn JL, Pachter L. Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks. Nat Protoc. 2012;7:562–78.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Anders S, Pyl PT, Huber W. HTSeq—a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:166–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Trapnell C, Pachter L, Salzberg SL. TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-Seq. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1105–11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Anders S, Huber W. Differential expression of RNA-Seq data at the gene level – the DESeq package. Heidelberg: Embl; 2012.Google Scholar
  27. Young MD, Wakefield MJ, Smyth GK, Oshlack A. Gene ontology analysis for RNA-seq: accounting for selection bias. Genome Biol. 2010;11:R14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Mao X, Cai T, Olyarchuk JG, Wei L. Automated genome annotation and pathway identification using the KEGG Orthology (KO) as a controlled vocabulary. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:3787–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2-Ct method. Methods. 2012;25:402–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Peng H, He XJ, Gao J, Ma HX, Zhang ZM, Shen Y, Pan GT, Lin HJ. Transcriptomic changes during maize roots development responsive to Cadmium (Cd) pollution using comparative RNAseq-based approach. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015;464:1040–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Trapnell C, Williams BA, Pertea G, Mortazavi A, Kwan G, Van Baren MJ, Salzberg SL, Wold BJ, Pachter L. Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:511–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Audic S, Claverie JM. The significance of digital gene expression profiles. Genome Res. 1997;7:986–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Whitham SA, Yang C, Goodin MM. Global impact: elucidating plant responses to viral infection. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2006;19:1207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Alazem M, Lin NS. Roles of plant hormones in the regulation of host–virus interactions. Mol Plant Pathol. 2015;16:529.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Saeed M, Behjatnia SA, Mansoor S, Zafar Y, Hasnain S, Rezaian MA. A single complementary-sense transcript of a geminiviral DNA beta satellite is determinant of pathogenicity. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2005;18:7–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Cui X, Tao X, Xie Y, Fauquet CM, Zhou X. A DNAβ associated with Tomato yellow leaf curl China virus is required for symptom induction. J Virol. 2004;78:13966–74.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Saunders K, Norman A, Gucciardo S, Stanley J. The DNA beta satellite component associated with ageratum yellow vein disease encodes an essential pathogenicity protein (beta C1). Virology. 2004;324:37–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Bhat S, Folimonova SY, Cole AB, Ballard KD, Lei Z, Watson BS, Sumner LW, Nelson RS. Influence of host chloroplast proteins on Tobacco mosaic virus accumulation and intercellular movement. Plant Physiol. 2013;161:134–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mochizuki T, Ogata Y, Hirata Y, Ohki ST. Quantitative transcriptional changes associated with chlorosis severity in mosaic leaves of tobacco plants infected with Cucumber mosaic virus. Mol Plant Pathol. 2014;15:242–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu Y, Zhou XP. Role of rice stripe virus NSvc4 in cell-to-cell movement and symptom development in Nicotiana benthamiana. Front Plant Sci. 2012;3:269.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Kong LF, Wu JX, Lu LN, Xu Y, Zhou XP. Interaction between Rice stripe virus disease-specific protein and host PsbP enhances virus symptoms. Mol Plant. 2014;7:691–708.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Balasubramaniam M, Kim BS, Hutchens-Williams HM, Loesch-Fries LS. The photosystem II oxygen-evolving complex protein PsbP interacts with the coat protein of Alfalfa mosaic virus and inhibits virus replication. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2014;27:1107–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Bhattacharyya D, Chakraborty S. Chloroplast: the Trojan horse in plant-virus interaction. Mol Plant Pathol. 2017;19:504–18. Google Scholar
  44. Jelenska J, Yao N, Vinatzer BA, Wright CM, Brodsky JL, Greenberg JT. A J domain virulence effector of Pseudomonas syringae remodels host chloroplasts and suppresses defenses. Curr Biol. 2007;17:499.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Petre B, Saunders DG, Sklenar J, Lorrain C, Win J, Duplessis S, Kamoun S. Candidate effector proteins of the rust pathogen melampsora larici-populina target diverse plant cell compartments. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2015;28:689–700.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Bhattacharyya D, Gnanasekaran P, Kumar RK, Kushwaha NK, Sharma VK, Yusuf MA, Chakraborty S. A geminivirus betasatellite damages the structural and functional integrity of chloroplasts leading to symptom formation and inhibition of photosynthesis. J Exp Bot. 2015;66:5881–95.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Van LL, Rep M, Pieterse CM. Significance of inducible defense-related proteins in infected plants. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2006;44:135–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Lcvan L, Eavan S. The families of pathogenesis-related proteins, their activities, and comparative analysis of PR-1 type proteins. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 1999;55:85–97.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Antoniw JF, Ritter CE, Pierpoint WS, Loon LCV. Comparison of three pathogenesis-related proteins from plants of two cultivars of tobacco infected with TMV. J Gen Virol. 1980;47:79–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Loon LCV. Regulation of changes in proteins and enzymes associated with active defence against virus infection. In: Wood RKS, editor. Active defense mechanisms in plants. New York: Plenum Press; 1982. p. 247–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Lagrimini LM, Burkhart W, Moyer M, Rothstein S. Molecular cloning of complementary DNA encoding the lignin-forming peroxidase from tobacco: molecular analysis and tissue-specific expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987;84:7542.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang Y, Zhang ZL, Jiang CH, Chang AX, Yang AG, Luo CG, Wang SM, Wang YY. Cloning and expression analysis of a pathogenesis related protein gene NtPR10 in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Chin Tob Sci. 2017;38:1–7.Google Scholar
