Influence of low temperature on maize seed germination. Low temperature is an important factor to inhibit seed germination. The germination rate of maize seeds at 4℃ was lower than the control, and WT and OE were significant differences before and after low temperature stress, but AS showed no significant differences (Table 1). The number of seed germination increased with the extension of treatment days, the germination days of seeds under low temperature stress were about 11 days later than that of normal temperature control (Fig. 1).
Table 1
Effects of different temperature on seed germination characteristics of maize
Material
|
Germination Rate(%)
|
25℃
|
4℃
|
WT
|
96.7
|
25*
|
AS
|
90
|
51.7
|
OE
|
88.3
|
40*
|
Note: compared with normal temperature control, "*" indicate by the t-test analysis, P < 0.05.
Effects of low temperature on physiological and biochemical indexes of maize seedling leaves. Compared with the 25℃, MDA, SOD and POD of all materials under 4℃ showed an increasing trend. MDA of WT showed significant difference before and after low temperature stress, while MDA of AS and OE showed no significant difference before and after low temperature stress. MDA of AS and OE under 4℃ showed significant difference compared with WT (Fig. 2a). SOD of WT, AS and OE showed no significant difference before and after low temperature stress, and SOD of AS and OE under low temperature stress showed no significant difference compared with WT (Fig. 2b). There was no significant difference in POD of WT, AS and OE before and after low temperature stress, and no significant difference in POD of AS and OE under low temperature stress compared with WT (Fig. 2c). It indicated that low temperature stress had little effect on the transgenic SDG102 material.
Analysis of plant agronomic characters and chlorophyll content in leaves. Height and number of fully expanded leaves of 40 WT, AS and OE plants were measured at maturity. Compared with WT, the plant height of AS increased by about 18cm, while that of OE decreased by about 24cm. The plant height of AS and OE was significantly different from that of the control. The number of AS and OE leaves was more than that in the control group, and the difference was not significant. Compared with WT, the date of AS powder was delayed by about 4 days, reaching an extremely significant difference level, while the date of OE powder was advanced by about 2 days, showing no significant difference (Table 2).
With the prolongation of pollination days, there were obvious phenotypic differences in the leaves at ear position of the three materials. The leaves at ear position after pollination for 30 days were selected to measure the chlorophyll content. AS chlorophyll A content and total chlorophyll content were higher than WT and OE, while OE was lower than WT and AS in chlorophyll A, chlorophyll B and total chlorophyll content. There were significant differences in chlorophyll A and total chlorophyll content be-tween AS and WT, and significant differences in chlorophyll A, chlorophyll B and total chlorophyll content between OE and WT (Fig. 3). These results suggested that the difference of chlorophyll content in maize leaves at ear position may be caused by his-tone methylation during late pollination in field.
Table 2
Agronomic traits of maize plants
Material
|
Plant Height(cm)
|
Leaf Number
|
Powder Days
|
WT
|
201.86 ± 14.4
|
21.9 ± 0.6
|
78 ± 3.52
|
AS
|
219.61 ± 10.09**
|
22.4 ± 0.8
|
82.33 ± 1.6**
|
OE
|
177.44 ± 14.64**
|
22.7 ± 0.8
|
76.99 ± 2.67
|
Note: indicate by the t-test analysis, ‘*’: P < 0.05; ‘**’:P < 0.01.
Quality analysis of transcriptome sequencing. The mapping of Reads between samples and reference genomes ranged from 80.26–94.93%, resulting in 52.33 Gb of Clean Data, with the percentage of Q30 base of each sample not less than 94.82% (Table 3). The sequencing Data had high reliability and could be used for subsequent bioinformatics analysis.
Table 3
Statistical table of sequencing data
Sample
|
Clean reads
|
Clean bases
|
Mapped Reads
|
%≥Q30
|
WT1
|
21,150,178
|
6,331,758,956
|
34,456,171(81.46%)
|
94.82%
|
WT2
|
22,991,413
|
6,876,109,798
|
43,649,464(94.93%)
|
95.76%
|
WT3
|
19,417,182
|
5,812,057,660
|
35,295,721(90.89%)
|
95.14%
|
AS1
|
17,206,933
|
5,150,862,508
|
28,044,456(81.49%)
|
95.38%
|
AS2
|
18,932,766
|
5,662,683,094
|
33,455,901(88.35%)
|
95.99%
|
AS3
|
18,867,288
|
5,642,301,522
|
30,287,186(80.26%)
|
95.15%
|
OE1
|
19,035,256
|
5,692,305,426
|
32,389,468(85.08%)
|
95.83%
|
OE2
|
18,618,317
|
5,562,529,118
|
31,890,600(85.64%)
|
95.98%
|
OE3
|
18,741,785
|
5,604,250,638
|
30,808,961(82.19%)
|
95.97%
|
Analysis of DEGs. There were 409 DEGs between WT and AS, with 229 up-regulated genes (56%) and 180 down-regulated genes (44%). There were 887 DEGs between WT and OE. In comparison of WT and OE, there were 444 up-regulated genes, accounting for 50.1%, and 443 down-regulated genes, accounting for 49.9% (Table 4). Each group of DEGs was drawn into a Venn diagram (Fig. 4), the number of different genes shared between the two comparison groups was 76, and these DEGs and common genes were used as candidate genes for the exploration of related genes in subsequent experiments.
Table 4
Statistical table of number of different expression genes
DEG Set
|
DEG Number
|
Up-regulated
|
down-regulated
|
WT vs AS
|
409
|
229
|
180
|
WT vs OE
|
887
|
444
|
443
|
Transcriptome gene expression validation. Fluorescence quantitative PCR was used to analyze the gene expression profile obtained by transcriptome sequencing, and 5 genes were randomly selected to verify the transcriptome sequencing results. In this study, r2 > 0.8, the relative expression levels of candidate genes were highly correlated with transcriptome sequencing results, and the sequencing results were reliable (Fig. 5).
GO classification of DEGs. GO annotation was performed for DEGs. The biological processes (BP) were enriched in 17 GO terms. Cellular component (CC) is enriched to 15 GO terms. The molecular function (MF) was enriched to 12 GO terms. GO terms significantly enriched in WT vs AS in BP mainly include carbohydrate metabolism, lipid metabolism and tryptophan biosynthesis, etc. GO terms significantly enriched in WT vs AS in BP mainly include oxidoreductase activity, DNA binding and iron ion binding, etc. GO items significantly enriched in WT vs OE in BP mainly include RNA modification and pollen recognition, etc. while GO term significantly enriched in MF mainly includes heat shock factor binding protein and hydrolase activity, etc. (Fig. 6).
KEGG annotation of DEGs. Through Pathway enrichment analysis of all DEGs, in the top 20 pathways with the lowest significant Q value, WT vs AS were significantly enriched in up-regulated ex-pression of DEGs in starch and sucrose metabolism, phenylpropion biosynthesis, cysteine and methionine metabolism, carbon metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis and other pathways, significantly enriched in photosynthetic antenna protein, phenylpropion biosynthesis and other pathways of down-regulated DEGs. WT vs OE was significantly enriched in up-regulated DEGs in starch and sucrose metabolism, MAPK signaling pathway, amino acid biosynthesis and other pathways, and significantly enriched in photosynthesis, porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism and other pathways of down-regulated DEGs. (Fig. 7).