林业科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (5): 53-67.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20210506
袁雪1,*,袁涛1,刘少丹2
收稿日期:
2020-06-18
出版日期:
2021-07-25
发布日期:
2021-07-09
通讯作者:
袁雪
基金资助:
Xue Yuan1,*,Tao Yuan1,Shaodan Liu2
Received:
2020-06-18
Online:
2021-07-25
Published:
2021-07-09
Contact:
Xue Yuan
摘要:
目的: 牡丹花期短而集中,为探究牡丹秋季开花机制,研究牡丹秋季开花过程中赤霉素和DNA甲基化的作用。方法: 以河南洛阳露地栽培的春秋二季开花牡丹品种‘户川寒’为试验材料,2019年9月中旬试验材料自然落叶前,平均分为4组,对照组无脱叶无药剂处理,3个处理组分别经脱叶、脱叶+650 mg·L-1赤霉素(GA3)、脱叶+500 mg·L-1多效唑(PP333)处理,观察记录各处理组与对照在秋季萌芽、开花过程中的生长发育情况,并测定各处理组生理生化及基因组DNA甲基化状态。结果: 1)4组牡丹‘户川寒’均能在秋季萌动、开花,但施加处理能够促进秋季二次萌动开花提前且增加开放整齐度,其中脱叶+650 mg·L-1GA3处理促进萌动和花朵开放作用最佳,在处理后11天时萌动率已达81.4%,并于42天时进入初花期,初花期时间较对照组提前30天。2)脱叶+650 mg·L-1 GA3、脱叶、脱叶+500 mg·L-1 PP333都促进了‘户川寒’秋季较快较整齐地萌芽和生长,且对开花的加速作用依次降低,说明脱叶能够促进芽的萌动和生长,施加GA3具有叠加促进效应,PP333会一定程度抵消脱叶产生的促进效应。脱叶在短时间内发挥了对GA3、GA4含量的抑制作用后,又使芽内GA3、GA4的含量升高而ABA含量下降,施加GA3后加强了GA3、GA4含量升高和ABA含量下降的强度,且延长了GA3、GA4含量上升期,而施加PP333表现出相反的作用。3)芽萌动开花伴随大量淀粉和可溶性糖消耗,高浓度的可溶性糖含量可能有利于芽的萌动。4)MSAP检测结果显示,在整个试验期间‘户川寒’DNA总甲基化的变化范围为57.3%~72.4%,开始萌动前达到DNA甲基化的最高水平,之后逐渐下降。以对照1天时状态为基准,对比其甲基化状态与各处理不同时期甲基化状态发现,处理组甲基化状态变化更活跃,且集中为去甲基化和超甲基化2种模式。各处理组去甲基化率随时间推移增加,且都高于对照组同一时期的去甲基化率,推测去甲基化率高可能更有利于‘户川寒’秋季萌动。结论: 牡丹‘户川寒’能够在秋季自然萌动开花,脱叶能促进内源GA3合成,结合外施GA3的叠加效应,使体内GA3增加并抑制ABA,促进其秋季提前萌动二次开花,且花期整齐,外施PP333一定程度抵消了脱叶引起的内源GA3的合成促进作用。芽从萌动到开花伴随着大量糖类物质消耗,高浓度的可溶性糖含量可能有利于芽的萌动。牡丹‘户川寒’可自我调控相关DNA序列CG位点的甲基化状态,从而诱导其花芽在秋季萌动,施加处理可能会提前触发这一调控过程,其中DNA去甲基化率高更可能促进秋季萌动、开花。
中图分类号:
袁雪,袁涛,刘少丹. 牡丹秋季开花过程中生理生化变化及DNA甲基化差异[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(5): 53-67.
Xue Yuan,Tao Yuan,Shaodan Liu. Variation in Physiological and Biochemical Properties and DNA Methylation Patterns during Autumn Flowering of Tree Peony(Paeonia Suffruticosa)[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2021, 57(5): 53-67.
表1
试验处理及采样时间①"
处理 Treatment | 日期Date(天数) | ||||||||||
09 -16 (0 d) | 09-17 (1 d) | 09-19 (3 d) | 09-20 (4 d) | 09-21 (5 d) | 09-22 (6 d) | 09-27 (11 d) | 10-03 (17 d) | 10-10 (24 d) | 10-18 (32 d) | 10-28 (42 d) | |
对照 Control | — | √ | √ | — | — | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
处理A Treatment A | 脱叶 Defoliation | √ | √ | — | — | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
处理B Treatment B | 脱叶 Defoliation | √ | GA3 √ | GA3 | GA3 | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
处理C Treatment C | 脱叶 Defoliation | √ | PP333 √ | PP333 | PP333 | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
表2
MSAP接头序列和预扩增引物序列"
引物类型Primer type | 引物名称Primer name | 引物序列Primer sequence(5′—3′) |
接头Adapter | EcoRⅠ-adaptor top | CTCGTAGACTGCGTACC |
EcoRⅠ-adaptor bottom | AATTGGTACGCAGTCTAC | |
HpaⅡ-MspⅠadaptor top | GATCTGAGTCCTGCT | |
HpaⅡ-MspⅠadaptor bottom | CGAGCAGGACTCATGA | |
预扩增引物 Pre-amplification primers | EcoRⅠ-0 | GACTGCGTACCAATT |
HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-0 | ATCATGAGTCCTGCTCGG |
表3
MSAP选择性扩增引物序列"
组合名称 Combination name | 引物组合 Primer combination |
MSAP18 | EcoRⅠ-AT+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-TTC |
MSAP21 | EcoRⅠ-AC+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-AAT |
MSAP22 | EcoRⅠ-AC+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-AAC |
MSAP23 | EcoRⅠ-AC+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-AAG |
MSAP25 | EcoRⅠ-AC+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-ACG |
MSAP26 | EcoRⅠ-TA+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-AAT |
MSAP27 | EcoRⅠ-TA+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-AAC |
MSAP28 | EcoRⅠ-TA+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-AAG |
MSAP29 | EcoRⅠ-TA+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-ACC |
MSAP30 | EcoRⅠ-TA+HpaⅡ-MspⅠ-ACG |
表4
MSAP检测下不同处理对DNA甲基化模式的影响"
采样日期 Sampling date | 对照 Control | 处理A Treatment A | 处理B Treatment B | 处理C Treatment C |
半甲基化位点数(比例) Hemi-methylation loci(rate) | ||||
09-17 | 119(5.1%) | 403(17.3%) | 403(17.4%) | 403(17.5%) |
09-19 | 154(6.6%) | 253(10.9%) | 253(10.1%) | 253(10.11%) |
09-22 | 158(6.8%) | 262(11.2%) | 248(10.6%) | 260(11.2%) |
09-27 | 169(7.3%) | 278(11.9%) | 219(9.4%) | 304(13.0%) |
10-03 | 163(7.0%) | 292(12.5%) | 307(13.2%) | 216(9.3%) |
10-10 | 182(7.8%) | 297(12.7%) | 272(11.7%) | 319(13.7%) |
10-18 | 215(9.2%) | 208(8.9%) | 256(11.0%) | 268(11.5%) |
10-28 | 207(8.9%) | 418(17.9%) | 306(13.1%) | 327(14.0%) |
完全甲基化位点数(比例) Fully methylation loci(rate) | ||||
09-17 | 1 215(52.1%) | 959(41.2%) | 959(41.3%) | 959(41.4%) |
09-19 | 1 235(53.0%) | 1 136(48.8%) | 1 136(48.9%) | 1 136(48.1%) |
09-22 | 1 404(60.3%) | 1 323(56.8%) | 1 334(57.3%) | 1 304(56.0%) |
09-27 | 1 306(56.1%) | 1 341(57.6%) | 1 441(61.8%) | 1 280(54.9%) |
10-03 | 1 419(60.9%) | 1 387(59.5%) | 1 293(55.5%) | 1 472(63.2%) |
10-10 | 1 367(58.7%) | 1 321(56.7%) | 1 378(59.1%) | 1 337(57.4%) |
10-18 | 1 271(54.5%) | 1 351(58.0%) | 1 298(55.7%) | 1 092(46.9%) |
10-28 | 1 262(54.2%) | 1 010(43.3%) | 1 186(50.9%) | 1 267(54.4%) |
总甲基化位点数(比例) Total methylation loci(rate) | ||||
09-17 | 1 334(57.3%) | 1 362(58.5%) | 1 362(58.6%) | 1 362(58.7%) |
09-19 | 1 389(59.6%) | 1 389(59.6%) | 1 389(59.7%) | 1 389(59.8%) |
09-22 | 1 562(67.0%) | 1 585(68.0%) | 1 582(67.9%) | 1 564(67.1%) |
09-27 | 1 475(63.3%) | 1 619(69.5%) | 1 660(71.2%) | 1 584(68.0%) |
10-03 | 1 582(67.9%) | 1 679(72.1%) | 1 600(68.7%) | 1 688(72.4%) |
10-10 | 1 549(66.5%) | 1 618(69.4%) | 1 650(70.8%) | 1 656(71.1%) |
10-18 | 1 486(63.8%) | 1 559(66.9%) | 1 554(66.7%) | 1 360(58.4%) |
10 -28 | 1 469(63.0%) | 1 428(61.3%) | 1 492(64.0%) | 1 594(68.4%) |
表5
不同时间对照的DNA甲基化模式①"
甲基化模式Methylation patterns | 位点数(比例) Loci(rate) | ||||||||||
带型 Banding patterns | 对照 Control (1 d) | 对照 Control | 3 d | 6 d | 11 d | 17 d | 24 d | 32 d | 42 d | ||
A | 不变Same methylation level | 1 640 (70.4%) | 1 445 (62.0%) | 1 569 (67.3%) | 1 440 (61.8%) | 1 491 (64.0%) | 1 488 (63.9%) | 1 456 (62.5%) | |||
A1 | 1, 1 | 1, 1 | 751 | 614 | 688 | 597 | 631 | 664 | 651 | ||
A2 | 1, 0 | 1, 0 | 27 | 30 | 31 | 26 | 29 | 32 | 35 | ||
A3 | 0, 1 | 0, 1 | 26 | 49 | 42 | 58 | 53 | 37 | 45 | ||
A4 | 0, 0 | 0, 0 | 836 | 752 | 808 | 759 | 778 | 755 | 725 | ||
B | 去甲基化 Demethylation | 275 (11.8%) | 342 (14.7%) | 317 (13.6%) | 348 (14.9%) | 335 (14.4%) | 373 (16.0%) | 410 (17.6%) | |||
B1 | 1, 0 | 1, 1 | 31 | 21 | 33 | 27 | 29 | 34 | 35 | ||
B2 | 0, 1 | 1, 1 | 53 | 46 | 65 | 53 | 57 | 67 | 73 | ||
B3 | 0, 0 | 1, 1 | 106 | 87 | 69 | 71 | 64 | 79 | 102 | ||
B4 | 0, 0 | 1, 0 | 51 | 70 | 70 | 74 | 87 | 91 | 94 | ||
B5 | 0, 0 | 0, 1 | 34 | 118 | 80 | 123 | 98 | 102 | 106 | ||
C | 超甲基化 Hypermethylation | 383 (16.4%) | 509 (21.8%) | 411 (17.6%) | 508 (21.8%) | 473 (20.3%) | 439 (18.8%) | 435 (18.7%) | |||
C1 | 1, 1 | 1, 0 | 53 | 45 | 53 | 52 | 52 | 74 | 62 | ||
C2 | 1, 1 | 0, 1 | 57 | 142 | 82 | 143 | 128 | 90 | 94 | ||
C3 | 1, 1 | 0, 0 | 135 | 195 | 173 | 204 | 185 | 168 | 189 | ||
C4 | 0, 1 | 0, 0 | 86 | 80 | 66 | 66 | 64 | 66 | 54 | ||
C5 | 1, 0 | 0, 0 | 52 | 47 | 37 | 43 | 44 | 41 | 36 | ||
D | 不定型Methylation pattern changed | 32 (1.4%) | 34 (1.5%) | 33 (1.4%) | 34 (1.5%) | 31 (1.3%) | 30 (1.3%) | 29 (1.2%) | |||
D1 | 0, 1 | 1, 0 | 23 | 13 | 15 | 11 | 14 | 18 | 16 | ||
D2 | 1, 0 | 0, 1 | 9 | 21 | 18 | 23 | 17 | 12 | 13 | ||
合计Total | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) |
表6
处理A与对照的DNA甲基化模式差异①"
甲基化模式Methylation patterns | 位点数(比例) Loci(rate) | ||||||||||
带型 Banding patterns | 对照 Control (1 d) | 处理A Treatment A | 1 d | 3 d | 6 d | 11 d | 17 d | 24 d | 32 d | 42 d | |
A | 不变Same methylation level | 1 386 (59.5%) | 1 476 (63.3%) | 1 306 (56.1%) | 1 251 (53.7%) | 1 209 (51.9%) | 1 253 (53.8%) | 1 304 (56.0%) | 1 179 (50.6%) | ||
A1 | 1, 1 | 1, 1 | 710 | 712 | 582 | 537 | 507 | 548 | 572 | 600 | |
A2 | 1, 0 | 1, 0 | 35 | 38 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 38 | 29 | 37 | |
A3 | 0, 1 | 0, 1 | 21 | 37 | 37 | 57 | 44 | 60 | 39 | 29 | |
A4 | 0, 0 | 0, 0 | 620 | 689 | 658 | 627 | 627 | 607 | 664 | 513 | |
B | 去甲基化 Demethylation | 527 (22.6%) | 454 (19.5%) | 440 (18.9%) | 471 (20.2%) | 468 (20.1%) | 489 (21.0%) | 451 (19.4%) | 626 (26.9%) | ||
B1 | 1, 0 | 1, 1 | 42 | 40 | 25 | 28 | 24 | 21 | 30 | 38 | |
B2 | 0, 1 | 1, 1 | 78 | 76 | 46 | 43 | 44 | 48 | 58 | 74 | |
B3 | 0, 0 | 1, 1 | 138 | 113 | 92 | 103 | 76 | 95 | 111 | 190 | |
B4 | 0, 0 | 1, 0 | 212 | 119 | 147 | 131 | 158 | 145 | 95 | 211 | |
B5 | 0, 0 | 0, 1 | 57 | 106 | 130 | 166 | 166 | 180 | 157 | 113 | |
C | 超甲基化 Hypermethylation | 368 (15.8%) | 366 (15.7%) | 537 (23.0%) | 553 (23.7%) | 608 (26.1%) | 541 (23.2%) | 538 (23.1%) | 468 (20.1%) | ||
C1 | 1, 1 | 1, 0 | 116 | 76 | 65 | 89 | 81 | 93 | 70 | 127 | |
C2 | 1, 1 | 0, 1 | 66 | 92 | 148 | 199 | 162 | 185 | 120 | 110 | |
C3 | 1, 1 | 0, 0 | 104 | 116 | 201 | 171 | 246 | 170 | 234 | 159 | |
C4 | 1, 0 | 0, 0 | 33 | 27 | 39 | 34 | 41 | 34 | 37 | 30 | |
C5 | 0, 1 | 0, 0 | 49 | 55 | 84 | 60 | 78 | 59 | 77 | 42 | |
D | 不定型Methylation pattern changed | 49 (2.1%) | 34 (1.5%) | 47 (2.0%) | 55 (2.4%) | 45 (1.9%) | 47 (2.0%) | 37 (1.6%) | 57 (2.4%) | ||
D1 | 0, 1 | 1, 0 | 40 | 20 | 21 | 28 | 22 | 21 | 14 | 43 | |
D2 | 1, 0 | 0, 1 | 9 | 14 | 26 | 27 | 23 | 26 | 23 | 14 | |
合计Total | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) |
表7
处理B与对照的DNA甲基化模式差异①"
甲基化模式Methylation patterns | 位点数(比例)Loci(rate) | ||||||||||
带型 Banding patterns | 对照 Control (1 d) | 处理B Treatment B | 1 d | 3 d | 6 d | 11 d | 17 d | 24 d | 32 d | 42 d | |
A | 不变Same methylation level | 1 386 (59.5%) | 1 476 (63.3%) | 1 254 (53.8%) | 1 256 (53.9%) | 1 260 (54.1%) | 1 266 (54.3%) | 1 284 (55.1%) | 1 313 (56.4%) | ||
A1 | 1, 1 | 1, 1 | 710 | 712 | 557 | 525 | 549 | 528 | 578 | 614 | |
A2 | 1, 0 | 1, 0 | 35 | 38 | 26 | 29 | 31 | 28 | 34 | 34 | |
A3 | 0, 1 | 0, 1 | 21 | 37 | 43 | 49 | 35 | 42 | 37 | 42 | |
A4 | 0, 0 | 0, 0 | 620 | 689 | 628 | 653 | 645 | 668 | 635 | 623 | |
B | 去甲基化 Demethylation | 527 (22.6%) | 454 (19.5%) | 485 (20.8%) | 439 (18.8%) | 467 (20.0%) | 433 (18.6%) | 485 (20.8%) | 501 (21.5%) | ||
B1 | 1, 0 | 1, 1 | 42 | 40 | 32 | 23 | 30 | 26 | 32 | 33 | |
B2 | 0, 1 | 1, 1 | 78 | 76 | 54 | 42 | 55 | 48 | 61 | 64 | |
B3 | 0, 0 | 1, 1 | 138 | 113 | 105 | 80 | 96 | 78 | 105 | 127 | |
B4 | 0, 0 | 1, 0 | 212 | 119 | 139 | 122 | 156 | 136 | 125 | 152 | |
B5 | 0, 0 | 0, 1 | 57 | 106 | 155 | 172 | 130 | 145 | 162 | 125 | |
C | 超甲基化 Hypermethylation | 368 (15.8%) | 366 (15.7%) | 548 (23.5%) | 591 (25.4%) | 557 (23.9%) | 595 (25.5%) | 523 (22.4%) | 474 (20.3%) | ||
C1 | 1, 1 | 1, 0 | 116 | 76 | 60 | 51 | 90 | 91 | 77 | 98 | |
C2 | 1, 1 | 0, 1 | 66 | 92 | 173 | 192 | 126 | 139 | 131 | 152 | |
C3 | 1, 1 | 0, 0 | 104 | 116 | 206 | 228 | 231 | 238 | 210 | 132 | |
C4 | 1, 0 | 0, 0 | 33 | 27 | 41 | 40 | 42 | 46 | 35 | 32 | |
C5 | 0, 1 | 0, 0 | 49 | 55 | 68 | 80 | 68 | 81 | 70 | 60 | |
D | 不定型Methylation pattern changed | 49 (2.1%) | 34 (1.5%) | 43 (1.8%) | 44 (1.9%) | 46 (2.0%) | 36 (1.5%) | 38 (1.6%) | 42 (1.8%) | ||
D1 | 0, 1 | 1, 0 | 40 | 20 | 23 | 17 | 30 | 17 | 20 | 22 | |
D2 | 1, 0 | 0, 1 | 9 | 14 | 20 | 27 | 16 | 19 | 18 | 20 | |
合计Total | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) |
表8
处理C与对照的DNA甲基化模式差异①"
甲基化模式Methylation patterns | 位点数(比例) Loci(rate) | ||||||||||
带型 Banding patterns | 对照 Control (1 d) | 处理C Treatment C | 1 d | 3 d | 6 d | 11 d | 17 d | 24 d | 32 d | 42 d | |
A | 不变 Same methylation level | 1 386 (59.5%) | 1 476 (63.3%) | 1 277 (54.8%) | 1 234 (53.0%) | 1 229 (52.7%) | 1 210 (51.9%) | 1 383 (59.4%) | 1 331 (57.1%) | ||
A1 | 1, 1 | 1, 1 | 710 | 712 | 581 | 636 | 491 | 517 | 696 | 579 | |
A2 | 1, 0 | 1, 0 | 35 | 38 | 32 | 21 | 29 | 32 | 29 | 43 | |
A3 | 0, 1 | 0, 1 | 21 | 37 | 35 | 28 | 54 | 40 | 48 | 38 | |
A4 | 0, 0 | 0, 0 | 620 | 689 | 629 | 549 | 655 | 621 | 610 | 671 | |
B | 去甲基化 Demethylation | 527 (22.6%) | 454 (19.5%) | 481 (20.6%) | 605 (26.0%) | 445 (19.1%) | 476 (20.4%) | 534 (22.9%) | 428 (18.4%) | ||
B1 | 1, 0 | 1, 1 | 42 | 40 | 30 | 39 | 25 | 24 | 48 | 26 | |
B2 | 0, 1 | 1, 1 | 78 | 76 | 53 | 88 | 48 | 46 | 69 | 46 | |
B3 | 0, 0 | 1, 1 | 138 | 113 | 102 | 212 | 78 | 87 | 157 | 85 | |
B4 | 0, 0 | 1, 0 | 212 | 119 | 141 | 127 | 116 | 164 | 143 | 133 | |
B5 | 0, 0 | 0, 1 | 57 | 106 | 155 | 139 | 178 | 155 | 117 | 138 | |
C | 超甲基化 Hypermethylation | 368 (15.8%) | 366 (15.7%) | 529 (22.7%) | 448 (19.2%) | 610 (26.2%) | 595 (25.5%) | 372 (16.0%) | 514 (22.1%) | ||
C1 | 1, 1 | 1, 0 | 116 | 76 | 64 | 61 | 59 | 97 | 71 | 110 | |
C2 | 1, 1 | 0, 1 | 66 | 92 | 143 | 125 | 240 | 144 | 102 | 112 | |
C3 | 1, 1 | 0, 0 | 104 | 116 | 208 | 174 | 206 | 238 | 127 | 195 | |
C4 | 1, 0 | 0, 0 | 33 | 27 | 37 | 34 | 31 | 40 | 26 | 34 | |
C5 | 0, 1 | 0, 0 | 49 | 55 | 77 | 54 | 74 | 76 | 46 | 63 | |
D | 不定型Methylation pattern changed | 49 (2.1%) | 34 (1.5%) | 43 (1.8%) | 43 (1.8%) | 46 (2.0%) | 49 (2.1%) | 41 (1.8%) | 57 (2.4%) | ||
D1 | 0, 1 | 1, 0 | 40 | 20 | 23 | 18 | 12 | 26 | 25 | 41 | |
D2 | 1, 0 | 0, 1 | 9 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 34 | 23 | 16 | 16 | |
合计Total | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) | 2 330 (100.0%) |
陈新露. 2000. 中国秋发牡丹品种资源及秋发机理研究. 北京: 北京林业大学博士学位论文. | |
Chen X L. 2000. Studies on germplasm of autumn-flowering tree peonies and its autumn-flowering mechanism in China. Beijing: PhD thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
迟东明, 果朋忠, 宋伟, 等. 赤霉素对牡丹促成栽培生长发育的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2007, 35 (22): 6757, 6763. | |
Chi D M , Guo P Z , Song W , et al. Effect of gibberellin on growth and development of tree peony in forcing culture. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2007, 35 (22): 6757, 6763. | |
盖树鹏, 张风, 张玉喜, 等. 低温解除牡丹休眠进程中基因组DNA甲基化敏感扩增多态性(MSAP)分析. 农业生物技术学报, 2012, 20 (3): 261- 267.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7968.2012.03.005 |
|
Gai S P , Zhang F , Zhang Y X , et al. Analysis of genomic DNA methylation during chilling induced endo-dormancy release by methylation sensitive amplified polymorphism(MSAP) technology in tree peony (Paeonia suffruticosa). Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology, 2012, 20 (3): 261- 267.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7968.2012.03.005 |
|
高志民, 王雁, 李振坚, 等. 牡丹开花前后营养变化分析研究. 林业科学研究, 2007, 20 (3): 390- 393.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.2007.03.017 |
|
Gao Z M , Wang Y , Li Z J , et al. Study on the changes of nutrients and mineral elements in tree peony before and after flowering. Forest Research, 2007, 20 (3): 390- 393.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.2007.03.017 |
|
黄睿. 2007. 多效唑对盆栽牡丹生理生化特性的影响研究. 长沙: 湖南农业大学硕士学位论文. | |
Huang R. 2007. Study on effects of the physiological and biochemical characteristics of PP333 on potted peony. Changsha: MS thesis of Hunan Agricultural University. [in Chinese] | |
蒋政, 孙李勇, 刘旭, 等. 常春二乔玉兰春夏季开花节律及营养效应研究. 植物研究, 2019, 39 (2): 192- 199. | |
Jiang Z , Sun L Y , Liu X , et al. Nutritional effect and rhythm of spring and summer flowering in Magnolia soulangeana 'Changchun'. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 2019, 39 (2): 192- 199. | |
李波, 夏秀英, 刘思. 蓝莓花芽休眠与解除过程中生理生化变化及DNA甲基化差异分析. 植物生理学报, 2015, 51 (7): 1133- 1141. | |
Li B , Xia X Y , Liu S . Changes in physiological and biochemical properties and variation in DNA methylation patterns during dormancy and dormancy release in blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L). Plant Physiology Journal, 2015, 51 (7): 1133- 1141. | |
李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000. | |
Li H S . Principles and techniques of plant physiological biochemical experiment. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2000. | |
刘嘉仪. 2017. '雪球'海棠二次开花试验研究. 长春: 吉林农业大学硕士学位论文. | |
Liu J Y. 2017. Study on the secondary blooming of Malus 'Snowdrift'. Changchun: MS thesis of Jilin Agricultural University. [in Chinese] | |
吕双庆, 李生秀. 多效唑对旱地小麦一些生理、生育特性及产量的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2005, 11 (1): 92- 98.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1008-505X.2005.01.015 |
|
Lü S Q , Li S X . Effects of PP333 spraying on some physiological, morphological characteristics and yield of wheat on dryland with different plant density. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2005, 11 (1): 92- 98.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1008-505X.2005.01.015 |
|
潘瑞炽. 植物生理学. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2012. | |
Pan R C . Plant physiology. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2012. | |
曲波, 张微, 陈旭辉, 等. 植物花芽分化研究进展. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26 (24): 109- 114. | |
Qu B , Zhang W , Chen X H , et al. Research progress of flower bud differentiation mechanism of plant. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2010, 26 (24): 109- 114. | |
全璨璨. 2009. "国庆牡丹"露地栽培二次开花技术研究. 北京: 北京林业大学硕士学位论文. | |
Quan C C. 2009. Studies on reflowering of "National-flowering Tree Peonia" on open field. Beijing: MS thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
任小林, 李海峰, 弓德强, 等. 秋施乙烯利和赤霉素对牡丹萌芽及开花的影响. 西北植物学报, 2004, 24 (5): 895- 898.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4025.2004.05.027 |
|
Ren X L , Li H F , Gong D Q , et al. Effects of application of ethephon and GA3 in fall on bud sprouting and flowering of peony. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2004, 24 (5): 895- 898.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4025.2004.05.027 |
|
宋海凤, 李绍才, 孙海龙, 等. 根施不同浓度多效唑对紫穗槐生长特性和相关生理指标的影响. 植物生理学报, 2015, 51 (9): 1495- 1501. | |
Song H F , Li S C , Sun H L , et al. Effects of soil-applied paclobutrazol on growth and physiological characteristics of Amorpha fruticosa. Plant Physiological Journal, 2015, 51 (9): 1495- 1501. | |
孙晓萍, 樊丽娟, 陈亮. 杭州市紫薇花期调控成果初报. 中国园林, 2016, 32 (12): 32- 37.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6664.2016.12.007 |
|
Sun X P , Fan L J , Chen L . Primary report on the production of crape-myrtle flowering regulation in Hangzhou. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2016, 32 (12): 32- 37.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6664.2016.12.007 |
|
王荣. 2007. 牡丹花芽分化及二次开花特性的研究. 北京: 北京林业大学博士学位论文. | |
Wang R. 2007. Researches on bud differentiation and re-blooming characteristic of tree peony. Beijing: PhD thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
王子成, 聂丽娟, 何艳霞. 离体条件下5-氮杂胞嘧啶核苷对菊花DNA甲基化和表型性状的影响. 园艺学报, 2009, 36 (12): 1783- 1790.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0513-353X.2009.12.010 |
|
Wang Z C , Nie L J , He Y X . The effect of 5-azacytidine to the DNA methylation and morphogenesis character of Chrysanthemum during in vitro growth. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2009, 36 (12): 1783- 1790.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0513-353X.2009.12.010 |
|
温璐华, 王真, 庄维兵, 等. 外源GA4处理解除果梅花芽休眠的生理效应研究. 中国南方果树, 2015, 44 (5): 16- 22. | |
Wen L H , Wang Z , Zhuang W B , et al. Physiological effect of exogenous GA4 on dormancy release of Japanese apricot flower buds. South China Fruits, 2015, 44 (5): 16- 22. | |
张华, 聂艳, 王定跃, 等. 乙烯利和多效唑对簕杜鹃生长开花及生理特性的影响. 林业科学, 2018, 54 (10): 46- 55.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20181006 |
|
Zhang H , Nie Y , W D Y , et al. Effects of ETH and PP333 on the growth, florescence and physiological properties of Bougainvillea spectabilis. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2018, 54 (10): 46- 55.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20181006 |
|
张涛, 司福会, 张玉喜, 等. 外源GA3影响牡丹花芽DNA甲基化水平和相关酶基因的表达分析. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51 (18): 3561- 3569.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.18.012 |
|
Zhang T , Si F H , Zhang Y X , et al. Effect of exogenous gibberellin on DNA methylation level and expression of related enzyme genes in tree peony floral buds. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51 (18): 3561- 3569.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.18.012 |
|
张文娟. 2005. 冷藏和赤霉素(GA3)处理对牡丹促成栽培影响的研究. 北京: 北京林业大学硕士学位论文. | |
Zhang W J. 2005. Study on the effects of chilling and GA3 treatments on forcing culture of tree peony. Beijing: MS thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
张秀新. 2004. 秋发牡丹露地二次开花调控栽培及其开花生理的研究. 北京: 北京林业大学博士学位论文. | |
Zhang X X. 2004. Studies on forcing culture of autumn-flowering tree-peonies in field and its reflowering physiology. Beijing: PhD thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
郑国生, 盖树鹏, 盖伟玲. 低温解除牡丹芽休眠进程中内源激素的变化. 林业科学, 2009, 45 (2): 48- 52.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2009.02.009 |
|
Zheng G S , Gai S P , Gai W L . Changes of endogenous hormones during dormancy release by chilling in tree peony. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2009, 45 (2): 48- 52.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2009.02.009 |
|
周华. 2015. 基于转录组比较的牡丹开花时间基因发掘. 北京: 北京林业大学博士学位论文. | |
Zhou H. 2015. Discovery of genes associated with flowering time in tree peonies based on transcriptome comparison. Beijing: PhD thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
Chandler J , Dean C . Factors influencing the vernalization response and flowering time of late flowering mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana (L) Heynh. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1994, 45 (9): 1279- 1288.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/45.9.1279 |
|
Finnegan E J , Genger R K , Kovac K , et al. DNA methylation and the promotion of flowering by vernalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 1998, 95 (10): 5824- 5829.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.10.5824 |
|
Hedden P , Phillips A L . Gibberellin metabolism: new insights revealed by the genes. Trends in Plant Science, 2000, 5 (12): 523- 530.
doi: 10.1016/S1360-1385(00)01790-8 |
|
Li M H , Hoch G , Korner C . Source/sink removal affects mobile carbohydrates in Pinus cembra at the Swiss treeline. Trees-Structure&Function, 2002, 16 (4/5): 331- 337. | |
Lízal P , Relichová J . The effect of day length, vernalization and DNA demethylation on the flowering time in Arabidopsis thaliana. Physiologia Plantarum, 2001, 113 (1): 121- 127.
doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2001.1130116.x |
|
Lukens L N , Zhan S H . The plant genome's methylation status and response to stress, implications for plant improvement. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 2007, 10 (3): 317- 322.
doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2007.04.012 |
|
Or E. 2009. Grape bud dormancy release the molecular aspect//Roubelakis-Angelakis K A. Grapevine molecular physiology & biotechnology. 2nd ed. Springer Science, Germany, 1-29. | |
Pharis R P , King R W . Gibberellins and reproductive development in seed plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 1985, 36, 517- 568.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.pp.36.060185.002505 |
|
Raessler M , Wissuwa B , Breul A , et al. Chromatographic analysis of major non-structural carbohydrates in several wood species-an analytical approach for higher accuracy of data. Anal Methods-UK, 2010, 2 (5): 532- 538.
doi: 10.1039/b9ay00193j |
|
Richards E J . DNA methylation and plant development. Trends in Genetics, 1997, 13 (8): 319- 323.
doi: 10.1016/S0168-9525(97)01199-2 |
|
Rinne P L H , Willing A , Vahala J , et al. Chilling of dormant buds hyperinduces FLOWERING LOCUS T and recruits GA-inducible 1, 3-beta-glucanases to reopen signal conduits and release dormancy in Populus. The Plant Cell, 2011, 23 (1): 130- 146.
doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.081307 |
|
Xue J , Li T , Wang S , et al. Elucidation of the mechanism of reflowering in tree peony (Paeonia suffruticosa) 'Zi Luo Lan' by defoliation and gibberellic acid application. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2018, 132, 571- 578.
doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.10.004 |
|
Xue J , Li T , Wang S , et al. Defoliation and gibberellin synergistically induce tree peony flowering with non-structural carbohydrates as intermedia. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2019, 233, 31- 41.
doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2018.12.004 |
|
Zhao J , Li G , Yi G X , et al. Comparison between conventional indirect competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay(icELISA) and simplified icELISA for small molecules. Analytica Chimica Acta, 2006, 571 (1): 79- 85.
doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2006.04.060 |
[1] | 贾文庆,王艳丽,郭英姿,王政,齐庆,闫三妮,刘会超,何松林. 大花黄牡丹花粉萌发及贮存特性[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(2): 82-92. |
[2] | 周晓君,张凯,彭正锋,孙姗姗,押辉远,张延召,程彦伟. 矮牡丹与芍药属其他5个种叶绿体基因组特征的比较[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(4): 82-88. |
[3] | 刘春洋, 史田, 史国安, 杨林菲, 范学峰, 高双成, 张改娜. 不同移栽时期对‘凤丹’牡丹植株生长效应及其综合评价[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(8): 54-62. |
[4] | 刘萍, 富丽莎, 蒋凯明. 祥丰牡丹经济效益评价[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(3): 167-174. |
[5] | 汪成忠,倪雪艳,朱玮,马菡泽,钱剑林,杨继,胡永红,宋志平. ‘凤丹’牡丹不同器官C、N、P和可溶性糖的季节性变化特征[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(12): 50-60. |
[6] | 文书生, 何绒绒, 郑佳康, 田如男. 牡丹组织培养技术研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(10): 143-155. |
[7] | 郭丽丽, 尹伟伦, 郭大龙, 侯小改. 油用凤丹牡丹不同种植时间根际细菌群落多样性变化[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(11): 131-141. |
[8] | 钟原, 成仿云, 何桂梅, 高静, 王荣, 杜秀娟, 王越岚, 刘玉英, 曹羲君, 王莹. 5个芍药属组间杂交新品种[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(6): 164-164. |
[9] | 王新, 成仿云, 钟原, 文书生, 李刘泽木, 黄弄璋. 凤丹牡丹鳞芽离体培养与快繁技术[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(5): 101-110. |
[10] | 曹喜兵, 赵振利, 范国强, 邓敏捷, 董焱鹏. 甲基磺酸甲酯对毛泡桐丛枝病苗DNA甲基化的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(3): 99-108. |
[11] | 史倩倩, 周琳, 王雁. 云南野生黄牡丹谷胱甘肽转移酶(GST)基因的分离及表达分析[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(12): 63-72. |
[12] | 马宏;李正红;张艳丽;王雁;刘秀贤;万友名. 大花黄牡丹种子休眠的解除[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(9): 62-67. |
[13] | 刘晓娟;朱丽娟;杨秋生;栗燕. 根域限制对牡丹叶片碳代谢的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(12): 53-57. |
[14] | 唐琴;曾秀丽;廖明安;潘光堂;扎西;龚君华;次仁卓嘎. 大花黄牡丹遗传多样性的SRAP分析[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(1): 70-76. |
[15] | 任磊;王雁;周琳;彭镇华. 牡丹PsAP 2 基因的克隆及表达[J]. 林业科学, 2011, 47(9): 50-56. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||