Next Article in Journal
Functionalization of Biotinylated Polyethylene Glycol on Live Magnetotactic Bacteria Carriers for Improved Stealth Properties
Previous Article in Journal
A Data-Based Approach Using a Multi-Group SIR Model with Fuzzy Subsets: Application to the COVID-19 Simulation in the Islands of Guadeloupe
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/biology10100992
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genome-Wide Identification of LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES DOMAIN (LBD) Transcription Factors and Screening of Salt Stress Candidates of Rosa rugosa Thunb

by
Jianwen Wang
†,
Weijie Zhang
†,
Yufei Cheng
and
Liguo Feng
*
College of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Biology 2021, 10(10), 992; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10100992
Submission received: 9 August 2021 / Revised: 26 September 2021 / Accepted: 30 September 2021 / Published: 1 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Science)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The transcription factor family LBD were well-known as regulator of plant development. Several recent studies indicated LBD genes response to abiotic stresses and abscisic acid. The salt tolerant rose (Rosa rugosa) distribute wildly in coastal saline sands are ideal materials of exploring the salt -responsive LBD genes. We found 41 RrLBDs from genome of wild rose and classified them into Classes I and II. Interestingly, many plant hormone response sites and abiotic stress response sites were predicted in promoters of some RrLBDs. In them, five RrLBDs (RrLBD12c, RrLBD25, RrLBD39 and RrLBD40) were significantly induced or depressed by salt stress. We predicted the five genes as salt response candidate genes of wild rose and the sites in their promotors maybe pointcut for further study.

Abstract

LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES DOMAIN (LBD) transcription factors are regulators of lateral organ morphogenesis, boundary establishment, and secondary metabolism in plants. The responsive role of LBD gene family in plant abiotic stress is emerging, whereas its salt stress responsive mechanism in Rosa spp. is still unclear. The wild plant of Rosa rugosa Thunb., which exhibits strong salt tolerance to stress, is an ideal material to explore the salt-responsive LBD genes. In our study, we identified 41 RrLBD genes based on the R. rugosa genome. According to phylogenetic analysis, all RrLBD genes were categorized into Classes I and II with conserved domains and motifs. The cis-acting element prediction revealed that the promoter regions of most RrLBD genes contain defense and stress responsiveness and plant hormone response elements. Gene expression patterns under salt stress indicated that RrLBD12c, RrLBD25, RrLBD39, and RrLBD40 may be potential regulators of salt stress signaling. Our analysis provides useful information on the evolution and development of RrLBD gene family and indicates that the candidate RrLBD genes are involved in salt stress signaling, laying a foundation for the exploration of the mechanism of LBD genes in regulating abiotic stress.

1. Introduction

Transcription factors (TFs) play key roles in plant functional regulatory maps by regulating target gene transcription [1,2]. The plant-specific TF family LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES DOMAIN (LBD) was identified by the conserved DNA binding domain LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES (LOB), which includes a zinc-finger-like motif composed of cysteine residues “CX2CX6CX3C,” a Gly-Ala-Ser (GAS) block, and a spiral coiled structure similar to leucine (Leu) zipper related to protein dimerization, “LX6LX3LX6L” [3]. In particular, the Class II LBD protein only contains the zinc-finger-like structure in the LOB domain [3,4]. The LBD gene families of numerous plant species have been identified genome-wide. A total of 43 LBD genes were first discovered in Arabidopsis thaliana [5]. In addition, 44 LBD genes were identified in the monocotyledonous plant Zea mays [6]. Exactly 131 LBD genes were identified in the dicotyledonous plant allotetraploid cotton variety Gossypium hirsutum [7]. In Rosaceae, 58 and 37 LBD genes were identified from Malus pumila and Fragaria vesca, respectively [8,9].
The LBD family, which plays an important role in the development of inflorescences, leaves, and lateral branches of plants, is also known as ASYMMETRIC LEAVES2 LIKE [5,10]. The first isolated AtLBD (LBD of A. thaliana), that is, AtLOB, regulates the early development of leaves by interaction with SHOOT MERISTEMLESS and BREVIPEDICELLUS proteins [3]. Meanwhile, AtLOB targets the promoter of PHYB ACTIVATION TAGGED SUPPRESSOR1 gene to inhibit the accumulation of brassinosteroids, thus limiting the growth of organ boundaries [11]. The AtLOB homologous gene of rice (Oryza sativa), OsRA2, is involved in regulating the panicle stem development and seed growth morphology [12]. The AtLOB homologous gene of Zea mays, ramosa2, is involved in regulating the development of flower organ [13]. AtLBD6, one of the earliest isolated AtLBD, is expressed in the paraxial region of cotyledon primordium [14,15,16]. The AtLBD6 homologous gene indeterminate gametophyte1 (IG1) of Zea mays is the key gene to regulating leaf adaxial–abaxial patterning and embryo sac development [17]. In rice, the homologous gene OsAS2 regulates bud differentiation and leaf development and controls rice spikelet development, whereas OsIG1 restricts female gametophyte proliferation to regulate ovule development [18,19]. On the other hand, LBD genes participate in plant root development. AtLBD16, AtLBD18, AtLBD29, and AtLBD33 regulate the formation of lateral roots by acting downstream of auxin signal transduction pathway mediated by AtARF7 and AtARF19 [20,21]. In addition, the AtLBD16/AtLBD18-AtARF7/AtARF19 module regulates adventitious root (AR) production [22]. Two homologous genes of rice, namely, crown rootless1 (crl1) and Adventitious rootless1 (OsARL1), regulate the growth of underground parts and development of rice by auxin response. crl1 regulates the formation of crown roots (CRs), whereas OsARL1 participates in the formation of ARs [6,23]. The Zea mays homologous gene RTCS-LIKE, which is expressed at the root crown primordium, regulates the CR development and rooting of the embryo bud [24,25]. In addition, Class II LBD genes regulate plant metabolic processes such as nitrogen and anthocyanin metabolism [13,15]. AtLBD37, AtLBD38, and AtLBD39 control NO3-/N signal transduction and inhibit anthocyanin biosynthesis of A. thaliana [26,27]. OsLBD37 and OsLBD38 delay the heading date by depression of the flowering gene, thus regulating rice yield [28].
Although the conserved function of LBD genes in the regulation of the development of lateral organs has been proven in model plants and non-model species [9,29,30], the emerging role of LBD in plant abiotic stress has been indicated by recent studies. Several newly constructed genome-wide expression profiles identified that several LBD members can respond to abiotic stress or abscisic acid (ABA) treatment, e.g., SbLBD32 of Sorghum bicolor, which is highly induced by salt and drought. CsLOB_3 and CsLBD36_2 of Camellia sinensis are induced by salt and drought and involved in improving the promoter activity of CsC4H (cinnamate 4-hydroxylase), CsDFR (dihydroflavonol 4-reductase), and CsUGT84A (UDP-glucuronosyltransferase), which are key genes of the flavonoid biosynthesis pathway [31]. PpLBD27 of Physcomitrella paten responds to drought stress through the ABA signaling pathway [32].
Rosa rugosa is an important aromatic plant whose flowers are rich in terpene aromatic substances. Its commercial cultivars are widely used for spice industry materials or scented teas but belong to glycophyte, which lacks salt tolerance. The wild R. rugosa plants are distributed naturally in the coastal area of northeast China, Russian Far East, the Korean peninsula, and Japan. The plant evolved a strong salt tolerance to adapt to its growth environment (high salinity beach), making wild R. rugosa an excellent material for a salt tolerance study of Rosa genus plants. In the past several years, the whole-genome sequencing of horticultural plants revealed their long history of evolution and artificial domestication. The whole genome of rose at the chromosome level released this year (2021) has lain the foundation for its analysis and genetic transformation at the gene level. Since the release of genomes of R. rugosa and its sister species R. chinensis recently [33,34], RrLBDs (LBDs of R. rugosa) or RcLBDs (LBDs of R. chinensis), including the potential salt-responsive RrLBD members, have not been identified. This study aimed to screen the RrLBD genes involved in salt stress response by genome-wide phylogenetic analysis, chromosome location analysis, gene structure, and expression profile analysis. This study provides LBD gene candidates for further research on salt stress mechanism regulation in R. rugosa and will be helpful in the cultivation of salt-tolerant rose species by genetic engineering.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Identification of RrLBD Family

To identify all the members of RrLBD, we searched the hidden Markov model profile of the LOB domain (Pfam number PF03195) in the whole genome of R. rugosa (http://eplantftp.njau.edu.cn/Rosarugosa/, accessed on 15 May 2021) by HMMER 3.0 [35,36]. The hypothesized LOB domains of candidate LBD genes were checked in the Conserved Domain Database (CDD, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, accessed on 15 May 2021) and Pfam database (http://pfam.xfam.org/, accessed on 15 May 2021) [35,37]. The number of amino acids (AAs), molecular weight (MW), and isoelectric point (pI) of protein were obtained by ExPASy (https://web.expasy.org/protparam/, accessed on 15 May 2021) tool [38].

2.2. Phylogenetic Analysis of LBD Family

All the members of RcLBD family were identified from the genome of R. chinensis by the same method. AtLBDs were downloaded from the PlantTFDB (http://planttfdb.gao-lab.org/, accessed on 15 April 2021) and checked in accordance with a reference study [33]. A neighbor-joining (NJ) tree of protein sequences of RrLBDs, AtLBDs, and RcLBDs was built by MEGA-X (https://www.megasoftware.net/, accessed on 15 May 2021) with p-distance and pairwise deletion parameters [39,40]. A total of 1000 bootstrapping replications were used to verify the reliability of the phylogenies, and the online tool ITOL (https://itol.embl.de/, accessed on 15 July 2021) was used for coloring [41].

2.3. Genen Structure, Motif Composition, and Cis-Acting Elements Analysis of RrLBD Family

The motifs were predicted by the online tool MEME 5.3.3 (https://meme-suite.org/meme/, accessed on 15 May 2021) with default parameters. The cis-acting elements of RrLBD genes were predicted from promoter regions (2000 bp upstream the gene loci) by PlantCare [42]. The gene structures, motifs, and cis-acting elements were visualized by Tbtools 1.086 [43].

2.4. Synteny Analysis of LBD Genes

The inter-species synteny analysis was conducted by reciprocal BLASTP search for potential homologous gene pairs (E < 10−5, top five matches). The syntenic region and homologous pairs of LBD genes were illustrated by TBtools 1.086 [43].

2.5. Expression Analysis of RrLBDs in Different Tissues under Salt Stress

The wild shrubs of R. rugosa, which are naturally distributed in the coastal beach of Western hills north village of Muping district, Yantai city, Shandong province, China (37.455° N, 121.692° E), were selected as plant materials. In July 2019, three wild plants were dug out from the sand, and their roots were treated with 170 mM NaCl solution immediately for 1 h (ST). Another three plants that were soaked in deionized water for 1 h were set as the control group (CK). The leaves and roots of ST and CK plants (three replications for each) were picked and frozen by liquid nitrogen immediately and stored at −80 °C. The RNA for each sample was extracted by MiniBEST Universal RNA Extraction Kit (TaKaRa, Japan), and 12 libraries, i.e., three replications for the leaves of ST (L1h), roots of ST (R1h), leaves of CK (LCK), and roots of CK (RCK), were constructed for transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq) on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform. After filtering raw reads, the fragments per kilobase of exon model per million mapped fragments (FPKM) was calculated by mapping clean reads to the R. rugosa genome using HISAT 2.2.1 (http://daehwankimlab.github.io/hisat2/, accessed on 15 May 2021). The expression profile of RrLBDs was constructed with FPKM. Foldchanges of RrLBDs were calculated on the basis of the read reads using R package DESeq2 (http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/DESeq2.html, accessed on 15 May 2021).
Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was conducted using ChamQ SYBR Color qPCR Master Mix (Vazyme, China) on a CFX96 Real-time PCR platform (Bio-Rad, China). The PCR reaction system and program were conducted following the manufacturer’s instructions. Three biological replicates with three technical replicates were prepared for each sample [44]. Table S4 lists the primers of target genes and internal reference gene.

