Abstract
Heat shock proteins (HSPs) perform significant roles in conferring abiotic stress tolerance to crop plants. In view of this, HSPs and their encoding genes were extensively characterized in several plant species; however, understanding their structure, organization, evolution and expression profiling in a naturally stress tolerant crop is necessary to delineate their precise roles in stress-responsive molecular machinery. In this context, the present study has been performed in C4 panicoid model, foxtail millet, which resulted in identification of 20, 9, 27, 20 and 37 genes belonging to SiHSP100, SiHSP90, SiHSP70, SiHSP60 and SisHSP families, respectively. Comprehensive in silico characterization of these genes followed by their expression profiling in response to dehydration, heat, salinity and cold stresses in foxtail millet cultivars contrastingly differing in stress tolerance revealed significant upregulation of several genes in tolerant cultivar. SisHSP-27 showed substantial higher expression in response to heat stress in tolerant cultivar, and its over-expression in yeast system conferred tolerance to several abiotic stresses. Methylation analysis of SiHSP genes suggested that, in susceptible cultivar, higher levels of methylation might be the reason for reduced expression of these genes during stress. Altogether, the study provides novel clues on the role of HSPs in conferring stress tolerance.
Introduction
Plants in the environment are exposed to several abiotic and biotic stresses which pose serious threat to their survival and productivity; however, plants are evolved with sophisticated molecular machinery to sense and circumvent the stresses. In response to abiotic stresses, plants produce several biomolecules called molecular chaperones, which function in protecting the cells from the adverse impact of stresses. A class of such molecular chaperones are called heat shock proteins (HSP), which are synthesized in response to several stresses including low temperature, osmotic, salinity, oxidative, desiccation, high intensity irradiations, wounding, and heavy metals stresses1,2,3. The role of HSPs during stress and unstressed conditions is regulation of protein folding and accumulation along with their localization and degradation4,5,6,7. Nevertheless, the precise role of HSPs in regulating the molecular mechanisms responsible for normal growth and development, and stress response remains elusive1.
In plants, HSPs are classified into five principal classes, namely, HSP100, HSP90, HSP70/DnaK, HSP60/GroE and small heat shock proteins (sHSP) based on their molecular weight8. In order to delineate the molecular roles of these HSPs, several studies on identification and characterization of HSPs and their corresponding genes were performed in plant species such as Arabidopsis, tomato and rice6,9,10,11. In rice, 10, 9, 26 and 29 HSPs were identified belonging to HSP100, HSP90, HSP70, and sHSPs, respectively. Expression profiling of these HSP encoding genes in response to heat, cold, drought and salt stresses showed their differential expression with significant upregulation of sHSP genes during heat stress6. Identification and expression profiling of sHSP genes in barley during drought stress was reported by Reddy et al.12. The study identified 20 sHSPs, which are shown to be differentially regulated in response to drought stress. A candidate sHSP protein, Hsp17.5-CI was expressed in E. coli, which showed in vitro chaperone activity12. Among poaceae members, analysis of HSPs was performed only in rice and barley; however, no comprehensive investigation has been conducted in the C4 panicoid model species, foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.).
Foxtail millet is a naturally abiotic stress tolerant crop, which is predominantly cultivated for food and fodder in arid and semi-arid regions of the world13. In consequence of its C4 photosynthetic trait, remarkable tolerance to drought, heat and salinity, and genetic close-relatedness to several bioenergy grasses, foxtail millet is considered as a model species for studying C4 photosynthesis, abiotic stress tolerance and biofuel traits, respectively14. Being a model crop, foxtail millet has gained popularity among millet research community and several comprehensive researches have been pursued to identify and characterize the role of important stress-responsive gene families including NAC, WD40, AP2/ERF, C2H2 zinc finger, MYB, DCL, AGO, RDR, WRKY and ADP-ribosylation factors in conferring abiotic stress tolerance15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24. But no reports are available till date on structure, organization, evolution and expression profiling of HSPs in response to abiotic stresses in this model crop. Therefore, the present study was conducted to identify the HSPs encoded in foxtail millet genome and characterize them using in silico tools, and analyze their expression patterns during stress treatments. Further, the study identified a potential candidate showing several fold upregulation in stress tolerant foxtail millet cultivar, and its heterologous over-expression in yeast system conferred tolerance to several abiotic stresses.
Results and Discussion
HSP gene families and their organization in foxtail millet
The study identified 22, 11, 32, 24 and 41 non-redundant proteins belonging to HSP100 (SiHSP100), HSP90 (SiHSP90), HSP70 (SiHSP70), HSP60 (SiHSP60) and sHSP (SisHSP) classes, respectively in foxtail millet. Among these, three genes from SiHSP100, SiHSP60 and SisHSP families produce splice variants. Further, alternate transcripts were produced by two genes from SiHSP90 and SiHSP70 families. Of these, maximum of three splice variants was produced by SiHSP70-10, whereas SiHSP100-10, SiHSP70-01, SiHSP60-08 and SisHSP-05 produced two alternate transcripts each (Supplementary Table 1). Removal of these alternate transcripts revealed the presence of 20, 9, 27, 20 and 37 primary transcripts belonging to SiHSP100, SiHSP90, SiHSP70, SiHSP60 and SisHSP families, respectively (Supplementary Table 1). In rice, 10, 9, 26 and 29 proteins of OsHSP100, OsHSP90, OsHSP70 and OssHSP families have been identified6, and in comparison to this, foxtail millet is found to encode more heat shock proteins than rice. Genes encoding these proteins were mapped onto nine chromosomes of foxtail millet to generate the physical map, which showed an uneven distribution of these genes in the genome (Fig. 1). Altogether, chromosome 9 was found to harbor a maximum of 22 genes (19.5%) and chromosome 8 had a minimum of 4 genes (3.5%). Examining the family-wise distribution of HSP genes showed that SiHSP100 genes were present on chromosomes 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9; SiHSP90 on chromosomes 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7; and, SiHSP60 on all the chromosomes except chromosome 8. SiHSP70 and SisHSP genes were present on all the nine chromosomes. The expansion of SiHSP gene families could be attributable to duplication events that have occurred in the genome, which could be tandem and/or segmental duplications. Examining the occurrence of these duplications among SiHSP gene families showed that four genes underwent tandem and segmental duplications (Supplementary Table 2). SisHSP12:SisHSP13, SiHSP70-16:SiHSP70-17, SiHSP90-07:SiHSP90-08, and SisHSP-35:SisHSP-36 were tandemly duplicated gene-pairs present on chromosomes 4, 5, 6 and 9, respectively; whereas SisHSP-22:SisHSP34, SiHSP60-03:SiHSP60-11, SiHSP90-02:SiHSP90-05, and SiHSP100-10:SiHSP100-11 were found to be segmentally duplicated gene-pairs (Fig. 1). The distance between tandemly duplicated genes ranged from ~0.4 kb (SisHSP-35: SisHSP-36) to ~101.4 kb (SiHSP70-16: SiHSP70-17) with an average of 30.6 kb.
Physical map showing chromosomal location of SiHSP genes in foxtail millet.
SiHSP genes were mapped onto nine chromosomes of foxtail millet and the physical map was generated. The vertical bars represent chromosomes with position of SiHSP genes on the left (in Mbp) and name of the gene on the right. Tandemly duplicated gene-pairs are highlighted in yellow and segmental duplications are shown by coloured lines.
Different classes of HSPs and their corresponding genes identified in foxtail millet were analyzed for their properties, which showed diverse variations that exists within the gene families. Variations in terms of gene length, number of introns and exons, protein length and their physico-chemical properties were evidenced in different classes of heat shock proteins (Supplementary Table 1; Supplementary Fig. 1). Among SiHSP100 family, the lengths of genes varied from 2692 bp (SiHSP100-03) to 7773 bp (SiHSP100-02), though the difference in gene length was not necessarily reflected in protein length as SiHSP100-13 was found to encode the largest protein (3491 amino acids; 30.95 kDa), but its gene length was 4290 bp. SiHSP100-19 encodes for the smallest protein of 1054 amino acids (100.56 kDa). SiHSP100-07 was found to encompass a maximum of 14 introns, whereas SiHSP100-03 and SiHSP100-13 possessed 2 introns only. In case of SiHSP90, the gene lengths varied between 2284 (SiHSP90-01) and 6896 (SiHSP90-03), with highest number of 19 introns in SiHSP90-03. Length of the proteins also varied with gene length, as SiHSP90-01 and SiHSP90-03 encode for smallest (414 amino acids; 47.28 kDa) and largest proteins (817 amino acids; 91.6 kDa), respectively.
Similarly, in SiHSP70 class, the smallest gene was SiHSP70-06 (1121 bp) and the largest was SiHSP70-02 (6104 bp). Distribution of introns and exons varied significantly with the variations in gene length, and the largest gene, SiHSP70-02, encompasses maximum of 13 introns, whereas eleven genes possess only one intron and SiHSP70-17 was intronless (Supplementary Fig. 1). The smallest protein of this class was SiHSP70-06 (295 amino acids; 32.3 kDa) and the largest protein was SiHSP70-02 (890 amino acids; 98.23 kDa). In case of SiHSP60 class genes, SiHSP60-17 was found to be smallest gene (3286 bp) and SiHSP60-05 was the largest (6713 bp). Compared to other HSP family members, SiHSP70 genes possess more introns, ranging from 0 (intron-less; SiHSP70-17) to 13 (SiHSP70-02) (Supplementary Fig. 1). Comparing the protein lengths of SiHSP60 proteins showed that SiHSP60-13 was the smallest (525 amino acids; 57.4 kDa), whereas SiHSP60-10 was the largest (655 amino acids; 70.94 kDa). Similarly, SisHSP class genes varied in length from 494 bp (SisHSP-21) to 3748 bp (SisHSP-28), with a variation in protein length ranging from 147 amino acids (SisHSP-14; 15.95 kDa) to 591 amino acids (SisHSP-28; 63.2 kDa). Contrasting to other SiHSP class genes, SisHSP genes possess a maximum of 2 introns, and a total of 13 genes were intronless (Supplementary Fig. 1). Compared to the data of homologs from other members of Poaceae, SiHSP members show a wide variation in length of gene and protein, intron-exon distribution, pI and molecular weight, which suggests the presence of putative novel variants among SiHSP members.
Phylogenetic classification and domain architecture of SiHSPs
Phylogenetic analysis followed by identification of different functional domains in SiHSPs enabled the classification of these proteins into different sub-classes (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 3). SiHSP100 class proteins were classified into four sub-classes (I to IV). Sub-classes II and III possess one or more domains belonging to AAA (ATPase family associated with various cellular activities), AAA_2 (Cdc48 subfamily), AAA_5 (dynein-related subfamily), Sigma54_activat (Sigma-54 interaction domain), Clp_N (Clp amino terminal domain, pathogenicity island component) and ClpB_D2-small (C-terminal, D2-small domain, of ClpB protein) domain. Proteins belonging to sub-class I possess an additional UVR (UvrB/uvrC motif) domain, whereas sub-class IV proteins have only Clp_N and ClpB_D2-small domains (Fig. 2A; Supplementary Table 3). Similarly, SiHSP70 proteins were classified into four sub-classes (I to IV), and all the members of SiHSP70 possess the conserved HSP70 domain (PF00012.17) and MreB_Mbl (MreB/Mbl protein) domain. However, MreB_Mbl domain was absent in SiHSP70-06 and SiHSP70-07 proteins, and interestingly, SiHSP70-07 has three HSP70 domains (Fig. 2B; Supplementary Table 3). The phylogenetic analysis classified SiHSP60 proteins into three sub-classes (I to III), and all the proteins of this family were found to possess the conserved Cpn60_TCP1 (TCP-1/cpn60 chaperonin family) domain (Fig. 2C; Supplementary Table 3). In case of SiHSP90s, the phylogenetic tree classified the proteins into two sub-classes (I and II) with 4 and 5 proteins, respectively, in each sub-class. Domain analysis revealed the presence of two domains, namely, HSP90 and HATPase_c (Histidine kinase-, DNA gyrase B-, and HSP90-like ATPase). Although all the SiHSP90 proteins possess the conserved HSP90 domain, HATPase_c domain is absent in SiHSP90-01 and SiHSP90-06. Noteworthy, SiHSP90-01 has two HSP90 domains (Fig. 2D; Supplementary Table 3). SisHSP family proteins were classified into three major sub-classes with 18, 10 and 8 proteins, respectively, in each sub-class. All the proteins of this class have the conserved HSP20 (Hsp20/alpha crystallin family) domain. As exceptions, SisHSP-28 has two HSP20 domains, and SiHSP-27 has an additional CS domain (Fig. 2E; Supplementary Table 3). The phylogenetic trees also showed that duplicated gene-pairs were grouped together into single clade with strong bootstrap support (Fig. 2).
Phylogenetic relationship of SiHSP proteins.
Unrooted phylogenetic tree deduced by neighbor-joining method showing the phylogenetic relationship and classification of (A) HSP100, (B) HSP70, (C) HSP60, (D) HSP90, and (E) sHSP proteins. Sub-classes are shaded in different colours.
Cis-regulatory elements in promoter region of SiHSP genes
In silico analysis of cis-regulatory elements in the promoter region of all SiHSP genes revealed the presence of 293 different cis-elements in the upstream region of these genes (Table 1; Supplementary Table 4). In SiHSP100 genes, a total of 220 cis-elements were detected, of which many were present in all the 20 SiHSP100 genes and a few were uniquely present in any one gene. Cis-elements including ABRE3HVA22 (SiHSP100-13), ANAERO5CONSENSUS (SiHSP100-14), EMBP1TAEM (SiHSP100-07) and OPAQUE2ZMB32 (SiHSP100-18) were unique to SiHSP100 genes. In case of SiHSP90 genes, 190 cis-elements were identified to be present in the promoter region, of which, AGCBOXNPGLB, ANAERO4CONSENSUS, GADOWNAT, LTRE1HVBLT49 and TRANSINITDICOTS were present only in SiHSP90-02, SiHSP90-07, SiHSP90-04, SiHSP90-05 and SiHSP90-09, respectively (Table 1). Similarly, in SiHSP70 genes, a total of 237 cis-elements were detected, of which, ABREDISTBBNNAPA, ACGTABOX, AUXREPSIAA4, CACGCAATGMGH3, E2FAT, GCBP2ZMGAPC4 and SURE2STPAT21 were uniquely present in SiHSP70-18, SiHSP70-26, SiHSP70-22, SiHSP70-10, SiHSP70-08, SiHSP70-01 and SiHSP70-12 genes, respectively.
