Transcriptomic dissection reveals wide spread differential expression in chickpea during early time

37 Pages·2017·21.33 MB·English

RESEARCHARTICLE
Transcriptomic dissection reveals wide spread
differential expression in chickpea during
early time points of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.
ciceri Race 1 attack
SumantiGupta¤a☯,AnirbanBhar¤b☯,MoniyaChatterjee☯,AmartyaGhosh,SampaDas*
DivisionofPlantBiology,BoseInstitute,CentenaryCampus,P1/12,CITScheme,VII-M,Kankurgachi,
Kolkata,WestBengal,India
a1111111111
a1111111111
☯Theseauthorscontributedequallytothiswork.
a1111111111
¤a Currentaddress:DepartmentofBotany,RabindraMahavidyalaya,Champadanga,Hooghly,Pin,West
a1111111111 Bengal,India
a1111111111 ¤b Currentaddress:PostGraduateDepartmentofBotany,RamakrishnaMissionVivekanandaCentenary
College,Rahara,Kolkata,WestBengal,India
*[email protected]
Abstract
OPENACCESS
Citation:GuptaS,BharA,ChatterjeeM,GhoshA,
Plants’reactiontoundergroundmicroorganismsiscomplexassessilenatureofplants
DasS(2017)Transcriptomicdissectionreveals
widespreaddifferentialexpressioninchickpea compelsthemtoprioritizetheirresponsestodiversemicroorganismsbothpathogenicand
duringearlytimepointsofFusariumoxysporumf. symbiotic.Rootsofimportantcropsaredirectlyexposedtodiversemicroorganisms,but
sp.ciceriRace1attack.PLoSONE12(5):
investigationsinvolvingrootpathogensaresignificantlyless.Thus,morestudiesinvolving
e0178164.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
rootpathogensandtheirtargetcropsarenecessitatedtoenrichtheunderstandingofunder-
pone.0178164
groundinteractions.Presentstudyreportedthemolecularcomplexitiesinchickpeaduring
Editor:VijaiGupta,TallinnUniversityof
Fusariumoxysporumf.sp.ciceriRace1(Foc1)infection.Transcriptomicdissectionsusing
Technology,ESTONIA
RNA-seqshowedsignificantlydifferentialexpressionofmoleculartranscriptsbetween
Received:November5,2016
infectedandcontrolplantsofbothsusceptibleandresistantgenotypes.Radarplotanalyses
Accepted:May9,2017
showedmaximumexpressionalundulationsafterinfectioninbothsusceptibleandresistant
Published:May25,2017 plants.Geneontologyandfunctionalclusteringshowedlargenumberoftranscriptscontrol-
Copyright:©2017Guptaetal.Thisisanopen lingbasicmetabolismofplants.Networkanalysesdemonstrateddefensecomponentslike
accessarticledistributedunderthetermsofthe peptidylcis/transisomerase,MAPkinase,beta1,3glucanase,serinethreoninekinase,
CreativeCommonsAttributionLicense,which
patatinlikeprotein,lactolylglutathionelyase,coproporphyrinogenIIIoxidase,sulfotrans-
permitsunrestricteduse,distribution,and
ferases;reactiveoxygenspeciesregulatingcomponentslikerespiratoryburstoxidase,
reproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginal
authorandsourcearecredited. superoxidedismutases,cytochromeb5reductase,glutathionereductase,thioredoxin
reductase,ATPase;metabolismregulatingcomponents,myoinositolphosphate,carboxyl-
DataAvailabilityStatement:Therawpairedend
sequencedatawasdepositedtoNationalCentrefor atesynthase;transportrelatedgammatonoplastintrinsicprotein,andstructuralcomponent,
BiotechnologyInformation’s(NCBI)ShortRead ubiquitinstoserveasimportantnodalsofdefensesignalingnetwork.Thesenodalmole-
Archivedatabaseundertheaccessionnumberof
culesprobablyservedashubcontrollersofdefensesignaling.Functionalcharacterization
SRP041784andBioProjectIDPRJNA246444.
ofthesehubmoleculeswouldnotonlyhelpindevelopingbetterunderstandingofchickpea-
Funding:TheauthorsareindebtedtoDirector,
Foc1interactionbutalsoplacethemaspromisingcandidatesforresistancemanagement
BoseInstituteforpartiallysupportingthefundsto
programsagainstvascularwiltoflegumes.
performthepresentstudyandprovidingthe
centralinstrumentationfacilities.SGandMCare
thankfultoBoseInstitutefortheirfellowshipsas
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 1/37
Differentialhosttranscriptprofilingduringchickpea-Foc1interplay
ResearchAssociates.AB(09/015(0378)/2009- Introduction
EMR-1)andAG(09/015(0481)/2015-EMR-1)are
Legumesarewellknownfortheirnutritivevalueconsistingofeasilydigestibleproteins[1].
gratefultoCouncilofScientificandIndustrial
Research,Indiafortheirfellowships.Therewasno Besides,theirabilitytoformnitrogenfixingnoduleswithGramnegativerhizobiafurtheradds
additionalexternalfundingreceivedforthisstudy. totheirimportance.Butknowledgeonhowtheseplantsencounterwithharmfulpathogensis
stilllimited.Substantialresearcheshavebeencarriedoutoninteractionsinvolvingmodel
Competinginterests:Theauthorsdeclarethatthey
havenocompetinginterests. legumeplantslikeMedicagoandLotusandsoilinhabitingpathogens[2,3],butreportsoncrop
plantsthatarealsoexposedtodreadfulattacksbydiversemembersofsoilpathogensaresignif-
icantlyinadequate.Advancementofbiotechnologicaltoolsandtheirapplicationshaveadded
remarkablytothegenomesequencingandannotationprojectswithdraftgenomesequences
beingavailableformanyimportantcroplegumeslikesoybean,pigeonpea,chickpeaetc.
[4,5,6,7].However,withtheexceptionofsoybean,researchesonothercroplegumesaregradu-
allyincreasing[8].
ChickpeatopstheIndianlistofimportantpulselegumes[9].But,vascularwiltdiseaseof
chickpeaisknowntoaccountfor10–15%annualyieldloss,whichescalatestototallossunder
specificedaphicandenvironmentalconditionswellsuitedforthereplicationandestablish-
mentofFoc.Amongst8pathovars(0,1B/C.1–6),Race1hasreceivedprimescientificattention
duetoitswidespreaddistribution,thuscausingmaximumdamage[10].Fusariumwiltwas
knowntobeprimarilymanagedbyconventionalbreedingprograms.Butpathogenicvariabil-
ityandmutabilityhaveledtothebreakdownofnaturalresistanceoverprolongedperiods[11].
Besides,longtermapplicationofchemicalfungicideshasalsoraisedserioussocialconcern
regardinghealthandenvironmentalsafety[12].Hence,asafeandsustainablealternativeis
stillonthelookoutformanagingFusariumwiltofchickpea.
Previousreportsonchickpea-Foc1interactiondocumentedtranscriptomicalterationsdur-
ingpathogenattack[13–16].Besides,biochemicalinvestigationsreportedinductionofseveral
stressinducedmarkerisozymes[17].Geneticmappingandlinkageanalysesidentifiedchro-
mosomelocilinkedtoFusariumresistanceinchickpeaaswellasotherlegumes[18–19].Even
then,theknowledgeofsequentialeventsandinvolvementofresistantgene(s)inmediating
thesignalingcascadeisstillobscure.Studiesconductedbythepresentgroupmadeattemptsto
delineatethehostresponsesuponpathogenassaultinstepsandphasewisemanner.Initial
studiesidentifiedthetemporalsequencesofpathogenprogressionandtheirexternalmanifes-
tations[14].Followingstudiesfiguredouttheprimarymetabolismtobetheinitialtargetof
thewoundinducingFoc1thatwasfoundtooverpowerthesusceptiblehost[15].Reactiveoxy-
genspecieswereidentifiedastobetheinitialtriggeringfactorignitingtheentiredefensesig-
nalingcascadewhichwasfoundtobewellcoordinatedwithinternalcellulartransportersand
transcriptionfactors[16].Inaparallelattemptproteomicanalyseswereconductedtoidentify
thedifferentialdefenseresponsiveproteinsmediatingtheentiresignalingsequencesatearly
timepointsofpathogeninvasion[20].Withalltheresultstakentogetherthechickpea-Foc1
casestudyhasundoubtedlybroughtforthseveralsignificantresultsrelatingtotheunderstand-
ingofthecomplexdisorderofvascularwiltbut,manyhubsofinplantasignalingnetworkyet
remainsincomprehensiblethatnecessitatesmoretranscriptomicanalyticalresults.Although,
largebodyofinformationindicatestowardssimultaneousparticipationofmanyintricatemet-
aboliceventsbutlackoffullyannotatedhostgenomesequencefailstoplugthegapinthispar-
ticulardefensenetwork.Moreover,widegenomicdiversificationacrossmodellegumesand
croplegumesfailstocompletelytransfertheknowledgeofmetaboliceventsfrommodelplants
tocropplants[21].Thus,interactionalcasestudiesofcroplegumesandpathogensdemand
individualisticapproach.
Theadventofnextgenerationsequencingtoolsandtechniqueshasmadeaparadigmshift
inthefieldoffunctionalgenomicsasitgenerateslargedatasets.InpresentstudyRNA-seq
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 2/37
Differentialhosttranscriptprofilingduringchickpea-Foc1interplay
wasperformedatearlytimepoint(48hoursaspointedouttobecrucialforthecasestudy)
uponFoc1invasionanddifferentialtranscriptomicdissectionwasperformed.Theanalyses
revealedinductionaswellassuppressionofseveraldefenseresponsivetranscripts.Finally
attemptsweremadetomapthedefenseresponsivecomponentsinaninter-connecteddefense
regulatorynetworkandidentifytheregulatoryhubsthatpresumablycontroltheentiredefense
signalingcascadeinchickpeaduringFoc1attack.
Results
Analysesofsequencequality,readassemblyandtranscriptannotation
Ourpreviousstudieszeroedonthetimepointof48hthatshowedsignificanttranscriptomic
andproteomicalterations[15,16,20](Fig1,S1Fig).Nextgenerationsequencinganalyseswas
performedonsamplecollectedat48hpostinoculationwithFoc1.Pairedendsequencedatawas
depositedtoNationalCentreforBiotechnologyInformation’s(NCBI)ShortReadArchivedata-
baseundertheaccessionnumberofSRP041784andBioProjectIDPRJNA246444.Following
adaptertrimming132.55million,89.6million,77.84million,89.86millionfilteredreadswere
obtainedforinfectedJG62(representedbyJ4),uninfectedJG62(representedasJC),infected
WR315(representedasW4),uninfectedWR315(representedasWC),respectively.Highqual-
ity(>Q20)basesweremorethan96%forallthesampleswithlownonATGCcharacters
(0.09%)forallthesamples(S1Table,S2Fig).Filteredreadswhenassembledintocontigsgener-
ated79375forJ4,45341forJC,59828forW4and58650forWCnumberofcontigs(S2Table,
S3Fig).Contigswerefurtherassembledintotranscriptsgenerating77770transcriptsforJ4,
51366transcriptsforJC,62713transcriptsforW4and53993transcriptsforWCrespectively
(S3Table,S4Fig).Representativetranscripts(RT)afterclusteringcontained85915transcripts
forJand75626transcriptsforW(S4Table).Lengthanddistributionoftranscriptsalongwith
representativetranscriptareprovidedinFig2A.RTsofbothJandWwerefoundtobeATrich
(60.33%forJand60.20%forW)(Fig2B).Amongstthetranscriptsgenerated,annotationswere
providedto35597forJ4,31726forJC,31636forW4and35190forWC,respectively.50%iden-
tityand40%querycoveragewasusedascutoffforannotatingthetranscripts(S5Table).
Differentiallyexpressedtranscript
Numberofsignificantdifferentialtranscripts(withQvalues)betweenJ4andJCwere2090
whilebetweenW4andWCwere881(S6TableandS7Table).Fig3demonstratestheoccur-
renceofdifferentialtranscriptsbetweensamples.Outoftotal466differentiallycharacterized
transcripts,320wereobtainedfromJ4,78ofJC,while34transcriptswerecommonforboth
(Fig3A).IncaseofW4whencomparedtoWC,233weregeneratedfromW4,172forWC,
while20transcriptswerecommonforboth(Fig3B).WhencomparisonwasmadebetweenJC
andWC,155wasfoundfromWC,75fromJCand37wereincommon(Fig3C).Similarly,
whilecomparingJ4andW4,124wereobtainedfromW4,225fromJ4and129werecommon
forbothW4(Fig3D).Whilecomparingtotalupregulatedtranscripts,58wereupregulated
betweenJCandJ4;and50wereupregulatedbetweenWCandW4.35werecommonlyupregu-
latedforbothsamplesets(JCvsJ4andWCvsW4)(Fig3E,S8Table,S5Fig).Asfordownreg-
ulatedonly4wereobtainedbetweenWCandW4,23betweenJCandJ4,and7werefoundto
becommonlydownregulatedforbothsamplesets(JCvsJ4andWCvsW4)(Fig3F,S8Table,
S5Fig).ComparisonbetweenallthefoursamplesJ4,JC,W4andWCshowed183transcripts
appearedsolelyfromJ4,62fromJC,115fromW4and156fromWC.21transcriptswerecom-
monforJ4andWC,8werecommonforJCandJ4,and13werecommonforJC,J4,andWC.
5transcriptswerecommonforWCandW4,3werecommonforWC,W4,andJC,11were
commonforallthefoursamples.12transcriptswerecommonforJCandWC,1forJC,WC
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 3/37
Differentialhosttranscriptprofilingduringchickpea-Foc1interplay
Fig1.SchematicrepresentationdescribingtherationalebehindtheworkplanandNGSanalysisworkflowforthewholetranscriptomic.Upper
paneloftheFlowdiagramdepicts48hascrucialtimepointfordifferentialexpressionoftranscriptsinchickpeaafterFoc1infectionandlowerpanel
describestheNGSworkflowanditsdownstreamanalyses.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164.g001
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 4/37
Differentialhosttranscriptprofilingduringchickpea-Foc1interplay
Fig2.Graphicalpresentationofrepresentativetranscriptsofsusceptible(JG62)andresistant
(WR315)chickpeaandtheirATGCdistribution.A.Graphrepresentsthebasepairdistributionof
transcriptsofJG62(J4andJC)andWR315(W4andWC)withtheirrepresentativetranscripts.Piechart
representsunigeneATGCclusterofsamplesB.susceptible(JG62)andC.resistant(WR315)chickpea
genotypesrespectively.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164.g002
andW4,3werecommonforJCandW4,and2werecommonforJ4,JCandW4,while113
werecommonforJ4andW4,respectively.
Radarplotanalysisexplainsthedistributionoffoldchangeoftheentiretranscriptsasob-
tainedfromthebasemeanvaluesofeachtranscript.Thebluelineexplainsthefoldchange
valueoftranscriptsthatarefoundonlyinsusceptibleJG62plantswhereasredlinedemonstrates
theexpressionvaluesoftranscriptsfoundexclusivelyinresistantWR315plants.Theregion
whereredandbluelinesoverlapwithoneanotherexplainstranscriptsthatarefoundinboth
JG62andWR315plants.Greenlineindependentlyexplainsthetranscriptsthatarefoundtobe
inducedinJG62andWR315plantsonlyafterinfection.Allthetranscriptsundulatesignifi-
cantlybutthetranscriptsthatarefoundtobeinducedonlyafterinfectionexhibitmaximum
expressionalvalues.Thesurfacedistributionofthetranscriptsalsoexhibiteddefense,metabo-
lism,signalingandROSregulationswithvariedexpressionalvalues(Fig4;S8Table,S9Table).
Geneontologyandfunctionalclassification
Clusteringoftotalannotatedtranscriptsbasedongeneontologyshowedvaryingdistribution
oftranscriptsacrossbiologicalprocess,molecularfunctionandcellularcomponents(Fig5).
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 5/37
Differentialhosttranscriptprofilingduringchickpea-Foc1interplay
Fig3.Venndiagramshowinginter-distributionoftranscripts.DistributionoftranscriptsbetweenA.JC
(uninducedsusceptible)andJ4(inducedsusceptible)B.WC(uninducedresistant)andW4(induced
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 6/37
Differentialhosttranscriptprofilingduringchickpea-Foc1interplay
resistant)C.JCandWC,D.J4andW4,E.DistributionofupregulatedtranscriptsbetweenJUP(upregulated
ininducedsusceptiblewhencomparedtouninducedsusceptiblei.ecomparingJ4andJC)andWUP
(upregulatedininducedresistantwhencomparedtouninducedresistanti.ecomparingW4andWC)F.
DistributionofdownregulatedtranscriptsbetweenJDown(downregulatedininducedsusceptiblewhen
comparedtouninducedsusceptiblei.ecomparingJ4andJC)andWDown(downregulatedininduced
resistantwhencomparedtouninducedresistanti.e.comparingW4andWC).G.Distributionoftranscripts
betweenJC,J4,WC,W4.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164.g003
Amongstseveralbiologicalprocesses,proteolysis,regulationofDNAdependentandindepen-
denttranscription,carbohydratemetabolismshowedmaximumnumberoftranscriptsforall
thefoursamples.Directdefenseresponsewasfoundtobecontrolledbycomparativelyless
numberoftranscripts.Amongstthetranscriptsregulatingmolecularfunction,transcriptsnor-
malizingATPbindingwerefoundtobethehighest.Othertranscriptsrelatedtobindingwere
alsofoundinfairlylargenumbers.Presenceofrelativelymorenumberoftranscriptsrelatedto
membrane,nucleusandcytoplasmwerealsofound(Fig5).
Functionalcategorizationdemonstratesthatamongeightdistinctcategoriesthehighest
numberoftranscriptsbelongstothemetabolismgroup.Signalinganddefenserelatedtran-
scriptsaretheothertwomajorgroupsthatarefoundtobeinducedafterinfection.Protein
synthesisanddegradationeventswerealsofoundtobeinduced[20].Besides,structuralcom-
ponents,storageandtransportrelatedtranscriptswerealsoinduced(Fig6.S8Table).
qRT-PCRanalysesofrepresentativegenes
MostoftheselectedtranscriptsshowedupregulationinbothJG62andWR315plantsexcept
SEO,PECandHDH.AmongtheupregulatedcomponentsofthetranscriptsEF1,MPKand
PR1displayedhighestexpressionalinductionandallthethreetranscriptsshowgreaterinduc-
tioninsusceptibleplantsascomparedtotheresistantplants.Besides,PR5Bexpressionwas
foundtobelargelycomparableinbothJG62andWR315plants.IncaseofASCENDthe
inductioninJG62ismorethanthatofWR315plants.Restofthepositivelyinducedtranscripts
e.g.HSP,IFG,WRandENODtheexpressionlevelofWR315wasmorethanthatofJG62,
whereas,othertranscriptsmarginallyvariedamongthemselves.Contrarily,PTR5inducedin
JG62buttheexpressionwasdramaticallyreducedinWR315plants.Amongthedownregu-
latedtranscriptsexceptSEO,expressionofothertranscripts(PEC,HDH)weresignificantly
lowincaseofsusceptible(JG62)plantsthanthatofresistant(WR315)plants(Fig7).