3. Results

3.1. Identification and Phylogenetic Analysis of RrLBD Family

A total of 41 RrLBD TFs were identified by PF03195 model, and their LOB domains were verified in the CDD and Pfam database. The gene names were numbered in accordance with the top one BLASTP search of known AtLBD TFs (Table S1). In addition, homologous RcLBDs were distinguished by lowercase letter suffixes, and isoforms (putative alternative splicing RcLBD mRNA) were distinguished by number suffixes. This situation only existed in RcLBD proteins. The biochemical character of RrLBD proteins changed within a minimal range. A total of 41 RrLBDs proteins ranging from 144 AA (RrLBD24) to 386 (RrLBD27a) AA had a MW ranging from 16.1 kDa (RrLBD12a) to 44.6 kDa (RrLBD27a), and their pI changed from 4.99 (RrLBD7) to 8.91 (RrLBD2b) (Table S2).
The phylogenetic tree (Figure 1) was constructed by the full-length protein sequences of 41 RrLBDs, 43 RcLBDs, and 43 AtLBDs belonging to two categories (Class I and II), referring to the known topological structure of AtLBD family [45,46]. Seven groups, namely, Ia, Ib, Ic, Id, and Ie of Class I and IIa and IIb of Class II, were divided on the basis of the sub-topological structure. Five homologous gene pairs (LBD37, 38, 39, 40, and 42) of three species, except the missing homologs of AtBD41, indicated that the LBD of Class II was highly conserved. In Class I, Ie, containing four AtLBDs, is a unique class found in A. thaliana. A total of 13, 3, 12, and 8 RrLBDs and 18, 4, 10, and 6 RcLBDs belong to Ia, Ib, Ic, and Id, respectively, which indicated that RrLBDs have a stronger congruent relationship with AtLBDs (10, 3, 12, and 8 for each sub-class).

3.2. Gene Structure and Motif Composition Analysis of RrLBD Family

On the basis of the NJ phylogeny of RrLBDs and RcLBDs (Figure 2A), the 10 significantly enriched MEME motifs indicated that the region of the top four motifs with 2, 3-1, and 4 arrangement (Figure 2B), which overlapped with the complete LOB domains, corresponded to the zinc-finger-like motif (CX2CX6CX3C, Figure 2D (I)), GAS block (Figure 2D (II)), and the spiral coiled structure similar to Leu zipper (LX6LX3LX6L, Figure 2D (III)), respectively. The four motifs were conserved in all Class I LBDs (Figure 2B,D)). Class II RrLBDs only contained motif 2 in the location of LOB domains. In addition, motifs 5 and 9 located at the C-terminal were motifs specific to Ia, whereas motifs 6 and 10 specific to Class II LOB domain replaced the location of motifs 3 and 4 of Class I LOB domains, respectively. Compared with AtLBD proteins, in addition to the important proline residue, another glycine residue in the motif 3 specific to RrLBD/RcLBD proteins is highly conserved, and it may be an important residue of the DNA binding domain. This finding showed that different AA residues in the LOB domain are indispensable to the characteristic function of family members, and the protein change in TFs will lead to the changes in its function of recognizing the promoter region [4,47].
The gene structures of RrLBD/RcLBD homolog pairs were highly consistent (Figure 3C). The variability degree of gene structure is related to the diversity of gene members belonging to the same group. Class I RrLBDs with exons ranging from 1 to 5 (1 to 4 exons for RcLBDs) include 7 intron-free genes, 25 genes with two exons, 3 genes with three exons, 1 gene with four exons, and 1 gene with five exons. Compared with the high gene structure diversity of Class I, Class II is relatively conservative. The coding sequence regions of most Class II RrLBDs (and RcLBDs) are split by a short intron, with the exception of RrLBD38, which has two more long introns.

3.3. Chromosomal Distribution and Evolutionary Analysis of RrLBD Genes

The chromosome localization map (Figure 3A) showed that RrLBDs were distributed dispersedly in five chromosomes (Chr1 and Ch4–7) and clustered in Chr2 and Ch3 with two gene clusters. The five paralogous gene pairs, namely, RrLBD2a/2b, RrLBD12a/12b, RrLBD16.1/16.2, RrLBD17.1/17.2, and RrLBD29.1/29.2, were located in these gene clusters.
The synteny analysis identified 38 LBD orthologous gene pairs of R. rugosa and R. chinensis (Figure 3B) and 20 pairs of R. rugosa and A. thaliana (Figure 3C). More pairs of orthologous RrLBD/RcLBD were in accordance with the LBD proteins phylogeny of three species (Figure 1), and this finding indicated that the lineage division of LBD genes was smaller between rosaceous plants after separation from the ancestor of three species. In particular, RrLBD37 and RrLBD38 of Chr2 and RrLBD39 and RrLBD40 of Chr6 were homologous to at least two RcLBD genes, indicating that Class II members may have functional differentiation between R. rugusa and R. chinensis.

3.4. Analysis of Cis-Acting Elements of RrLBD Promotors

A total of 19 cis-acting elements in RrLBD promoter regions were identified. These cis-acting elements were classified into five categories: plant hormone response, light response, stress response, specific binding site of MYB, and endosperm expression (Figure 4). First, the plant hormone response-related category contained the most elements, including methyl jasmonate (MeJA) responsiveness (CGTCA motif), ABA responsiveness (ABRE), salicylic acid responsiveness (TCA element), gibberellin- responsive element (GARE motif), gibberellin-responsive element (TATC box), and auxin-responsive elements (TGA element) or a part of an auxin-responsive element (TGA box). ABRE is the most widely distributed with 82 sites, whereas TGA box is distributed in 3 sites. The light response-related category contained the second highest number of elements, including light-responsive element (GT1 motif), light responsiveness (G box), a part of a module for light response (AE box), and a part of a light response element (CAG motif). Meanwhile, the stress response category including four elements, namely, wound-responsive element (WUN motif), defense and stress responsiveness (TC-rich repeats), low-temperature responsiveness, and enhancer-like elements, are involved in anoxic-specific inducibility (GC motif). The specific binding site of MYB category included the MYB binding sites (MBS) involved in drought inducibility, flavonoid biosynthetic gene regulation (MBSI), and light responsiveness (MRE). The last category included the endosperm expression element (GCN4 motif) with three sites in all promotors. These predicted binding sites or elements indicated that RrLBDs may be targeted by related TFs involved in response to plant hormone, light, abiotic stress, and endosperm development.

