Back

Biotic-response networks are an important organizer of the transcriptome in wild Arabidopsis thaliana populations

Leite Montalvao, A. P.; Murray, K. D.; Bezrukov, I.; Betz, N.; Henry, L.; Duran, P.; Boppert, P.; Kolb, M.; TEAM PATHOCOM, ; Roux, F.; Bergelson, J.; Yuan, W.; Weigel, D.

2026-03-13 genomics
10.64898/2026.03.11.711176 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Extensive laboratory experimentation has revealed conserved molecular pathways controlling growth and stress responses in plants, yet how these programs operate in natural settings remains poorly understood. We investigated transcriptome organization in wild populations of Arabidopsis thaliana by sampling plants from 60 natural sites in Europe and North America across two seasons. Transcriptomes varied extensively among individuals and showed largely continuous rather than discrete structure across geography and season. Although disease and microbial colonization were common in the wild, wild transcriptomes did not simply recapitulate canonical laboratory stress signatures. Measured microbial infection, environmental, and phenotypic variables explained only a modest fraction of total expression variation, but infection-associated signals accounted for the largest share of the explainable component. Consistent with this, biotic-response networks defined in controlled laboratory experiments were well conserved in wild transcriptomes, whereas control and abiotic-response networks were substantially reorganized. Together, these results suggest that while core transcriptional modules remain recognizable across environments, regulatory relationships among modules differ markedly between laboratory and natural contexts. Graphical Abstract O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=129 SRC="FIGDIR/small/711176v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (28K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@2c5356org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@136b9corg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@fddf37org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@149c28c_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Plant Cell
141 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.3%
2
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.3%
3
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
8.1%
4
Molecular Systems Biology
142 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 10%
4.8%
6
Cell
370 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.8%
7
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 20%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
9
Nature Plants
84 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.6%
10
Nature Microbiology
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
11
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.0%
13
The Plant Journal
197 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
17
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 33%
1.7%
18
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
19
The ISME Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
20
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.2%
21
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.9%
22
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
23
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
Molecular Cell
308 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
25
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.9%
26
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
27
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
28
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
29
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.7%
30
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.7%