Next Article in Journal
Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Crop and Medicinal Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Occurrence and Characterization of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Causing Fruit Rot on Sweet Cherry in Southern China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Susceptibility Evaluation to Fire Blight and Genome-Wide Associations within a Collection of Asturian Apple Accessions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 24
10.3390/plants12244166
plants-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

Characterization of Almond Scion/Rootstock Communication in Cultivar and Rootstock Tissues through an RNA-Seq Approach

by
Álvaro Montesinos
1,2,3,
María José Rubio-Cabetas
2,3 and
Jérôme Grimplet
2,3,*
1
Centro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid—Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentación (UPM-INIA/CSIC), 28223 Madrid, Spain
2
Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Departamento de Ciencia Vegetal, Gobierno de Aragón, Avda. Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
3
Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón-IA2 (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), Calle Miguel Servet 4 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(24), 4166; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12244166
Submission received: 17 November 2023 / Revised: 10 December 2023 / Accepted: 13 December 2023 / Published: 15 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Rosaceae Fruit Genomics and Breeding)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rootstock genotype plays a crucial role in determining various aspects of scion development, including the scion three-dimensional structure, or tree architecture. Consequently, rootstock choice is a pivotal factor in the establishment of new almond (Prunus amygdalus (L.) Batsch, syn P. dulcis (Mill.)) intensive planting systems, demanding cultivars that can adapt to distinct requirements of vigor and shape. Nevertheless, considering the capacity of the rootstock genotype to influence scion development, it is likely that the scion genotype reciprocally affects rootstock performance. In the context of this study, we conducted a transcriptomic analysis of the scion/rootstock interaction in young almond trees, with a specific focus on elucidating the scion impact on the rootstock molecular response. Two commercial almond cultivars were grafted onto two hybrid rootstocks, thereby generating four distinct combinations. Through RNA-Seq analysis, we discerned that indeed, the scion genotype exerts an influence on the rootstock expression profile. This influence manifests through the modulation of genes associated with hormonal regulation, cell division, root development, and light signaling. This intricate interplay between scion and rootstock communication plays a pivotal role in the development of both scion and rootstock, underscoring the critical importance of a correct choice when establishing new almond orchards.

1. Introduction

In modern orchards, rootstocks serve a dual purpose of selecting specific root system traits and conferring desirable agronomic traits to trees and fruits [1,2]. These effects on scion development have been extensively documented across various tree species, ranging from tree vigor to yield or fruit quality [1,3,4,5,6]. Vigor and architecture in particular are important for high-density planting systems. Recently, molecular approaches have been conducted in woody plant species to elucidate the underlying mechanisms at the molecular level [7,8]. However, the analysis of the scion effect on the rootstock has been limited to the graft formation, examining the processes occurring during the vascular union, which results in vascular regeneration and the establishment of the graft junction [9,10]. However, little is known about how the scion can influence the phenotypic traits exhibited by the rootstock, including nutrient assimilation, pathogen resistance, and root development [11]. These traits may be influenced in a variable manner depending on the specific scion cultivar that is grafted onto the rootstock.
Rootstock development is regulated by various phytohormones, participating in the regulation of cell elongation, cell division, and cell differentiation [12,13]. Like the aerial part of the plant, auxin plays a vital role in governing various processes in roots, including root patterning, cell division, and cell elongation [14,15,16]. Strigolactones (SLs) act in conjunction with auxin, exerting control over lateral root formation and root-hair elongation, while mediating root responses to environmental changes [17,18,19]. Cytokinins (CKs) promote cell differentiation and cell division in different root tissues and counteract auxin by inhibiting lateral root formation [20,21,22,23]. Gibberellic acid (GA) contributes to the maintenance of root cell proliferation and cell elongation in the meristem, while suppressing lateral root formation [24,25,26]. Brassinosteroids (BRs) play a crucial role in regulating root meristem activity and also participate in the regulation of lateral root initiation and root cell elongation [27,28]. Ethylene (ET) modulates meristem maintenance, promoting cell division and acting in opposition to auxin in lateral root formation [29,30].
Light signaling exerts significant control over plant development through diverse mechanisms. In plants, the circadian clock regulates various developmental processes in response to fluctuations in exposure to light, including seed germination, hypocotyl elongation, root growth, and flowering [31,32]. The regulation of the circadian clock is also intertwined with carbohydrate metabolism and nutrient assimilation [33]. Furthermore, the shade avoidance response plays a role in regulating plant growth, which depends on the ratio of red light to far-red light (R:FR) detected by phytochrome photoreceptors phyA and phyB. Alterations in this ratio elicit changes in the auxin flux, thereby influencing the direction and activity of plant growth [34,35,36,37,38].
In this study, we carried out a transcriptomic analysis of the responses associated with both the rootstock influence on the scion and the scion influence on the rootstock. To investigate these interactions, we grafted two almond commercial cultivars characterized by contrasting architecture and vigor traits onto two almond × peach (Prunus amygdalus (L.) Batsch, syn P. dulcis (Mill.). × P. persica (L.) Batsch). This resulted in a total of four combinations. Our goal was to elucidate the biological processes and molecular responses that were specifically affected in both the upper and lower regions of the graft site.

2. Results

2.1. ‘Isabelona’ and ‘Lauranne’ Vigor Was Influenced by the Rootstock

Data on tree architecture were obtained for the four graft combinations, ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®, ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’, ‘Lauranne’/Garnem®, and ‘Lauranne’/‘GN-8’ (Figure 1). As the trees were still in their early stages and had not yet developed branches, measurements were restricted to trunk length (Length) and the diameters of both the scion (d_Scion) and the rootstock (d_Rootstock). Due to the inherent challenges associated with accurately measuring root architecture, no data were collected on the root architecture.
Combinations involving ‘Lauranne’ as the scion displayed higher Length values (Table 1, Figure 1). Regarding the rootstocks, the use of the vigor-conferring rootstock Garnem® resulted in higher length values for both cultivars, presenting higher values than when grafted onto the dwarfing rootstock ‘GN-8’ (Table 1, Figure 1).
Trunk diameter (d_Scion), often represented as Trunk Cross Sectional Area (TCSA), is commonly used as a measure of tree vigor. Similar to the length values, ‘Lauranne’ exhibited higher d_Scion values than ‘Isabelona’. Additionally, when grafted onto Garnem®, both cultivars displayed higher d_Scion values compared to grafting onto ‘GN-8’ (Table 1). However, no significant difference was observed in the diameters of the rootstocks (d_Rootstock), although the mean values were slightly lower when ‘Isabelona’ was used as the scion (Table 1).

2.2. Rootstock Only Influenced Gene Expression in Combinations with ‘Isabelona’

A transcriptomic analysis from cultivar samples was carried out to verify whether their gene expression was affected by the rootstock genotype during the early stages of development (Table S1). A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted using gene expression data from the four combinations, with each gene serving as a variable. The first component (PC1; 83.5%) accounted for most of the variability (Figure 2). The samples were primarily arranged by their respective cultivars, while the rootstock genotype had a minimal impact on their distribution. Notably, no DEGs were detected for the ‘Lauranne’ combinations. In contrast, 221 DEGs were identified in the combinations involving ‘Isabelona’ as the scion (Table S1).
Combinations of ‘Isabelona’ grafted onto the vigor-conferring rootstock Garnem® resulted in notable alterations in gene expression levels associated with auxin regulation, predominantly through repressive mechanisms. Furthermore, distinct expression patterns were observed for genes involved in stress hormone signaling, specifically ABA and ET pathways. Moreover, DEGs related to plant development, cell wall reorganization, and the regulation of growth-related hormones GA and BRs were identified (Table 2).

