Project description:Cows exposed to short day photoperiod (SD, 8L:16D) during the 60-day non-lactating period prior to parturition produce more milk in their subsequent lactation compared to cows exposed to long day photoperiod (LD,16L:8D). Although this response is well-established in dairy cows, the underlying mechanisms are not understood. We hypothesized that differential gene expression in cows exposed to SD or LD photoperiods during the dry period could be used to identify the functional basis for the subsequent increase in milk production during lactation. Pregnant, multiparous cows were maintained on a SD or LD photoperiod for 60-days prior to parturition. Mammary biopsies were obtained on days -24 and -9 relative to parturition and Affymetrix GeneChip® Bovine Genome Arrays were used to quantify gene expression. Sixty-four genes were differentially expressed (p ≤ 0.05 and fold-change ≥ |1.5|) between SD and LD treatments. Many of these genes were associated with cell growth and proliferation, or immune function. Ingenuity Pathway Analysis predicted upstream regulators to include TNF, TGFβ1, interferon γ and several interleukins. In addition, expression of 125 genes was significantly different between day -24 and day -9; those genes were associated with milk component metabolism and immune function. The interaction of photoperiod and time affected 32 genes associated with insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) signaling. Genes differentially expressed in response to photoperiod were associated with mammary development and immune function consistent with the enhancement of milk yield in the ensuing lactation. Our results provide insight into the mechanisms by which photoperiod affects the mammary gland and subsequently lactation. Data were analyzed for the effect of photoperiod treatment (LD minus SD), time relative to parturition (day -24 minus day -9) and the interaction of photoperiod treatment and time ((LD minus SD day -9) minus (LD minus SD day -24))

Project description:Bud endodormancy induction response of two genotypes (‘Seyval’ a hybrid white wine grape and V. riparia, PI588259 a native north american species) was compared under long (15h) and short (13h) photoperiod. Three separate replicates (5 plants/replicate) were treated to generate paradormant (LD) and same aged endodormancy-induced (SD) buds for transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic analysis. Potted, spur-pruned two to six-year-old vines were removed from cold storage (Seyval 3-19-07; V. riparia 3/26/07) and grown under a LD (15 h) at 25/20 + 3C day/night temperatures (D/N). When vines reached 12-15 nodes (3-25-07) they were randomized into LD or SD treatments with 25/20 + 3C D/N in climate controlled greenhouses with automated photoperiod system (VRE Greenhouse Systems). Three replications (5 vines/replication) were harvested between 5/07-6/07 and then again in 5/08-6/08 for a total of six replications. All treatments are repeated at the same time every year and harvested at the same time of day each year to minimize biological noise. At 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 42 days of LD and SD treatment, buds were harvested from nodes 3 to 12 of each separate replicate, immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen, and placed at -80C for future RNA, protein and metabolite extraction. These time points encompass early reversible phases as well as key time points during transition to irreversible endodormancy development. After photoperiod treatments and bud harvests, all pruned vines were returned to LD and monitored for bud endodormancy. The endodormant vines were identified after 28 days and moved to cold storage. The nondormant vines were allowed to grow again and induced into dormancy at a later date. Acknowledgement:This study was funded by NSF Grant DBI0604755 and funds from the South Dakota Agriculture Experiment Station. ****[PLEXdb(http://www.plexdb.org) has submitted this series at GEO on behalf of the original contributor, Anne Fennell. The equivalent experiment is VV10 at PLEXdb.] 84 Samples of two genotypes compared under long and short photoperiod, 3 replicates each. Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : LD, 15h : 1 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : LD, 15h : 3 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : LD, 15h : 7 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : LD, 15h : 14 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : LD, 15h : 21 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : LD, 15h : 28 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : LD, 15h : 42 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : SD, 13h : 1 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : SD, 13h : 3 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : SD, 13h : 7 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : SD, 13h : 14 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : SD, 13h : 21 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : SD, 13h : 28 days (3-replications) Seyval (SV, Seyve Villard 5-276) : SD, 13h : 42 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : LD, 15h : 1 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : LD, 15h : 3 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : LD, 15h : 7 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : LD, 15h : 14 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : LD, 15h : 21 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : LD, 15h : 28 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : LD, 15h : 42 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : SD, 13h : 1 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : SD, 13h : 3 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : SD, 13h : 7 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : SD, 13h : 14 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : SD, 13h : 21 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : SD, 13h : 28 days (3-replications) V. riparia (VR, PI588259) : SD, 13h : 42 days (3-replications)

Project description:Bud endodormancy induction response of two genotypes (‘Seyval’ a hybrid white wine grape and V. riparia, PI588259 a native north american species) was compared under long and short photoperiod. Three separate replicates (5 plants/replicate) were treated in each of 2 separate years (2007 and 2008) to generate paradormant (LD) and same aged endodormancy-induced (SD) buds for transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic analysis. Potted, spur-pruned two to six-year-old vines were removed from cold storage (Seyval 3-19-07, 3/18/08; V. riparia 3/26/07, 3/24/08) and grown under a LD (15 h) at 25/20 + 3C day/night temperatures (D/N). When vines reached 12-15 nodes they were randomized into groups for differential photoperiod treatments. On 4/30/07 and 4/28/08 LD and SD (13 h) treatments were imposed with automated photoperiod system (VRE Greenhouse Systems). Temperatures were maintained at 25/20 + 3C D/N. Three replications (5 vines/replication) were harvested between 5/07-6/07 and then again in 5/08-6/08. At 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 42 days of differential photoperiod treatment, buds were harvested from nodes 3 to 12 (from the base of the shoot) of each separate replicate, immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen, and placed at -80C for future RNA, protein and metabolite extraction. These time points encompass early reversible phases as well as key time points during transition to irreversible endodormancy development. After photoperiod treatments and bud harvests, all pruned vines were returned to LD and monitored for bud endodormancy. The endodormant vines were identified after 28 days and moved to cold storage. The nondormant vines were allowed to grow again and induced into dormancy at a later date. Acknowledgement:This study was funded by NSF Grant DBI0604755 and funds from the South Dakota Agriculture Experiment Station. ****[PLEXdb(http://www.plexdb.org) has submitted this series at GEO on behalf of the original contributor, Anne Fennell. The equivalent experiment is VV18 at PLEXdb.]

Project description:The timing of reproductive development determines spike architecture and thus yield in temperate grasses such as barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Reproductive development in barley is controlled by the photoperiod response gene Ppd-H1 which accelerates flowering time under long-day (LD) conditions. A natural mutation in Ppd-H1 prevalent in spring barley causes a reduced photoperiod response, and thus, late flowering under LD. However, it is not very well understood how LD and Ppd-H1 control pre-anthesis development, and thus spike architecture and yield in barley. We performed a detailed morphological analysis of the pre-anthesis development in the spring barley cultivar Scarlett and its wild barley derived introgression line S42-IL107, carrying the photoperiod responsive Ppd-H1 allele. Characterization of shoot apex development in these genotypes indicated that floral transition and initiation of floral primordia occurred under LD (16h light/ 8h dark) and short day (SD, 8h light/ 16h dark) conditions, while inflorescence and seed development strictly required LDs. Additionally, a fast photoperiod response in the presence of the dominant Ppd-H1 allele promoted floret fertility under LDs. To characterize the effects of the photoperiod and allelic variation at Ppd-H1 on gene expression during pre-anthesis development we performed RNA sequencing of leaves and developing main shoot apices during the vegetative phase and early stages of inflorescence development in Scarlett and S42-IL107 grown under SD and LD conditions. Main shoot apices of both genotypes were sampled at defined developmental stages, i.e. Waddington stage W0.5, W1.0, W2.0 and W3.5, respectively. Leaf samples were harvested from plants before (W1.0) and after floral transition (W2.0). We identified genes that were specifically regulated at floral transition independent of day-length and Ppd-H1 and thus may serve as markers for the staging of floral transition. Furthermore, we identified transcripts differentially expressed between photoperiods and between genotypes in leaves and in shoot apices. This set of transcripts might act as candidates downstream of Ppd-H1 and are correlated with the promotion of shoot apex development and higher floret fertility under LD and in the presence of the photoperiod responsive Ppd-H1 allele.

Project description:Bud endodormancy induction response of two genotypes (‘Seyval’ a hybrid white wine grape and V. riparia, PI588259 a native north american species) was compared under long (15h) and short (13h) photoperiod. Three separate replicates (5 plants/replicate) were treated to generate paradormant (LD) and same aged endodormancy-induced (SD) buds for transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic analysis. Potted, spur-pruned two to six-year-old vines were removed from cold storage (Seyval 3-19-07; V. riparia 3/26/07) and grown under a LD (15 h) at 25/20 + 3C day/night temperatures (D/N). When vines reached 12-15 nodes (3-25-07) they were randomized into LD or SD treatments with 25/20 + 3C D/N in climate controlled greenhouses with automated photoperiod system (VRE Greenhouse Systems). Three replications (5 vines/replication) were harvested between 5/07-6/07 and then again in 5/08-6/08 for a total of six replications. All treatments are repeated at the same time every year and harvested at the same time of day each year to minimize biological noise. At 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 42 days of LD and SD treatment, buds were harvested from nodes 3 to 12 of each separate replicate, immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen, and placed at -80C for future RNA, protein and metabolite extraction. These time points encompass early reversible phases as well as key time points during transition to irreversible endodormancy development. After photoperiod treatments and bud harvests, all pruned vines were returned to LD and monitored for bud endodormancy. The endodormant vines were identified after 28 days and moved to cold storage. The nondormant vines were allowed to grow again and induced into dormancy at a later date. Acknowledgement:This study was funded by NSF Grant DBI0604755 and funds from the South Dakota Agriculture Experiment Station. ****[PLEXdb(http://www.plexdb.org) has submitted this series at GEO on behalf of the original contributor, Anne Fennell. The equivalent experiment is VV10 at PLEXdb.]

Project description:Bud formation is an adaptive trait that temperate forest trees have acquired to facilitate seasonal synchronization. We have characterized transcriptome-level changes that occur during bud formation of white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss.), a primarily determinate species in which preformed stem units contained within the apical bud constitute most of next season's growth. Microarray analysis identified 4460 differentially expressed sequences in shoot tips during short day-induced bud formation. Cluster analysis revealed distinct temporal patterns of expression, and functional classification of genes in these clusters implied molecular processes that coincide with anatomical changes occurring in the developing bud. Comparing expression profiles in developing buds under long day and short day conditions identified possible photoperiod-responsive genes that may not be essential for bud development. Several genes putatively associated with hormone signalling were identified, and hormone quantification revealed distinct profiles for ABA, cytokinins, auxin and their metabolites that can be related to morphological changes to the bud. Comparison of gene expression profiles during bud formation in different tissues revealed 108 genes that are differentially expressed only in developing buds and show greater transcript abundance in developing buds than other tissues. These findings provide a temporal roadmap of bud formation in white spruce. Shoot tips (terminal buds), needles, and secondary stems were collected from two-year-old white spruce plants over a 10-week time course of 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, and 70 days after switching from 6 to 8 weeks of long daylight photoperiods (LD; 16 hours of light and 8 hours of dark) to short daylight photoperiods (SD; 8 hours of daylight and 16 hours of dark). Remaining plants were kept in short days for an additional 8-15 weeks, and then transferred to low temperature (LT; 2°C to 4°C) for 3 to 4 weeks with continuing SD prior to harvest. Another set of plants was grown and harvested under the same conditions as described above, but remained in LD at all times. Four sets of dye-swap design microarray experiments were conducted. The first set of experiments (samples 1-7) studied the SD time course of buds development. Terminal buds from each time point (1d, 3d, 7d, 14d, 28d, and 70d) and LT were co-hybridized with actively growing shoot tips (0d). The same time point comparison (without LT) of shoot tips from LD-treated trees was carried out as the second set of experiments (samples 8-13). The third experiment (samples 14-20) denoted a separate LD/SD comparison at seven different time points (0d, 1d, 3d, 7d, 14d, 28d, and 70d), and the last experiment (samples 21-26) compared SD shoot tips, needles, and secondary stems with each of the other tissues at 14d and 70d. In each experiment, four biological replicates were used, with two replicates representing the dye-swaps.

Dataset Information

Fennell Grapevine Dormancy - Understanding transduction of the photoperiod signal

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure