Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access

Genome-wide identification, phylogenetic and expression analysis of the heat shock transcription factor family in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

  • 1, 2, 3,
  • 1,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1,
  • 3 and
  • 1Email author
BMC Genomics201920:505

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-5876-x

  • Received: 3 October 2018
  • Accepted: 31 May 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Environmental toxicity from non-essential heavy metals such as cadmium (Cd), which is released from human activities and other environmental causes, is rapidly increasing. Wheat can accumulate high levels of Cd in edible tissues, which poses a major hazard to human health. It has been reported that heat shock transcription factor A 4a (HsfA4a) of wheat and rice conferred Cd tolerance by upregulating metallothionein gene expression. However, genome-wide identification, classification, and comparative analysis of the Hsf family in wheat is lacking. Further, because of the promising role of Hsf genes in Cd tolerance, there is need for an understanding of the expression of this family and their functions on wheat under Cd stress. Therefore, here we identify the wheat TaHsf family and to begin to understand the molecular mechanisms mediated by the Hsf family under Cd stress.

Results

We first identified 78 putative Hsf homologs using the latest available wheat genome information, of which 38 belonged to class A, 16 to class B and 24 to class C subfamily. Then, we determined chromosome localizations, gene structures, conserved protein motifs, and phylogenetic relationships of these TaHsfs. Using RNA sequencing data over the course of development, we surveyed expression profiles of these TaHsfs during development and under different abiotic stresses to characterise the regulatory network of this family. Finally, we selected 13 TaHsf genes for expression level verification under Cd stress using qRT-PCR.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first report of the genome organization, evolutionary features and expression profiles of the wheat Hsf gene family. This work therefore lays the foundation for targeted functional analysis of wheat Hsf genes, and contributes to a better understanding of the roles and regulatory mechanism of wheat Hsfs under Cd stress.

Keywords

  • Wheat
  • Hsf
  • Genome-wide analysis
  • Expression profiles

Background

Heat shock proteins (HSPs) perform important roles not only in cellular protection against stress-related damage, but also in the regular folding, intracellular distribution, and degradation of proteins. These functions facilitate organismal survival under stressful conditions [1, 2]. Heat shock transcription factors (Hsfs) modulate the expression of HSPs, and participate in various aspects of protein homeostasis, such as refolding, assembly and transporting damaged proteins, which sustain protein stability [37]. Hsfs share a core structure consisting of an N-terminal DNA binding domain (DBD) and an adjacent bipartite oligomerization domain (HR-A/B) [6, 8]. Some Hsfs also share a leucine-rich nuclear export signal (NES) for nuclear export, a nuclear localization signal (NLS) essential for nuclear import,, and short peptide motifs (AHA motifs) for activator functions [912]. Based on the characteristics of their HR-A/B domain and phylogenetic comparisons, plant Hsf genes may be classified into three broad groups: A, B and C [6, 8]. The HR-A/B regions of class B Hsfs are relatively compact, not including any insertions, while all class A and class C HSFs have an outspread HR-A/B region due to an insertion of 21 (class A) and seven (class C) amino acid residues [6]. This classification is also supported by differences in the flexible linkers between the DBD domain and HR-A/B domain, which consists of 9 to 39, 50 to 78, and 14 to 49 amino acid residues in class A, B and C Hsfs, respectively [6, 9]. Recent studies indicate that Hsfs are engaged in plant development and growth, as well as in response to abiotic stresses such as salt, cold, drought and cadmium challenge [7, 9, 1319]. For example, HsfA9 is related to seed maturation and embryogenesis in sunflowers and Arabidopsis [1416]. HsfA4a is involved in cadmium tolerance in wheat [19]. Due to the essential modulatory functions of Hsf genes in plants [1618], the Hsf gene family has been studied in the models Arabidopsis thaliana and rice (Oryza sativa), and nonmodels such as poplar (Popupus trichocarpa), maize (Zea mays), and apple (Malus domestica) [5, 6, 9, 2022]. However, the Hsf gene family in the bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) has not been systematically examined.

Bread wheat is one of the most widely grown and consumed crops worldwide [23]. Bread wheat is hexaploid (2n = 6x = 42; AABBDD genome), originating from two amphiploidization events: the first hybridization producing the tetraploid wheat species (2n = 4x = 28, genome AABB) was between the Triticum urartu (2n = 2x = 14, genome AA) and presumably Aegilops speltoides, belonging to the section Sitopsis (2n = 2x = 14, genome SS); the second hybridization was between the tetraploid wheat and Aegilops tauschii (2n = 2x = 14, genome DD) [24, 25]. Therefore, bread wheat has a huge and highly complex genome with three subgenomes (A, B and D) and ~17Gb total size [26], leading to great challenges for genomic studies. Recently, however, a quality draft genome of hexaploid ‘Chinese Spring’ wheat has provided the foundation upon which we can investigate wheat gene families and to clearly recognize homologous gene copies in these three sub-genomes [27]. Further, it has allowed the study of interactions of loci during polyploidization and the retention and dispersion of homologous gene [28, 29].

Here we first perform an in silico genome-wide study to comprehensively identify members of the wheat Hsf gene family. Next, to characterize evolutionary and functional features, we determine chromosome locations, gene structures, conserved protein domains, phylogenetic relationships and expression profiles for this family. Our study provides a foundation for downstream targeted functional investigation of wheat Hsf genes, and will be allow for better understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which Hsfs regulate in growth, development and stress resilience in wheat.

Results

Genome-wide identification and classification of Hsf family in wheat

Through the availability of the genome sequence, it is possible for the first time to identify all the Hsf family members in wheat. In this study, we identified a total of 78 genes as Hsf members in the wheat genome, designating the predicted wheat Hsf genes TaHsf1 to TaHsf78. Members of the Hsf gene family have been broadly subdivided into Classes A, B, and C according to differences in the length of the flexible linkers between the A and B parts of the HR-A/B regions. In the TaHsf gene family, 38, 16 and 24 genes were accordingly assigned to Classes A, B and C, respectively. Within the A clade, 8 distinct subclades (A1, to A8) were resolved. The B-type Hsf genes were grouped into a separate clade subdivided into three groups (B1, B2 and B4). And the C-type genes were subdivided into two groups (C1 and C2). We further performed a BLASTN search against the wheat expressed sequence tag (EST) using the 78 identified Hsfs as queries to verify the existence and completeness of this set of wheat Hsfs. Results showed that most of the TaHsfs were supported by EST hits except 2 Hsfs (TaHsf57 and TaHsf75). We speculated these 2 unsupportted TaHsfs might not be expressed under any the assayed conditions or may be expressed at very low level that cannot be easily detected. Among the supported TaHsf genes, TaHsf8 has the largest number of EST hits, with 49, followed by TaHsf21 and TaHsf27 with 48 and 30 hists, respectively. Chromosome localization analysis found that 4 TaHsfs did not have corresponding chromosomal locations, and that the remaining 74 TaHsf genes were distributed on all of the 21 wheat chromosomes. Chromosome 3B contained the most Hsf genes with 8, followed by 4B, 5A and 5D, with each harboring 6, then 3A with 5, and finally 6A, 6B and 6D with one each. The predicted lengths of the putative TaHsf proteins ranged from 209 to 701 amino acids, with the molecular weights (Mw) ranging from 22.72 to 73.92 kDa and theoretical isoelectric points (PI) ranging from 4.67 to 9.50 (Table 1).
Table 1

The list of the putative wheat Hsf genes

Names

Ensemble Gene ID

Chromosome location

EST count

length (bp)

Exons

Introns

Amino acid length (aa)

PI

MW (kDa)

TaHsf1

Trae_4AL_8577C148B

scaffold_288809_4AL: 49,335-56,655

26

7321

3

2

521

4.94

57.34

TaHsf2

Trae_5BL_E15759DAD

scaffold_404129_5BL: 211,116-217,536

26

6421

2

1

471

5.18

52.89

TaHsf3

Trae_5DL_B1D24781B1

scaffold_433347_5DL: 108,916-114,305

28

5390

2

1

487

4.95

54.60

TaHsf4

Trae_5AL_16AD8DEEC

scaffold_375092_5AL: 45,746-49,544

4

3799

2

1

346

5.45

38.98

TaHsf5

Trae_5DL_6EB179C88

scaffold_434875_5DL: 17,703-21,445

8

3743

2

1

348

5.39

38.90

TaHsf6

nd

scaffold_640974_U: 63,006-67,190

6

4185

2

1

353

5.59

39.72

TaHsf7

Trae_2AS_CF07F4EC2

scaffold_113503_2AS: 55,860-61,955

26

6096

2

1

413

4.99

45.60

TaHsf8

Trae_2BS_ECF9B4EB4

scaffold_148328_2BS: 27,356-32,557

49

5202

2

1

405

5.06

44.92

TaHsf9

Trae_2DS_B6872CB84

scaffold_177319_2DS: 131,495-137,254

27

5760

2

1

412

4.85

45.43

TaHsf10

Trae_3AL_E15419B88

scaffold_194616_3AL: 22,466-26,620

2

4155

2

1

314

6.14

35.42

TaHsf11

TRAES3BF002300100CFD

scaffold_221589_3B: 97,736-102,700

4

4965

3

2

396

5.09

43.99

TaHsf12

nd

scaffold_379543_5AL: 6399-8897

10

2499

3

2

372

5.37

41.13

TaHsf13

nd

scaffold_433195_5DL: 110,106-113,560

9

3455

2

1

377

5.42

41.59

TaHsf14

nd

scaffold_116363_2AS: 3667-6615

7

2949

2

1

467

6.06

51.62

TaHsf15

Trae_2AS_53BFA14C7

scaffold_114504_2AS: 30,086-34,710

7

4625

4

3

502

5.95

55.44

TaHsf16

Trae_2BS_1484A7516

scaffold_146118_2BS: 176,336-179,440

7

3105

2

1

475

5.94

52.08

TaHsf17

Trae_2DS_070CE3D50

scaffold_177422_2DS: 92,871-96,205

8

3335

2

1

499

5.7

54.78

TaHsf18

Trae_3AL_463ABD4BF

scaffold_196554_3AL: 30,462-32,936

15

2475

2

1

432

5.36

48.37

TaHsf19

TRAES3BF029100010CFD

scaffold_223991_3B: 37,660-40,120

15

2461

2

1

441

5.18

49.46

TaHsf20

Trae_3DL_8FD0F859B

scaffold_249383_3DL: 45,727-48,075

16

2349

2

1

433

5.35

48.45

TaHsf21

Trae_1AL_7D6DC73FC

scaffold_001183_1AL: 39,381-43,295

48

3915

3

2

448

4.91

50.25

TaHsf22

nd

scaffold_031159_1BL: 70,097-72,255

9

2159

3

2

445

4.94

49.92

TaHsf23

nd

scaffold_061383_1DL: 26,931-29,065

8

2135

3

2

442

5.11

49.70

TaHsf24

Trae_6AS_1537629B3

scaffold_487059_6AS: 7273-11,032

7

3760

2

1

458

5.21

49.87

TaHsf25

Trae_6BS_25E162197

scaffold_513816_6BS: 34,066-37,539

8

3474

2

1

455

5.33

49.92

TaHsf26

Trae_6DS_C59B6322F

scaffold_543918_6DS: 1556-5556

7

4001

2

1

458

5.16

49.86

TaHsf27

Trae_1AL_A4B5C1474

scaffold_003124_1AL: 28,946-32,101

30

3156

5

4

368

5

41.70

TaHsf28

Trae_1BL_5D8D6B865

scaffold_031443_1BL: 79,599-83,003

27

3405

4

3

364

4.89

41.02

TaHsf29

Trae_1DL_B5A84E4C8

scaffold_061579_1DL: 62,790-66,102

29

3313

4

3

370

5.03

42.03

TaHsf30

Trae_4AS_52EB860E7

scaffold_307193_4AS: 64,786-67,745

13

2960

2

1

341

5.07

39.63

TaHsf31

Trae_4BL_2E125A702

scaffold_321575_4BL: 50,126-53,221

12

3096

2

1

341

5.07

39.59

TaHsf32

Trae_4DL_AF19ABC7D

scaffold_342984_4DL: 44,562-50,805

13

6244

4

3

341

5.02

39.49

TaHsf33

nd

scaffold_559301_7AL: 9972–11,835

4

1864

5

4

310

4.67

33.78

TaHsf34

nd

scaffold_579527_7BL: 16,166-18,111

5

1946

4

3

351

4.94

37.90

TaHsf35

nd

scaffold_605087_7DL: 18,736-21,007

5

2272

4

3

351

4.82

37.98

TaHsf36

Trae_4AS_02B607421

scaffold_306492_4AS: 132,616-136,430

10

3815

4

3

383

5.22

42.84

TaHsf37

Trae_4BL_542B1DA85

scaffold_322416_4BL: 4327-8215

9

3889

4

3

384

5.3

42.87

TaHsf38

Trae_4DL_EE941086E

scaffold_344014_4DL: 13,486-17,310

9

3825

4

3

384

5.3

42.92

TaHsf39

Trae_5AL_D369204D3

scaffold_374310_5AL: 146,720-151,848

28

5129

2

1

298

9.5

32.14

TaHsf40

Trae_5BL_F80E01D65

scaffold_404669_5BL: 141,516-147,139

27

5624

2

1

298

9.31

32.28

TaHsf41

Trae_5DL_431CCA490

scaffold_433651_5DL: 31,056-36,542

28

5487

2

1

298

9.2

32.06

TaHsf42

Trae_2AL_D3B2C21A7

scaffold_094650_2AL: 33,644-35,170

2

1527

2

1

295

6.12

31.99

TaHsf43

nd

scaffold_712376_U: 1–715

1

715

2

1

209

9.5

22.72

TaHsf44

nd

scaffold_019033_1AS: 12,760-16,705

25

3946

3

2

404

4.9

42.04

TaHsf45

Trae_5BL_FCB1625F3

scaffold_404935_5BL: 109,416-113,225

27

3810

3

2

701

9.22

73.92

TaHsf46

nd

scaffold_433530_5DL: 41,946-43,807

26

1862

2

1

397

4.89

41.11

TaHsf47

Trae_7AS_937121AF8

scaffold_570040_7AS: 14,527-16,335

6

1809

2

1

374

5.44

40.45

TaHsf48

Trae_7BS_03F39ED94

scaffold_592325_7BS: 110,144-112,895

6

2752

3

2

374

5.33

40.33

TaHsf49

Trae_7DS_10A9C68FA

scaffold_621446_7DS: 14,666-16,580

6

1915

2

1

367

5.5

39.79

TaHsf50

Trae_2DS_01A0E5F7A

scaffold_178567_2DS: 15,585-18,518

4

2934

2

1

320

6.55

35.31

TaHsf51

nd

scaffold_642758_U: 53,288-55,875

5

2587

2

1

320

6.66

35.26

TaHsf52

nd

scaffold_374067_5AL: 30,626-32,510

7

1885

2

1

388

7.85

41.35

TaHsf53

nd

scaffold_404268_5BL: 201,437-203,325

8

1889

2

1

388

7.89

41.46

TaHsf54

nd

scaffold_433663_5DL: 11,036-12,820

8

1785

2

1

388

8.42

41.39

TaHsf55

nd

scaffold_201352_3AL: 447–1655

0

1209

3

2

277

5.54

31.15

TaHsf56

nd

scaffold_194514_3AL: 70,656-72,591

2

1936

2

1

294

6.26

32.57

TaHsf57

nd

scaffold_220888_3B: 91,006-92,356

0

1351

2

1

322

5.46

35.55

TaHsf58

TRAES3BF021000010CFD

scaffold_220882_3B: 116,126-117,710

2

1585

2

1

325

5.94

35.72

TaHsf59

nd

scaffold_249994_3DL: 60,736-62,250

2

1515

2

1

321

6.16

35.38

TaHsf60

nd

scaffold_249450_3DL: 110,687-117,555

16

6869

3

2

225

7.11

25.63

TaHsf61

nd

scaffold_193607_3AL: 163,384-164,530

13

1147

2

1

236

6.91

26.05

TaHsf62

TRAES3BF005500020CFD

scaffold_223354_3B: 26,214-27,330

14

1117

2

1

227

8.35

24.69

TaHsf63

nd

scaffold_250779_3DL: 25,456-26,755

11

1300

2

1

241

8.76

26.40

TaHsf64

TRAES_3BF025700020CFD_c1

scaffold_231430_3B: 2326-3400

4

1075

1

0

237

5.11

26.12

TaHsf65

nd

scaffold_223198_3B: 70,994-72,095

2

1102

2

1

237

5.99

26.61

TaHsf66

TRAES3BF025700030CFD

scaffold_224063_3B: 9915-11,221

27

1307

1

0

274

6.98

29.98

TaHsf67

Trae_4BL_86572BB6D

scaffold_321958_4BL: 10,751-11,965

9

1215

1

0

264

5.43

29.06

TaHsf68

Trae_4BL_F6C3B5069

scaffold_320289_4BL: 21,946-23,120

25

1175

1

0

275

8.4

30.21

TaHsf69

Trae_4BL_5091DE58E

scaffold_320289_4BL: 33,386-34,490

2

1105

1

0

257

4.88

28.50

TaHsf70

nd

scaffold_320675_4BL: 112,161-113,540

5

1380

2

1

273

5.7

29.45

TaHsf71

nd

scaffold_344468_4DL: 19,506-20,710

14

1205

1

0

276

6.46

30.27

TaHsf72

Trae_4DL_FA07D8414

scaffold_343739_4DL: 22,666-23,885

4

1220

1

0

276

5.32

29.85

TaHsf73

nd

scaffold_376864_5AL: 4896-6010

4

1115

1

0

273

6.15

30.17

TaHsf74

nd

scaffold_375679_5AL: 69,576-70,900

15

1325

1

0

229

5.08

25.56

TaHsf75

nd

scaffold_641118_U: 187,271-188,375

0

1105

2

1

268

5.69

29.99

TaHsf76

Trae_7AL_6931AA68B

scaffold_558532_7AL: 22,876-24,495

13

1620

2

1

266

6.44

28.23

TaHsf77

nd

scaffold_577398_7BL: 12,506-14,356

14

1851

2

1

244

5.61

26.12

TaHsf78

nd

scaffold_609477_7DL: 1–1636

16

1636

2

1

263

6.11

28.04

Conserved domains analysis of TaHsf

We identified five conserved domains by sequence alignment approaches (Table 2). All the TaHsf predicted proteins contained a highly conserved DBD domain, forming with a three helical bundles (H1, H2 and H3) and four-stranded antiparallel β-sheet in their N-terminal regions. However, within the Hsf family, the length of the DBD domain was quite different. We then used the MARCOIL tool to detect the presence of a property of the HR-A/B, the coiled-coil structure characteristic of leucine zipper-type protein interaction domains. We found that most of the TaHsfs proteins consisted of NES and NLS domains, which are vital for shuttling Hsfs between the nucleus and cytoplasm. As was expected in the A-type TaHsfs, additional sequence comparisons identified AHA domain in the middle of the C-terminal activation domains. By contrast, these domains were not detected in the B- and C-type TaHsfs. To further predict and verify domains in the TaHsfs proteins, we used the Multiple EM for Motif Elicitation (MEME) motif search tool. Using this, we found thirty corresponding consensus motifs (Additional file 1: Figure S1, Additional file 2). Compared with class B and C, the members of class A contained the greatest number of conserved motifs (22), with the majority (12) detected in TaHsf1 and TaHsf3. The conserved motifs 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 16 represented the DBD domain. Motif 1 was found in 77 members of TaHsf family (except for TaHsf33). Regarding coiled-coiled structures, motif 3 was detected in class A and class C TaHsfs family, while motif 7 was detected in class B. The conserved motifs 10, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30 were identified as NLS domains. Motifs 10 and 25 represented NLS domains in class A, whereas NLS domains were represented by motifs 20, 23, 28 and 30 in class B, motifs 22 and 23 in class C. Motif 15 represented NES domains, and motif11 was identified as characteristic AHA domains. Thus through the combination of the two methods, predicted DBD domains and HR-A/B domains were observed in each TaHsfs and varied greatly in size and sequence.
Table 2

Functional domains of TaHsfs

Names

Protein type (A-B-C)

DBD

HR-A/B

NLS

NES

AHA

TaHsf1

A1a

38–128

163–227

(245)RRIVAANKKRR

(508)LTEQMGLL

AHA2(464)DSFWEQFLCA

TaHsf2

A1a

1–73

109–173

(191)RRIVAANKKRR

(458)LTEQMGLL

AHA2(414)DSFWEQFLCA

TaHsf3

A1a

1–91

125–189

(207)RRIVAANKKRR

(474)LTEQMGLL

AHA2(430)DSFWEQFLCA

TaHsf4

A2a

38–128

143–207

(223)RKELEDAISNKRRRR

nd

AHA1(313)DDFWEDLL

TaHsf5

A2a

40–130

145–209

(225)RKELEDAISNKRRRR

nd

AHA1(315)DDFWEDLL

TaHsf6

A2a

45–135

150–214

(230)RKELEDAISNKRRRR

nd

AHA(320)DDFWEDLL

TaHsf7

A2b

43–133

149–213

(229)RKELHDAISKKRRRR

(400)KMGYL

AHA1(370)DNFWEELL

TaHsf8

A2b

44–134

150–214

(230)SKELHDAISKKRRRR

(392)KMGYF

AHA1(362)DNFWEGLL

TaHsf9

A2b

43–133

149–213

(229)RKELHDAISKKRRRR

(399)KMGYL

AHA1(369)DNFWEELL

TaHsf10

A2b

42–132

148–212

(228)RKELHDAMSKKRRRS

nd

nd

TaHsf11

A2b

41–131

147–211

(227)RKELHDAMSKKRRRS

nd

AHA1(353)DDFWEELM

TaHsf12

A2e

66–156

178–242

(260)RKELAEALLSKKRGR

nd

AHA1(314)ESFWKELL

TaHsf13

A2e

66–156

180–244

(262)RKELAEALLSKKRGR

nd

AHA1(320)ESFWKELL

TaHsf14

A3

49–139

175–221

(248)RVKRKFLKHV

nd

nd

TaHsf15

A3

84–174

210–256

(283)RVKRKFLKHV

nd

nd

TaHsf16

A3

80–170

206–252

(279)RVKRKFLKHV

nd

nd

TaHsf17

A3

81–171

207–253

(280)RVKRKFLKHV

nd

nd

TaHsf18

A4a

13–103

126–183

(198)KKRR

(419)MTEKLGHL

AHA1(244)LNSLENFFKE AHA2(370)DGFWQQFLTE

TaHsf19

A4a

13–103

126–183

(198)KKRR

(428)MTEKLGHL

AHA1(244)LNSLENFFKE AHA2(379)DGFWQQFLTE

TaHsf20

A4a

13–103

126–183

(198)KKRR

(420)MTKKLGHL

AHA1(244)LNSLENFFKE AHA2(370)DGFWQQFLTE

TaHsf21

A4d

25–115

138–195

(220)KKRR

(430)ITQQMGHL

AHA1(267)LVSMEKLVQR AHA2(386)DLFWERFLTD

TaHsf22

A4d

23–113

136–193

(219)KKRR

(432)ITEQMGHL

AHA1(267)LVSMEKLVRR AHA2(388)DLFWERFLTD

TaHsf23

A4d

23–113

136–193

(218)KKRR

(429)ITEQMGHL

AHA1(270)LVSMEKLVQR AHA2(385)DLFWERFLTD

TaHsf24

A5

20–111

131–188

(199)KMAEASSMFADALHKK

nd

(414)DNFWEQFLTE

TaHsf25

A5

20–111

131–188

(199)KMAEASSMFADALHKK

nd

(414)DNFWEQFLTE

TaHsf26

A5

20–111

131–188

(199)KMAEASSMFADALHKK

nd

(414)DNFWEQFLTE

TaHsf27

A6a

52–142

159–223

(238)KRKELEDAISKKRRR

(352)IDELGQQLGYL

(322)SDFWAELFSD

TaHsf28

A6a

48–138

155–219

(234)KRKELEDAISKKRRR

(348)IDELAQQLGYL

(318)NDFWAELFSD

TaHsf29

A6a

54–144

161–225

(240)KRKELEDAISKKRRR

(354)IDELAQQLGYL

(324)NDFWAELFSD

TaHsf30

A6b

46–136

153–217

(232)KLKDLEDGYPTKRRR

nd

(311)DDFWEELLSE

TaHsf31

A6b

46–136

153–217

(232)KLKDLEDGYPTKRRR

nd

(311)DDFWEELLSE

TaHsf32

A6b

46–136

153–217

(232)KLKDLEDAYSNKRRR

nd

(311)DDFWEELLSE

TaHsf33

A7b

47–138

150–175

nd

nd

(246)TDMIWYELL

TaHsf34

A7b

49–139

173–223

nd

nd

(298)TDMIWYELL

TaHsf35

A7b

49–139

173–223

nd

nd

(298)TDMIWYELL

TaHsf36

A8

37–127

173–230

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf37

A8

37–127

173–230

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf38

A8

37–127

173–230

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf39

B1

27–117

172–209

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf40

B1

30–120

174–211

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf41

B1

30–120

174–211

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf42

B2a

13–103

157–193

(223)KRSRE

nd

nd

TaHsf43

B2a

26–116

170–206

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf44

B2c

42–132

215–251

(321)KRARD

nd

nd

TaHsf45

B2c

176–266

349–385

(455)KRARD

nd

nd

TaHsf46

B2c

42–132

215–251

(321)KRARD

nd

nd

TaHsf47

B2d

32–122

192–228

(300)KRMRH

nd

nd

TaHsf48

B2d

32–122

192–228

(300)KRMRH

nd

nd

TaHsf49

B2d

32–122

192–228

(293)KRMRH

nd

nd

TaHsf50

B4b

40–130

201–237

(299)KKKR

nd

nd

TaHsf51

B4b

39–129

200–236

(299)KKKR

nd

nd

TaHsf52

B4c

26–117

207–243

(336)PVGA

(362)LALENDDL

nd

TaHsf53

B4c

26–117

207–243

(336)PVGA

(362)LALESDDL

nd

TaHsf54

B4c

26–117

207–243

(336)PVGA

(362)LALESDDL

nd

TaHsf55

C1a

21–111

121–164

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf56

C1a

1–84

121–171

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf57

C1a

21–111

154–197

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf58

C1a

25–115

159–202

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf59

C1a

25–115

159–202

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf60

C1a

21–111

149–192

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf61

C1b

19–109

126–169

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf62

C1b

19–109

131–174

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf63

C1b

19–109

131–174

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf64

C2a

1–75

97–140

(168)KRPR

  

TaHsf65

C2a

24–114

134–177

(202)KRPR

nd

nd

TaHsf66

C2a

19–109

132–175

(203)KRPR

nd

nd

TaHsf67

C2a

12–102

124–167

(195)QRPR

nd

nd

TaHsf68

C2a

21–111

135–178

(206)KRPR

nd

nd

TaHsf69

C2a

20–110

132–175

(203)KKPR

nd

nd

TaHsf70

C2a

24–114

135–178

(205)KRPR

nd

nd

TaHsf71

C2a

23–113

135–178

(206)KRRR

nd

nd

TaHsf72

C2a

24–114

141–184

(211)KRPR

nd

nd

TaHsf73

C2a

30–120

143–186

(207)NRPR

nd

nd

TaHsf74

C2a

1–84

106–149

(177)KRPR

nd

nd

TaHsf75

C2a

23–113

132–175

(198)KRLR

nd

nd

TaHsf76

C2b

15–105

132–175

(204)KRAR

nd

nd

TaHsf77

C2b

1–84

97–153

nd

nd

nd

TaHsf78

C2b

13–103

129–172

(201)KRAR

nd

nd

DBD DND-binding domain, HR-A/B OD (oligomerisation domain), heptad pattern of hydrophobic amino acid residues; NLS: Nuclear localization signal, NES Nuclear export signal. AHA Activator motifs, aromatic (W, F, Y), larger hydrophobic (L, I, V) and acidic (E, D) amino acid residues; Numbers in brackets reveals the position of the first amino acid present in the putative NLS, NES, and AHA in the C-terminal; nd: no domains detectable by sequence similarity

Phylogenetic analysis in wheat Hsf proteins

To further evaluate the phylogenetic relationships amidst Hsf families, the Hsf conserved amino acid sequences (from the beginning of the DNA-binding domain to the end of the HR-A/B region) of 39 proteins from wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), 21 proteins from Arabidopsis (A. thaliana), 25 from rice (O. sativa), 24 from brachypodium (B. distachyon) and 30 from maize (Z. mays) were used to construct a phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1). According to this tree, class HsfA showed the maximum number of subclasses among the three major groups, and contained eight smaller clusters of which five (A6, A2, A8, A1 and A7) were closer to class HsfC than class HsfA3, A4 and A5. Two HsfA6 members from Arabidopsis (At5g43840 and At3g22830) were not clustered with the HsfA6 subclass from other plant species, but were closer to the HsfA7 subclass. Brachypodium Hsfs were closer to wheat Hsf proteins compared with Arabidopsis, maize and rice, which was in line with the botanical classification.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Phylogenetic tree of Hsf proteins from wheat, Arabidopsis, rice, brachypodium and maize. The N-proximal regions (from the start of the DNA-binding domain to the end of the HR-A/B region) of Hsf proteins were used to construct an unrooted neighbor-joining tree with MEGA6.0 (with pairwise deletion and Poisson correct). For Hsf proteins of Arabidopsis (prefixed by AT), rice (prefixed by Os), Brachyposium (prefixed by Bradi) and maize (prefixed by ZM), both locus ID and subclass numbers are given. TaHsf proteins are marked in red

Genome distribution and gene duplication of TaHsf gene family

We next determined chromosomal locations of TaHsf genes by leveraging the available wheat genome annotation information (Fig. 2). A total of 25, 26 and 23 TaHsf genes are found in the A, B and D sub-genomes, respectively (B > A > D). The distribution of Hsf genes was not even across the chromosomes. There were 7, 9, 17, 13, 16, 3 and 9 genes in the group 1 to group 7 chromosomes, which reveal obvious differences between group 3, 4, 5 and other four groups. Chromosome 3B had the highest number of Hsf genes with 8, while chromosome 6A, 6B and 6D all had only one Hsf gene eachs. These results suggest that Hsf gene duplication events may have happened in wheat 3, 4 and 5 group chromosomes during wheat formation and the evolution of gene families in the different sub-genome is independent, which may relate to gene function.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Chromosomal localizations and the homologous TaHsf genes in wheat A, B and D sub-genomes

Gene duplication is frequently revealed in plant genomes, resulting from polyploidization or through tandem and segmental duplication related to replication [30]. Here, we found 17 homologous gene groups with a copy on each of A, B and D homologous chromosome, and 7 gene pairs with a copy on only 2 of the 3 homologous chromosomes, while the other 13 genes were not found as homologs (Fig. 2, Additional file 3). Our results indicate that gene loss may happen throughout the wheat Hsf gene family, leading to the loss of some homologous copies. Moreover, these homologous genes are clustered in group 3, 4 and 5 chromosomes, which was in line with the above analysis of chromosome localization, suggesting that group 3, 4 and 5 chromosomes subjected less sequence loss and interaction impact compared to other homologous chromosome groups. In addition, 17 pairs of duplicated genes from different sub-genomes were also found, containing 3 duplication events in the same chromosome and 14 segmental duplication events between different chromosomes, indicating that the duplication events could play important roles in the extension of the Hsf genes in wheat genome (Fig. 3, Additional file 3).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Duplicated Hsf gene pairs identified in wheat. Seven homologous groups of wheat chromosomes are depicted in different colors. Duplicated gene pairs are depicted in corresponding colors and linked using lines with the corresponding color

Phylogenetic analysis of Hsfs between the T. urartu, A. tauschii, and wheat orthologs

We also identify the Hsfs gene in the diploid ancestors of wheat, T. urartu and A. tauschii, to investigate the change of Hsf number in transition from diploidy to hexaploidy within a given subgenome. Results showed that 16 and 15 putative Hsfs were identified in T. urartu and A. tauschii through our methods, respectively (Additional file 4). Total 16 T. urartu-Hsfs, 25 T. aestivum-A-Hsfs, 15 A. tauschii-Hsfs, and 23 T. aestivum-D-Hsfs gene sequences were applied to build gene trees. 16 pairs of T. urartu-wheat A genome orthologs were mapped to T. urartu chromosomes with 2 on 1A, 2 on 2A, 4 on 3A, 3 on 4A, 2 on 5A, 1 on 6A and 2 on 7A (Fig. 4). 15 pairs of A. tauschii-wheat D genome orthologs were mapped to A.tauschii chromosomes with 2 on 1D, 3 on 2D, 3 on 3D, 2 on 4D, 3 on 5D, 1 on 6D and 1 on 7D (Fig. 4). The majority of the orthologs (75 and 66.67% for T. urartu and A. tauschii, respectively) belonged to class A, as expected due to the high proportional composition of this type (48.72%) among the identified wheat Hsf genes. Moreover, the chromosome locations of the majority of wheat Hsf genes and their orthologs in T. urartu and A. tauschii corresponded to one another (Additional file 5).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Collinear analysis for the Hsf gene family among wheat, T.urartu and A.tauschii. The green annulus on the top left represent chromosomes of A. tauschii and the blue annulus on the top right represent chromosomes of T. urartu. Different colors represent seven homologous groups of wheat chromosomes. Homeologous genes of each group are linked by lines with corresponding color

Modulatory network between TaHsf genes with other wheat genes

In order to comprehend the interactions between TaHsfs and other wheat genes, the modulatory network of them (Fig. 5) was predicted via the orthology-based method [31]. Results showed that 15 TaHsfs were shown to have homology with Arabidopsis genes and the 420 gene pairs of network interactions were found with the average of 28 gene per TaHsf, suggesting the TaHsfs were broadly engaged in the regulatory network and biological process in wheat. Among these, 292 genes interacted with TaHsfA and 128 genes interacted with TaHsfB. TaHsf16 (A3) was found to interact with 77 wheat genes, including Hsp81.4, ZF2, HBT and HSP90.1, suggesting it was mainly participated in response to stress, metal ion binding, cell differentiation and protein folding. TaHsf18 (A4a) was found to interact with 24 wheat genes, including ZAT6, STZ and S6K2, suggesting it was mainly engaged in metal ion binding, intracellular signal transduction and negative regulation of cell proliferation. TaHsf50 (B4b) was predicted to interact with 88 wheat genes, including MYB15, MYB70, ZFP2, FMA, and HB31, suggesting it is engaged primarily in the regulation of transcription, asmonic acid, metal ion binding and DNA binding. TaHsf44 (B2c) was found to interact with 30 wheat genes including AGC2–1, WRKY39, BAG6 and NF-YC2, suggesting it is mainly engaged in defense response, calmodulin binding, response to heat and flower development (Additional files 67). Moreover, GO and KEGG pathway descriptions of those interacting genes were analyzed to understand the potential function and pathway of the 15 TaHsfs (Fig. 6). The 15 TaHsf interacting genes were significantly enriched for transcription, DNA-templating, response to heat, transcription factor activity, sequence-specific DNA binding and calmodulin binding (Fig. 6a). Significantly enriched pathways included plant hormone signal transduction, PI3K-Akt signaling pathway, and protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum (Fig. 6b).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

An interaction network of TaHsf genes in wheat based on the orthologs in Arabidopsis. Fifteen TaHsfs were found to have homology with Arabidopsis genes and the 420 gene pairs of network interactions

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Functional and KEGG pathway categories of 15 TaHsfs interacting with wheat genes. a Top 10 GO categories that are enriched in 15 TaHsfs interacting with wheat genes according to –log10Pvalues. GOs included biological process, cellular component and molecular function. b Top 20 KEGG pathways that are enriched in 15 TaHsfs interacting with wheat genes according to enrichment scores

Tissue-specific expression patterns of TaHsf genes

Using available RNA-seq data for five different tissues, the tissue specificity of the TaHsf genes was investigated to focus on the temporal and spatial expression patterns and putative functions of Hsf genes in wheat growth and development. According to FPKM values, we found that the expression levels of the TaHsfs varied significantly in different tissues (Fig. 7). TaHsf10 (A2b), TaHsf15 (A3), TaHsf16 (A3), TaHsf17 (A3), TaHsf30 (A6b), TaHsf32 (A6b), TaHsf50 (B4b), TaHsf58 (C1a), TaHsf66 (C2a) and TaHsf72 (C2a) exhibit low expression abundance in endosperm, inner pericarp and outer pericarp, while TaHsf1 (A1a), TaHsf2 (A1a), TaHsf3 (A1a), TaHsf4 (A2a), TaHsf8 (A2b), TaHsf9 (A2b), TaHsf20 (A4a), TaHsf21 (A4d), TaHsf36 (A8) and TaHsf41 (B1) had high expression abundances. Furthermore, the expression levels of the TaHsfs varied significantly in different grain layers over development (Additional file 1: Figure S2).
Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Heat map of the expression profiles of 46 TaHsf genes in five different tissues (grain, leaf, root, spike and stem). Log2 transformed FPKM values were used to create the heat map. The red or green colors stand for the higher or lower relative abundance of each transcript in each sample. Z represent Zadoks scale, a decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. P-value< 0.05 were regarded as statistically significant

Expression patterns of TaHsf genes under abiotic stresses

To study the roles of TaHsf genes in response to abiotic stresses, expression of all TaHsf genes in response to drought, heat, and Cd stress was investigated using RNA sequencing data. All 46 wheat Hsf genes revealed different expression patterns under these dynamic conditions. Among them, the expression levels of TaHsf2 (A1a) and TaHsf21 (A4d) were both down-regulated under drought, heat, drought and heat stresses, while the expression of TaHsf4 (A2a), TaHsf15 (A3), TaHsf16 (A3), TaHsf17 (A3), TaHsf28 (A6a) and TaHsf41 (B1) was up-regulated (Additional file 1: Figure S3). According to our RNA sequencing data (Additional file 8) [31], expression levels of TaHsf3 (A1a), TaHsf4 (A2a), TaHsf5 (A2a), TaHsf16 (A3), TaHsf18 (A4a), TaHsf20 (A4a), TaHsf31 (A6b) and TaHsf32 (A6b) were up-regulated under Cd stress, while the expression of TaHsf7 (A2b), TaHsf8 (A2b), TaHsf9 (A2b), TaHsf26 (A5) and TaHsf50 (B4b) was down-regulated (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Heat map of the expression profiles of TaHsf genes under Cd treatment. FPKM values were used to create the heat map. The red or green colors indicate the higher or lower relative abundance or each transcript in each sample

Verification of the expression of TaHsf in wheat under cd stress by qRT-PCR

According to the expression analysis based on diverse RNA sequencing data above, we obtained an overview of expressed TaHsfs under various agriculturally-relevant stressors. To further verify these results we selected a subset of these TaHsfs to detect their expression levels in root under Cd stress through qRT-PCR. Results showed that compared with H17CK group, levels of TaHsf3 (A1a), TaHsf4 (A2a), TaHsf5 (A2a), TaHsf16 (A3), TaHsf18 (A4a), TaHsf20 (A4a), TaHsf31 (A6b) and TaHsf32 (A6b) were significantly increased, while levels of TaHsf7 (A2b), TaHsf8 (A2b), TaHsf9 (A2b), TaHsf26 (A5) and TaHsf50 (B4b) were significantly decreased (P < 0.05, Fig. 9). The qRT-PCR results were highly consistent with that of RNA sequencing data, confirming that it is reasonable to use RNA sequencing data to evaluate the expression level of transcripts in wheat Cd-response.
Fig. 9
Fig. 9

Verification of the expression level of TaHsfs by qRT-PCR analysis. Relative expression levels of 13 TaHsfs under Cd treatment. * represents P < 0.05 vs H17CK

Discussion

A growing body of evidence shows that Hsfs play essential roles in plant developmental and defense processes [16, 3235]. Due to growing numbers of quality genomes available, putative functions of Hsf family genes have been predicted in many species, from the model plants Arabidopsis [13], rice [5] and maize [36], now to other crops, such as apple [21], Chinese cabbage [37], Chinese white pear [38] and pepper [39]. However, despite the global impact of wheat, as well as the importance of environmental Cd contamination, there has been limited investigation into the molecular basis of Cd accumulation, and the Hsf family in wheat.

Here we took advantage of the high quality wheat reference genome, to first identify 78 Hsf wheat genes and to characterize these bioinformatically (Table 1). A first contrast lies on the sheer quantity of these genes in wheat: while we identify 78 in wheat, there are only 21 Hsfs in Arabidopsis, 25 in rice, 30 in maize, 29 in Chinese white pear and 25 in apple [5, 13, 36, 38]. The vast majority of Hsfs can be categorized into three classes: A, B and C. The quantity of class A in Arabidopsis, rice, maize, Chinese white pear and apple are 15, 13, 16, 19 and 16, respectively. Class B Hsfs amount to 5, 8, 9, 8 and 7, in the five plants respectively. Finally, class C is represented by 1, 9, 4, 2 and 2, respectively. In contrast, of 78 putative wheat Hsf genes, 38 belonged to class A, 16 to class B and 24 to class C. Thus class C is relatively expanded in wheat in contrast to these other genomes.

We next investigated occurrences of possible gene duplication, which contributes differentially to the extension of specific gene families in plant genomes, and results from polyploidization or tandem and segmental duplication related [30, 40, 41]. In wheat, we found that homologous genes are gathered in group 3, 4 and 5 chromosomes, which was in line with the above analysis of chromosome localization. These results indicated that compared to other homologous chromosome groups, group 3, 4 and 5 chromosomes suffered less sequence loss and interaction impact. Three duplication events with the same chromosome and 14 segmental duplication events between various chromosomes were identified, suggesting that in wheat genome, the duplication events could play important roles in the extension of the Hsf cascade genes. A previous study indicated that more than 90% of the enhancement in regulatory genes in the Arabidopsis lineage were facilitated via genome duplications [42]. Compared with tandem duplications, segmental Hsf gene duplications were more often. This situation appeared in Arabidopsis, maize, poplar [21, 22, 36], and also in wheat.

Our phylogenetic analysis indicated that compared with Arabidopsis, maize and rice, brachypodium Hsfs were nearer to wheat Hsf proteins, which was in line with broader classifications. Identification of Hsf genes in wheat and its diploid ancestors, T. urartu and A. tauschii, which suggesting that the number of Hsf in a known subgenome was increased in transition from diploidy to hexaploidy (for A subgenome, 16 to 25 genes, and for D subgenome, 15 to 23 genes). These results further indicate that gene gain happened broadly during the formation of hexaploid [27].

Moreover, protein-protein regulatory interactions were constructed to provide inference of mechanisms of life activities and to explore potential biological functions for unknown proteins. Results showed that TaHsf18 (A4a) interacts with 24 wheat genes, including ZAT6, STZ and S6K2, suggesting it was mainly engaged in metal ion binding, intracellular signal transduction, and the negative regulation of cell proliferation. A previous study indicated that ZAT6 coordinately activates the expression of phytochelatin synthesis-related gene and positively modulate Cd accumulation and tolerance by directly targeting GSH1 in Arabidopsis [43]. HsfA4a was also engaged in cadmium tolerance in wheat [19], suggesting it might be involved in metal ion binding via interacting with ZAT6 to further play a role in cadmium tolerance in wheat. TaHsf50 (B4b) interacts with 88 wheat genes, including MYB15, MYB70, ZFP2, FMA, and HB31, suggesting it is involved in regulation of transcription, regulation of jasmonic acid, metal ion binding and DNA binding. It has been reported that MYB15 is required for the defense-induced synthesis of G-rich lignin and the constitutive synthesis of the coumarin metabolite scopoletin, both of which contribute to disease resistance against a hemibiotrophic bacterial pathogen [44]. TaHsf44 (B2c) was found to interact with 30 wheat genes including AGC2–1, WRKY39, BAG6 and NF-YC2, suggesting it is engaged in defense response, calmodulin binding, response to heat and flower development. AtBAG6 can induce programmed cell death in yeast and plants [45]. Aspartyl protease-mediated cleavage of BAG6 plays an important role in autophagy and fungal resistance in plants [46]. GO analysis showed that 15 TaHsfs interacted genes were significantly enriched for transcription, DNA-templating, response to heat, transcription factor activity, sequence-specific DNA binding and calmodulin binding. It has been reported that Hsf family has a unique role as master modulators of thermotolerance, and were essential for plants survival under serious heat stress [9, 47].

Furthermore, we characterize wheat Hsf genes that expression throughout tissues and development stages. Many of these genes were highly expressed across development. For example, TaHsf2, 3, 20, 17 and 45 were high expressed in roots, stems, leaves, spikes and grains including whole endosperm, starchy endosperm, transfer cells and aleurone layer, as well as seed coats during different developmental stages. It has been reported that Hsfs were involved in plant growth and development [9, 16]. Our results further indicated that Hsf genes play important regulatory roles in wheat growth, development and reproductive processes.

In addition, we comprehensively analyzed the expression levels of Hsf genes in response to drought, heat and Cd stresses to predict potential roles. The expression of most Hsf genes were differentially regulated in response to a given stress, which strongly suggests that they may be vital stress response genes. A previous study indicated that Hsfs are involved in responses to the abiotic stress as heat, cold, salt, drought and cadmium [13, 17, 19]. Our results first comprehensively illustrate that Hsf genes likely play important regulatory roles in wheat Cd stress response. Therefore, these genes stand as strong functional candidates for followup research into Cd stress in wheat.

Conclusion

We present the first comprehensive identification and characterization of the wheat Hsf gene family. Through the latest available wheat genome information, total 78 putative wheat Hsf gens were identified through a genome-wide search, and categorized into class A, B and C subfamilies based on conserved motifs. Chromosome localizations, gene structures, conserved protein motifs, and phylogenetic relationship of these TaHsfs were comprehensively analyzed and strongly supported these classifications. Moreover, the gene duplication and homologous genes between wheat A, B and D sub-genome were also surveyed. Expression profiles of these TaHsfs through development and under various abiotic stresses were surveyed and provide strong functional candidates for followup work. Finally, through qRT-PCR analysis, 13 TaHsf genes were selected to verify their expression level in wheat under Cd stress, which provide top candidates for further functional analysis of Hsf genes in response to wheat Cd stress.

Methods

Identification and classification of Hsf gene family in wheat

The Hsf gene family was identified following the method as described by Wang et al. with some modifications [48]. First, to construct a local protein database, all the wheat (T. aestivum L.) protein sequences available were downloaded from the Ensemble database (http://plants.ensembl.org/index.html). Then, the database were searched with 100 known Hsf gene sequences collected from A. thaliana (21), O. sativa (25), B. distachyon (24) and Z. mays (30) using the local BLASTP program with an e-value of le-5 and identity of 50% as the threshold. Moreover, a self-blast of these sequences was performed to remove redundancy, the physical localizations of all candidate Hsf genes were checked and redundant sequences with the same chromosome location were rejected. Furthermore, all obtained Hsf protein sequences were analyzed to detect DBD domains and coiled-coil structures by the SMART and MARCOIL programs (SMART: http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/, MARCOIL: http://toolkit.tuebingen.mpg.de/marcoil). Those protein sequences lacking the DBD domain or a coiled-coil structure were removed. Finally, to verify the existence of all the obtained sequences, BLASTN similarity searches against the wheat ESTs deposited in the NCBI database were performed. The theorectical pI (isoelectric point) and Mw (molecular weight) of the putative Hsf from T. aestivum L were calculated using compute pI/Mw tool online (http://web.expasy.org/compute_pi/), respectively. Classification of the three different groups A, B and C was based on structural characteristics and phylogenetic comparisons [49, 50].

Gene structure construction, protein domain and motif analysis

Gene structure information were obtained from the Ensemble plants database (http://plants.ensembl.org/index.html). Conserved domains annotation was performed using Pfam (http://pfam.xfam.org/search), SMART (http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/) and Heatster online tools [39]. All full-length amino acid sequences of the TaHsfs were used to identify conserved domain motifs by the Multiple Em for Motif Elicitation (MEME) tool [51]. The parameters were set as follows: maximum numbers of different motifs, 30; minimum motif width, 4; maximum motif width, 50.

Chromosomal locations and gene duplication

Genes were mapped onto chromosomes by identifying their chromosomal position provided in the wheat genome database. Gene duplication events of Hsf genes in wheat were investigated based on the following three criteria: (a) the alignment covered > 80% of the longer gene; (b) the aligned region had an identity > 80% [52]. In order to visualize the duplicated regions in the T. aestivum genome, lines were drawn between matching genes using Circos-0.67 program (http://circos.ca/).

Phylogenetic analysis

The N-terminal Hsf protein sequences containing the DBD and HR-A/B regions and parts of the linker between these two regions from A. thaliana, O. sativa, B. distachyon, Z. mays and T. aestivum L. were performed for multiple alignments by CLUSTALW and the results of alignment were used to construct phylogenetic tree using the NJ method in MEGA (version 6.0) [53]. Bootstrap test method was adopted and the replicate was set to 1000.

Analysis of the TaHsf family orthologs in T. urartu and A. tauschii

The wheat- T. aestivum, wheat-T. urartu and wheat-A .tauschii Hsf genes were used to construct phylogenetic trees using neighbor-joining method with 1000 bootstrap replicates. According to these orthologous Hsf genes, a collinear map of the T. urartu-wheat A genome and A. tauschii-wheat B genome was created using genome visualization tool CIRCOS according to these orthologous Hsf genes. The locations of Hsf orthologous genes on the chromosomes of T. urartu and A. tauschii were obtained from the database published by Ling et al. [23] and Jia et al. [54], respectively.

Network interaction analysis

The interaction network involving the TaHsf genes was based on the orthologous genes between Wheat and Arabidopsis using the AraNet V2 tool (http://www.inetbio.org/aranet/) [48]. Enrichment analysis was implemented by BiNGO, a cytoscape plugin, for gene ontology analysis and identifying processes and pathways of specific gene sets. Over-represented GO full categories were identified with a significance threshold of 0.01.

The TaHsf gene expression analysis by RNA-seq data

To study the expression of TaHsf genes in different organs and response to stress, the wheat expression database (http://wheat.pw.usda.gov/WheatExp/) was used The FPKM (fragments per kilobase of transcript per million fragments mapped) value was calculated for each Hsf gene, the log2 transformed values of the TaHsf genes were used for heat map generation. P-values < 0.05 were taken as statistically significant thresholds [55].

Plant materials, growth conditions, and treatments

The plant of wheat cultivar Chuanyu17, a high-Cd-accumulating cultivar, was planted in growth chambers at 23 ± 1 °C with a photoperiod of 16 h light/8 h dark. One-week-old seedlings were treated with 0 (H17CK) and 100 μM CdCl2 for 24 h (H17Cd). Roots from the plants with similar size were harvested separately and washed three times with deionized water. All the plant samples from three biological replicates were frozen in liquid nitrogen immediately and stored at − 80 °C for RNA extraction.

RNA extraction and real-time quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis

Total RNA was extracted from roots of Chuanyu17 in H17CK and H17Cd groups using TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. RNA was quantified by using NanoDrop-1000 and RNA integrity was checked by electrophoresis. First strand cDNA was synthesized using HiScript IIQ RT SuperMix (Vazyme, R223–1). The primers used in the qRT-PCR analyses are listed in Additional file 9. β-actin was used as an internal control. The qRT-PCR was carried out using QuantiFast® SYBR® Green PCR kit (Qiagen, 204,054) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Each treatment was repeated three times. The expression levels were calculated from the 2-ΔΔCt value [ΔΔCt = (CT target/Cd - CT actin/Cd - (CT target/control - CT actin/control)] [45].

Abbreviations

AHA: 

Activator motifs

Cd: 

Cadmium

DBD: 

DNA binding domain

FPKM: 

Fragments per kilobase of transcript per million fragments mapped

GO: 

Gene ontology

HR-A/B: 

Oligomerizationn domain

Hsf

Heat shock transcription factor

HSPs: 

Heat shock proteins

MEME: 

Multiple Em for Motif Elicitation

MT: 

Mutant

NES: 

Nuclear export signal

NLS: 

Nuclear localization signal

qRT-PCR: 

real-time quantitative RT-PCR

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Xian Fu, Pengfei Xiang, Liangliang Ju and Xiaoyun Huang for technical support.

Funding

This work was supported by the “13th Five-year Plan” for National Key Research and Development (Grant No. 2016YFD0102000). LY acknowledges support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [grant number ERC-StG 679056 HOTSPOT]. The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

MZ and YW contributed to the experimental design and manuscript drafting. MZ, SGZ, LZ, RL and JL performed the research. MZ, CHZ and ZHL performed bioinformatics analysis. MZ, LL and CPL contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. LY supported the revision of the manuscript and drafted the manuscript revision with MZ and YW. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.9, section 4 of South RenMin Road, Wuhou District, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
(2)
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China
(3)
School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

References

  1. Hartl FU, Hayer-Hartl M. Molecular chaperones in the cytosol: from nascent chain to folded protein. Science. 2002;295:1852–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Young JC, Barral JM, Ulrich Hartl F. More than folding: localized functions of cytosolic chaperones. Trends Biochem Sci. 2003;28:541–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Wu C. Heat shock transcription factors: structure and regulation. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1995;11:441–69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sarkar A. Heat shock factor gene family in rice: genomic organization and transcript expression profiling in response to high temperature, low temperature and oxidative stresses. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2009;47:785.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Guo J, Wu J, Ji Q, Wang C, Luo L, Yuan Y, Wang Y, Wang J. Genome-wide analysis of heat shock transcription factor families in rice and Arabidopsis. J Genet Genomics. 2008;35:105–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Nover L, Bharti K, Doring P, Mishra SK, Ganguli A, Scharf KD. Arabidopsis and the heat stress transcription factor world: how many heat stress transcription factors do we need? Cell Stress Chaperones. 2001;6:177–89.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Kotak S, Larkindale J, Lee U, Von KP, Vierling E, Scharf KD. Complexity of the heat stress response in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2007;10:310–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Baniwal SK, Bharti K, Chan KY, Fauth M, Ganguli A, Kotak S, et al. Heat stress response in plants: a complex game with chaperones and more than twenty heat stress transcription factors. J Biosci. 2004;29:471–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Scharf KD, Berberich T, Ebersberger I, Nover L. The plant heat stress transcription factor (Hsf) family: structure, function and evolution. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1819:104–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Lyck R, Harmening U, Hohfeld I, Treuter E, Scharf KD, Nover L. Intracellular distribution and identification of the nuclear localization signals of two plant heat-stress transcription factors. Planta. 1997;202:117–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Heerklotz D, Doring P, Bonzelius F, Winkelhaus S, Nover L. The balance of nuclear import and export determines the intracellular distribution and function of tomato heat stress transcription factor HsfA2. Mol Cell Biol. 2001;21:1759–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Kotak S, Port M, Ganguli A, Bicker F, von Koskull-Doring P. Characterization of C-terminal domains of Arabidopsis heat stress transcription factors (Hsfs) and identification of a new signature combination of plant class a Hsfs with AHA and NES motifs essential for activator function and intracellular localization. Plant J. 2004;39:98–112.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Swindell WR, Huebner M, Weber AP. Transcriptional profiling of Arabidopsis heat shock proteins and transcription factors reveals extensive overlap between heat and non-heat stress response pathways. BMC Genomics. 2007;8:125.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Almoguera C, Rojas A, Díazmartín J, Prietodapena P, Carranco R, Jordano J. A seed-specific heat-shock transcription factor involved in developmental regulation during embryogenesis in sunflower. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:43866.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Díaz-Martín J, Almoguera C, Prieto-Dapena P, Espinosa JM, Jordano J. Functional interaction between two transcription factors involved in the developmental regulation of a small heat stress protein gene promoter. J Am Chem Soc. 2005;139:1483.Google Scholar
  16. Kotak S, Vierling E, Baumlein H, von Koskull-Doring P. A novel transcriptional cascade regulating expression of heat stress proteins during seed development of Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2007;19:182–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Nishizawa A, Yabuta Y, Yoshida E, Maruta T, Yoshimura K, Shigeoka S. Arabidopsis heat shock transcription factor A2 as a key regulator in response to several types of environmental stress. Plant J. 2006;48:535–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller G, Mittler R. Could heat shock transcription factors function as hydrogen peroxide sensors in plants? Ann Bot. 2006;98:279–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Shim D, Hwang JU, Lee J, Lee S, Choi Y, An G, Martinoia E, Lee Y. Orthologs of the class A4 heat shock transcription factor HsfA4a confer cadmium tolerance in wheat and rice. Plant Cell. 2009;21:4031–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Chauhan H, Khurana N, Agarwal P, Khurana P. Heat shock factors in rice (Oryza sativa L.): genome-wide expression analysis during reproductive development and abiotic stress. Mol Genet Genomics. 2011;286:171–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Filomena G, Gea G, Sanja B, Celestina M. Heat shock transcriptional factors in Malus domestica: identification, classification and expression analysis. BMC Genomics. 2012;13:639.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang F, Dong Q, Jiang H, Zhu S, Chen B, Xiang Y. Genome-wide analysis of the heat shock transcription factors in Populus trichocarpa and Medicago truncatula. Mol Biol Rep. 2012;39:1877–86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Ling HQ, Zhao S, Liu D, Wang J, Sun H, Zhang C, et al. Draft genome of the wheat A-genome progenitor Triticum urartu. Nature. 2013;496:87–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Dubcovsky J, Dvorak J. Genome plasticity a key factor in the success of polyploid wheat under domestication. Science. 2007;316:1862–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Matsuoka Y. Evolution of polyploid triticum wheats under cultivation: the role of domestication, natural hybridization and allopolyploid speciation in their diversification. Plant Cell Physiol. 2011;52:750–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang M, Wang S, Xia G. From genome to gene: a new epoch for wheat research? Trends Plant Sci. 2015;20:380–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayer KFX, Rogers J, Doležel J, Pozniak C, Eversole K, Feuillet C, et al. A chromsome-based draft sequence of the hexaploid bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) genome. Science. 2014;345:1251788.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Wicker T, Mayer KF, Gundlach H, Martis M, Steuernagel B, Scholz U, et al. Frequent gene movement and pseudogene evolution is common to the large and complex genomes of wheat, barley, and their relatives. Plant Cell. 2011;23:1706–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Brenchley R, Spannagl M, Pfeifer M, Barker GL, D'Amore R, Allen AM, et al. Analysis of the bread wheat genome using whole-genome shotgun sequencing. Nature. 2012;491:705–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang J. Evolution by gene duplication: an update. Trends Ecol Evol. 2003;18:292–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhou M, Zheng S, Liu R, Lu J, Lu L, Zhang C, et al. Comparative analysis of root transcriptome profiles between low- and high-cadmium-accumulating genotypes of wheat in response to cadmium stress. Funct Integr Genomics. 2019;19:281–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar M, Busch W, Birke H, Kemmerling B, Nurnberger T, Schoffl F. Heat shock factors HsfB1 and HsfB2b are involved in the regulation of Pdf1.2 expression and pathogen resistance in Arabidopsis. Mol Plant. 2009;2:152–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Pérez-Salamó I, Papdi C, Rigó G, Zsigmond L, Vilela B, Lumbreras V, et al. The heat shock factor A4A confers salt tolerance and is regulated by oxidative stress and the mitogen-activated protein kinases MPK3 and MPK6. Plant Physiol. 2014;165:319.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Giorno F, Woltersarts M, Grillo S, Scharf KD, Vriezen WH, Mariani C. Developmental and heat stress-regulated expression of HsfA2 and small heat shock proteins in tomato anthers. J Exp Bot. 2010;61:453–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Ulrike B, Albihlal WS, Tracy L, Fryer MJ, Sparrow PAC, François R, et al. Arabidopsis HEAT SHOCK TRANSCRIPTION FACTORA1boverexpression enhances water productivity, resistance to drought, and infection. J Exp Bot. 2013;64:3467.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin YX, Jiang HY, Chu ZX, Tang XL, Zhu SW, Cheng BJ. Genome-wide identification, classification and analysis of heat shock transcription factor family in maize. BMC Genomics. 2011;12:76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Song XM, Huang ZN, Duan WK, Ren J, Liu TK, Li Y, Hou XL. Genome-wide analysis of the bHLH transcription factor family in Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa ssp. pekinensis). Mol Genet Genomics. 2014;289:77–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Qiao X, Li M, Li L, Yin H, Wu J, Zhang S. Genome-wide identification and comparative analysis of the heat shock transcription factor family in Chinese white pear (Pyrus bretschneideri) and five other Rosaceae species. BMC Plant Biol. 2015;15:12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Guo M, Lu JP, Zhai YF, Chai WG, Gong ZH, Lu MH. Genome-wide analysis, expression profile of heat shock factor gene family (CaHsfs) and characterisation of CaHsfA2 in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). BMC Plant Biol. 2015;15:151.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Freeling M. Bias in plant gene content following different sorts of duplication: tandem, whole-genome, segmental, or by transposition. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2009;60:433–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Y, Wang X, Tang H, Tan X, Ficklin SP, Feltus FA, Paterson AH. Modes of gene duplication contribute differently to genetic novelty and redundancy, but show parallels across divergent angiosperms. PLoS One. 2011;6:e28150.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Maere S, De Bodt S, Raes J, Casneuf T, Van Montagu M, Kuiper M, Van de Peer Y. Modeling gene and genome duplications in eukaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:5454–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Chen J, Yang L. Zinc-Finger Transcription Factor ZAT6 Positively Regulates Cadmium Tolerance through the Glutathione-Dependent Pathway in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2016;171:707–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Chezem WR, Memon A, Li F-S, Weng J-K, Clay NK. SG2-type R2R3-MYB transcription factor MYB15 controls defense-induced lignification and basal immunity in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2017;29:1907–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Kang CH, Jung WY, Kang YH, Kim JY, Kim DG, Jeong JC, et al. AtBAG6, a novel calmodulin-binding protein, induces programmed cell death in yeast and plants. Cell Death Differ. 2006;13:84–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Li Y, Kabbage M, Liu W, Dickman MB. Aspartyl protease-mediated ceavage of BAG6 is necessary for autophagy and fungal resistance in plants. Plant Cell. 2016;28:233–47.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Mishra SK, Tripp J, Winkelhaus S, Tschiersch B, Theres K, Nover L, Scharf KD. In the complex family of heat stress transcription factors, HsfA1 has a unique role as master regulator of thermotolerance in tomato. Genes Dev. 2002;16:1555–67.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang M, Yue H, Feng K, Deng P, Song W, Nie X. Genome-wide identification, phylogeny and expressional profiles of mitogen activated protein kinase kinase kinase (MAPKKK) gene family in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). BMC Genomics. 2016;17:668.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. von Koskull-Doring P, Scharf KD, Nover L. The diversity of plant heat stress transcription factors. Trends Plant Sci. 2007;12:452–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Harrison CJ, Bohm AA, Nelson HC. Crystal structure of the DNA binding domain of the heat shock transcription factor. Science. 1994;263:224–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Bailey TL, Williams N, Misleh C, Li WW. MEME: discovering and analyzing DNA and protein sequence motifs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:W369.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang J, Sun N, Deng T, Zhang L, Zuo K. Genome-wide cloning, identification, classification and functional analysis of cotton heat shock transcription factors in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). BMC Genomics. 2014;15:961.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:2725–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Jia J, Zhao S, Kong X, Li Y, Zhao G, He W, et al. Aegilops tauschii draft genome sequence reveals a gene repertoire for wheat adaptation. Nature. 2013;496:91–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Pearce S, Vazquez-Gross H, Herin SY, Hane D, Wang Y, Gu YQ, Dubcovsky J. WheatExp: an RNA-seq expression database for polyploid wheat. BMC Plant Biol. 2015;15:299.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement