Back

From a different angle: genetic diversity underlies differentiation of waterlogging-induced epinasty in tomato

Geldhof, B.; Pattyn, J.; Van de Poel, B.

2022-12-03 plant biology
10.1101/2022.12.02.518852 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In tomato, downward leaf bending is a morphological adaptation towards waterlogging, which has been shown to induce a range of metabolic and hormonal changes. This kind of functional trait is often the result of a complex interplay of regulatory processes starting at the gene level, gated through a plethora of signaling cascades and modulated by environmental cues. Through phenotypical screening of a population of 54 tomato accessions in a Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS), we have identified target genes potentially involved in plant growth and survival during waterlogging and subsequent recovery. Changes in both plant growth rate and epinastic descriptors revealed several associations to genes possibly supporting metabolic activity in low oxygen conditions in the root zone. In addition to this general reprogramming, some of the targets were specifically associated to leaf angle dynamics, indicating these genes might play a role in the induction, maintenance or recovery of differential petiole elongation in tomato during waterlogging.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Plant Physiology
◐ 238 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.4%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Journal of Experimental Botany
◐ 219 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
11.8%
Similar papers in this journal
3
New Phytologist
○ 346 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
11.8%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
4
The Plant Journal
○ 215 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
7.8%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Plant, Cell & Environment
○ 78 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.4%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Horticulture Research
◐ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
7
Physiologia Plantarum
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.6%
8
Frontiers in Plant Science
○ 256 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
9
Plant Direct
○ 95 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
10
Plant and Cell Physiology
◐ 52 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
11
Plant Science
○ 31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
12
BMC Plant Biology
○ 57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
13
Plant Stress
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
14
The Plant Cell
◐ 161 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
15
Quantitative Plant Biology
◐ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
16
Annals of Botany
◐ 50 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
17
Development
● 497 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
18
Molecular Plant
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
Plant Biology
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
20
Nature Plants
○ 94 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
21
Tree Physiology
◐ 24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
22
Plant Molecular Biology
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%
23
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.