2.3. Scion/Rootstock Interaction in Almond Affected Rootstock Molecular Profile

The cultivar effect of commercial almond cultivars ‘Lauranne’ and ‘Isabelona’ on the rootstock transcriptome was analyzed in a vigorous rootstock like Garnem®, and a dwarfing rootstock such as ‘GN-8’. We carried out a PCA using the expression of each gene as variables for the four different scion/rootstock combinations. The first two components explained 51.5% of the variability, while none of the other variables explained more than 14%. PC1 and PC2 explained 28.8% and 22.7% of the variability, respectively. In the PCA, there was a clear separation between the four different combinations (Figure 3A). Combinations with Garnem® as rootstock are in the lower-left corner while combinations with ‘GN-8’ are in the upper-right corner. Therefore, there is a clear effect of the rootstock, and it can be observed in the gene expression, with individuals clearly segregating depending on which scion, ‘Lauranne’ or ‘Isabelona’, is grafted onto them (Figure 3A). A total of 36 genes were only differentially expressed in combinations with ‘GN-8’ as rootstock, while 342 DEGs were identified in combinations with Garnem®. Both rootstocks shared 28 DEGs (Figure 3B). Therefore, while the number of DEGs was considerably more elevated when comparing combinations that had been grafted onto the vigor-conferring rootstock Garnem®, than those grafted onto the dwarfing rootstock ‘GN-8’, around half of DEGs found in the later were shared between both rootstocks.

2.4. Garnem® Transcriptome Is More Affected by Cultivar Effect Than the ‘GN-8’ Transcriptome

The rootstock exhibited varying degrees of cultivar influence. In the case of ‘GN-8’, a limited number of DEGs were observed, indicating a relatively minor impact on gene expression. Conversely, the rootstock Garnem® displayed a higher degree of differential expression, suggesting a more pronounced influence on the transcriptome (Figure 3B). Among the limited number of genes that showed differential expression in ‘GN-8’, several have homologues known to participate in plant development, such as CLV1 (Prudul26A015064), FIP37 (Prudul26A020498), EF1A (Prudul26A027600), and VIM1 (Prudul26A008660). Furthermore, specific to root development, homologues of genes such as IAMT1 (Prudul26A029624) and DRMH3 (Prudul26A007496) were found to be less expressed in combinations where ‘Lauranne’ served as the cultivar (Table 3). Moreover, genes involved in hormonal response or transport, including homologues of LAX3 (Prudul26A031524) and RD22 (Prudul26A001972), also exhibited lower expression levels when ‘Lauranne’ was grafted onto the ‘GN-8’.
The impact of the cultivar on the transcriptome of the Garnem® rootstock was found to be more pronounced, influencing multiple pathways associated with plant development. Several homologues of genes involved in auxin response, such as IAA4 (Prudul26A024452) and SAUR50 (Prudul26A025556), as well as auxin transport, like LAX3 (Prudul26A031524), exhibited differential expression, with lower expression levels observed when ‘Lauranne’ was used as the scion (Table 4). Furthermore, genes involved in other hormonal regulatory pathways, including ABA, BR, CK, and ET response, as well as GA biosynthesis, were also identified as differentially expressed (Table 4). Specifically, homologues of genes related to ET response, such as EGY3 (Prudul26A021691) and ERF24 (Prudul26A019984), displayed increased expression in combinations where ‘Lauranne’ served as the scion. Conversely, homologues of BR response genes, including TINY2 (Prudul26A010146) and BAS1 (Prudul26A030744), exhibited lower expression levels in combinations with ‘Lauranne’ as the scion.
The cultivar genotype exerted a significant influence on growth-related processes, impacting cell division, cell wall reorganization, and organ development (Table 4). Homologues of genes involved in the cell division complex, such as MCM genes (Prudul26A029769, Prudul26A013222) and RCC1 (Prudul26A003343, Prudul26A018495), displayed overexpression when ‘Lauranne’ was the cultivar. Similarly, homologues of genes with crucial roles in plant development, such as GI (Prudul26A016707) and PAT1 (Prudul26A024652), were also found to be overexpressed when ‘Lauranne’ acted as the scion. Conversely, multiple other homologues of genes involved in various functions related to plant development, including MAX1 (Prudul26A022418) and FIP37 (Prudul26A020498), exhibited lower expression levels in combinations with ‘Lauranne’ as the cultivar. Notably, root development was also affected, with genes such as AGL79 (Prudul26A020939) and DRMH3 (Prudul26A007496) presenting reduced expression in combinations with ‘Lauranne’.

3. Discussion

Prior research has established that the rootstock genotype has the capacity to induce phenotypic alterations in the tree architecture of almond cultivars [39,40]. Nevertheless, the precise mechanisms underlying this intricate interplay between the scion and rootstock at the molecular level have yet to be comprehensively elucidated. In this study, we analyzed how two hybrid rootstocks (‘GN-8’ and Garnem®) modulate the transcriptome of two distinct almond commercial cultivars (‘Isabelona’ and ‘Lauranne’). Additionally, we explored how these cultivars might reciprocally influence the transcriptome of the respective rootstocks.
‘Isabelona’ has previously been described to exhibit reduced vigor and strong apical dominance, resulting in a phenotype characterized by limited branching and elongated trunks. Conversely, ‘Lauranne’ has been reported to display high vigor and weak apical dominance, leading to extensive branching and shorter trunks [39,40]. In the current study, the trees are in their initial year of growth, and they have not yet developed branches that compete with the main axis growth. Consequently, the increased vigor observed in the ‘Lauranne’ cultivar may contribute to the higher length values reported (Table 1). Ultimately, the observed differences in phenotype appear to predominantly hinge on the vigor displayed by each graft combination. However, it is plausible that the biological processes governing the development of specific tree architectures for each combination have already been established, despite not yet being visually discernible in these one-year-old plants.
The rootstock genotype had a restricted impact on the transcriptome of the studied cultivars (Figure 2; Table S2). Whereas a limited number of DEG was discerned in combinations with ‘Isabelona’ as the cultivar, no DEGs were identified when ‘Lauranne’ was the scion. This observation reaffirms the limited malleability of these specific cultivars by the rootstock genotype, corroborating earlier findings [39]. This characteristic underscores the potential utility of these cultivars as an ideal platform for exploring whether the cultivar genotype can exert a modulatory effect on the expression profile of the rootstock.
In terms of the rootstock’s influence on ‘Isabelona’, various genes related to plant development displayed differential expression patterns (Table 2). Combinations in which Garnem® served as the rootstock exhibited an upregulation of genes associated with auxin regulation, likely in a repressive manner [41,42,43,44], indicating a potential reduction in apical dominance [45,46]. Auxin-related genes such as Aux/IAA can be found in phloem and might actually be synthetized in the rootstock: Lower expression of IAA4 in persimmon induced vigor [47], which is consistent with our observation. As it appears downregulated in both the rootstock and the scion when Laurane is grafted with Garnem® this RNA might be mobile. Additionally, DEGs involved in processes linked to active growth, such as cell proliferation and cell expansion [48,49,50], as well as genes promoting nitrogen assimilation [51,52,53], were upregulated in ‘Isabelona’/Garnem® combinations. This upregulation likely contributed to the enhanced vigor observed in scions grafted onto Garnem® (Figure 1; Table 1). Furthermore, genes that positively regulate stress responses and growth inhibition were upregulated when ‘GN-8’ was used as the rootstock [54,55,56], which may be linked to the limited cultivar growth caused by this dwarfing rootstock.
Given that distinct rootstocks have the capacity to influence almond scion architecture, potentially altering branch number and main axis growth, it is reasonable to consider that the grafted scion, in turn, exerts an influence on the rootstocks, triggering diverse mechanisms that could impact rootstock properties. This reciprocal effect has previously been documented in other plant species with respect to various traits, including the regulation of rootstock responses to low phosphorus (Pi) conditions and phloem sap metabolites [57,58]. In the present study, it was observed that the cultivar genotype did indeed influence the rootstock transcriptome (Figure 3). However, the extent of this influence was notably contingent on the specific rootstock employed. Although our samples were collected from the rootstock trunk, it is conceivable that the alterations in the transcriptome dynamics observed there may have broader ramifications for the entire root system.
The rootstock ‘GN-8’ exhibited a significantly lower number of DEGs compared to Garnem® (Figure 3B), although approximately half of these DEGs were shared between the two rootstocks. Consequently, it appears that the cultivar effect on both rootstocks follows a similar direction, with the key distinguishing factor being the magnitude of this effect. The diminished intensity of the influence on the ‘GN-8’ transcriptome could potentially be attributed to the dwarfing characteristics associated with this particular rootstock. Such dwarfing rootstocks are often characterized by less active metabolic processes, which could render them less susceptible to modulation by the scion’s influence. This may elucidate the observed reduction in the extent of transcriptomic alteration in ‘GN-8’ as compared to Garnem®.
In both ‘GN-8’ and Garnem® rootstocks, an evident transcriptomic profile emerged, favoring cell division and differentiation, and consequently, tree vigor, in graft combinations with ‘Lauranne’ as the scion (Table 3 and Table 4). This trend was manifested either through the upregulation of DEGs that promote cell division, root development, or cell wall formation [59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69], or the downregulation of genes that suppress plant development and lateral root formation [42,49,70,71,72,73,74,75,76]. Notably, genes associated with light perception and circadian clock regulation appeared to be influenced by the cultivar genotype (Table 4). Light availability exerts regulatory control over numerous plant developmental processes, with several pathways involved in growth regulation [77,78]. These pathways can influence lateral branch formation through mechanisms like shade avoidance [34,36]. Furthermore, the circadian clock, which is governed by light and other environmental cues, plays a pivotal role in regulating various aspects of plant development, including root growth [31,32,33]. While the genes associated with circadian clock regulation did not exhibit a discernible trend [79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87], it is apparent that these intricate processes can be impacted by the interaction between the scion and rootstock. This highlights the intricate interplay between scion and rootstock genotypes, which can influence processes related to plant development, including those regulated by light perception and the circadian clock.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Material and Growth Conditions

For the experimental setup, two almond commercial cultivars, ‘Isabelona’ and ‘Lauranne’ were grafted onto two distinct hybrid rootstocks known as Garnem® (a commercially available rootstock) and ‘GN-8’ (a newly selected accession), obtaining four different combinations. Both rootstocks are almond × peach (P. amygdalus (L.) Batsch, syn P. dulcis (Mill.). × P. persica (L.) Batsch) hybrid rootstocks. The selection of ‘Isabelona’ and ‘Lauranne’ cultivars was based on their reduced influence exerted by the rootstock on their apical dominance and branch formation phenotypes [39]. Grafted plants were supplied by the Agromillora Iberia S.L. (Barcelona, Spain) nursery in 2020. Subsequently, the plants were temporarily housed in a nursery before sample collection, which took place at the Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA). Standard nursery practices were maintained during the experimental period.

4.2. Phenotypic Data Collection in Nursery

Phenotypic data were collected for ten replicates of each of the four combinations, prior to sample collection. Three vigor-related parameters were measured: scion axis length (Length), scion trunk diameter (d_Scion), and rootstock trunk diameter (d_Rootstock). The length measurement was determined from the graft union. To quantify d_Scion and d_Rootstock, a caliper was employed to measure 20 mm above and 20 mm below the graft union, respectively.

4.3. RNA-Seq Analysis

During the summer of 2020, samples were collected from nine (three per sample) different individuals per combination, encompassing a region 50 mm below and above the graft union. RNA extraction was performed on these samples utilizing the CTAB method, as previously described, with modifications [88,89,90]. Stranded mRNA-Seq analysis was conducted at the Centro Nacional de Análisis Genómico (CNAG-CRG) in Barcelona, Spain. Sequencing was performed using the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 System, generating > 30 M PE reads per sample and a read length of 2 × 50 bp. The resulting FASTQ files were processed with FASTQ Groomer (Galaxy Version 1.1.1) [91]. Adapter sequences were subsequently removed from the reads using Trimmomatic (Galaxy Version 0.38.0) [91,92]. Alignment of the RNA-Seq data was performed using HISAT2 (Galaxy Version 2.2.1), employing a maximum intron length of 20,000 bp [93] and aligning to the P. dulcis ‘Texas’ Genome v2.0 [94]. Duplicated molecules were identified using the MarkDuplicates tool (Galaxy Version 2.18.2.2), and mate-pair information was confirmed using FixMateInformation (Galaxy Version 2.18.2.1) Picard tools (http://broadinstitute.github.io/picard, accessed on 30 November 2022). Gene expression was quantified using featureCounts (Galaxy Version 2.0.1+galaxy2) [95] using the P. dulcis ‘Texas’ Genome v2.0 gene annotation, which comprises 27,044 genes (https://www.rosaceae.org/analysis/295, accessed on 30 November 2022). Differential analysis of the count data was conducted using edgeR (Galaxy Version 3.36.0) with default settings [96], considering genes with a corrected p-value below 0.05 and a log2 fold change (log2FC) greater than 0.75 or less than −0.75 as differentially expressed. All procedures were performed using the Galaxy platform. Recent studies have demonstrated the robustness of RNA-Seq methods, with validation through qPCR confirming results for most transcripts. Discrepancies between the two techniques were observed in less than 2% of cases, primarily involving short and low-expressed genes [97,98]. As this data relates to Fragments Per Kilobase of transcript per Million (FPKM), differentially expressed genes were filtered to ensure they belonged to the top 98% of transcripts with the highest FPKM values.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were carried out in the R platform (https://cran.r-project.org/, accessed on 30 November 2022). Significant differences in phenotypic data were evaluated using an ANOVA test. These were assessed with a Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) using the agricolae R package (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=agricolae, accessed on 30 November 2022). Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted using R stats package with default parameters on the gene expression values for the all the genes in the four combinations.

5. Conclusions

The interaction between scion and rootstock in almond trees is bidirectional, exerting influence on the development of both the scion and the rootstock. In this study, we have identified several biological processes that undergo differential modulation depending on the rootstock genotype, impacting various aspects of cultivar growth and development. Additionally, this influence appears to produce a feedback mechanism within the rootstock developmental processes. Specifically, our findings demonstrate that cultivars displaying heightened vigor, exemplified by ‘Lauranne’, have a positive influence on root development. This positive impact enhances the radicular system’s capacity to efficiently absorb nutrients from the soil. Consequently, this nurtures scion growth, ultimately resulting in the robust and vigorous phenotype exhibited by ‘Lauranne’ when compared to ‘Isabelona’. Hence, the selection of an appropriate scion/rootstock combination is a pivotal determinant for the success of almond orchards. In intensive cultivation systems, the rootstock impact on tree vigor depends not only on its genotype but also on the complementary interactions with the scion. It is in this synergy that root development is optimized, consequently influencing overall tree growth and productivity.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12244166/s1, Table S1: RNA-Seq data from the analysis of the rootstock influence on the scion. ISA: ‘Isabelona’; LAU: ‘Lauranne’; GN: Garnem®; G8: ‘GN-8’; Table S2: RNA-Seq data from the analysis of the scion influence on the rootstock. ISA: ‘Isabelona’; LAU: ‘Lauranne’; GN: Garnem®; G8: ‘GN-8’.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Á.M., M.J.R.-C. and J.G.; methodology, Á.M.; formal analysis, Á.M.; investigation, Á.M.; writing—original draft preparation, Á.M., M.J.R.-C. and J.G.; writing—review and editing, Á.M., M.J.R.-C. and J.G.; supervision, M.J.R.-C. and J.G.; project administration, M.J.R.-C.; funding acquisition, M.J.R.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by grants RTI- 2018-507 094210-R-100 and FPI-INIA CPD2016-0056 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the European Nucleotide Archive (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/home, accessed on 30 July 2021) and are accessible through the accession number PRJEB50411.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Warschefsky, E.J.; Klein, L.L.; Frank, M.H.; Chitwood, D.H.; Londo, J.P.; von Wettberg, E.J.B.; Miller, A.J. Rootstocks: Diversity, Domestication, and Impacts on Shoot Phenotypes. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 418–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rubio-Cabetas, M.J.; Felipe, A.J.; Reighard, G.L. Rootstock Development. In Almonds: Botany, Production amd Uses; Socias i Company, R., Gradziel, T.M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 193–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aloni, B.; Cohen, R.; Karni, L.; Aktas, H.; Edelstein, M. Hormonal Signaling in Rootstock-Scion Interactions. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 127, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Martínez-Ballesta, M.C.; Alcaraz-López, C.; Muries, B.; Mota-Cadenas, C.; Carvajal, M. Physiological Aspects of Rootstock-Scion Interactions. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 127, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Albacete, A.; Martínez-Andújar, C.; Martínez-Pérez, A.; Thompson, A.J.; Dodd, I.C.; Pérez-Alfocea, F. Unravelling Rootstock×scion Interactions to Improve Food Security. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 2211–2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Foster, T.M.; Celton, J.M.; Chagne, D.; Tustin, D.S.; Gardiner, S.E. Two Quantitative Trait Loci, Dw1 and Dw2, Are Primarily Responsible for Rootstock-Induced Dwarfing in Apple. Hortic. Res. 2015, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ou, C.; Jiang, S.; Wang, F.; Tang, C.; Hao, N. An RNA-Seq Analysis of the Pear (Pyrus communis L.) Transcriptome, with a Focus on Genes Associated with Dwarf. Plant Gene 2015, 4, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. López-Hinojosa, M.; de María, N.; Guevara, M.A.; Vélez, M.D.; Cabezas, J.A.; Díaz, L.M.; Mancha, J.A.; Pizarro, A.; Manjarrez, L.F.; Collada, C.; et al. Rootstock Effects on Scion Gene Expression in Maritime Pine. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 11582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Melnyk, C.W.; Gabel, A.; Hardcastle, T.J.; Robinson, S.; Miyashima, S.; Grosse, I.; Meyerowitz, E.M. Transcriptome Dynamics at Arabidopsis Graft Junctions Reveal an Intertissue Recognition Mechanism That Activates Vascular Regeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E2447–E2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Wulf, K.E.; Reid, J.B.; Foo, E. Auxin Transport and Stem Vascular Reconnection—Has Our Thinking Become Canalized? Ann. Bot. 2019, 123, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Li, G.; Ma, J.; Tan, M.; Mao, J.; An, N.; Sha, G.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, C.; Han, M. Transcriptome Analysis Reveals the Effects of Sugar Metabolism and Auxin and Cytokinin Signaling Pathways on Root Growth and Development of Grafted Apple. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Takatsuka, H.; Umeda, M. Hormonal Control of Cell Division and Elongation along Differentiation Trajectories in Roots. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 2633–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Motte, H.; Vanneste, S.; Beeckman, T. Molecular and Environmental Regulation of Root Development. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2019, 70, 465–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Petersson, S.V.; Johansson, A.I.; Kowalczyk, M.; Makoveychuk, A.; Wang, J.Y.; Moritz, T.; Grebe, M.; Benfey, P.N.; Sandberg, G.; Ljung, K. An Auxin Gradient and Maximum in the Arabidopsis Root Apex Shown by High-Resolution Cell-Specific Analysis of IAA Distribution and Synthesis. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 1659–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ding, Z.; Friml, J. Auxin Regulates Distal Stem Cell Differentiation in Arabidopsis Roots. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 12046–12051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Overvoorde, P.; Fukaki, H.; Beeckman, T. Auxin Control of Root Development. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2010, 2, a001537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Koltai, H. Strigolactones Are Regulators of Root Development. New Phytol. 2011, 190, 545–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sun, H.; Tao, J.; Liu, S.; Huang, S.; Chen, S.; Xie, X.; Yoneyama, K.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, G. Strigolactones Are Involved in Phosphate- and Nitrate-Deficiency-Induced Root Development and Auxin Transport in Rice. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 6735–6746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jiang, L.; Matthys, C.; Marquez-Garcia, B.; De Cuyper, C.; Smet, L.; De Keyser, A.; Boyer, F.D.; Beeckman, T.; Depuydt, S.; Goormachtig, S. Strigolactones Spatially Influence Lateral Root Development through the Cytokinin Signaling Network. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saini, S.; Sharma, I.; Kaur, N.; Pati, P.K. Auxin: A Master Regulator in Plant Root Development. Plant Cell Rep. 2013, 32, 741–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, J.; Moore, S.; Chen, C.; Lindsey, K. Crosstalk Complexities between Auxin, Cytokinin, and Ethylene in Arabidopsis Root Development: From Experiments to Systems Modeling, and Back Again. Mol. Plant 2017, 10, 1480–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jing, H.; Strader, L.C. Interplay of Auxin and Cytokinin in Lateral Root Development. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Márquez, G.; Alarcón, M.V.; Salguero, J. Cytokinin Inhibits Lateral Root Development at the Earliest Stages of Lateral Root Primordium Initiation in Maize Primary Root. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 38, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yaxley, J.R.; Ross, J.J.; Sherriff, L.J.; Reid, J.B. Gibberellin Biosynthesis Mutations and Root Development in Pea. Plant Physiol. 2001, 125, 627–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ubeda-Tomás, S.; Swarup, R.; Coates, J.; Swarup, K.; Laplaze, L.; Beemster, G.T.S.; Hedden, P.; Bhalerao, R.; Bennett, M.J. Root Growth in Arabidopsis Requires Gibberellin/DELLA Signalling in the Endodermis. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008, 10, 625–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gou, J.; Strauss, S.H.; Tsai, C.J.; Fang, K.; Chen, Y.; Jiang, X.; Busov, V.B. Gibberellins Regulate Lateral Root Formation in Populus through Interactions with Auxin and Other Hormones. Plant Cell 2010, 22, 623–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wei, Z.; Li, J. Brassinosteroids Regulate Root Growth, Development, and Symbiosis. Mol. Plant 2016, 9, 86–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Li, T.; Lei, W.; He, R.; Tang, X.; Han, J.; Zou, L.; Yin, Y.; Lin, H.; Zhang, D. Brassinosteroids Regulate Root Meristem Development by Mediating BIN2-UPB1 Module in Arabidopsis. PLoS Genet. 2020, 16, e1008883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lewis, D.R.; Negi, S.; Sukumar, P.; Muday, G.K. Ethylene Inhibits Lateral Root Development, Increases IAA Transport and Expression of PIN3 and PIN7 Auxin Efflux Carriers. Development 2011, 138, 3485–3495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Qin, H.; He, L.; Huang, R. The Coordination of Ethylene and Other Hormones in Primary Root Development. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Farré, E.M. The Regulation of Plant Growth by the Circadian Clock. Plant Biol. 2012, 14, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Inoue, K.; Araki, T.; Endo, M. Circadian Clock during Plant Development. J. Plant Res. 2018, 131, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sanchez, S.E.; Kay, S.A. The Plant Circadian Clock: From a Simple Timekeeper to a Complex Developmental Manager. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2016, 8, a027748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Finlayson, S.A.; Krishnareddy, S.R.; Kebrom, T.H.; Casal, J.J. Phytochrome Regulation of Branching in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2010, 152, 1914–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rausenberger, J.; Tscheuschler, A.; Nordmeier, W.; Wüst, F.; Timmer, J.; Schäfer, E.; Fleck, C.; Hiltbrunner, A. Photoconversion and Nuclear Trafficking Cycles Determine Phytochrome A’s Response Profile to Far-Red Light. Cell 2011, 146, 813–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Casal, J.J. Shade Avoidance. Arab. B 2012, 10, e0157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Reddy, S.K.; Finlayson, S.A. Phytochrome B Promotes Branching in Arabidopsis by Suppressing Auxin Signaling. Plant Physiol. 2014, 164, 1542–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Holalu, S.V.; Finlayson, S.A. The Ratio of Red Light to Far Red Light Alters Arabidopsis Axillary Bud Growth and Abscisic Acid Signalling before Stem Auxin Changes. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 68, 943–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Montesinos, Á.; Thorp, G.; Grimplet, J.; Rubio-Cabetas, M. Phenotyping Almond Orchards for Architectural Traits Influenced by Rootstock Choice. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Montesinos, Á.; Grimplet, J.; Rubio-Cabetas, M.J. Proleptic and Sylleptic Shoot Formation Is Affected by Rootstock Genotype in Two-Year-Old Branches of Almond Trees. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, Z.; Li, Q.; Li, Z.; Staswick, P.E.; Wang, M.; Zhu, Y.; He, Z. Dual Regulation Role of GH3.5 in Salicylic Acid and Auxin Signaling during Arabidopsis-Pseudomonas Syringae Interaction. Plant Physiol. 2007, 145, 450–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, Y.; Peng, D.; Song, Y.; Jin, C.; Ji, J.; Wang, G.; Li, X.; Guan, C. Enhancement of Methyl Salicylate Accumulation Promotes Early Flowering in Transgenic Tobacco Plants by Overexpressing a Carboxymethyl Transferase (SAMT) Gene from Lycium Chinense. Mol. Breed. 2020, 40, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Figueiredo, D.D.; Batista, R.A.; Roszak, P.J.; Köhler, C. Auxin Production Couples Endosperm Development to Fertilization. Nat. Plants 2015, 1, 15184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pierdonati, E.; Unterholzner, S.J.; Salvi, E.; Svolacchia, N.; Bertolotti, G.; Dello Ioio, R.; Sabatini, S.; Di Mambro, R. Cytokinin-Dependent Control of GH3 Group II Family Genes in the Arabidopsis Root. Plants 2019, 8, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Barbier, F.F.; Lunn, J.E.; Beveridge, C.A. Ready, Steady, Go! A Sugar Hit Starts the Race to Shoot Branching. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015, 25, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hill, J.L.; Hollender, C.A. Branching out: New Insights into the Genetic Regulation of Shoot Architecture in Trees. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2019, 47, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Shen, Y.; Zhuang, W.; Tu, X.; Gao, Z.; Xiong, A.; Yu, X.; Li, X.; Li, F.; Qu, S. Transcriptomic analysis of interstock-induced dwarfism in Sweet Persimmon (Diospyros kaki Thunb.). Hortic. Res. 2019, 6, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mitchum, M.G.; Yamaguchi, S.; Hanada, A.; Kuwahara, A.; Yoshioka, Y.; Kato, T.; Tabata, S.; Kamiya, Y.; Sun, T.P. Distinct and Overlapping Roles of Two Gibberellin 3-Oxidases in Arabidopsis Development. Plant J. 2006, 45, 804–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Joseph, M.P.; Papdi, C.; Kozma-Bognár, L.; Nagy, I.; López-Carbonell, M.; Rigó, G.; Koncz, C.; Szabados, L. The Arabidopsis ZINC FINGER PROTEIN3 Interferes with Abscisic Acid and Light Signaling in Seed Germination and Plant Development. Plant Physiol. 2014, 165, 1203–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kim, D.; Jeon, S.J.; Yanders, S.; Park, S.C.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, S. MYB3 Plays an Important Role in Lignin and Anthocyanin Biosynthesis under Salt Stress Condition in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Rep. 2022, 41, 1549–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. 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]