3.5. Salt-Responsive Expression Analysis of RrLBDs

To screen the salt stress-responsive RrLBD candidates, we screened eight RrLBDs (with one isoforms) belonging to differentially expressed genes out from roots (R1H versus RCK) and leaves (L1H versus LCK) by RNA-seq data. The expression profile based on normalized FPKM values (Figure 5A, Table S3) manifested that RrLBD40, RrLBD25, RrLBD19, RrLBD12c, and RrLBD4.1 in roots (R1H) and RrLBD40, RrLBD39, and RrLBD38 in leaves (L1H) were induced significantly by salt. The abundance of five RrLBDs in leaves were extremely low for accurate detection (FKPM < 1), and this finding indicated that most RrLBDs especially respond to salt in roots. The relative expression level determined in qRT-PCR (Figure 5B) proved that the profile based on transcriptome data was credible and indicated the statistical significance of four salt-responsive candidates. RrLBD40 was significantly induced in roots and leaves, RrLBD39 was significantly induced only in leaves, and RrLBD12c was significantly induced only in roots. In particular, as the only member significantly depressed by salt in roots, RrLBD25 can be a negative regulator of salt response by targeting salt-sensitive genes. The four genes can be candidates of strong response to salt stress.

4. Discussion

4.1. High Conservation of RrLBD Family

A total of 41 RrLBDs were located on all the seven chromosomes of R. rugosa genome. The gene number is similar to that of R. chinensis, A. thaliana, Z. mays, Solanum lycopersicum, and M. pumila. Thus, the gene number of the LBD family is highly conservative with minimal interference from ancient polyploidization events involving diploid angiosperms [48]. Several paralogous gene pairs located on RrLBD clusters of Chr2 and Chr3 indicated that these paralogous RrLBDs should evolve from tandem replication. In addition to the stable gene number, the lineage of the RrLBD family (two groups including seven subgroups) was consistent with the classification of LBD genes in other species. The homologous pairs clustered in the same branch generally have conserved LOB domains whose roles may be similar to those of the corresponding well-studied AtLBDs [49].

4.2. Salt Response of RrLBD Candidates

Soil salinity is one of the main environmental stress factors affecting plant growth and development [50]. In the past decade, TFs, including ERF, MYB, WRKY, NAC, and bHLH, have been proven to respond to salt and regulate downstream response gene expression [51,52]. The transcriptional regulation mechanism of the LBD gene family under salt stress is still unclear. Most RrLBD genes express highly in specific tissues. Except RrLBD39 and RrLBD12c, RrLBD25, RrLBD4.1, RrLBD4.2, RrLBD13, RrLBD19, RrLBD38, and RrLBD40 (Figure 5A) are significantly more abundant in roots. These tissue-specific RrLBDs are up- or downregulated in roots and/or leaves under salt stress, and several genes should be salt-responsive RrLBD candidates.
First, for the significant depression in roots and leaves under salt stress, RrLBD25 may negatively respond to salt stress signal. Further, the defense and stress responsiveness elements in the promoter region of RrLBD25 and its homologous gene AtLBD25, which plays a transcriptional role in auxin signaling, indicate that RrLBD25 may respond to salt by cross talk with auxin signaling [53]. An abiotic stress response study of auxin-related gene families in S. bicolor indicated that SbLBD32 was highly induced by salt and IAA. This result implies that pathways cross talked between auxin and abiotic stress signaling.
The expression of RrLBD39 in leaves and RrLBD40 in roots changed acutely under salt stress. In addition to the highly induced abundance in salt-treated leaves, two MeJA responsiveness elements (CGTCA motif) of the RrLBD39 promoter region indicated that RrLBD39 is a positive regulator of salt. Abiotic stresses, such as drought and salt stresses, can promote the production of secondary metabolites in plants [54,55]. Class IIb gene RrLBD39 is homologous to AtLBD37, AtLBD38, and AtLBD39, regulating anthocyanin synthesis and nitrogen metabolism [26]. In Solanum tuberosum, StLBD1-5 is the homologous gene pair of AtLBD39, and its expression is downregulated under drought stress. This condition is due to the low expression of StLBD1-5, which promotes the accumulation of anthocyanins in leaves, thus improving the plant’s drought resistance [56]. The salt response and potential metabolism regulation role of RrLBD39 indicate the balance or promoting relationship of salt tolerance and metabolism of R. rugosa. Moreover, MeJA is a kind of plant hormone that regulates defense mechanism and stress response [57]. MeJA can promote the transcription modification of several genes, thus participating in the resistance to salt stress by promoting the secondary metabolism of plants [58]. In C. sinensis, the expression analysis of CsLBDs after MeJA treatment showed that the expressions of CsLBD38 and CsLBD39_2 were upregulated, and both belong to the Class II subgroup. Combined with the research evidence of this experiment, RrLBD39 may be connected in series with the MeJA signaling pathway to participate in plant secondary metabolism and defense response to salt stress as hormone mediation. Finally, unlike the homologous gene of AtLBD41 regulating the cell specialization of the paraxial region [59], RrLBD40 has a large number of cis-acting elements involved in ABA responsiveness. ABA is an important plant stress hormone, and it plays an important role in salt stress signaling [60]. ABA in plants can interact with MYB TFs and play a role as a negative regulator of salt stress [61]. In addition, several transcriptomics studies showed that most genes of the ABA synthesis and signaling pathway are up- or downregulated under salt stress, and ABA signal pathway is involved in the regulation of salt stress-related genes [62,63]. ABA signaling pathway can also increase the activity and expression of ion transporters, thus regulating the ion homeostasis of plants [64]. The nearly 10 times increased expression of AtLBD40 in salt-treated roots may be amplified by the ABA signaling pathway to actively respond to salt stress signals. In addition, different binding sites of MYB TFs were observed in the promoter regions of RrLBD39 and RrLBD40. Thus, RrLBD39 and RrLBD40 may be target genes of MYB TFs. In Salvia miltiorrhiza, SmLBD50 interacts with SmMYB36/97 protein and participates in jasmonate signal transduction [65]. Therefore, on the basis of previous studies and this experiment, we find that RrLBDs may have a complex molecular regulatory network with other TFs, and this association is important for abiotic stress resistance, growth and development, secondary metabolism, and other important plant biological processes.
According to collinearity analysis, similar to RrLBD25 and AtLBD25, RrLBD4.1 and AtLBD4, RrLBD4.2 and AtLBD3, and RrLBD19 and AtLBD19 are homologous gene pairs. PtLBD4 is involved in the regulation of secondary growth in poplar, whereas AtLBD19 regulates callus formation; however, the specific function of LBD3 has not been clarified [66,67]. Other candidate genes, such as RrLBD12 and RrLBD13, need to be studied to determine their corresponding salt stress mechanisms.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we identified 41 RrLBD genes from the R. rugosa genome by bioinformatics. According to phylogenetic analysis, all RrLBD genes were divided into seven subclasses of two classes. The conserved motifs, gene structures, cis-acting elements, and collinearity analysis showed the conservation of the RrLBD gene family. The expression profiles of roots and leaves under salt stress indicated that RrLBD25, RrLBD4.1, RrLBD4.2, RrLBD12c, RrLBD13, RrLBD19, RrLBD38, RrLBD39, and RrLBD40 are related to salt stress. RrLBD39 and RrLBD40 were selected to be important salt stress-responsive candidates.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biology10100992/s1, Table S1: List of all LBD genes of this study. Table S2: The sequence information of RrLBD genes. Table S3: TPM values of RrLBDs. Table S4: Primes of qRT-PCR.

Author Contributions

L.F. and J.W. conceived and designed the project. W.Z. and Y.C. undertook the analysis. J.W. and W.Z. drafted and modified the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript for publication.

Funding

The study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number, 32002076), Jiangsu Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number, SBK2020043530), Jiangsu Provincial Natural Science Research Project of Universities (grant number, 20KJB210004), and Jiangsu Provincial Agricultural Science and Technology Independent Innovation Fund (grant number, CX(20)3023).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Raw data of RNA-seq was deposited in SRA database (PRJNA752934).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tian, F.; Yang, D.-C.; Meng, Y.-Q.; Jin, J.; Gao, G. PlantRegMap: Charting functional regulatory maps in plants. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 48, D1104–D1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jin, J.; Tian, F.; Yang, D.-C.; Meng, Y.-Q.; Kong, L.; Luo, J.; Gao, G. PlantTFDB 4.0: Toward a central hub for transcription factors and regulatory interactions in plants. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, D1040–D1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Majer, C.; Hochholdinger, F. Defining the boundaries: Structure and function of LOB domain proteins. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lee, H.W.; Kim, M.-J.; Park, M.Y.; Han, K.-H.; Kim, J. The Conserved Proline Residue in the LOB Domain of LBD18 Is Critical for DNA-Binding and Biological Function. Mol. Plant 2013, 6, 1722–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Shuai, B.; Reynaga-Peña, C.G.; Springer, P.S. The Lateral Organ Boundaries Gene Defines a Novel, Plant-Specific Gene Family. Plant Physiol. 2002, 129, 747–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Liu, H.; Wang, S.; Yu, X.; Yu, J.; He, X.; Zhang, S.; Shou, H.; Wu, P. ARL1, a LOB-domain protein required for adventitious root formation in rice. Plant J. 2005, 43, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yu, J.; Xie, Q.; Li, C.; Dong, Y.; Zhu, S.; Chen, J. Comprehensive characterization and gene expression patterns of LBD gene family in Gossypium. Planta 2020, 251, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Wang, X.; Zhang, S.; Su, L.; Liu, X.; Hao, Y. A Genome-Wide Analysis of the LBD (LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES Domain) Gene Family in Malus domestica with a Functional Characterization of MdLBD11. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e57044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Zhao, M.; Yuan, H. Identification and expression analysis of LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES DOMAIN (LBD) transcription factor genes in Fragaria vesca. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Matsumura, Y.; Iwakawa, H.; Machida, Y.; Machida, C. Characterization of genes in the ASYMMETRIC LEAVES2/LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES(AS2/LOB) family inArabidopsis thaliana, and functional and molecular comparisons betweenAS2and other family members. Plant J. 2009, 58, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Gendron, J.M.; Liu, J.-S.; Fan, M.; Bai, M.-Y.; Wenkel, S.; Springer, P.S.; Barton, M.K.; Wang, Z.-Y. Brassinosteroids regulate organ boundary formation in the shoot apical meristem of Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 21152–21157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Lu, H.; Dai, Z.; Li, L.; Wang, J.; Miao, X.; Shi, Z. OsRAMOSA2 Shapes Panicle Architecture through Regulating Pedicel Length. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Bortiri, E.; Chuck, G.; Vollbrecht, E.; Rocheford, T.; Martienssen, R.; Hake, S. ramosa2Encodes a LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARY Domain Protein That Determines the Fate of Stem Cells in Branch Meristems of Maize. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 574–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Iwakawa, H.; Ueno, Y.; Semiarti, E.; Onouchi, H.; Kojima, S.; Tsukaya, H.; Hasebe, M.; Soma, T.; Ikezaki, M.; Machida, C.; et al. The ASYMMETRIC LEAVES2 Gene of Arabidopsis thaliana, Required for Formation of a Symmetric Flat Leaf Lamina, Encodes a Member of a Novel Family of Proteins Characterized by Cysteine Repeats and a Leucine Zipper. Plant Cell Physiol. 2002, 43, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Semiarti, E.; Ueno, Y.; Tsukaya, H.; Iwakawa, H.; Machida, C. The ASYMMETRIC LEAVES2 gene of Arabidopsis thaliana regulates formation of a symmetric lamina, establishment of venation and repression of meristem-related homeobox genes in leaves. Development 2001, 128, 1771–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lin, W.-C.; Shuai, B.; Springer, P.S. The Arabidopsis LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES-Domain Gene ASYMMETRIC LEAVES2 Functions in the Repression of KNOX Gene Expression and in Adaxial-Abaxial Patterning. Plant Cell 2003, 15, 2241–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Evans, M.M. Theindeterminate gametophyte1Gene of Maize Encodes a LOB Domain Protein Required for Embryo Sac and Leaf Development. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 46–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Ma, Y.; Wang, F.; Guo, J.; Zhang, X.S. Rice OsAS2 Gene, a Member of LOB Domain Family, Functions in the Regulation of Shoot Differentiation and Leaf Development. J. Plant Biol. 2009, 52, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, J.; Tang, W.; Huang, Y.; Niu, X.; Zhao, Y.; Han, Y.; Liu, Y. Down-regulation of a LBD-like gene, OsIG1, leads to occurrence of unusual double ovules and developmental abnormalities of various floral organs and megagametophyte in rice. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 66, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Okushima, Y.; Fukaki, H.; Onoda, M.; Theologis, A.; Tasaka, M. ARF7 and ARF19 Regulate Lateral Root Formation via Direct Activation ofLBD/ASLGenes inArabidopsis. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Porco, S.; Larrieu, A.; Casimiro, I.; Hill, K.; Benkova, E.; Fukaki, H.; Brady, S.M.; Scheres, B.; Péret, B.; Bennett, M.J.; et al. Lateral root emergence in Arabidopsis is dependent on transcription factor LBD29 regulating auxin influx carrier LAX3. Development 2016, 143, 3340–3349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Lee, H.W.; Kim, N.Y.; Lee, D.J.; Kim, J. LBD18/ASL20 Regulates Lateral Root Formation in Combination with LBD16/ASL18 Downstream of ARF7 and ARF19 in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2009, 151, 1377–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Inukai, Y.; Sakamoto, T.; Ueguchi-Tanaka, M.; Shibata, Y.; Gomi, K.; Umemura, I.; Hasegawa, Y.; Ashikari, M.; Kitano, H.; Matsuoka, M. Crown rootless1, Which Is Essential for Crown Root Formation in Rice, Is a Target of an AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR in Auxin Signaling. Plant Cell 2005, 17, 1387–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Majer, C.; Xu, C.; Berendzen, K.W.; Hochholdinger, F. Molecular interactions of ROOTLESS CONCERNING CROWN AND SEMINAL ROOTS, a LOB domain protein regulating shoot-borne root initiation in maize (Zea mays L.). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2012, 367, 1542–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Taramino, G.; Sauer, M.; Stauffer, J.L.; Multani, D.; Niu, X.; Sakai, H.; Hochholdinger, F. The maize (Zea mays L.) RTCS gene encodes a LOB domain protein that is a key regulator of embryonic seminal and post-embryonic shoot-borne root initiation. Plant J. 2007, 50, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rubin, G.; Tohge, T.; Matsuda, F.; Saito, K.; Scheible, W.-R. Members of the LBD Family of Transcription Factors Repress Anthocyanin Synthesis and Affect Additional Nitrogen Responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 3567–3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Médiène, S.; Pagès, L.; Jordan, M.-O.; Le Bot, J.; Adamowicz, S. Influence of nitrogen availability on shoot development in young peach trees [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch]. Trees 2002, 16, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Albinsky, D.; Kusano, M.; Higuchi, M.; Hayashi, N.; Kobayashi, M.; Fukushima, A.; Mori, M.; Ichikawa, T.; Matsui, K.; Kuroda, H.; et al. Metabolomic Screening Applied to Rice FOX Arabidopsis Lines Leads to the Identification of a Gene-Changing Nitrogen Metabolism. Mol. Plant 2010, 3, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, X.; Liu, G.; Zhang, W. Genome-wide Analysis of LBD (LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES Domain) Gene Family in Brassica rapa. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2018, 61, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Luo, Y.; Ma, B.; Zeng, Q.; Xiang, Z.; He, N. Identification and characterization of Lateral Organ Boundaries Domain genes in mulberry, Morus notabilis. Meta Gene 2016, 8, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, X.; He, Y.; He, W.; Su, H.; Wang, Y.; Hong, G.; Xu, P. Structural and functional insights into the LBD family involved in abiotic stress and flavonoid synthases in Camellia sinensis. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 15651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Huang, X.; Yan, H.; Liu, Y.; Yi, Y. Genome-wide analysis of LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES DOMAIN-in Physcomitrella patens and stress responses. Genes Genom. 2020, 42, 651–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Saint-Oyant, L.H.; Ruttink, T.; Hamama, L.; Kirov, I.; Lakhwani, D.; Zhou, N.N.; Bourke, P.M.; Daccord, N.; Leus, L.; Schulz, D.; et al. A high-quality genome sequence of Rosa chinensis to elucidate ornamental traits. Nat. Plants 2018, 4, 473–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Chen, F.; Su, L.; Hu, S.; Xue, J.-Y.; Liu, H.; Liu, G.; Jiang, Y.; Du, J.; Qiao, Y.; Fan, Y.; et al. A chromosome-level genome assembly of rugged rose (Rosa rugosa) provides insights into its evolution, ecology, and floral characteristics. Hortic. Res. 2021, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Finn, R.D.; Coggill, P.; Eberhardt, R.Y.; Eddy, S.R.; Mistry, J.; Mitchell, A.L.; Potter, S.C.; Punta, M.; Qureshi, M.; Sangrador-Vegas, A.; et al. The Pfam protein families database: Towards a more sustainable future. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 44, D279–D285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bateman, A. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32, D138–D141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Marchler-Bauer, A.; Bo, Y.; Han, L.; He, J.; Lanczycki, C.J.; Lu, S.; Chitsaz, F.; Derbyshire, M.K.; Geer, R.C.; Gonzales, N.R.; et al. CDD/SPARCLE: Functional classification of proteins via subfamily domain architectures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, D200–D203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Artimo, P.; Jonnalagedda, M.; Arnold, K.; Baratin, D.; Csardi, G.; de Castro, E.; Duvaud, S.; Flegel, V.; Fortier, A.; Gasteiger, E.; et al. ExPASy: SIB bioinformatics resource portal. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, W597–W603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across Computing Platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Russo, C.; Selvatti, A.P. Bootstrap and Rogue Identification Tests for Phylogenetic Analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 2327–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Letunic, I.; Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: Recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, W256–W259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Lescot, M.; Déhais, P.; Thijs, G.; Marchal, K.; Moreau, Y.; Van de Peer, Y.; Rouzé, P.; Rombauts, S. PlantCARE, a database of plant cis-acting regulatory elements and a portal to tools for in silico analysis of promoter sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30, 325–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Chen, C.; Chen, H.; Zhang, Y.; Thomas, H.R.; Frank, M.H.; He, Y.; Xia, R. TBtools-an inte-grative toolkit developed for interactive analyses of big biological data. Molecules 2020.
  44. Livak, K.J.; Schmittgen, T.D. Analysis of Relative Gene Expression Data Using Real-Time Quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT Method. Methods 2001, 25, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kong, Y.; Xu, P.; Jing, X.; Chen, L.; Li, L.; Li, X. Decipher the ancestry of the plant-specific LBD gene family. BMC Genom. 2017, 18, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Chanderbali, A.S.; He, F.; Soltis, P.S.; Soltis, U.E. Out of the Water: Origin and Diversification of the LBD Gene Family. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2015, 32, 1996–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Ma, B.; Hou, Q.; Wan, X. Phylogeny and Functions of LOB Domain Proteins in Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Zhang, L.; Wu, S.; Chang, X.; Wang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Xia, Y.; Trigiano, R.N.; Jiao, Y.; Chen, F. The ancient wave of polyploidization events in flowering plants and their facilitated adaptation to environmental stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2020, 43, 2847–2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, Y.-M.; Zhang, S.-Z.; Zheng, C.-C. Genomewide analysis of LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES Domain gene family in Zea mays. J. Genet. 2014, 93, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jiang, Z.; Zhou, X.; Tao, M.; Yuan, F.; Liu, L.; Wu, F.; Wu, X.; Xiang, Y.; Niu, Y.; Liu, F.; et al. Plant cell-surface GIPC sphingolipids sense salt to trigger Ca2+ influx. Nat. Cell Biol. 2019, 572, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Eulgem, T. Regulation of the Arabidopsis defense transcriptome. Trends Plant Sci. 2005, 10, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Thatcher, L.F.; Anderson, J.P.; Singh, K.B. Plant defence responses: What have we learnt from Arabidopsis? Funct. Plant Biol. 2005, 32, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mangeon, A.; Bell, E.M.; Lin, W.-C.; Jablonska, B.; Springer, P.S. Misregulation of the LOB domain gene DDA1 suggests possible functions in auxin signalling and photomorphogenesis. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 62, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Sarker, U.; Oba, S. Drought stress enhances nutritional and bioactive compounds, phenolic acids and antioxidant capacity of Amaranthus leafy vegetable. BMC Plant Biol. 2018, 18, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Petropoulos, S.A.; Levizou, E.; Ntatsi, G.; Fernandes, Â.; Petrotos, K.; Akoumianakis, K.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Salinity effect on nutritional value, chemical composition and bioactive compounds content of Cichorium spinosum L. Food Chem. 2017, 214, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Liu, H.; Cao, M.; Chen, X.; Ye, M.; Zhao, P.; Nan, Y.; Li, W.; Zhang, C.; Kong, L.; Kong, N.; et al. Genome-Wide Analysis of the Lateral Organ Boundaries Domain (LBD) Gene Family in Solanum tuberosum. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Lang, D.; Yu, X.; Jia, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X. Methyl jasmonate improves metabolism and growth of NaCl-stressed Glycyrrhiza uralensis seedlings. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 266, 109287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gómez, S.; Ferrieri, R.A.; Schueller, M.; Orians, C.M. Methyl jasmonate elicits rapid changes in carbon and nitrogen dynamics in tomato. New Phytol. 2010, 188, 835–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Wang, Y.-B.; Song, J.-P.; Wang, Z.-B. ASYMMETRIC LEAVES2-LIKE38, one member of AS2/LOB gene family, involves in regulating ab-adaxial patterning in Arabidopsis lateral organs. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2015, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Van Ha, C.; Leyva-González, M.A.; Osakabe, Y.; Tran, U.T.; Nishiyama, R.; Watanabe, Y.; Tanaka, M.; Seki, M.; Yamaguchi, S.; Van Dong, N.; et al. Positive regulatory role of strigolactone in plant responses to drought and salt stress. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Fang, Q.; Wang, Q.; Mao, H.; Xu, J.; Wang, Y.; Hu, H.; He, S.; Tu, J.; Cheng, C.; Tian, G.; et al. AtDIV2, an R-R-type MYB transcription factor of Arabidopsis, negatively regulates salt stress by modulating ABA signaling. Plant Cell Rep. 2018, 37, 1499–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zou, C.; Chen, A.; Xiao, L.; Muller, H.M.; Ache, P.; Haberer, G.; Zhang, M.; Jia, W.; Deng, P.; Huang, R.; et al. A high-quality genome assembly of quinoa provides insights into the molecular basis of salt bladder-based salinity tolerance and the exceptional nutritional value. Cell Res. 2017, 27, 1327–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wang, L.; Xu, J.-Y.; Jia, W.; Chen, Z.; Xu, Z.-C. Chloride salinity in a chloride-sensitive plant: Focusing on photosynthesis, hormone synthesis and transduction in tobacco. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 153, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, X.-L.; Zhang, H.; Jin, Y.-Y.; Wang, M.-M.; Yang, H.-Y.; Ma, H.-Y.; Jiang, C.-J.; Liang, Z.-W. Abscisic acid primes rice seedlings for enhanced tolerance to alkaline stress by upregulating antioxidant defense and stress tolerance-related genes. Plant Soil 2019, 438, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lu, X.; Liang, X.; Li, X.; Shen, P.; Cao, X.; Chen, C.; Song, S.; Wang, D.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y. Genome-wide characterisation and expression profiling of the LBD family in Salvia miltiorrhiza reveals the function of LBD50 in jasmonate signaling and phenolic biosyn-thesis. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2020, 144, 112006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yordanov, Y.S.; Regan, S.; Busov, V. Members of the LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES DOMAIN Transcription Factor Family Are Involved in the Regulation of Secondary Growth in Populus. Plant Cell 2010, 22, 3662–3677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Liu, S.; Wang, B.; Li, X.; Pan, J.; Qian, X.; Yu, Y.; Xu, P.; Zhu, J.; Xu, X. Lateral Organ Boundaries Domain 19 (LBD19) negative regulate callus formation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell, Tissue Organ Cult. (PCTOC) 2019, 137, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biology 10 00992 g001 550
Figure 1. The NJ phylogeny of LBD transcription factors of Rosa rugosa (RrLBD), Rosa chinensis a (RcLBD), and Arabidopsis thaliana a (AtLBD). Ia-Ie of Class I and IIa-IIb of Class II are distinguished by pale pink, yellow, green, purple, dark pink, cyan, and blue, and RrLBDs are highlighted by the white background. Numbers on branches are bootstrap values.
Figure 1. The NJ phylogeny of LBD transcription factors of Rosa rugosa (RrLBD), Rosa chinensis a (RcLBD), and Arabidopsis thaliana a (AtLBD). Ia-Ie of Class I and IIa-IIb of Class II are distinguished by pale pink, yellow, green, purple, dark pink, cyan, and blue, and RrLBDs are highlighted by the white background. Numbers on branches are bootstrap values.
Biology 10 00992 g001
Biology 10 00992 g002 550
Figure 2. The NJ-tree (A), motifs (B), and gene structures (C) of LBD transcription factors of Rosa rugosa and Rosa chinensis. Classes Ia-d, IIa, and IIb are distinguished by nodes of different colors (A). The coloring boxes represent motifs whose locations are labeled by scaleplate of amino acid residue (B). The exons (rectangles) separated by introns (lines) are colored with blue (coding sequence, CDS) and yellow (untranslated region, UTR) whose locations are labeled by the nucleotide scaleplate (C). The top 4 significant enriched motifs are listed as sequences logos (D).
Figure 2. The NJ-tree (A), motifs (B), and gene structures (C) of LBD transcription factors of Rosa rugosa and Rosa chinensis. Classes Ia-d, IIa, and IIb are distinguished by nodes of different colors (A). The coloring boxes represent motifs whose locations are labeled by scaleplate of amino acid residue (B). The exons (rectangles) separated by introns (lines) are colored with blue (coding sequence, CDS) and yellow (untranslated region, UTR) whose locations are labeled by the nucleotide scaleplate (C). The top 4 significant enriched motifs are listed as sequences logos (D).
Biology 10 00992 g002
Biology 10 00992 g003 550
Figure 3. The chromosome location of RrLBDs (A) and intra-species synteny analysis of Rosa rugosa genome with R. chinensis (B) and Arabidopsis thaliana (C). Gene loci are mapped in chromosomes (A) labelled by the scaleplate of million base pairs (Mb). The gray lines indicate the collinearity block between the two genomes, and homologous LBD gene pairs are highlighted by red lines (B,C). The chromosomes ID of Rosa rugosa are labelled by Chr1-7. The chromosomes ID of R. chinensis and A. thaliana are labelled by accession number of NCBI genome database.
Figure 3. The chromosome location of RrLBDs (A) and intra-species synteny analysis of Rosa rugosa genome with R. chinensis (B) and Arabidopsis thaliana (C). Gene loci are mapped in chromosomes (A) labelled by the scaleplate of million base pairs (Mb). The gray lines indicate the collinearity block between the two genomes, and homologous LBD gene pairs are highlighted by red lines (B,C). The chromosomes ID of Rosa rugosa are labelled by Chr1-7. The chromosomes ID of R. chinensis and A. thaliana are labelled by accession number of NCBI genome database.
Biology 10 00992 g003
Biology 10 00992 g004 550
Figure 4. The cis-acting elements in promotors of RrLBD. A total of 19 predicted cis-acting elements (colored ovals) were located in promoter region 2000bp upstream of coding sequence (nucleotide number scaleplate).
Figure 4. The cis-acting elements in promotors of RrLBD. A total of 19 predicted cis-acting elements (colored ovals) were located in promoter region 2000bp upstream of coding sequence (nucleotide number scaleplate).
Biology 10 00992 g004
Biology 10 00992 g005 550
Figure 5. The differential expressed RrLBDs in roots and leaves of Rosa rugosa. The heatmap (A) was based on Log2 (FPKM) by the orange-blue gradation. L1h and R1h represent the leaves and roots of salt stress treatment, while LCK and RCK represent the control groups of leaves and roots. RrLBD genes are represented by Euclidean distance completely linked clustering. RrLBD expression level validation of real-time quantified PCR (B). RCK was set as the reference of relative expression level. * and ** indicate significance of 0.05 and 0.01 by two-sample t-test, respectively.
Figure 5. The differential expressed RrLBDs in roots and leaves of Rosa rugosa. The heatmap (A) was based on Log2 (FPKM) by the orange-blue gradation. L1h and R1h represent the leaves and roots of salt stress treatment, while LCK and RCK represent the control groups of leaves and roots. RrLBD genes are represented by Euclidean distance completely linked clustering. RrLBD expression level validation of real-time quantified PCR (B). RCK was set as the reference of relative expression level. * and ** indicate significance of 0.05 and 0.01 by two-sample t-test, respectively.
Biology 10 00992 g005
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Zhang, W.; Cheng, Y.; Feng, L. Genome-Wide Identification of LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES DOMAIN (LBD) Transcription Factors and Screening of Salt Stress Candidates of Rosa rugosa Thunb. Biology 2021, 10, 992. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10100992

AMA Style

Wang J, Zhang W, Cheng Y, Feng L. Genome-Wide Identification of LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES DOMAIN (LBD) Transcription Factors and Screening of Salt Stress Candidates of Rosa rugosa Thunb. Biology. 2021; 10(10):992. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10100992

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Jianwen, Weijie Zhang, Yufei Cheng, and Liguo Feng. 2021. "Genome-Wide Identification of LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES DOMAIN (LBD) Transcription Factors and Screening of Salt Stress Candidates of Rosa rugosa Thunb" Biology 10, no. 10: 992. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10100992

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop