Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32928111›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2020

Comparative analysis of sucrose phosphate synthase (SPS) gene family between Saccharum officinarum and Saccharum spontaneum.

Panpan Ma, Xingtan Zhang, Lanping Chen, Qian Zhao, Qing Zhang, Xiuting Hua, Zhengchao Wang, Haibao Tang, Qingyi Yu, Muqing Zhang and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Panpan MaCenter for Genomics and Biotechnology, Haixia Institute of Science and Technology, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Haixia Applied Plant Systems Biology, College of Crop Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Xingtan ZhangCenter for Genomics and Biotechnology, Haixia Institute of Science and Technology, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Haixia Applied Plant Systems Biology, College of Crop Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Lanping ChenCenter for Genomics and Biotechnology, Haixia Institute of Science and Technology, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Haixia Applied Plant Systems Biology, College of Crop Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Qian ZhaoInstitute of Applied Ecology, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Qing ZhangCenter for Genomics and Biotechnology, Haixia Institute of Science and Technology, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Haixia Applied Plant Systems Biology, College of Crop Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Xiuting HuaCenter for Genomics and Biotechnology, Haixia Institute of Science and Technology, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Haixia Applied Plant Systems Biology, College of Crop Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Zhengchao WangCollege of Life Sciences, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, 350007, China.
Haibao TangCenter for Genomics and Biotechnology, Haixia Institute of Science and Technology, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Haixia Applied Plant Systems Biology, College of Crop Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Qingyi YuCenter for Genomics and Biotechnology, Haixia Institute of Science and Technology, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Haixia Applied Plant Systems Biology, College of Crop Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Muqing ZhangGuangxi Key Lab of Sugarcane Biology, Guangxi University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Ray MingDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Jisen ZhangCenter for Genomics and Biotechnology, Haixia Institute of Science and Technology, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Haixia Applied Plant Systems Biology, College of Crop Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China. zjisen@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8435-6615
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University · CNGuangxi University · CNFujian Normal University · CNInstitute of Applied Ecology · CNTexas A&M University System · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSucrose phosphate synthase (SPS) genes play vital roles in sucrose production across various plant species. Modern sugarcane cultivar is derived from the hybridization between the high sugar content species Saccharum officinarum and the high stress tolerance species Saccharum spontaneum, generating one of the most complex genomes among all crops. The genomics of sugarcane SPS remains under-studied despite its profound impact on sugar yield.

resultsIn the present study, 8 and 6 gene sequences for SPS were identified from the BAC libraries of S. officinarum and S. spontaneum, respectively. Phylogenetic analysis showed that SPSD was newly evolved in the lineage of Poaceae species with recently duplicated genes emerging from the SPSA clade. Molecular evolution analysis based on Ka/Ks ratios suggested that polyploidy reduced the selection pressure of SPS genes in Saccharum species. To explore the potential gene functions, the SPS expression patterns were analyzed based on RNA-seq and proteome dataset, and the sugar content was detected using metabolomics analysis. All the SPS members presented the trend of increasing expression in the sink-source transition along the developmental gradient of leaves, suggesting that the SPSs are involved in the photosynthesis in both Saccharum species as their function in dicots. Moreover, SPSs showed the higher expression in S. spontaneum and presented expressional preference between stem (SPSA) and leaf (SPSB) tissue, speculating they might be involved in the differentia of carbohydrate metabolism in these two Saccharum species, which required further verification from experiments.

conclusionsSPSA and SPSB genes presented relatively high expression and differential expression patterns between the two Saccharum species, indicating these two SPSs are important in the formation of regulatory networks and sucrose traits in the two Saccharum species. SPSB was suggested to be a major contributor to the sugar accumulation because it presented the highest expressional level and its expression positively correlated with sugar content. The recently duplicated SPSD2 presented divergent expression levels between the two Saccharum species and the relative protein content levels were highest in stem, supporting the neofunctionalization of the SPSD subfamily in Saccharum.

Indexed as

Species SpecificityGene Expression Regulation, PlantGenetic VariationGlucosyltransferasesPlant ProteinsSaccharumGlucosyltransferasesPlant Proteinssucrose-phosphate synthaseBAC librariesMetabolitesPolyploidyS. officinarumS. spontaneumSucrose phosphate synthase (SPS)SugarcaneTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID32928111
PMCPMC7488781
OpenAlexW3086210262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.