120 likes | 228 Views
T ranscriptome and p roteome studies of New Zealand alpine Pachycladon. Claudia Voelckel, Mehdi Mirzaei, Michael Reichelt, Luke Luo, Dana Pascovici, Peter B Heenan, Sylvia S Schmidt, Bart Janssen, Paul A Haynes, Peter J Lockhart. NZPRN 2009. Q uestions & A pproach. EN. LA.
E N D
Transcriptome and proteome studies of New Zealand alpine Pachycladon Claudia Voelckel, Mehdi Mirzaei, Michael Reichelt, Luke Luo, Dana Pascovici, Peter B Heenan, Sylvia S Schmidt, Bart Janssen, Paul A Haynes, Peter J Lockhart NZPRN 2009
Questions & Approach EN LA Q: Adaptive diversification? Q: Mediated by which genes? ST FA A: Comparative gene expression profiling in common gardens WA NZ NZ EN Pachycladon super net work, S. Joly, unpubl. EX EX CH CH P. cheesemanii (CH) P. exile (EX) P. novae-zelandiae (NZ)
People who helped: Peter Heenan Murray Dawson Lincoln Plant growth Michael Reichelt JenaGlucosinolate analysis Sydney Protein analysis Auckland Microarray analysis Paul A. Haynes Mehdi Mirzai Dana Pascovici Bart Janssen Luke Luo Silvia Schmidt Palmy Link all data almost submitted Claudia Voelckel Pete Lockhart
Specific questions: • Protein profiling as a validation of transcript profiling? How much overlap? Can we predict physiological differences between CH, EX and NZ and what are they? To what extend will transcript and protein profiling make different predictions regarding downstream physiological differences? Will phylogenetic relationships be reflected in transcript, protein and metabolite profiles?
Results Overall correlation: Specifically up-regulated genes: 9601 loci 1489 loci T TP P 8527 1074 415 P T T = transcript profiling, P = protein profiling
Specific Genes Found by T AND P EX NZ EX+NZ T TP P T TP P T TP P 20 4 * 41 220 56 * 44 97 29* 61 CH 16% 20% 23% 9% 56% 32% CH NZ CH+NZ T TP P T TP P T TP P 5 1 125 183 27 * 63 18 4 81 EX 16% 13% 18% <1% 30% 4% CH EX CH+EX T TP P T TP P T TP P 11 9 * 247 13 9 * 143 14 8 228 NZ 45% 40% 36% 4% 6% 3%
Specific Genes Found by T AND P EX+NZ Interconversion of carbon dioxide and bicarbonate (carbonic anhydrase) T TP P 97 29* 61 Draught response CH 23% 32% Serine racemase CH+NZ T TP P 18 4 81 Draught response EX 18% 4% CH+EX Interconversion of carbon dioxide and bicarbonate (carbonic anhydrase) T TP P 14 8 228 NZ 36% Vegetative storage proteins 3%
Predictions from T and P: Glucosinolate Biosynthesis CH EX NZ CH EX NZ
Predictions from T and P: Glucosinolate Hydrolysis P. novae-zelandiae P. cheesemanii
Profiling Patterns Through the Phylogenetic Lens: = = Glucosinolates ≠ NZ EX CH
Some Answers: • Protein profiling as a validation of transcript profiling? How much overlap? – overlap small but significant Can we predict physiological differences between CH, EX and NZ and what are they? – yes (C02 enzymes, draught response, glucosinolate metabolism) To what extend will transcript and protein profiling make different predictions regarding downstream physiological differences? glucosinolate phenotypes better predicted by protein profiling Will phylogenetic relationships be reflected in transcript, protein and metabolite profiles? – not in metabolite profiles, selection?
Thanks to: New Zealand Landcare: Peter Heenan, Murray Dawson, Kat Trought Plant and Food: Bart Janssen, Luke Luo, Silvia Schmidt AWC: Pete Lockhart, Christine Reinsch, Hanna Daniel Australia Macquarie University: Mehdi Mirzai, Dana Pascovici, Paul Haynes, Mark Westoby Germany MPICE: Michael Reichelt, Jonathan Gershenzon Funding Marsden & Humboldt Foundation YOU!