  53. Melchers LS, Apotheker-De Groot M, Van Der Knaap JA, Ponstein AP, Sela-Buurlage MB, Bol JF, Cornelissen BJC, Van Den Elzen PJM, Linthorst HJM. A new class of tobacco chitinases homologous to bacterial exo-chitinases displays antifungal activity. Plant J. 1994;5:469–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Okushima Y, Koizumi N, Kusano T, Sano H. Secreted proteins of tobacco cultured BY2 cells: identification of a new member of pathogenesis-related proteins. Plant Mol Biol. 2000;42:479–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ryals JA, Neuenschwander UH, Willits MG, Molina A, Steiner HY, Hunt MD. Systemic acquired resistance. Plant Cell. 1996;8:1809–19.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Pritsch C, Muehlbauer GJ, Bushnell WR, Somers DA, Vance CP. Fungal development and induction of defense response genes during early infection of wheat spikes by Fusarium graminearum. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2000;13:159–69.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Pritsch C, Vance CP, Bushnell WR, Somers DA, Hohn TM, Muehlbauer GJ. Systemic expression of defense response genes in wheat spikes as a response to Fusarium graminearum infection. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 2001;58:1–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Shiu SH, Bleecker AB. Receptor-like kinases from Arabidopsis form a monophyletic gene family related to animal receptor kinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10763.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Clark SE, Williams RW, Meyerowitz EM. The CLAVATA1 gene encodes a putative receptor kinase that controls shoot and floral meristem size in Arabidopsis. Cell. 1997;89:575–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Schoof H, Lenhard M, Haecker A, Mayer KF, Jürgens G, Laux T. The stem cell population of Arabidopsis shoot meristems in maintained by a regulatory loop between the CLAVATA and WUSCHEL genes. Cell. 2000;100:635.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Agusti J, Lichtenberger R, Schwarz M, Nehlin L, Greb T. Characterization of transcriptome remodeling during cambium formation identifies MOL1 and RUL1 as opposing regulators of secondary growth. PLoS Genet. 2011;7:e1001312.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Albrecht C, Russinova E, Hecht V, Baaijens E, De Vries S. The Arabidopsis thaliana SOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASES1 and 2 control male gametogenesis. Plant Cell. 2005;17:3337–49.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Gómezgómez L, Boller T. FLS2: an LRR receptor-like kinase involved in the perception of the bacterial elicitor flagellin in Arabidopsis. Mol Cell. 2000;5:1003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Zipfel C, Kunze G, Chinchilla D, Caniard A, Jones JD, Boller T, Felix G. Perception of the bacterial PAMP EF-Tu by the receptor EFR restricts Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Cell. 2006;125:749.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Elizabeth PBF, Santos AA, Luz DF, Waclawovsky AJ, Chory J. The geminivirus nuclear shuttle protein is a virulence factor that suppresses transmembrane receptor kinase activity. Genes Dev. 2004;18:2545–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Santos AA, Lopes KV, Apfata JA, Fontes EP. NSP-interacting kinase, NIK: a transducer of plant defence signalling. J Exp Bot. 2010;61:3839.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Kim TW, Wang ZY. Brassinosteroid signal transduction from receptor kinases to transcription factors. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2010;61:681.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. De Vleesschauwer D, Xu J, Hofte M. Making sense of hormone-mediated defense networking: from rice to Arabidopsis. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:611.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Bruyne LD, Hfte M, Vleesschauwer DD. Connecting growth and defense: the emerging roles of brassinosteroids and gibberellins in plant innate immunity. Mol Plant. 2014;7:943–59.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Nakashita H, Yasuda M, Nitta T, Asami T, Fujioka S, Arai Y, Sekimata K, Takatsuto S, Yamaguchi I, Yoshida S. Brassinosteroid functions in a broad range of disease resistance in tobacco and rice. Plant J. 2003;33:887–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Clouse SD. Brassinosteroid signal transduction: from receptor kinase activation to transcriptional networks regulating plant development. Plant Cell. 2011;23:1219–30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang WF, Bai MY, Wang ZY. The brassinosteroid signaling network - a paradigm of signal integration. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2014;21:147.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Schumacher K, Chory J. Brassinosteroid signal transduction: still casting the actors. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2000;3:79.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Li J, Chory J. A putative leucine-rich repeat receptor kinase involved in brassinosteroid signal transduction. Cell. 1997;90:929–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Kim H, Park D, Hahn Y. Identification of novel RNA viruses in alfalfa (Medicago sativa): an Alphapartitivirus, a Deltapartitivirus, and a Marafivirus. Gene. 2017;638:7–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Chini A, Fonseca S, Fernández G, Adie B, Chico JM, Lorenzo O, Garcíacasado G, Lópezvidriero I, Lozano FM, Ponce MR. The JAZ family of repressors is the missing link in jasmonate signalling. Nature. 2007;448:666.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Ryu CM, Murphy JF, Mysore KS, Kloepper JW. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria systemically protect Arabidopsis thaliana against Cucumber mosaic virus by a salicylic acid and NPR1-independent and jasmonic acid-dependent signaling pathway. Plant J. 2004;39:381–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement