title: The resemblance and disparity of gene expression in dormant and non-dormant seeds and crown buds of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula).
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) is a herbaceous perennial weed and dormancy in both buds and seeds is an important survival mechanism. Bud dormancy in leafy spurge exhibits three well-defined phases of para-, endo- and ecodormancy; however, seed dormancy for leafy spurge is classified as physiological dormancy that requires after-ripening and alternating temperature for maximal germination. Overlaps in transcriptome profiles between different phases of bud and seed dormancy have not been determined. Thus, we compared various phases of dormancy between seeds and buds to identify common genes and molecular processes, which should provide new insights about common regulators of dormancy.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Cluster analysis of expression profiles for 201 selected genes indicated bud and seed samples clustered separately. Direct comparisons between buds and seeds are additionally complicated since seeds incubated at a constant temperature of 20°C for 21 days (21d C) could be considered paradormant (Para) because seeds may be inhibited by endosperm-generated signals, or ecodormant (Eco) because seeds germinate after being subjected to alternating temperature of 20:30°C. Since direct comparisons in gene expression between buds and seeds were problematic, we instead examined commonalities in differentially-expressed genes associated with different phases of dormancy. Comparison between buds and seeds ('Para to Endo buds' and '21d C to 1d C seeds'), using endodormant buds (Endo) and dormant seeds (1d C) as common baselines, identified transcripts associated with cell cycle (HisH4), stress response/transcription factors (ICE2, ERFB4/ABR1), ABA and auxin response (ABA1, ARF1, IAA7, TFL1), carbohydrate/protein degradation (GAPDH_1), and transport (ABCB2). Comparison of transcript abundance for the 'Eco to Endo buds' and '21d C to 1d C seeds' identified transcripts associated with ABA response (ATEM6), auxin response (ARF1), and cell cycle (HisH4). These results indicate that the physiological state of 21d C seeds is more analogous to paradormant buds than that of ecodormant buds.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Combined results indicate that common molecular mechanisms associated with dormancy transitions of buds and seeds involve processes associated with ABA and auxin signaling and transport, cell cycle, and AP2/ERF transcription factors or their up-stream regulators.
authors.affiliation: USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Biosciences Research Lab, Sunflower and Plant Biology Research Unit, 1605 Albrecht Boulevard N, Fargo 58102, ND, USA. wun.chao@ars.usda.gov.
authors.forename: Wun S
authors.initials: WS
authors.lastname: Chao
authors.forename: Münevver
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Doğramaci
authors.forename: James V
authors.initials: JV
authors.lastname: Anderson
authors.forename: Michael E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Foley
authors.forename: David P
authors.initials: DP
authors.lastname: Horvath
mesh_terms: D016000:Cluster Analysis; D028481:Euphorbia / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism*; D015870:Gene Expression; D007210:Indoleacetic Acids / Q000378:metabolism; D057445:Plant Dormancy; D060888:Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
chemical_list: D007210:Indoleacetic Acids
references.citation: Plant Mol Biol. 2013 Apr;81(6):577-93
references.pmid: 23436173
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 2002 Mar 8;277(10):8588-96
references.pmid: 11779861
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e35777
references.pmid: 22590512
references.citation: FEBS Lett. 2006 Feb 13;580(4):1094-102
references.pmid: 16359667
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42839
references.pmid: 22916167
references.citation: Plant J. 2011 Sep;67(5):817-26
references.pmid: 21569134
references.citation: J Exp Bot. 2000 Jul;51(348):1211-20
references.pmid: 10937696
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2012 Aug;159(4):1759-70
references.pmid: 22740614
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jun 28;108(26):10756-61
references.pmid: 21653885
references.citation: Plant Cell. 2007 Aug;19(8):2370-90
references.pmid: 17693531
references.citation: Plant Cell. 2003 May;15(5):1159-69
references.pmid: 12724541
references.citation: Funct Integr Genomics. 2011 Dec;11(4):637-49
references.pmid: 21947436
references.citation: Nat Commun. 2013;4:1947
references.pmid: 23770815
references.citation: Plant Mol Biol. 2010 May;73(1-2):131-42
references.pmid: 19916049
references.citation: Plant Mol Biol. 2010 May;73(1-2):169-79
references.pmid: 20066557
references.citation: J Exp Bot. 2013 Jun;64(9):2557-63
references.pmid: 23630231
references.citation: Plant Cell. 1997 Jul;9(7):1055-1066
references.pmid: 12237375
references.citation: Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005 Nov;6(11):850-61
references.pmid: 16261190
references.citation: Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2002;53:377-98
references.pmid: 12221981
references.citation: New Phytol. 2006;171(3):501-23
references.pmid: 16866955
references.citation: Plant Mol Biol. 2010 May;73(1-2):207-26
references.pmid: 20340040
references.citation: Physiol Plant. 2004 Mar;120(3):421-433
references.pmid: 15032839