Genome-wide identification of HSP90 gene family in Rosa chinensis and its response to salt and drought stresses.

Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 101565857 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 2190-572X (Print) Linking ISSN: 21905738 NLM ISO Abbreviation: 3 Biotech Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE

Original Publication: Berlin : Springer

Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) is important for many organisms, including plants. Based on the whole genome information, the gene number, gene structure, evolutionary relationship, protein structure, and active site of the HSP90 gene family in Rosa chinensis and Rubus idaeus were determined, and the expression of the HSP90 gene under salt, and drought stresses in two rose varieties Wangxifeng and Sweet Avalanche were analyzed. Six and eight HSP90 genes were identified from R. chinensis and Ru. idaeus , respectively. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the analyzed genes were divided into two Groups and four subgroups (Classes 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b). Although members within the same classes displayed highly similar gene structures, while the gene structures and conserved domains of Group 1 (Class 1a and 1b) and the Group 2 (Class 2a and 2b) are different. Tandem and segmental duplication genes were found in Ru. idaeus , but not in R. chinensis , perhaps explaining the difference in HSP90 gene quantity in the two analyzed species. Analysis of cis-acting elements revealed abundant abiotic stress, photolight-response, and hormone-response elements in R. chinensis HSP90s. qRT-PCR analysis suggested that RcHSP90-1-1 , RcHSP90-5-1 and RcHSP90-6-1 in Sweet Avalanche and Wangxifeng varieties played important regulatory roles under salt and drought stress. The analysis of protein structure and active sites indicate that the potential different roles of RcHSP90-1-1 , RcHSP90-5-1 , and RcHSP90-6-1 in salt and drought stresses may come from the differences of corresponding protein structures and activation sites. These data will provide information for the breeding of rose varieties with high stress resistance.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13205-024-04052-0.
(© The Author(s) 2024.)

Mol Biol Evol. 2018 Jun 1;35(6):1547-1549. (PMID: 29722887)
Front Genet. 2021 Feb 04;12:584886. (PMID: 33613633)
Mol Plant. 2020 Aug 3;13(8):1194-1202. (PMID: 32585190)
Plant Signal Behav. 2020 Sep 1;15(9):1789817. (PMID: 32669038)
Plant J. 2009 Aug;59(3):387-99. (PMID: 19366428)
Ecol Evol. 2021 Aug 04;11(17):11808-11825. (PMID: 34522343)
Mol Plant. 2020 Apr 6;13(4):612-633. (PMID: 31935463)
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jul 8;44(W1):W236-41. (PMID: 27131786)
Hortic Res. 2022 Dec 30;10(3):uhac291. (PMID: 36938564)
Nucleic Acids Res. 2021 Jan 8;49(D1):D458-D460. (PMID: 33104802)
PLoS One. 2007 Apr 18;2(4):e383. (PMID: 17440619)
R Soc Open Sci. 2019 May 1;6(5):190219. (PMID: 31218061)
Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 Jan 8;48(D1):D265-D268. (PMID: 31777944)
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Apr;40(7):e49. (PMID: 22217600)
BMC Genomics. 2013 Aug 05;14:532. (PMID: 23915275)
Front Genet. 2021 Jul 15;12:690264. (PMID: 34335694)
Protein Sci. 2016 Oct;25(10):1873-82. (PMID: 27488983)
Front Plant Sci. 2022 Apr 07;13:854034. (PMID: 35463405)
Nat Commun. 2016 Jan 05;7:10269. (PMID: 26728313)
Trends Plant Sci. 2004 May;9(5):244-52. (PMID: 15130550)
BMC Genet. 2019 Mar 19;20(1):35. (PMID: 30890142)
PeerJ. 2021 Aug 11;9:e11811. (PMID: 34447619)
J Exp Bot. 2005 Feb;56(412):633-44. (PMID: 15582930)
Plant Physiol. 2023 Sep 22;193(2):1695-1712. (PMID: 37364582)
Autophagy. 2021 Sep;17(9):2184-2199. (PMID: 32967551)
Front Plant Sci. 2022 Jul 22;13:943217. (PMID: 35937376)
New Phytol. 2014 Jun;202(4):1320-1334. (PMID: 24611624)
Front Plant Sci. 2022 Aug 10;13:979801. (PMID: 36035705)
BMC Plant Biol. 2004 Jun 01;4:10. (PMID: 15171794)
Cell Host Microbe. 2010 Mar 18;7(3):185-96. (PMID: 20227662)
J Integr Plant Biol. 2013 Jul;55(7):663-76. (PMID: 23756542)
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2005 Feb;8(1):86-92. (PMID: 15653405)
BMC Plant Biol. 2022 Jul 27;22(1):373. (PMID: 35896978)
Genet Mol Res. 2015 Jul 14;14(3):7811-20. (PMID: 26214462)
New Phytol. 2011 Jul;191(2):418-431. (PMID: 21488877)
Plant Physiol. 2023 Jan 2;191(1):679-693. (PMID: 36271872)
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 26;13(7):e0200938. (PMID: 30048505)
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Jul;30(7):1713-9. (PMID: 23589455)
Cell Stress Chaperones. 2001 Jul;6(3):238-46. (PMID: 11599565)
BMC Genomics. 2018 Jun 25;19(1):490. (PMID: 29940851)
New Phytol. 2020 Apr;226(2):476-491. (PMID: 31782811)
Plant Sci. 2022 Aug;321:111310. (PMID: 35696910)
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 25;8(7):e69810. (PMID: 23936107)
Plant Cell. 2017 Nov;29(11):2882-2894. (PMID: 29061867)
Int J Biol Macromol. 2023 Aug 15;246:125526. (PMID: 37379955)
Planta. 2009 Mar;229(4):955-64. (PMID: 19148673)
Theor Appl Genet. 2009 Sep;119(5):767-81. (PMID: 19533080)
Nucleic Acids Res. 2023 Jan 6;51(D1):D1483-D1491. (PMID: 36271793)
Trends Genet. 2006 Jan;22(1):16-22. (PMID: 16290250)
Front Plant Sci. 2022 Jun 22;13:908511. (PMID: 35812899)

Keywords: Abiotic stress; HSP90 gene family; Protein active site; Relative expression; Rosa chinensis

Date Created: 20240820 Latest Revision: 20240908

20250114

PMC11330952

10.1007/s13205-024-04052-0

39161880