Multiple abiotic stimuli are integrated in the regulation of rice gene expression under field conditions

  1. Anne Plessis
  2. Christoph Hafemeister
  3. Olivia Wilkins
  4. Zennia Jean Gonzaga
  5. Rachel Sarah Meyer
  6. Inês Pires
  7. Christian Müller
  8. Endang M Septiningsih
  9. Richard Bonneau
  10. Michael Purugganan  Is a corresponding author
  1. Plymouth University, United Kingdom
  2. New York University, United States
  3. International Rice Research Institute, Philippines
  4. Simons Foundation, New York, United States
  5. Texas A&M University, United States

Abstract

Plants rely on transcriptional dynamics to respond to multiple climatic fluctuations and contexts in nature. We analyzed genome-wide gene expression patterns of rice (Oryza sativa) growing in rainfed and irrigated fields during two distinct tropical seasons and determined simple linear models that relate transcriptomic variation to climatic fluctuations. These models combine multiple environmental parameters to account for patterns of expression in the field of co-expressed gene clusters. We examined the correspondence of our environmental models between tropical and temperate field conditions, using previously published data. We found that field type and macroclimate had broad impacts on transcriptional responses to environmental fluctuations, especially for genes involved in photosynthesis and development. Nevertheless, variation in solar radiation and temperature at the timescale of hours had reproducible effects across environmental contexts. These results provide a basis for broad-based predictive modeling of plant gene expression in the field.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anne Plessis

    School of Biological Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Christoph Hafemeister

    Department of Biology, Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Olivia Wilkins

    Department of Biology, Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Zennia Jean Gonzaga

    International Rice Research Institute, Metro Manila, Philippines
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Rachel Sarah Meyer

    Department of Biology, Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Inês Pires

    Department of Biology, Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Christian Müller

    Simons Center for Data Analysis, Simons Foundation, New York, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Endang M Septiningsih

    Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Richard Bonneau

    Department of Biology, Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Michael Purugganan

    Department of Biology, Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    mp132@nyu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Plessis et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,766
    views
  • 826
    downloads
  • 44
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Anne Plessis
  2. Christoph Hafemeister
  3. Olivia Wilkins
  4. Zennia Jean Gonzaga
  5. Rachel Sarah Meyer
  6. Inês Pires
  7. Christian Müller
  8. Endang M Septiningsih
  9. Richard Bonneau
  10. Michael Purugganan
(2015)
Multiple abiotic stimuli are integrated in the regulation of rice gene expression under field conditions
eLife 4:e08411.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08411

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08411

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Masaaki Uematsu, Jeremy M Baskin
    Tools and Resources

    Plasmid construction is central to life science research, and sequence verification is arguably its costliest step. Long-read sequencing has emerged as a competitor to Sanger sequencing, with the principal benefit that whole plasmids can be sequenced in a single run. Nevertheless, the current cost of nanopore sequencing is still prohibitive for routine sequencing during plasmid construction. We develop a computational approach termed Simple Algorithm for Very Efficient Multiplexing of Oxford Nanopore Experiments for You (SAVEMONEY) that guides researchers to mix multiple plasmids and subsequently computationally de-mixes the resultant sequences. SAVEMONEY defines optimal mixtures in a pre-survey step, and following sequencing, executes a post-analysis workflow involving sequence classification, alignment, and consensus determination. By using Bayesian analysis with prior probability of expected plasmid construction error rate, high-confidence sequences can be obtained for each plasmid in the mixture. Plasmids differing by as little as two bases can be mixed as a single sample for nanopore sequencing, and routine multiplexing of even six plasmids per 180 reads can still maintain high accuracy of consensus sequencing. SAVEMONEY should further democratize whole-plasmid sequencing by nanopore and related technologies, driving down the effective cost of whole-plasmid sequencing to lower than that of a single Sanger sequencing run.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.