  52. Krouk, G.; Lacombe, B.; Bielach, A.; Perrine-Walker, F.; Malinska, K.; Mounier, E.; Hoyerova, K.; Tillard, P.; Leon, S.; Ljung, K.; et al. Nitrate-Regulated Auxin Transport by NRT1.1 Defines a Mechanism for Nutrient Sensing in Plants. Dev. Cell 2010, 18, 927–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Wang, W.; Hu, B.; Li, A.; Chu, C. NRT1.1s in Plants: Functions beyond Nitrate Transport. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 4373–4379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ding, Y.; Avramova, Z.; Fromm, M. The Arabidopsis Trithorax-like Factor ATX1 Functions in Dehydration Stress Responses via ABA-Dependent and ABA-Independent Pathways. Plant J. 2011, 66, 735–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kim, N.Y.; Jang, Y.J.; Park, O.K. AP2/ERF Family Transcription Factors ORA59 and RAP2.3 Interact in the Nucleus and Function Together in Ethylene Responses. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. León, J.; Costa-Broseta, Á.; Castillo, M.C. RAP2.3 Negatively Regulates Nitric Oxide Biosynthesis and Related Responses through a Rheostat-like Mechanism in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 3157–3171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gautier, A.T.; Chambaud, C.; Brocard, L.; Ollat, N.; Gambetta, G.A.; Delrot, S.; Cookson, S.J. Merging Genotypes: Graft Union Formation and Scion-Rootstock Interactions. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 805–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tietel, Z.; Srivastava, S.; Fait, A.; Tel-zur, N.; Carmi, N.; Id, E.R. Impact of scion/rootstock reciprocal effects on metabolomics of fruit juice and phloem sap in grafted Citrus reticulata. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Macaisne, N.; Novatchkova, M.; Peirera, L.; Vezon, D.; Jolivet, S.; Froger, N.; Chelysheva, L.; Grelon, M.; Mercier, R. SHOC1, an XPF Endonuclease-Related Protein, Is Essential for the Formation of Class I Meiotic Crossovers. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18, 1432–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. An, J.; Guo, Z.; Gou, X.; Li, J. TCP1 positively regulates the expression of DWF4 in arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Signal Behav. 2011, 6, 1117–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhou, B.; Lin, J.; Peng, W.; Peng, D.; Zhuo, Y.; Zhu, D.; Huang, X.; Tang, D.; Guo, M.; He, R.; et al. Dwarfism in Brassica Napus L. Induced by the over-Expression of a Gibberellin 2-Oxidase Gene from Arabidopsis Thaliana. Mol. Breed. 2012, 29, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yu, L.H.; Miao, Z.Q.; Qi, G.F.; Wu, J.; Cai, X.T.; Mao, J.L.; Xiang, C. Bin MADS-Box Transcription Factor AGL21 Regulates Lateral Root Development and Responds to Multiple External and Physiological Signals. Mol. Plant 2014, 7, 1653–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Chen, X.; Lu, S.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Lv, B.; Luo, L.; Xi, D.; Shen, J.; Ma, H.; Ming, F. OsNAC2 Encoding a NAC Transcription Factor That Affects Plant Height through Mediating the Gibberellic Acid Pathway in Rice. Plant J. 2015, 82, 302–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Mishra, P.; Panigrahi, K.C. GIGANTEA—An Emerging Story. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Betsch, L.; Savarin, J.; Bendahmane, M.; Szecsi, J. Roles of the Translationally Controlled Tumor Protein (TCTP) in Plant Development. In Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 64, pp. 149–172. [Google Scholar]
  66. Liu, Y.; Dong, Q.; Kita, D.; Huang, J.B.; Liu, G.; Wu, X.; Zhu, X.; Cheung, A.Y.; Wu, H.M.; Tao, L.Z. RopGEF1 Plays a Critical Role in Polar Auxin Transport in Early Development. Plant Physiol. 2017, 175, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liu, B.; Zhao, S.; Li, P.; Yin, Y.; Niu, Q.; Yan, J.; Huang, D. Plant Buffering against the High-Light Stress-Induced Accumulation of CsGA2ox8 Transcripts via Alternative Splicing to Finely Tune Gibberellin Levels and Maintain Hypocotyl Elongation. Hortic. Res. 2021, 8, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhuang, Y.; Wei, M.; Ling, C.; Liu, Y.; Amin, A.K.; Li, P.; Li, P.; Hu, X.; Bao, H.; Huo, H.; et al. EGY3 Mediates Chloroplastic ROS Homeostasis and Promotes Retrograde Signaling in Response to Salt Stress in Arabidopsis. Cell Rep. 2021, 36, 109384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sugimoto, H.; Tanaka, T.; Muramoto, N.; Kitagawa-Yogo, R.; Mitsukawa, N. Transcription Factor NTL9 Negatively Regulates Arabidopsis Vascular Cambium Development during Stem Secondary Growth. Plant Physiol. 2022, 190, 1731–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Neff, M.M.; Nguyen, S.M.; Malancharuvil, E.J.; Fujioka, S.; Noguchi, T.; Seto, H.; Tsubuki, M.; Honda, T.; Takatsuto, S.; Yoshida, S.; et al. Bas1: A Gene Regulating Brassinosteroid Levels and Light Responsiveness in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 15316–15323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Turk, E.M.; Fujioka, S.; Seto, H.; Shimada, Y.; Takatsuto, S.; Yoshida, S.; Wang, H.; Torres, Q.I.; Ward, J.M.; Murthy, G.; et al. BAS1 and SOB7 Act Redundantly to Modulate Arabidopsis Photomorphogenesis via Unique Brassinosteroid Inactivation Mechanisms. Plant J. 2005, 42, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Takeda, S.; Hanano, K.; Kariya, A.; Shimizu, S.; Zhao, L.; Matsui, M.; Tasaka, M.; Aida, M. CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON1 Transcription Factor Activates the Expression of LSH4 and LSH3, Two Members of the ALOG Gene Family, in Shoot Organ Boundary Cells. Plant J. 2011, 66, 1066–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cosgrove, D.J. Plant Cell Wall Extensibility: Connecting Plant Cell Growth with Cell Wall Structure, Mechanics, and the Action of Wall-Modifying Enzymes. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 463–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Shen, L.; Liang, Z.; Gu, X.; Chen, Y.; Teo, Z.W.N.; Hou, X.; Cai, W.M.; Dedon, P.C.; Liu, L.; Yu, H. N6-Methyladenosine RNA Modification Regulates Shoot Stem Cell Fate in Arabidopsis. Dev. Cell 2016, 38, 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Gao, J.; Zhang, T.; Xu, B.; Jia, L.; Xiao, B.; Liu, H.; Liu, L. CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Mutagenesis of Carotenoid Cleavage Dioxygenase 8 (CCD8) in Tobacco Affects Shoot and Root Architecture. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 19, 1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Xie, Z.; Nolan, T.; Jiang, H.; Tang, B.; Zhang, M.; Li, Z.; Yin, Y. The AP2/ERF Transcription Factor TINY Modulates Brassinosteroid-Regulated Plant Growth and Drought Responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2019, 31, 1788–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Molas, M.L.; Kiss, J.Z. Chapter 1 Phototropism and Gravitropism in Plants. Adv. Bot. Res. 2009, 49, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yadav, A.; Singh, D.; Lingwan, M.; Yadukrishnan, P.; Masakapalli, S.K.; Datta, S. Light Signaling and UV-B-Mediated Plant Growth Regulation. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2020, 62, 1270–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Ledger, S.; Strayer, C.; Ashton, F.; Kay, S.A.; Putterill, J. Analysis of the Function of Two Circadian-Regulated CONSTANS-LIKE Genes. Plant J. 2001, 26, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ziemienowicz, A.; Haasen, D.; Staiger, D.; Merkle, T. Arabidopsis Transportin1 Is the Nuclear Import Receptor for the Circadian Clock-Regulated RNA-Binding Protein AtGRP7. Plant Mol. Biol. 2003, 53, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sawa, M.; Nusinow, D.A.; Kay, S.A.; Imaizumi, T. FKF1 and GIGANTEA Complex Formation Is Required for Day-Length Measurement in Arabidopsis. Science 2007, 318, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chia, T.Y.P.; Müller, A.; Jung, C.; Mutasa-Göttgens, E.S. Sugar Beet Contains a Large CONSTANS-LIKE Gene Family Including a CO Homologue That Is Independent of the Early-Bolting (B) Gene Locus. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 2735–2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rawat, R.; Schwartz, J.; Jones, M.A.; Sairanen, I.; Cheng, Y.; Andersson, C.R.; Zhao, Y.; Ljung, K.; Harmer, S.L. The Circadian Clock and Auxin Pathways. For. Genet. 2009, 106, 16883–16888. [Google Scholar]
  84. Jones, M.A.; Harmer, S.L. JMJD5 Functions in Concert with TOC1 in the Arabidopsis Circadian System. Plant Signal. Behav. 2011, 6, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Sawa, M.; Kay, S.A. GIGANTEA Directly Activates Flowering Locus T in Arabidopsis Thaliana. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 11698–11703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Song, Y.H.; Estrada, D.A.; Johnson, R.S.; Kim, S.K.; Lee, S.Y.; MacCoss, M.J.; Imaizumi, T. Distinct Roles of FKF1, GIGANTEA, and ZEITLUPE Proteins in the Regulation of Constans Stability in Arabidopsis Photoperiodic Flowering. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 17672–17677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kiełbowicz-Matuk, A.; Czarnecka, J.; Banachowicz, E.; Rey, P.; Rorat, T. Solanum Tuberosum ZPR1 Encodes a Light-Regulated Nuclear DNA-Binding Protein Adjusting the Circadian Expression of StBBX24 to Light Cycle. Plant Cell Environ. 2017, 40, 424–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Salzman, R.A.; Fujita, T.; Zhu-Salzman, K.; Hasegawa, P.M.; Bressan, R.A. An Improved RNA Isolation Method for Plant Tissues Containing High Levels of Phenolic Compounds or Carbohydrates. Plant Mol. Biol. Report. 1999, 17, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zeng, Y.; Yang, T. RNA Isolation from Highly Viscous Samples Rich in Polyphenols and Polysaccharides. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2002, 20, 5223210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Meisel, L.; Fonseca, B.; González, S.; Baeza-Yates, R.; Cambiazo, V.; Campos, R.; Gonzalez, M.; Orellana, A.; Retamales, J.; Silva, H. A Rapid and Efficient Method for Purifying High Quality Total RNA from Peaches (Prunus Persica) for Functional Genomics Analyses. Biol. Res. 2005, 38, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Blankenberg, D.; Gordon, A.; Von Kuster, G.; Coraor, N.; Taylor, J.; Nekrutenko, A.; Team, G. Manipulation of FASTQ Data with Galaxy. Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 1783–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bolger, A.M.; Lohse, M.; Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A Flexible Trimmer for Illumina Sequence Data. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2114–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kim, D.; Langmead, B.; Salzberg, S.L. HISAT: A Fast Spliced Aligner with Low Memory Requirements. Nat. Methods 2015, 12, 357–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Alioto, T.; Alexiou, K.G.; Bardil, A.; Barteri, F.; Castanera, R.; Cruz, F.; Dhingra, A.; Duval, H.; Fernández i Martí, Á.; Frias, L.; et al. Transposons Played a Major Role in the Diversification between the Closely Related Almond and Peach Genomes: Results from the Almond Genome Sequence. Plant J. 2020, 101, 455–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Liao, Y.; Smyth, G.K.; Shi, W. FeatureCounts: An Efficient General Purpose Program for Assigning Sequence Reads to Genomic Features. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 923–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Robinson, M.D.; McCarthy, D.J.; Smyth, G.K. EdgeR: A Bioconductor Package for Differential Expression Analysis of Digital Gene Expression Data. Bioinformatics 2009, 26, 139–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Everaert, C.; Luypaert, M.; Maag, J.L.V.; Cheng, Q.X.; Marcel, E.; Hellemans, J.; Mestdagh, P. Benchmarking of RNA-Sequencing Analysis Workflows Using Whole-Transcriptome RT-QPCR Expression Data. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Coenye, T. Do results obtained with RNA-sequencing require independent verification? Biofilm 2021, 3, 100043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 04166 g001
Figure 1. The scion/rootstock combinations showed differences in vigor response. From left to right: ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’, ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®, ‘Lauranne’/‘GN-8’ and ‘Lauranne’/Garnem®.
Figure 1. The scion/rootstock combinations showed differences in vigor response. From left to right: ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’, ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®, ‘Lauranne’/‘GN-8’ and ‘Lauranne’/Garnem®.
Plants 12 04166 g001
Plants 12 04166 g002
Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the global expression profile data from cultivar samples of the four scion/rootstock combinations. ISA/GN: ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®; ISA/G8: ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’; LAU/GN: ‘Lauranne’/Garnem®; LAU/G8: ‘Lauranne’/‘GN-8’.
Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the global expression profile data from cultivar samples of the four scion/rootstock combinations. ISA/GN: ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®; ISA/G8: ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’; LAU/GN: ‘Lauranne’/Garnem®; LAU/G8: ‘Lauranne’/‘GN-8’.
Plants 12 04166 g002
Plants 12 04166 g003
Figure 3. Analysis of the cultivar effect on the rootstock transcriptome data. (A) Principal component analysis (PCA) of the global expression profile data from rootstock samples of the four scion/rootstock combinations. ISA/GN: ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®; ISA/G8: ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’; LAU/GN: ‘Lauranne’/Garnem®; LAU/G8: ‘Lauranne’/‘GN-8’. (B) Venn diagrams of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for the four scion/roostock combinations.
Figure 3. Analysis of the cultivar effect on the rootstock transcriptome data. (A) Principal component analysis (PCA) of the global expression profile data from rootstock samples of the four scion/rootstock combinations. ISA/GN: ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®; ISA/G8: ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’; LAU/GN: ‘Lauranne’/Garnem®; LAU/G8: ‘Lauranne’/‘GN-8’. (B) Venn diagrams of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for the four scion/roostock combinations.
Plants 12 04166 g003
Table 1. Analysis of architectural traits related to vigor in one-year-old scion/rootstock combinations.
Table 1. Analysis of architectural traits related to vigor in one-year-old scion/rootstock combinations.
CultivarRootstockLength (mm)d_Scion (mm)d_Rootstock (mm)
‘Isabelona’‘GN-8’210 a2.63 a4.25 a
Garnem®260 b3.25 ab4.36 a
‘Lauranne’‘GN-8’310 c2.97 ab4.50 a
Garnem®400 d3.32 b4.56 a
Values within columns for each scion/rootstock combination followed by the same letter were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Table 2. Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) of interest between ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’ and ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®.
Table 2. Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) of interest between ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’ and ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®.
logFCP. dulcis IDGeneGO TermBiological Process
1.392Prudul26A014401AGL62GO:2000012regulation of auxin polar transport
1.095Prudul26A014156ATX1GO:0009737response to abscisic acid
1.509Prudul26A001827BPG2GO:0009742Brassinosteroid-mediated signaling pathway
−1.803Prudul26A026577BRC1GO:2000032regulation of secondary shoot formation
0.786Prudul26A031863BZR1GO:0009742Brassinosteroid-mediated signaling pathway
−1.060Prudul26A020544COL2GO:2000028regulation of photoperiodism, flowering
−1.319Prudul26A006124DRM1GO:0006346DNA methylation-dependent heterochromatin formation
−0.796Prudul26A027812DWF4GO:0009741response to brassinosteroid
3.795Prudul26A014067ERF106GO:0009873ethylene-activated signaling pathway
−0.833Prudul26A003763GA3OX1GO:0009739response to gibberellin
1.069Prudul26A008575GASA10GO:0009740gibberellic acid-mediated signaling pathway
−1.422Prudul26A017626GH3.6GO:0009733response to auxin
−0.993Prudul26A009430HVA22DGO:0009737response to abscisic acid
−0.850Prudul26A024452IAA4GO:0009733response to auxin
−0.793Prudul26A000470ICK5GO:0007049cell cycle
0.938Prudul26A032509KAO2GO:0009686gibberellin biosynthetic process
−1.225Prudul26A009950KING1GO:0042128nitrate assimilation
−1.390Prudul26A008149LBD38GO:0010468regulation of gene expression
−1.107Prudul26A011380LSB1GO:0006865amino acid transport
0.913Prudul26A016769MES17GO:0048367shoot system development
−1.064Prudul26A032130MYB3GO:0009800cinnamic acid biosynthetic process
−0.953Prudul26A007232NRT1GO:0042128nitrate assimilation
−1.290Prudul26A015004NRT1GO:0042128nitrate assimilation
1.409Prudul26A017899PDX1GO:0030154cell differentiation
−1.687Prudul26A015061PE11GO:0042545cell wall modification
−1.601Prudul26A031322PERK4GO:0009738abscisic acid-activated signaling pathway
0.780Prudul26A001835PME51GO:0042545cell wall modification
1.440Prudul26A005193RALFL34GO:0019722calcium-mediated signaling
1.179Prudul26A030616RAP2.3GO:0009873ethylene-activated signaling pathway
−1.154Prudul26A000867RAP2.7GO:0009873ethylene-activated signaling pathway
−0.967Prudul26A017144RVE1GO:0009734auxin-activated signaling pathway
−1.305Prudul26A019438RVE7GO:0007623circadian rhythm
−1.080Prudul26A001965SGT1GO:0009734auxin-activated signaling pathway
0.763Prudul26A008234SKU5GO:0009932cell tip growth
0.815Prudul26A029219SRT2GO:0009873ethylene-activated signaling pathway
0.801Prudul26A019903SWI3BGO:0006338chromatin remodeling
−0.828Prudul26A006961ZFP7GO:0009738abscisic acid-activated signaling pathway
Table 3. Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) of interest between ‘Lauranne’/‘GN-8’ and ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’.
Table 3. Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) of interest between ‘Lauranne’/‘GN-8’ and ‘Isabelona’/‘GN-8’.
logFCP. dulcis IDGeneGO TermBiological Process
−1.418Prudul26A015064CLV1GO:0030154cell differentiation
−1.732Prudul26A007496DRMH3GO:0048364root development
−0.767Prudul26A027600EF1AGO:0030154cell differentiation
−2.116Prudul26A020498FIP37GO:0010073meristem maintenance
−1.060Prudul26A010669GRP7GO:0007623circadian rhythm
−0.909Prudul26A029624IAMT1GO:0009851auxin biosynthetic process
−1.209Prudul26A032200JAZ3GO:2000022regulation of jasmonic acid mediated signaling pathway
−0.858Prudul26A031524LAX3GO:0009733response to auxin
−2.079Prudul26A001972RD22GO:0009651response to salt stress
−1.578Prudul26A025497TCTPGO:0051301cell division
−1.542Prudul26A008660VIM1GO:0051301cell division
Table 4. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) of interest between ‘Lauranne’/Garnem® and ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®.
Table 4. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) of interest between ‘Lauranne’/Garnem® and ‘Isabelona’/Garnem®.
logFCP. dulcis IDGeneGO TermBiological Process
−1.449Prudul26A026190LTP3GO:0009737response to abscisic acid
0.761Prudul26A003389GLR3.7GO:0009737response to abscisic acid
−1.191Prudul26A024452IAA4GO:0009733response to auxin
−1.679Prudul26A006124DRM1GO:0006346DNA methylation-dependent heterochromatin formation
−1.688Prudul26A025556SAUR50GO:0009733response to auxin
−0.818Prudul26A024388ROPGEF1GO:2000012regulation of auxin polar transport
−1.135Prudul26A031524LAX3GO:2000012regulation of auxin polar transport
−0.803Prudul26A010146TINY2GO:0009741response to brassinosteroid
−1.702Prudul26A030744BAS1GO:0009741response to brassinosteroid
1.428Prudul26A014814SHOC1GO:0000712resolution of meiotic recombination intermediates
1.217Prudul26A029769MCM4GO:1902969mitotic DNA replication
1.192Prudul26A003343RCC1GO:0051301cell division
1.121Prudul26A018495RCC1GO:0051301cell division
0.932Prudul26A013222MCM6GO:1902969mitotic DNA replication
0.779Prudul26A022273PUR4GO:0006541glutamine metabolic process
−1.120Prudul26A008660VIM1GO:0051301cell division
1.657Prudul26A0202114CLL6GO:0042545cell wall modification
0.828Prudul26A010546GALT1GO:0006486protein glycosylation
−0.964Prudul26A003244CYT1GO:0030244cellulose biosynthetic process
−1.009Prudul26A022981NST1GO:0009834plant-type secondary cell wall biogenesis
1.199Prudul26A005611HSFB2BGO:0071456cellular response to hypoxia
0.782Prudul26A002278ZPR1GO:0010358leaf shaping
−0.866Prudul26A022967CAT2GO:0009416response to light stimulus
−1.000Prudul26A017144RVE1GO:0009734auxin-activated signaling pathway
−1.102Prudul26A014609JMJD5GO:0007623circadian rhythm
−1.196Prudul26A019438RVE7GO:0007623circadian rhythm
−1.227Prudul26A010669GRP7GO:0007623circadian rhythm
−3.776Prudul26A032739GRP7GO:0007623circadian rhythm
−1.784Prudul26A017801CKX5GO:0009823cytokinin catabolic process
1.943Prudul26A021691EGY3GO:0009651response to salt stress
1.551Prudul26A019984ERF024GO:0009873ethylene-activated signaling pathway
−0.871Prudul26A022693RCE1GO:0009733response to auxin
2.056Prudul26A000689GA2OX8GO:0009686gibberellin biosynthetic process
−1.423Prudul26A003763GA3OX1GO:0009739response to gibberellin
−1.057Prudul26A032482NAC2GO:0009644response to high light intensity
−1.141Prudul26A032200JAZ3GO:2000022regulation of jasmonic acid mediated signaling pathway
−0.982Prudul26A012618RPT2GO:0009638phototropism
−1.180Prudul26A007555CDF3GO:0009908flower development
−1.273Prudul26A009950KING1GO:0042128nitrate assimilation
1.801Prudul26A016707GIGO:0030154cell differentiation
2.142Prudul26A024652PAT1GO:0009640photomorphogenesis
1.422Prudul26A014018NTL9GO:0071470cellular response to osmotic stress
0.782Prudul26A016310TOE3GO:0009873ethylene-activated signaling pathway
−0.763Prudul26A027253GCR2GO:0005975carbohydrate metabolic process
−0.769Prudul26A006961ZFP7GO:0009738abscisic acid-activated signaling pathway
−0.820Prudul26A024443COL4GO:0009909regulation of flower development
−0.919Prudul26A002088SUI1GO:0030154cell differentiation
−0.994Prudul26A002057LSH3GO:0010492maintenance of shoot apical meristem identity
−1.234Prudul26A016351CDF2GO:0009908flower development
−1.264Prudul26A025497TCTPGO:0051301cell division
−1.291Prudul26A015967SPL9GO:0048366leaf development
−1.586Prudul26A020498FIP37GO:0010073meristem maintenance
−1.971Prudul26A022418MAX1GO:0009926auxin polar transport
0.864Prudul26A016413AGL21GO:0048364root development
−1.010Prudul26A029350JKDGO:0048364root development
−1.082Prudul26A020939AGL79GO:0010311lateral root formation
−1.674Prudul26A007496DRMH3GO:0048364root development
1.705Prudul26A006492SWEET2GO:0008643carbohydrate transport
−0.983Prudul26A013154SWEET2GO:0008643carbohydrate transport
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Montesinos, Á.; Rubio-Cabetas, M.J.; Grimplet, J. Characterization of Almond Scion/Rootstock Communication in Cultivar and Rootstock Tissues through an RNA-Seq Approach. Plants 2023, 12, 4166. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12244166

AMA Style

Montesinos Á, Rubio-Cabetas MJ, Grimplet J. Characterization of Almond Scion/Rootstock Communication in Cultivar and Rootstock Tissues through an RNA-Seq Approach. Plants. 2023; 12(24):4166. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12244166

Chicago/Turabian Style

Montesinos, Álvaro, María José Rubio-Cabetas, and Jérôme Grimplet. 2023. "Characterization of Almond Scion/Rootstock Communication in Cultivar and Rootstock Tissues through an RNA-Seq Approach" Plants 12, no. 24: 4166. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12244166

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