Networkanalysesofdifferentiallyexpressedfunctionalclasses
NetworkanalyseswasperformedwithonlythosesetofTAIRproteinhomologuesthatshowed
interactionswithatleastasingleneighborwhilerestoftheproteinsshowingnointerconnec-
tionswithrelativeswereeliminated.Interactionmapshowedthelocationofseveraldefense
responsivecomponentssuchasTOR(Serinethreonineproteinkinase),ROC(Peptidylprolyl-
cistransisomerase),BGL2(Betaglucosidase),ATGLX(Lactolylglutathionelyase),ST2A(Sul-
fotransferase),MPK6(MAPkinase),CSLD3(Cellulosesynthase),PGIP(Polygalactouronase
inhibitingprotein)andLIN2(CoproporphirinogenIIIoxidase).StoragecomponentPLA2A
(Patatinlikeprotein)andROSrelatedcomponentATP1(VtypeATPase),VHA-A(Vtype
ATPase),ATCBR(Cytochromeb5reductase),RBOH(Respiratoryburstoxidase),CSD/MSD
(Manganeseorcoppersuperoxidedismutase),RSR4(Reducedsugarresponse4),NTRC/B
(NTRC/NADPH-dependentthioredoxinreductaseC/B)werealsofound(Table1,Fig8,
S1File).
LargenumberofmetaboliccomponentslikeMEE58(S-adenosyl-L-homocysteinehydro-
lase),CYT1(Cytokinesisdefective1),GLT1(Glucosetransporter1),MTO3(Methionineover-
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 7/37
Differentialhosttranscriptprofilingduringchickpea-Foc1interplay
Fig4.Radarplotrepresentingthedistributionofdifferentialexpressionoftranscripts.Upperpanelrepresentstotal
distributionoftranscriptsbetweenJC,J4,WC,andW4.Lowerpanelrepresentsdistributionoftranscriptsaccordingtotheirbiological
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 8/37
Differentialhosttranscriptprofilingduringchickpea-Foc1interplay
functions.ThebluelineexplainsthefoldchangevalueoftranscriptsthatarefoundonlyinsusceptibleJG62plantswhereasredline
demonstratestheexpressionvaluesoftranscriptsfoundexclusivelyinresistantWR315plants.Theregionwhereredandbluelines
overlapwithoneanotherexplainstranscriptsthatarefoundinbothJG62andWR315plants.Greenlineindependentlyexplainsthe
transcriptsthatarefoundtobeinducedinJG62andWR315plantsonlyafterinfection.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164.g004
accumulator3),APR3(APSreductase3),C4H(Cinnamate4-hydroxylase),LOX1(Lipoxygen-
ase1),PCK1(Phosphoenolpyruvatecarboxykinase),CWINV1(Cellwallinvertase1),ADH1
(Alcoholdehydrogenase),ACO1(ACCoxidase1),MLS(Malatesynthase),ASN1(Glutamine-
dependentasparaginesynthase1),RNR1(Ribonucleotidereductase1),HOT5(Sensitiveto
hottemperatures5),SHM1(Serinehydroxymethyltransferase1),FDH(Formatedehydroge-
nase),P5CS1(Delta1-pyrroline-5-carboxylatesynthase1),LIP1(Lipase1),SDH1(Succinate
dehydrogenase),RHM1(Rhamnosebiosynthesis1),AMY1(Alpha-amylase-like),SBE2.2
(Starchbranchingenzyme2.2),MTLPD2(Lipoamidedehydrogenase2),MIPS2(Myo-inosi-
tol-1-phosphatesynthase2),IPP2(Isopentenylpyrophosphate:dimethylallylpyrophosphate
isomerase2),GDH3(Glutamatedehydrogenase3),TIM(Glyceraldehydedehydrogenase
phosphate),IVD(Isovaleryl-coa-dehydrogenase),PMDH1(Peroxisomalnad-malatedehydro-
genase1),ADSS(Adenylosuccinatesynthase),GR(Glutathionereductase),SUS4(Sucrose
synthase4)werefoundtointerconnectinthemetabolicregulatorypathway(Table1,Fig9,
S1File).SignalregulatingmoleculessuchasCAM5(Calmodulinprotein5),CAM7(Calmodu-
linprotein7),HSF1(Heatshockfactor1),HSP101(Heatshockprotein101),HSP70(Heat
shockprotein70),GRF2(14-3-3Gboxbindingprotein),MYB5(MYBtranscriptionfactor),
MYB108(MYBtranscriptionfactor),WRKY41(WRKYtranscriptionfactor),RAP2.3(Ethyl-
eneresponsivetranscriptionfactor2b),DREB1A(CRT/DREbindingfactor4),NDPK2(Nu-
cleosidediphosphatekinase),CSN5A(COP9Signalosome5A),ARAC3(GTPase)werefound
tobelocatedinthenetwork(Table1,Fig10,S1File).
ProteinsynthesisanddegradationrelatedcomponentsFKBP15-2(Peptidyl-prolylcis-trans
isomerase),UBQ1(Ubiquitin1),UBQ10(Ubiquitin10),UBQ35(Ubiquitin35),PaB1(Protea-
somesubunit),HD(Histonedeacetylase),RPT2A(Proteasomecomponent),T6D22.3(Elon-
gationfactor),EMB2780(DNApolymerase),LBA1(Regulatorofnonsensetranscriptlike
protein),RUB1(Ubiquitin),PBE1(Proteasomecomponents),ATHMG(FACTcomplexsub-
unitSSRP1)weremappedintheinteractionpathway.Besidesseveralstructuralcomponents
likeLHB1B1(Chlorophylla/bbindingprotein),LHCA2(Chlorophylla/bbindingprotein),
DeltaTIP(DeltaTonoplanstintrinsicprotein),GammaTIP(GammaTonoplanstintrinsic
Fig5.Geneontologybasedanalysesandfunctionalclusteringoftotaltranscripts.Geneontology
studydisplayvaryingdistributionoftranscriptsacrossbiologicalprocess,molecularfunctionandcellular
components.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164.g005
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 9/37
Differentialhosttranscriptprofilingduringchickpea-Foc1interplay
Fig6.FunctionalclusteringoftotaltranscriptwithfragmentedpiechartusingChartToolsoftwarepackage.Individualpiefragmentsare
distributedintogenepyramidshavingfourzones.A.representstranscriptsfoundinbothJG62andWR315onlyafterinfection;B.representstranscripts
foundinbothuninducedJG62andWR315,C.representstranscriptsfoundonlyinWR315afterinfectionandD.representstranscriptsfoundonlyinJG62
afterinfection.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164.g006
protein),ELIP1(Earlylightinducibleprotein),GCP2(Tubulingammachain),FLA12(Fasciclin
likearabinogalactanprotein),IRX3(Cellulosesynthase),ATFH8(Forminlikeprotein),NFU4
(NifUlikeprotein),TUA6(Tubulinalphachain),SMC2(Structuralmaintenanceofchromo-
some),F8L15.150(KRRmotifcontainingprotein1)werefound(Table1,Fig11,S1File).
TransportcontrollingcomponentssuchasCHX20(K+/N+antiporter),SKD(Vacuolar
sortingprotein),NRT(Nitratetransporter),ATGCN(ABCtransporterfamilyprotein),SUC2
(Sugartransporter)werefoundtointeractintheinteractionpathway(Table1,Fig12,S1File).
Amongsttheseveralcomponentsmentionedabove,PLA2showedoverlappingroleinstor-
ageanddefense.Besides,ATGLX1,ST2A,LIN2andCSLD3,servedasregulatorsofdirect
defense,aswellasactedinregulatinghostmetabolicactivities.TOR,MIPSandLIP1showed
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178164 May25,2017 10/37