Project description:wt plants (ws) and opr3 mutant plants were wounded Half of the rosette leaves of 6 weeks old plants were wounded by clamping a tweezers across the midvein. RNA was extracted from control and systemic leaves 2 h after wounding, and was subject to affymetrix ATH1 chip. one repeat: wt control, wt systemic wounding, opr3 control, opr3 systemic wounding
Project description:This study aims to identify genes which help to understand similar underlying mechanism in the response to shade and wounding in Arabidopsis thaliana plants.
Project description:wt plants (ws) and opr3 mutant plants were wounded Half of the rosette leaves of 6 weeks old plants were wounded by clamping a tweezers across the midvein. RNA was extracted from control and systemic leaves 2 h after wounding, and was subject to affymetrix ATH1 chip.
Project description:Transcriptional profiling of Arabidopsis thaliana wild type (WT) comparing MD (mechanical damage) and HW (herbivore wounding). The differences in the biochemical responses to herbivory seen prompted us to search for less obvious differences between treatments using gene expression profiling. Biological replicates: 4 Two-condition experiment, MD vs. HW Arabidopsis leaves of WT plants. Biological replicates: 4 biological replicates.
Project description:To get deeper insights into the GSH-triggered systemic defense signaling events in plants, we performed transcriptome profiling on leaf 6 collected after one hour application of GSH to leaf 1 of WT plants. To further investigate the relations between GSH and Glu in plant wound response, we generated transcriptome data sets from leaf 6 one hour after wounding leaf 1 or application of Glu to leaf 1 of WT plants.
Project description:Arabidopsis thaliana plants were infested i) with sucking insect herbivores (the generalist aphid Myzus persicae and the specialist aphid Brevicoryne brassicae), ii) with chewing insect herbivores (generalist caterpillars of Spodoptera exigua and specialist caterpillars of Pieris rapae) or iii) were treated by wounding. For each treatment, rosette leaves were harvested at two time points (6h and 24h) after removal of insects. For chewing herbivores and wounding both local, i.e. immediately damaged leaves, and systemic, i.e. undamaged leaves from the same plant, were collected. Control plants were uninfested, but otherwise equally treated and harvested in parallel. We tested the hypothesis that Arabidopsis can recognize and respond differentially to insect species at the transcriptional level using a genome wide microarray. Transcriptional reprogramming was characterized using co-expression analysis in damaged and undamaged leaves at two times in response to mechanical wounding and four insect species. In all, 2778 (10.6%) of annotated genes on the array were differentially expressed in at least one treatment. Responses differed mainly between aphid and caterpillar and sampling times. Responses to aphids and caterpillars shared only 10% of up-regulated and 8% of down-regulated genes. Responses to two caterpillars shared 21% and 12% of up- and down-regulated genes, whereas responses to the two aphids shared only 7% and 4% of up-regulated and down-regulated genes. Overlap in genes expressed between 6h and 24h was 3-15%, and depended on the insect species. Responses in attacked and unattacked leaves differed at 6h but converged by 24h. Genes responding to the insects are also responsive to many stressors and included primary metabolism. Aphids down-regulated amino acid catabolism; caterpillars stimulated production of amino acids involved in glucosinolate synthesis. Co-expression analysis revealed 17 response networks. Transcription factors were a major portion of differentially expressed genes throughout and responsive genes shared most of the known or postulated binding sites.
Project description:Transcriptional profiling of Arabidopsis thaliana wild type (WT) comparing MD (mechanical damage) and HW (herbivore wounding). The differences in the biochemical responses to herbivory seen prompted us to search for less obvious differences between treatments using gene expression profiling. Biological replicates: 4