OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
The New phytologist
09, 2021;231 (5): 1984-2001.

Generation of unequal nuclear genotype proportions in Rhizophagus irregularis progeny causes allelic imbalance in gene transcription.

Chanz Robbins, Joaquim Cruz Corella, Consolée Aletti, Réjane Seiler, Ivan D Mateus, Soon-Jae Lee, Frédéric G Masclaux, Ian R Sanders
Author Information
  1. Chanz Robbins: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore Building, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland. ORCID
  2. Joaquim Cruz Corella: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore Building, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland. ORCID
  3. Consolée Aletti: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore Building, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland. ORCID
  4. Réjane Seiler: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore Building, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland. ORCID
  5. Ivan D Mateus: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore Building, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland. ORCID
  6. Soon-Jae Lee: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore Building, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland. ORCID
  7. Frédéric G Masclaux: Group of Genetic Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, Building D, Geneva, 1205, Switzerland. ORCID
  8. Ian R Sanders: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore Building, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland. ORCID
PMID: 34085297 DOI: 10.1111/nph.17530

Abstract

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) form mutualisms with most plant species. The model AMF Rhizophagus irregularis is common in many ecosystems and naturally forms homokaryons and dikaryons. Quantitative variation in allele frequencies in clonally dikaryon offspring suggests they disproportionately inherit two distinct nuclear genotypes from their parent. This is interesting, because such progeny strongly and differentially affect plant growth. Neither the frequency and magnitude of this occurrence nor its effect on gene transcription are known. Using reduced representation genome sequencing, transcriptomics, and quantitative analysis tools, we show that progeny of homokaryons and dikaryons are qualitatively genetically identical to the parent. However, dikaryon progeny differ quantitatively due to unequal inheritance of nuclear genotypes. Allele frequencies of actively transcribed biallelic genes resembled the frequencies of the two nuclear genotypes. More biallelic genes showed transcription of both alleles than monoallelic transcription, but biallelic transcription was less likely with greater allelic divergence. Monoallelic transcription levels of biallelic genes were reduced compared with biallelic gene transcription, a finding consistent with genomic conflict. Given that genetic variation in R. irregularis is associated with plant growth, our results establish quantitative genetic variation as a future consideration when selecting AMF lines to improve plant production.

Keywords

Rhizophagus irregularis AMF genetics arbuscular mycorrhiza plant production plant symbiosis

References

  1. New Phytol. 2018 Dec;220(4):1161-1171 [PMID: 29355972]
  2. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018 May;2(5):882-889 [PMID: 29581586]
  3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Feb 24;101(8):2369-74 [PMID: 14983016]
  4. ISME J. 2019 May;13(5):1226-1238 [PMID: 30647457]
  5. Trends Microbiol. 2020 Jul;28(7):517-519 [PMID: 32360097]
  6. PLoS Genet. 2014 Jan;10(1):e1004078 [PMID: 24415955]
  7. Elife. 2019 Oct 25;8: [PMID: 31650958]
  8. Mol Biol Evol. 2020 Aug 1;37(8):2322-2331 [PMID: 32243528]
  9. Curr Biol. 2021 Apr 12;31(7):1531-1538.e6 [PMID: 33545043]
  10. Mol Plant. 2017 Mar 6;10(3):442-455 [PMID: 27793787]
  11. ISME J. 2018 Jan;12(1):17-30 [PMID: 29027999]
  12. New Phytol. 2018 Dec;220(4):1108-1115 [PMID: 29355963]
  13. Bioinformatics. 2009 Jul 15;25(14):1754-60 [PMID: 19451168]
  14. Bioinformatics. 2012 Aug 15;28(16):2184-5 [PMID: 22743226]
  15. Nature. 2005 Jun 9;435(7043):819-23 [PMID: 15944705]
  16. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Feb 14;109(7):2666-71 [PMID: 22308426]
  17. Mycorrhiza. 2018 May;28(4):369-377 [PMID: 29675619]
  18. G3 (Bethesda). 2011 Aug;1(3):171-82 [PMID: 22384329]
  19. PLoS One. 2018 Nov 21;13(11):e0198537 [PMID: 30462644]
  20. BMC Bioinformatics. 2003 Sep 11;4:41 [PMID: 12969510]
  21. New Phytol. 2017 Jan;213(1):380-390 [PMID: 27560189]
  22. Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20 [PMID: 24695404]
  23. Front Plant Sci. 2020 Dec 02;11:596929 [PMID: 33424891]
  24. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Jan;36(Database issue):D250-4 [PMID: 17942413]
  25. Nat Microbiol. 2016 Mar 21;1(6):16033 [PMID: 27572831]
  26. Nat Plants. 2018 Jun;4(6):352-357 [PMID: 29808019]
  27. New Phytol. 2017 Jun;214(4):1631-1645 [PMID: 28380681]
  28. Nature. 2019 Jan;565(7738):251-254 [PMID: 30602787]
  29. Trends Plant Sci. 2020 Aug;25(8):765-778 [PMID: 32534868]
  30. Nature. 2019 May;569(7756):404-408 [PMID: 31092941]
  31. New Phytol. 2009 Mar;181(4):924-937 [PMID: 19140939]
  32. Mol Ecol. 2013 Jun;22(11):3098-111 [PMID: 23167599]
  33. ISME J. 2016 Oct;10(10):2514-26 [PMID: 26953600]
  34. Elife. 2018 Dec 05;7: [PMID: 30516133]
  35. Curr Biol. 2010 Jul 13;20(13):1216-21 [PMID: 20541408]
  36. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Dec 10;110(50):20117-22 [PMID: 24277808]
  37. Plant Physiol. 2000 Nov;124(3):949-58 [PMID: 11080273]
  38. Elife. 2017 Jul 20;6: [PMID: 28726631]
  39. New Phytol. 2012 Nov;196(3):853-861 [PMID: 22931497]
  40. ISME J. 2019 Jan;13(1):214-226 [PMID: 30171254]
  41. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Apr 24;115(17):4429-4434 [PMID: 29643074]
  42. Ecol Evol. 2019 Feb 11;9(5):2425-2435 [PMID: 30891190]
  43. Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):15-21 [PMID: 23104886]
  44. PLoS One. 2019 Dec 27;14(12):e0226497 [PMID: 31881076]
  45. Plant J. 2021 Feb;105(3):721-735 [PMID: 33145857]
  46. Genetics. 2019 Mar;211(3):963-976 [PMID: 30598467]
  47. G3 (Bethesda). 2016 Aug 09;6(8):2421-34 [PMID: 27317778]
  48. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010 Jun 23;11:341 [PMID: 20573248]
  49. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2014 Sep 08;47:11.12.1-34 [PMID: 25199790]
  50. ISME J. 2014 Feb;8(2):284-94 [PMID: 24030596]
  51. Mycorrhiza. 2017 Jul;27(5):477-486 [PMID: 28210812]
  52. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 07;8(8):e70633 [PMID: 23950975]
  53. Bioinformatics. 2011 Mar 15;27(6):863-4 [PMID: 21278185]
  54. Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9 [PMID: 19505943]
  55. ISME J. 2020 Oct;14(10):2381-2394 [PMID: 32514118]
  56. ISME J. 2020 Jun;14(6):1333-1344 [PMID: 32066875]
  57. Science. 2015 Aug 28;349(6251):970-3 [PMID: 26315436]
  58. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D309-D314 [PMID: 30418610]
  59. Phytopathology. 2020 Mar;110(3):532-543 [PMID: 31799902]

MeSH Term

Allelic Imbalance
Ecosystem
Fungi
Genotype
Glomeromycota
Mycorrhizae
Symbiosis
Transcriptome
Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Article has an altmetric score of 11

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0transcriptionplantbiallelicAMFnuclearprogenyRhizophagusirregularisvariationfrequenciesgenotypesgenegeneshomokaryonsdikaryonsdikaryontwoparentgrowthreducedquantitativeunequalallelicgeneticproductionArbuscularmycorrhizalfungiformmutualismsspeciesmodelcommonmanyecosystemsnaturallyformsQuantitativealleleclonallyoffspringsuggestsdisproportionatelyinheritdistinctinterestingstronglydifferentiallyaffectNeitherfrequencymagnitudeoccurrenceeffectknownUsingrepresentationgenomesequencingtranscriptomicsanalysistoolsshowqualitativelygeneticallyidenticalHoweverdifferquantitativelydueinheritanceAlleleactivelytranscribedresembledshowedallelesmonoalleliclesslikelygreaterdivergenceMonoalleliclevelscomparedfindingconsistentgenomicconflictGivenR irregularisassociatedresultsestablishfutureconsiderationselectinglinesimproveGenerationgenotypeproportionscausesimbalancegeneticsarbuscularmycorrhizasymbiosis

Similar Articles

Cited By