In case of SiHSP60 family genes, 218 cis-elements were present in the promoter region. In this family, ABREMOTIFAOSOSEM (SiHSP60-04), ACIPVPAL2 (SiHSP60-13), AMMORESIIUDCRNIA1 (SiHSP60-12), ARE1 (SiHSP60-09), MNF1ZMPPC1 (SiHSP60-17), OCTAMOTIF2 (SiHSP60-10), RGATAOS (SiHSP60-11) and SITEIOSPCNA (SiHSP60-05) are uniquely present in SiHSP60 genes. A total of 248 cis-elements were detected in the upstream region of SisHSP genes. Among these, ABREBZMRAB28, ANAERO5CONSENSUS, CEREGLUBOX1PSLEGA, HY5AT, OCTAMOTIF2, PIATGAPB and VOZATVPP were present only in SisHSP-10, SisHSP-34, SisHSP-21, SisHSP-24, SisHSP-11, SisHSP-17 and SisHSP-28 genes, respectively (Table 1; Supplementary Table 4).
Comparative mapping of SiHSP genes in sequenced grass genomes
In order to derive the orthologous relationship between HSP genes of foxtail millet and other sequenced grass genomes including sorghum, maize, rice and Brachypodium, comparative genome mapping was performed (Fig. 3). A total of 86 SiHSP genes (~76%) belonging to different families showed orthologous relationships with other crops, where maximum synteny was observed between foxtail millet and sorghum (84 genes; ~98%), followed by maize (76 genes; ~88%), rice (65 genes; ~75.5%) and Brachypodium (47 genes; ~54.6%) (Supplementary Table 5). In case of foxtail millet-sorghum synteny, all the genes present in chromosome 1 of foxtail millet showed 100% orthology with sorghum chromosome 4. Similarly, genes present in foxtail millet chromosomes 5 and 9 showed 100% orthology and synteny with sorghum chromosomes 3 and 1, respectively. Similar observation was reported by Puranik et al.15 where SiNAC genes on foxtail millet chromosome 6 showed 100% collinearity to sorghum chromosome 7. Though similar observations could not be made in foxtail millet-maize synteny, SiHSP genes on chromosome 1 of foxtail millet showed 100% synteny with rice chromosome 2. However, difference in the orientation of genes was observed in the present study, which may be attributed to nested chromosomal fusion that has frequently occurred in these genomes during the course of evolution. Further, decrease in number of orthologous genes between foxtail millet-sorghum (~98%), -maize (~88%), -rice (~75.5%) and -Brachypodium (~54.6%) reveals the close-evolutionary relationship of foxtail millet with sorghum and maize, followed by rice and Brachypodium. This is in agreement with the comparative maps developed using NAC15, WD4016, AP2/ERF17, C2H2 zinc finger and MYB transcription factors18,19, DCL, AGO and RDR20, 14-3-321, secondary cell wall genes and WRKY transcription factors22,23, and ADP-ribosylation factor24 gene families of foxtail millet.
Comparative physical mapping of SiHSP genes.
Orthologous relationship of foxtail millet SiHSP genes distributed on nine chromosomes (Si) with the genes of sorghum (Sb), maize (Zm), rice (Os) and Brachypodium (Bd). The coloured blocks represent the chromosomes.
Duplication and divergence rates of paralogous and orthologous genes
To deduce the effect of Darwinian selection in duplication and divergence of HSP genes, the ratios of rate of non-synonymous substitution (Ka) to synonymous substitution (Ks) for paralogous as well as orthologous gene-pairs were estimated (Supplementary Tables 2 and 5). The ratios of Ka/Ks for tandemly duplicated gene-pairs ranged from 0.09 to 0.1 with an average of 0.1, and segmentally duplicated gene-pairs ranged from 0.06 to 0.1 (with an average of 0.1), which demonstrated that the genes were under strong purifying selection pressure (Ka/Ks < 1). The estimated time of divergence for tandemly and segmentally duplicated genes were ~26 and ~23 million years ago (mya) (Supplementary Table 2). These concords to the whole genome tandem and segmental duplications which were estimated to have occurred around 25–27 and 18–22 mya25. Similarly, average Ka/Ks ratios for orthologous gene-pairs between foxtail millet-sorghum, -maize, -rice and -Brachypodium were estimated to be 0.2, 0.3, 0.6 and 0.4, respectively (Supplementary Table 5). Relatively higher Ka/Ks ratio between foxtail millet and rice could be due to the occurrence of synonymous substitutions at higher rate, whereas Ka/Ks ratio was minimum between foxtail millet and sorghum. This showed that the gene-pairs between foxtail millet and sorghum were under intense purifying selection when compared to foxtail millet-maize, -rice and -Brachypodium. The estimated divergence time of foxtail millet-sorghum gene-pairs was ~18 mya, whereas the time of divergence for foxtail millet-maize, -rice and -Brachypodium were ~20, ~37 and ~57 mya. These results are comparable to genome-wide evolutionary studies performed with several stress-responsive gene families, where the time of divergence between foxtail millet-sorghum, -maize, -rice and -Brachypodium were estimated as ~27, ~34 and ~55 mya15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24.
Expression profiles of SiHSP genes
RNA-seq derived expression level of all the 113 SiHSP genes in four tissues namely, leaf, stem, root and spica and drought stress library was investigated (Fig. 4). The heat map revealed differential expression pattern of the genes in tissues and in response to drought stress. Many genes were observed to be highly expressed in all the tissues and stress, particularly, the members of SiHSP60 family showed several fold higher expression in all the four tissues as well as in response to drought stress. Their upregulated expression in these samples suggests their role as chaperones which participate in the folding and aggregation of proteins that are mobilized to organelles including chloroplasts and mitochondria26,27. Similarly, significant number of genes belonging to SiHSP90 and SiHSP70 have also showed up-regulation in all the tissues as well as in stress. Stress-specific upregulation of SiHSP60-04, SisHSP-07, SisHSP-07, SisHSP-21, SisHSP-22 and SisHSP-30 was also observed, which suggests the putative involvement of these genes in stress-responsive molecular processes. Few genes did not show any expression in tissues as well as drought stress, which may mean that these genes might have roles in response to other stresses. Nevertheless, further functional characterization is necessary to conclude the putative involvement of these genes in stress-regulatory machinery.
Heat map showing the expression pattern of SiHSP genes.
Expression pattern of all the 113 SiHSP genes in four tissues namely, root, leaf, spica and stem, and drought stress library of foxtail millet is shown. The coloured bar at bottom right represents relative expression value, where 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 denotes low, medium and high expression, respectively.
Based on the RNA-seq derived expression profiles, thirty-seven candidate genes showing stress-specific expression, tissue-specific expression, higher expression in all the four tissues, and/or no expression in all the four tissues were chosen for qRT-PCR analysis. These genes also represent all the five classes of HSP and nine chromosomes of foxtail millet. Expression pattern of these genes in response to four different stresses (dehydration, heat, salinity and cold) at three time-points (1 h, 6 h and 24 h) in two tissues (stem and leaf) of contrasting cultivars (IC-4, stress tolerant; IC-41, susceptible) was examined using qRT-PCR (Fig. 5; Supplementary Table 6). The results showed the differential expression of these genes in response to the stresses. Most of the genes were late responsive to dehydration stress as their expression level reached maximum at 24 h of dehydration treatment. There was distinct differential expression of SisHSP-02, SisHSP-07, SisHSP-08 and SiHSP70-15 gene in leaf as well as stem of susceptible and tolerant cultivars. The study showed that maximum of genes was induced in stem as compared to leaf in response to dehydration treatment in both the cultivars. SisHSP-27, SisHSP-30, SiHSP60-14, SiHSP70-24, SiHSP90-05, SiHSP100-07, SiHSP100-08 and SiHSP100-16 were highly in stem compared to leaf, suggesting that HSP genes have prominent roles in stem than leaf during dehydration stress.
Expression profile of candidate SiHSP genes in response to abiotic stress treatments.
Heat map showing differential gene expression in response four different stresses (dehydration, heat, salinity and cold) at three time-points (1 h, 6 h and 24 h) in two tissues (stem and leaf) of contrasting foxtail millet cultivars (IC-4 – stress tolerant, and IC-41 – susceptible). (A) Susceptible stem, (B) Tolerant stem, (C) Susceptible leaf, and (D) Tolerant leaf. The heat-map has been generated based on the fold-change values in the treated sample when compared with its treated control sample. The color scale for fold-change values is shown at the top, where 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 denotes low, medium and high expression, respectively.
During heat stress, many genes were observed to be upregulated in both stem and leaf of tolerant cultivar of foxtail millet (Fig. 5). Most of the small heat shock proteins showed higher expression in leaf tissue at early stage of heat stress. SisHSP-15 (~9–200 fold), SisHSP-25 (~28–86 fold), SisHSP-26 (~6–20 fold) and SisHSP-27 (~3–31 fold) were upregulated to several folds after 1 h and 6 h of heat treatment in leaf of tolerant cultivar. Other genes including SiHSP60-05 (~5–8 fold), SiHSP60-20 (~3–17 fold), SiHSP70-06 (~4–10 fold), SiHSP100-11 (~7–35 fold) and SiHSP100-20 (~5–6 fold) showed higher expression at early induction of heat in both the tissues of tolerant cultivar. SisHSP-30 appeared to be a late responsive gene as it is highly expressed (~17–48 fold) after 24 h of heat stress in both leaf and stem of IC-4 cultivar. Although few heat induced genes such as SiHSP70-06 (up to 19 fold) and SiHSP100-18 (up to 9 fold) were highly expressed only in stem, the genes SiHSP70-01, SiHSP70-16, SiHSP70-19, SiHSP70-21 and SiHSP70-24 were expressed uniformly after heat induction in leaf and stem of both tolerant and susceptible cultivars (Fig. 5).
Expression profiling of SiHSP genes in response to salinity stress indicated that most of the genes were induced uniformly in both leaf and stem of tolerant cultivar compared to susceptible cultivar. Interestingly, SisHSP-02 (5 fold), SiHSP60-02 (380 fold), SiHSP60-20 (26 fold), SiHSP70-16 (87 fold), SiHSP70-24 (148 fold), SiHSP90-02 (62 fold), SiHSP90-03 (57 fold), SiHSP100-16 (102 fold), SiHSP100-18 (77 fold) and SiHSP100-20 (164 fold) were highly expressed in both the tissues of tolerant cultivar at all the three time-points (Fig. 5). This is in contrast to the results observed in response to heat and dehydration stresses where most of the genes were upregulated in leaf and stem, respectively. Few genes including SiHSP60-14 (124 fold), SiHSP70-04 (48 fold), SiHSP90-09 (55 fold), SiHSP100-07 (158 fold) and SiHSP100-08 (115 fold) were upregulated in stem of IC-4, whereas, SisHSP-08 (13 fold) and SiHSP70-15 (14 fold) were highly expressed in leaf of this cultivar.
In response to cold stress, most of the SiHSP genes were found to be upregulated in both tolerant and susceptible cultivars, and only a lesser number of genes showed differential expression pattern (Fig. 5). Further, the number of genes induced upon cold treatment in stem is higher than the leaf in tolerant cultivar. Similar pattern was observed in leaf tissues of susceptible cultivar, where the number of upregulated genes were higher than tolerant cultivar. Several genes including SisHSP-02 (1723 fold), SisHSP-07 (489 fold), SisHSP-15 (349 fold), SisHSP-25 (351 fold), SisHSP26 (54 fold), SiHSP60-03 (3353 fold), SiHSP60-05 (153.5 fold), SiHSP70-16 (222 fold), SiHSP70-19 (119 fold), SiHSP70-21 (55 fold), SiHSP70-24 (203 fold), SiHSP90-09 (184 fold), SiHSP100-07 (167 fold), SiHSP100-11 (106 fold) and SiHSP100-18 (32 fold) were upregulated in both the cultivars in response to cold stress. Few genes including SisHSP-08, SiHSP60-13 and SiHSP100-08 were expressed solely in the stem of tolerant cultivar, whereas SiHSP70-15 is the only gene which showed differential expression pattern in both the tissues of both the cultivars.
Taken together, several genes including SisHSP-15, SisHSP-25, SisHSP-27, SiHSP60-02, SiHSP70-06, SiHSP70-16, SiHSP70-19, SiHSP70-24, SiHSP90-09, SiHSP100-11, SiHSP100-12 and SiHSP100-18 showed upregulation in response to abiotic stresses either in leaf or stem or in both tissues. The study suggests that these genes might have the potential to play an important role in abiotic stress-responsive molecular machinery. Importantly, SisHSP-27 has shown 35-fold upregulation in response to heat stress in tolerant cultivar after one hour of stress treatment (Supplementary Table 6). The relative fold of expression level of SisHSP-27 in IC-4 heat-stressed leaf sample was ~31 fold, while it was only 0.04 fold in IC-41. In 24 h sample, the relative expression in IC-4 declined to 0.95 and 10.6 folds in stem and leaf samples, respectively, while in the case of IC-41, 1.54 and 0.004-fold expression was observed in stem and leaf, respectively. Based on the qRT-PCR results, SisHSP-27 was chosen for over-expression and abiotic stress assay in yeast system.
Heterologous expression of SisHSP-27 in yeast and methylation status of SiHSP genes
The growth rate of Sishsp27-transformed (pYES2-Sishsp27) S. cerevisiae cells exposed to different abiotic stresses (heat, dehydration and salinity stress) was found to be superior to the growth rate of control (pYES2-0) transformed cells (Fig. 6). pYES2-Sishsp27 recombinant S. cerevisiae cells were able to grow better at elevated temperature (50 °C), in the presence of 2.5 M NaCl and 30% PEG; however, the transformed cells did not show any significant growth in cold (−20 °C) stress. During heat and dehydration stresses, the differential growth rate between pYES2-Sishsp27 transformed and only control pYES2 transformed yeast cells was significantly higher than salinity stress. These observations indicate that Sishsp27 was induced upon galactose induction in functionally active yeast cells and improved tolerance to heat, salinity and dehydration. Earlier reports have shown that overexpression of sHSP genes enhances the tolerance of plants to abiotic stresses. A small heat shock protein, limHSP16.45 from David lily overexpressed in Arabidopsis confers tolerance to heat, salinity and oxidative stress28. Arabidopsis overexpressing OsHSP18.2 demonstrated high seed vigor, and longevity by reducing ROS accumulation in seed and better performance of seed in germination under abiotic stresses29.
Spot assay of yeast (W303) cells on SD/-ura basal medium.
Growth of control pYES2 and Sishsp27-pYES2 transformed yeast cells under different stress conditions.
Further, to understand the effect of methylation in regulation of gene expression, a genome-wide DNA methylation study was performed in both IC-4 and IC-41 cultivars (unpublished data). The methylation analysis of SiHSP genes showed that the extent of cytosine methylation in genic region was greater than promoter region in both the cultivars under non-stress condition. Further, CpG methylation is most abundant than CHG and CHH methylation in both the cultivars. DNA methylation is an epigenetic mechanism equipped by cells to control gene expression in specific conditions as hyper-methylated genes show lower expression than hypo-methylated genes30. Many of the abiotic stress induced SiHSP genes showed lesser genic methylation in the tolerant cultivar than the susceptible cultivar (Fig. 7; Supplementary Table S7). For example, SisHSP-27 was upregulated in response to heat, salinity, cold and dehydration stress in tolerant cultivar. The DNA methylation level in genic region of tolerant cultivar is comparatively less than susceptible cultivar in non-stress conditions. Though the results suggest that the higher methylation in SiHSP-27 gene in susceptible cultivar might be the reason for their reduced expression in stress conditions, further functional characterization is required to validate this hypothesis.
Number of cytosine methylation in SiHSP genes which showed differentially expression in response to abiotic stress in foxtail millet.
(A) Number of cytosine methylation in gene body, (B) Number of cytosine methylation in TSS region.
Conclusion
The increasing threat of global warming poses serious threat to survival and productivity of crop plants, and therefore, framing appropriate strategies to circumvent these challenges to ensure yield is necessary. Heat and drought are the immediate outcomes of global warming, and plants naturally produce heat shock proteins to perform various molecular and physiological functions in order to withstand the stresses. In view of these, several heat shock protein families have been characterized in many crop plants; however, understanding the structure, organization, evolution and expression pattern of these proteins in a naturally stress tolerant crop would be rewarding. Therefore, the present study was conducted in the C4 panicoid model crop, foxtail millet and HSP100, HSP90, HSP70, HSP60 and sHSP proteins and their encoding genes were identified. In addition to several in silico analyses, expression profiling of these genes in response to abiotic stresses provided novel clues on putative role of these genes in stress-responsive molecular machinery. Several fold up-regulation of SisHSP-27 in response to heat and salinity stress in stress tolerant cultivar hinted the role of this gene in conferring stress tolerance. Therefore, the gene was over-expressed in yeast, and interestingly, yeast cells transformed with SisHSP-27 demonstrated tolerance to several abiotic stresses. Presently, over-expression of this gene in foxtail millet and rice systems is in progress, and if successful, the study will delineate the role of this novel gene in conferring durable stress tolerance.
Materials and Methods
Plant materials and stress treatments
Seeds of salt and dehydration tolerant foxtail millet cultivar ‘IC-403579’ (IC-4) and susceptible cultivar ‘IC-480117’ (IC-41) were used in the present study17,20,22. The seeds were grown in a plant growth chamber (PGC-6L; Percival Scientific Inc., USA) under following conditions; 28 ± 1 °C day/23 ± 1 °C night/70 ± 5% relative humidity with a photoperiod of 14 h and a photosynthetic photon flux density of 500 μmol m−2 s−1. The plants were watered daily with one-third strength Hoagland’s solution17. For abiotic stress treatments, 21-day-old seedlings were exposed 250 mM NaCl (salt), 20% PEG 6000 (dehydration), 4 °C (cold) and 45 °C (heat). Stem and leaf tissues were collected at 1 h, 6 h and 24 h post-stress treatments. Untreated tissues were maintained as controls. All the tissues were immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen after harvesting and stored at −80 °C until RNA isolation.
RNA isolation, cDNA synthesis and qRT-PCR analysis
Total RNA was isolated using Trizol reagent as described by the procedure of Longeman et al.31, and treated with RNase-free DNase I (50 U/μl; Fermentas, USA). Quality and purity of isolated RNA was checked using NanoDrop 1000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, USA) [OD260:OD280 nm absorption ratio (1.8–2.0)] and the integrity was ascertained by resolving on 1.5% agarose gel containing 18% formaldehyde. One microgram (1 μg) of total RNA was reverse transcribed to first strand cDNA by anchored oligo dT priming and random priming using Thermo Scientific Verso cDNA synthesis kit following manufacturer’s instructions. qRT- PCR analysis was performed in StepOne™ Real-Time PCR Systems (Applied Biosystems, USA) following the reaction profile of Kumar et al.32 using the primers mentioned in Supplementary Table 8. The experiment was performed in three technical replicates for each biological duplicate. The amount of transcripts accumulated for SiHSP genes normalized to the internal control Act2 was analysed using 2−ΔΔCt method32. The PCR efficiency was calculated as: Efficiency = 10(−1/slope) −1 by the default software (Applied Biosystems, USA). Final heat map was generated representing log Ct values for respective gene and tissue using MeV4 software33.
Heterologous expression of SisHSP-27 in yeast and stress tolerance assay
Full length coding region of SisHSP-27 gene (640 bp) was PCR amplified from foxtail millet cDNA library using forward (5′-CGGGATCCATGGCCACTGCGTCTAGG; flanked by Bam HI site) and reverse primers (5′-CGGAATTCTCACATCTCGGCTTTGGACG; flanked by Eco RI site), and cloned into pYES2 (Invitrogen, USA). Both pYES2-SisHSP-27 and pYES2 alone (without insert) were individually transformed into Saccharomyces cerevisiae W303 using Yeastmaker Yeast Transformation System (Clontech). Transformants were screened by growth of colonies on SD/-ura medium with 2% (w/v) dextrose at 30 °C for 3 days.
Abiotic stress tolerance studies in transformed yeast cells were performed as described by Li et al.30 with minor modifications. Yeast cells harboring pYES2-SisHSP-27 and empty pYES2 vector were incubated in SD/-ura broth medium containing 2% dextrose for 24 h at 30 °C. After incubation, OD600 of cultured cells was adjusted to 0.4 to contain an equal number of cells. Around 500 μL of the culture were resuspended in 10 mL of induction medium (SD/-ura broth supplemented with 2% galactose w/v) and incubated at 30 °C for 36 h to promote the expression of SisHSP-27 gene. After incubation, OD600 of the cultures were adjusted to 0.6 and 500 μL of culture was added to 10 mL of SD/-ura medium and incubated at 50 °C in water bath (heat stress) and −20 °C alcohol bath (cold stress) for 24 h. For salinity and dehydration stresses, yeast cells were grown in SD/-ura medium supplemented with 2.5 M NaCl and 30% PEG, respectively, and incubated at 30 °C for 36 h. After stress treatments, cultures were serially diluted (100, 10−1, 10−2, 10−3, 10−4) and 7 μL of each diluted cells were spotted on basal SD/-ura medium (supplemented with 2% w/v dextrose) and incubated at 30 °C for 3 days. For control, an equivalent number of unstressed cells suspended in SD/-ura broth were spotted on SD/-ura plates.
Identification and analysis of genes encoding HSPs (SiHSPs) and phylogenetic analysis
Protein sequences of HSPs reported in Oryza sativa6, Arabidopsis thaliana9 and Hordeum vulgare12 were retrieved and HMM profile was prepared individually for each HSP class using HMMER suite34. The HMM profiles were then queried against foxtail millet protein database retrieved from Phytozome (https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov/) with the inclusion threshold 0.01. The proteins falling within this threshold limit were considered as probable HSPs and redundant sequences removed. All predicted proteins were confirmed through HMMSCAN (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/hmmer/search/hmmscan) and CDD search (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Structure/cdd/wrpsb.cgi). Information regarding gene, transcript, CDS and amino acid sequence of identified HSPs along with their chromosomal locations were retrieved from Phytozome.
All the identified HSPs except small HSPs were annotated with prefix ‘Si’ (Setaria italica), suffix ‘100, 90, 70 or 60’ based on their type and numbered according to the ascending order of chromosomal location ranging from short-arm telomere to long-arm telomere. For small HSPs (sHSP), the prefix ‘Si’ and suffix denoting their number was given. The physico-chemical properties of each HSP was performed using ExPASy - ProtParam tool (http://web.expasy.org/protparam/). Gene structure of HSP encoding genes (SiHSPs) was predicted using Gene Structure Display Server v2.0 (http://gsds.cbi.pku.edu.cn/). Physical map showing the chromosomal location of SiHSPs was constructed using MapChart v2.335.
For phylogenetic analysis, the protein sequences of each class were individually imported into MEGA v6.0636, and multiple sequence alignment was performed using ClustalW under default parameters. The alignment file was then used for constructing phylogenetic tree following Neighbor-Joining method using default parameters with 1000 bootstrap iterations.
Promoter analysis, comparative genome mapping, and duplication and divergence analysis
Two kilobase nucleotide sequences upstream to each SiHSP gene were retrieved from Phytozome and analyzed for the presence of cis-regulatory elements using PlantCARE database (http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/). The gene sequences of physically mapped SiHSPs were BLASTN searched against the nucleotide database of sorghum, maize, rice and Brachypodium available at Phytozome under default parameters, and hits with 80% homology were chosen for reciprocal BLAST. Significant orthologs were selected for constructing comparative map using Circos v0.55 (http://circos.ca/).
Paralogous gene-pairs that have evolved due to segmental and tandem duplications were analyzed using MCScanX tool37. The ratios of non-synonymous (Ka) substitution to synonymous (Ks) substitution of paralogous and orthologous gene-pairs were calculated by PAL2NAL38, and time of duplication and divergence was estimated using a synonymous mutation rate of λ substitutions per synonymous site per year as T = Ks/2λ (λ = 6.5 × 10−9)39.
RNA-seq derived expression profiling and methylation analysis of SiHSP genes
The RNA-seq data of four tissues namely, root (SRX128223), stem (SRX128225), leaf (SRX128224) and spica (SRX128226), and a drought stress library (SRR629694) as well as control (SRR629695) were retrieved from European Nucleotide Archive (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena). The reads were processed to generate RPKM following Mishra et al.16 and heat map was displayed using MeV v4.933.
Total genomic DNA of foxtail millet cultivars ‘IC-403579’ and ‘IC-480117’ were sonicated and the fragmented DNA was end-repaired and ligated with adapters following manufacturer’s instructions (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Sodium bisulfite treatment was given to purified DNA fragments and the sample was PCR amplified using adapter specific primers. The amplified DNA was used to prepare library and sequenced by Illumina Genome Analyzer (GAIIx) according to manufacturer’s instructions. Raw reads were analysed using Bismark tool40.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Singh, R. K. et al. Genome-wide analysis of heat shock proteins in C4 model, foxtail millet identifies potential candidates for crop improvement under abiotic stress. Sci. Rep. 6, 32641; doi: 10.1038/srep32641 (2016).
References
Swindell, W. R., Huebner, M. & Weber, A. P. Transcriptional profiling of Arabidopsis heat shock proteins and transcription factors reveals extensive overlap between heat and non-heat stress response pathways. BMC Genomics 8, 125 (2007).
Al-Whaibi, M. H. Plant heat-shock proteins: A mini review. J King Saud Uni – Sci. 23, 139–150 (2011).
Xu, Y., Zhan, C. & Huang, B. Heat Shock Proteins in Association with Heat Tolerance in Grasses. Int. J. Proteomics 2011, 529648 (2011).
Feder, M. E. & Hofmann, G. E. Heat-shock proteins, molecular chaperones, and stress response: evolutionary and ecological physiology. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 61, 243–282 (1999).
Panaretou, B. & Zhai, C. The heat shock proteins: their roles as multi-component machines for protein folding. Fungal Biol. Rev. 22, 110–119 (2008).
Hu, W., Hu, G. & Han, B. Genome-wide survey and expression profiling of heat shock proteins and heat shock factors revealed overlapped and stress specific response under abiotic stresses in rice. Plant Sci. 176, 583–590 (2009).
Tripp, J., Mishra, S. K. & Scharf, K.-D. Functional dissection of the cytosolic chaperone network in tomato mesophyll protoplasts. Plant Cell Environ. 32, 123–133 (2009).
Wang, W., Vinocur, B., Shoseyov, O. & Altman, A. Role of plant heat-shock proteins and molecular chaperones in the abiotic stress response. Trends Plant Sci. 9, 244–252 (2004).
Sung, D. Y., Vierling, E. & Guy, C. L. Comprehensive expression profile analysis of the Arabidopsis hsp70 gene family. Plant Physiol. 126, 789–800 (2001).
Siddique, M., Gernhard, S., Von Koskull-Döring, P., Vierling, E. & Scharf, K. D. The plant sHSP superfamily: five new members in Arabidopsis thaliana with unexpected properties. Cell Stress Chaperones 13, 183–197 (2008).
Scharf, K. D., Siddique, M. & Vierling, E. The expanding family of Arabidopsis thaliana small heat stress proteins and a new family of proteins containing α-crystallin domains (Acd proteins). Cell Stress Chaperones 6, 225–237 (2001).
Reddy, P. S. et al. Unraveling Regulation of the Small Heat Shock Proteins by the Heat Shock Factor HvHsfB2c in Barley: Its Implications in Drought Stress Response and Seed Development. PLoS One 9, e89125 (2014).
Lata, C., Gupta, S. & Prasad, M. Foxtail millet: a model crop for genetic and genomic studies in bioenergy grasses. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 33, 328–343 (2013).
Muthamilarasan, M. & Prasad, M. Advances in Setaria genomics for genetic improvement of cereals and bioenergy grasses. Theor. Appl. Genet. 128, 1–14 (2015).
Puranik, S. et al. Comprehensive genome-wide survey, genomic constitution and expression profiling of the NAC transcription factor family in foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.). PLoS One 8, e64594 (2013).
Mishra, A. K., Muthamilarasan, M., Khan, Y., Parida, S. K. & Prasad, M. Genome-wide investigation and expression analyses of WD40 protein family in the model plant foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.). PLoS One 9, e86852 (2014).
Lata, C. et al. Genome-wide investigation and expression profiling of AP2/ERF transcription factor superfamily in foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.). PLoS One 9, e113092 (2014).
Muthamilarasan, M. et al. C2H2 type of zinc finger transcription factors in foxtail millet define response to abiotic stresses. Funct. Integr. Genomics 14, 531–543 (2014).
Muthamilarasan, M. et al. Identification and molecular characterization of MYB transcription factor superfamily in C4 model plant foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.). PLoS One 9, e109920 (2014).
Yadav, C. B., Muthamilarasan, M., Pandey, G. & Prasad, M. Identification, characterization and expression profiling of Dicer-like, Argonaute and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene families in foxtail millet. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 33, 43–55 (2015).
Kumar, K., Muthamilarasan, M., Bonthala, V. S., Roy, R. & Prasad, M. Unraveling 14-3-3 proteins in C4 panicoids with emphasis on model plant Setaria italica reveals phosphorylation-dependent subcellular localization of RS splicing factor. PLoS One 10, e0123236 (2015).
Muthamilarasan, M. et al. Global analysis of WRKY transcription factor superfamily in Setaria identifies potential candidates involved in abiotic stress signaling. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 910 (2015).
Muthamilarasan, M., Mangu, V. R., Zandkarimi, H., Prasad, M. & Baisakh, N. Structure, organization and evolution of ADP-ribosylation factors in rice and foxtail millet, and their expression in rice. Sci. Rep. 6, 24008 (2016).
Muthamilarasan, M. et al. Integrative analysis and expression profiling of secondary cell wall genes in C4 biofuel model Setaria italica reveals targets for lignocellulose bioengineering. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 965 (2015).
Zhang, G. et al. Genome sequence of foxtail millet (Setaria italica) provides insights into grass evolution and biofuel potential. Nature Biotech. 30, 549–554 (2012).
Lubben, T. et al. Several proteins imported into chloroplasts form stable complexes with the GroEL-related chloroplast molecular chaperone. Plant Cell 1, 1223–1230 (1989).
Suzuki, K. et al. Plastid chaperonin proteins Cpn60α and Cpn60β are required for plastid division in Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Plant Biol. 9, 38 (2009).
Mu, C. et al. Overexpression of Small Heat Shock Protein LimHSP16.45 in Arabidopsis Enhances Tolerance to Abiotic Stresses. PLoS ONE 8, e82264 (2013).
Kaur, H. et al. Differentially expressed seed aging responsive heat shock protein OsHSP18.2 implicates in seed vigor, longevity and improves germination and seedling establishment under abiotic stress. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 713 (2015).
Xing, M. Q. et al. Global Analysis Reveals the Crucial Roles of DNA Methylation during Rice Seed Development. Plant Physiol. 168, 1417–1432 (2015).
Longeman, J., Schell, J. & Willmitzer, L. Improved method for the isolation of RNA from plant tissues. Anal. Biochem. 163, 16–20 (1987).
Kumar, K., Muthamilarasan, M. & Prasad, M. Reference genes for quantitative real-time PCR analysis in the model plant foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) subjected to abiotic stress conditions. Plant Cell. Tiss. Organ. Cult. 115, 13–22 (2013).
Saeed, A. I. et al. TM4: a free, open-source system for microarray data management and analysis. Biotechniques 34, 374–378 (2003).
Finn, R. D. et al. HMMER web server: 2015 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, W30–W38 (2015).
Voorrips, R. E. MapChart: software for the graphical presentation of linkage maps and QTLs. J. Hered. 93, 77–78 (2002).
Tamura, K., Stecher, G., Peterson, D., Filipski, A. & Kumar, S. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 6.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 2725–2729 (2013).
Wang, Y. et al. MCScanX: a toolkit for detection and evolutionary analysis of gene synteny and collinearity. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e49 (2012).
Suyama, M., Torrents, D. & Bork, P. PAL2NAL: robust conversion of protein sequence alignments into the corresponding codon alignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, W609–W612 (2006).
Lynch, M. & Conery, J. S. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290, 1151–1155 (2000).
Krueger, F. & Andrews, S. R. Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications. Bioinformatics 27, 1571–1572 (2011).
Shen, Q. & Ho, T. H. D. Functional dissection of an abscisic acid(ABA)-inducible gene reveals two independent ABA-responsive complexes each containing a G-box and a novel cis-acting element. Plant Cell 7, 295–307 (1995).
Busk, P. K. & Pages, M. Protein binding to the abscisic acid-responsive element is independent of VIVIPAROUS1 in vivo. Plant Cell 9, 2261–2270 (1997).
Ezcurra, I., Ellerstrom, M., Wycliffe, P., Stalberg, K. & Rask, L. Interaction between composite elements in the napA promoter: both the B-box ABA-responsive complex and the RY/G complex are necessary for seed-specific expression. Plant Mol. Biol. 40, 699–709 (1999).
Hattori, T., Terada, T. & Hamasuna, S. Regulation of the Osem gene by abscisic acid and the transcriptional activator VP1: analysis of cis-acting promoter elements required for regulation by abscisic acid and VP1. Plant J. 7, 913–925 (1995).
Toyofuku, K., Umemura, T. & Yamaguchi, J. Promoter elements required for sugar-repression of the RAmy3D gene for alpha-amylase in rice. FEBS Lett. 428, 275–280 (1998).
Simpson, S. D. et al. Two different novel cis-acting elements of erd1, a clpA homologous Arabidopsis gene function in induction by dehydration stress and dark-induced senescence. Plant J. 33, 259–270 (2003).
Hatton, D. et al. Tow classes of cis sequences contribute to tissue-specific expression of a PAL2 promoter in transgenic tobacco. Plant J. 7, 859–876 (1995).
Hart, C. M., Nagy, F. & Meins Jr., F. A 61 bp enhancer element of the tobacco beta-1,3-glucanase B gene interacts with one or more regulated nuclear proteins. Plant Mol. Biol. 21, 121–131 (1993).
Loppes, R. & Radoux, M. Identification of short promoter regions involved in the transcriptional expression of the nitrate reductase gene in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plant Mol. Biol. 45, 215–227 (2001).
Mohanty, B., Krishnan, S. P., Swarup, S. & Bajic, V. B. Detection and preliminary analysis of motifs in promoters of anaerobically induced genes of different plant species. Ann. Bot. 96, 669–681 (2005).
Sakai, H., Aoyama, T. & Oka, A. Arabidopsis ARR1 and ARR2 response regulators operate as transcriptional activators. Plant J. 24, 703–711 (2000).
Despres, C. et al. The Arabidopsis NPR1 disease resistance protein is a novel cofactor that confers redox regulation of DNA binding activity to the basic domain/leucine zipper transcription factor TGA1. Plant Cell 15, 2181–2191 (2003).
Klinedinst, S., Pascuzzi, P., Redman, J., Desai, M. & Arias, J. A xenobiotic-stress-activated transcription factor and its cognate target genes are preferentially expressed in root tip meristems. Plant Mol. Biol. 42, 679–688 (2000).
Luo, H., Song, F. & Zheng, Z. Overexpression in transgenic tobacco reveals different roles for the rice homeodomain gene OsBIHD1 in biotic and abiotic stress responses. J. Exp. Bot. 56, 2673–2682 (2005).
Wenkel, S. et al. CONSTANS and the CCAAT box binding complex share a functionally important domain and interact to regulate flowering of Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 18, 2971–2984 (2006).
Ulmasov, T., Liu, Z. B., Hagen, G. & Guilfoyle, T. J. Composite structure of auxin response elements. Plant Cell 7, 1611–1623 (1995).
Xue, G. P. Characterisation of the DNA-binding profile of barley HvCBF1 using an enzymatic method for rapid, quantitative and high-throughput analysis of the DNA-binding activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, e77 (2002).
Shirsat, A., Wilford, N., Croy, R. & Boulter, D. Sequences responsible for the tissue specific promoter activity of a pea legumin gene in tobacco. Mol. Gen. Genet. 215, 326–331 (1989).
Quinn, J. M., Barraco, P., Eriksson, M. & Merchant, S. Coordinate copper- and oxygen-responsive Cyc6 and Cpx1 expression in Chlamydomonas is mediated by the same element. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 6080–6089 (2000).
Yanagisawa, S. & Schmidt, R. J. Diversity and similarity among recognition sequences of Dof transcription factors. Plant J. 17, 209–214 (1999).
Ramirez-Parra, E., Frundt, C. & Gutierrez, C. A genome-wide identification of E2F-regulated genes in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 33, 801–811 (2003).
Hartmann, U., Sagasser, M., Mehrtens, F., Stracke, R. & Weisshaar, B. Differential combinatorial interactions of cis-acting elements recognized by R2R3-MYB, BZIP, and BHLH factors control light-responsive and tissue-specific activation of phenylpropanoid biosynthesis genes. Plant Mol. Biol. 57, 155–171 (2005).
Vasil, V. et al. Overlap of viviparous1 (VP1) and abscisic acid response elements in the EM promoter: G-Box elements are sufficient but not necessary for VP1 transactivation. Plant Cell 7, 1511–1518 (1995).
Nakashima, K. et al. Transcriptional regulation of ABI3- and ABA-responsive genes including RD29B and RD29A in seeds, germinating embryos, and seedlings of Arabidopsis. Plant Mol. Biol. 60, 51–68 (2006).
Reyes, J. C., Muro-Pastor, M. I. & Florencio, F. J. The GATA family of transcription factors in Arabidopsis and rice. Plant Physiol. 134, 1718–1732 (2004).
Geffers, R., Cerff, R. & Hehl, R. Anaerobiosis-specific interaction of tobacco nuclear factors with cis-regulatory sequences in the maize GapC4 promoter. Plant Mol. Biol. 43, 11–21 (2000).
Villain, P., Mache, R. & Zhou, D. X. The mechanism of GT element-mediated cell type-specific transcriptional control. J. Biol. Chem. 271, 32593–32598 (1996).
Hobo, T. et al. Various spatiotemporal expression profiles of anther-expressed genes in rice. Plant Cell Physiol. 49, 1417–1428 (2008).
Chattopadhyay, S. et al. Arabidopsis bZIP protein HY5 directly interacts with light-responsive promoters in mediating light control of gene expression. Plant Cell 10, 673–683 (1998).
Terzaghi, W. B. & Cashmore, A. R. Light-regulated transcription. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 46, 445–474 (1995).
Dunn, M. A., White, A. J., Vural, S. & Hughes, M. A. Identification of promoter elements in a low-temperature-responsive gene (blt4.9) from barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Plant Mol. Biol. 38, 551–564 (1998).
Morishima, A. Identification of preferred binding sites of a light-inducible DNA-binding factor (MNF1) within 5′-upstream sequence of C4-type phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase gene in maize. Plant Mol. Biol. 38, 633–646 (1998).
Abe, H. et al. Arabidopsis AtMYC2 (bHLH) and AtMYB2 (MYB) function as transcriptional activators in abscisic acid signaling. Plant Cell 15, 63–78 (2003).
Urao, T., Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K., Urao, S. & Shinozaki, K. An Arabidopsis myb homolog is induced by dehydration stress and its gene product binds to the conserved MYB recognition sequence. Plant Cell 5, 1529–1539 (1993).
Chaubet, N., Philipps, G., Chaboute, M.-E., Ehling, M. & Gigot, C. Nucleotide sequences of two corn histone H3 genes. Genomic organization of the corn histone H3 and H4 genes. Plant Mol. Biol. 6, 253–263 (1986).
Lanahan, M. B., Ho, T. H. D., Rogers, S. W. & Rogers, J. C. A gibberellin response complex in cereal alpha-amylase gene promoters. Plant Cell 4, 203–211 (1992).
Chan, C. S., Guo, L. & Shih, M. C. Promoter analysis of the nuclear gene encoding the chloroplast glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase B subunit of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Mol. Biol. 46, 131–141 (2001).
Filichkin, S. A., Leonard, J. M., Monteros, A., Liu, P. P. & Nonogaki, H. A novel endo-beta-mannanase gene in tomato LeMAN5 is associated with anther and pollen development. Plant Physiol. 134, 1080–1087 (2004).
Kagaya, Y., Ohmiya, K. & Hattori, T. RAV1, a novel DNA-binding protein, binds to bipartite recognition sequence through two distinct DNA-binding domains uniquely found in higher plants. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 470–478 (1999).
Yin, Y., Chen, L. & Beachy, R. Promoter elements required for phloem-specific gene expression from the RTBV promoter in rice. Plant J. 12, 1179–1188 (1997).
Kim, D. W. et al. Functional Conservation of a Root Hair Cell-Specific cis-Element in Angiosperms with Different Root Hair Distribution Patterns. Plant Cell 18, 2958–2970 (2006).
Kosugi, S., Suzuka, I. & Ohashi, Y. Two of three promoter elements identified in a rice gene for proliferating cell nuclear antigen are essential for meristematic tissue-specific expression. Plant J. 7, 877–886 (1995).
Hudson, M. E. & Quail, P. H. Identification of promoter motifs involved in the network of phytochrome A-regulated gene expression by combined analysis of genomic sequence and microarray data. Plant Physiol. 133, 1605–1616 (2003).
Grierson, C. et al. Separate cis sequences and trans factors direct metabolic and developmental regulation of a potato tuber storage protein gene. Plant J. 5, 815–882 (1994).
Joshi, C. P., Zhou, H., Huang, X. & Chiang, V. L. Context sequences of translation initiation codon in plants. Plant Mol. Biol. 35, 993–1001 (1997).
Mitsuda, N., Hisabori, T., Takeyasu, K. & Sato, M. H. VOZ; isolation and characterization of novel vascular plant transcription factors with a one-zinc finger from Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Physiol. 45, 845–854 (2004).
Nishiuchi, T., Shinshi, H. & Suzuki, K. Rapid and transient activation of transcription of the ERF3 gene by wounding in tobacco leaves: possible involvement of NtWRKYs and autorepression. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 55355–55361 (2004).
Zhang, Z. L. et al. A rice WRKY gene encodes a transcriptional repressor of the gibberellin signaling pathway in aleurone cells. Plant Physiol. 134, 1500–1513 (2004).
Acknowledgements
Authors’ work in foxtail millet genomics is funded by the Core Grant of National Institute of Plant Genome Research (NIPGR), New Delhi, India, which is gratefully acknowledged. R.S. and M.M. acknowledge Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India, respectively, for providing Research Fellowships. Authors thank Dr. Chandra Bhan Yadav, NIPGR for his assistance in analyzing methylation data. The assistance received from Mr. Rohit Khandelwal in critical reading of this manuscript is appreciated.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
M.P. conceived and supervised the complete study. M.P. and M.M. planned the experiments. R.K.S., J.J., M.M., S.S. and A.D. performed the experiments. R.K.S., J.J. and M.M. analyzed the results and wrote the manuscript. M.M. and R.K.S. revised the manuscript. M.P. approved the final version. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Singh, R., Jaishankar, J., Muthamilarasan, M. et al. Genome-wide analysis of heat shock proteins in C4 model, foxtail millet identifies potential candidates for crop improvement under abiotic stress. Sci Rep 6, 32641 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32641
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32641
Further reading
-
Genome-wide Identification and Characterization of Heat Shock Protein Family Reveals Role in Development and Stress Conditions in Triticum aestivum L.
Scientific Reports (2020)
-
Genetic and genomic resources, and breeding for accelerating improvement of small millets: current status and future interventions
The Nucleus (2020)
-
Knockdown of CaHSP60-6 confers enhanced sensitivity to heat stress in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)
Planta (2019)
-
Study on aquaporins of Setaria italica suggests the involvement of SiPIP3;1 and SiSIP1;1 in abiotic stress response
Functional & Integrative Genomics (2019)
-
Salinity induced differential methylation patterns in contrasting cultivars of foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.)
Plant Cell Reports (2017)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
