
==== Front
Commun Biol
Commun Biol
Communications Biology
2399-3642
Nature Publishing Group UK London

6763
10.1038/s42003-024-06763-9
Article
Long intergenic non-coding RNAs modulate proximal protein-coding gene expression and tolerance to Candidatus Liberibacter spp. in potatoes
Bedre Renesh 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7934-3414
Kavuri Naga Rajitha 12
Ramasamy Manikandan 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0647-4808
Irigoyen Sonia 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9896-1739
Nelson Andrew 3
Rajkumar Mohan Singh 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2986-4016
Mandadi Kranthi kkmandadi@tamu.edu

124
1 https://ror.org/0034eay46 grid.264763.2 0000 0001 2112 019X Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension Center, Texas A&M University System, Weslaco, TX USA
2 https://ror.org/0034eay46 grid.264763.2 0000 0001 2112 019X Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX USA
3 https://ror.org/05bnh6r87 grid.5386.8 0000 0004 1936 877X Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY USA
4 grid.264756.4 0000 0004 4687 2082 Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture, Texas A&M AgriLife, College Station, TX USA
6 9 2024
6 9 2024
2024
7 109527 11 2023
21 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Long intergenic non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs) are emerging as regulators of protein-coding genes (PCGs) in many plant and animal developmental processes and stress responses. In this study, we characterize the genome-wide lincRNAs in potatoes responsive to a vascular bacterial disease presumably caused by Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum (CLso). Approximately 4397 lincRNAs were detected in healthy and infected potato plants at various stages of zebra chip (ZC) disease progression. Of them, ~65% (2844) were novel lincRNAs, and less than 1% (9) were orthologs of Arabidopsis and rice based on reciprocal BLAST analysis, suggesting species-specific expansion. Among the proximal lincRNAs within 50 kbp from a PCG, ~49% were transcribed from the same strand, while ~39% and ~15% followed convergent (head-to-head) and divergent (tail-to-tail) orientations, respectively. Approximately 30% (1308) were differentially expressed following CLso infection, with substantial changes occurring 21 days after infection (DAI). Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis (WGCNA) of lincRNAs and PCGs identified 46 highly correlated lincRNA–PCG pairs exhibiting co-up or co-downregulation. Furthermore, overexpression of selected lincRNAs in transgenic potato hairy roots resulted in perturbation of neighboring PCG expression and conferred tolerance to CLso infection. Our results provide novel insights into potato lincRNAs’ identity, expression dynamics, and functional relevance to CLso infection.

A transcriptomics and genetic study identified long intergenic non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs) in potatoes which regulate neighboring proteincoding gene expression and tolerance to infection by Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum.

Subject terms

Plant stress responses
Plant cell biology
Gene regulatory networks
This study was supported in part by funds from USDA-NIFA (2021-70029-36056, HATCH TEX09621), Texas A&M AgriLife Research Insect-vectored Disease Seed Grants (124190-96210), Texas A&M AgriLife Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture to K.M.issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are non-coding transcripts usually ≥200 bp long, lacking coding potential, and are primarily species-specific1,2. LncRNAs play a crucial role in regulating gene expression via diverse mechanisms in many complex developmental processes and stress responses3–6. Based on the genomic position and orientation with proximal protein-coding genes (PCGs), lncRNAs are classified into long intergenic non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs), long non-coding natural antisense transcripts (lincNATs), sense-overlapping lincRNAs and intronic lincRNAs4,7,8. Among them, lincRNAs represent over 50% of the lncRNA population9. LincRNAs share similar features with mRNAs, such as capping at 5′ end, polyadenylation at 3′ end, and splicing9,10. These characteristics allow lincRNAs to be identified using transcriptome-wide approaches (i.e., RNA-seq) designed to monitor mRNAs1,9–11. For instance, the FANTOM project identified 13,105 lincRNAs among 19,175 functional lncRNAs in humans. However, the human lincRNA repertoire could be close to 100,000 based on lincRNAs found in developmental stages, tissue types, and disease-specific RNA-Seq datasets in humans and rodents12. The GENCODE consortium (ENCODE project) also released 14,880 evidence-based lncRNA transcripts in humans13.

The different roles of lncRNAs in plants have only recently been investigated. With the availability of high-throughput technologies, lncRNAs were detected in various tissues and growth conditions in Arabidopsis8,14,15. However, functional characterization has been revealed only for a few lncRNAs. For instance, the function of MAS and SVALKA lncRNAs were found to be implicated in cold stimulus by governing the expression of their associated PCGs encoding MADS AFFECTING FLOWEIRNG4 (MAF4) and C-repeat/dehydration-responsive element binding factor (CBF), respectively8,16. In addition to the direct role of lincRNAs in regulating PCG expression, some can also act as microRNA (miRNA) decoys (target mimics) in post-transcriptional gene regulation. For instance, lincRNAs can compete with mRNAs and bind to specific miRNAs, thus interfering with the cleavage or translation of endogenous mRNA targets. However, the repertoire of plant lincRNAs, their involvement in gene regulation, and regulating plant–microbe responses still need to be better understood11,17.

Besides Arabidopsis, numerous lncRNAs were identified in maize (1724), rice (98), Populus trichocarpa (2542), foxtail millet (19), and switchgrass (1597) in response to drought stress5,6,18–20. In potatoes, ~2897 lincRNAs were identified during tuber sprouting21. Only a few studies of lncRNAs are available in response to biotic stress in plants. A strand-specific RNA-seq approach was employed to identify natural antisense transcripts (lncNATs) responsive to Fusarium oxysporum in Arabidopsis. Intriguingly, lncNATs were found in ~20% of the Arabidopsis transcripts, suggesting a crucial role of lncRNAs in governing the expression level of the PCGs22. Likewise, ~3181 lncRNAs were identified from the Sclerotinia sclerotiorum-infected Brassica napus and suggested their role in governing response to biotic stress23. LncRNAs from the tomato plants infected with yellow leaf curl virus (YLCV) were identified, and the plausible role of the lncRNAs as competing endogenous target mimics (eTMs) against the miRNAs has been determined24. In potatoes, ~17 lncRNAs were identified in response to infection with Pectobacterium carotovorum (P. carotovorum) (Pcb1692)17. In another study, about ~1565 lncRNAs were identified in response to YLCV infection in tomato24. The results suggest that lncRNAs may play an essential role in diverse biological processes, including host immune response against pathogen invasion via governing expression of stress-responsive PCGs via orchestrated regulatory networks.

Potato is a commercially important vegetable crop providing the bulk of calorie intake25,26. However, the productivity of potatoes is threatened by emerging diseases such as zebra chip (ZC) disease, which is associated with the phloem-limited bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum (CLso) and is transmitted by the potato psyllid, Bactericera cockerelli (B. cockerelli). In this study, we characterized potato’s long intergenic RNA (lincRNA) landscapes and studied their role in mediating PCG expression and defense responses to CLso.

Results

Genome-wide identification of potato lincRNAs

To identify and understand the function of lincRNAs during the progression of ZC disease, we performed RNA-seq of healthy (CT; control) and infested potato plants with psyllid vector carrying CLso [CLso(+)] and psyllids without CLso [CLso(−)] temporally at 7, 14, and 21 days after infection (DAI). In total, ~298 million paired-end reads were generated from the temporal RNA-seq datasets (nine conditions having three biological replicates in each condition), covered with ~11.4 million paired-end reads in each biological replicate. The raw sequence data were subjected to quality filtering and mapped to the reference potato genome (Solanum tuberosum (S. tuberosum) v4.04). Of these, ~99% of the reads were high quality, and 54–61% mapped uniquely to the reference genome27 (Supplementary Table 1). Transcripts were assembled using the Read mapping and transcript assembly workflow28, and lincRNAs were identified using Evolinc29. After identifying putative lincRNAs, those expressed below 0.1 transcripts per million were considered artifacts and removed from further analysis.

We identified a total of ~4397 lincRNAs from the nine samples of potatoes representing healthy (CT), CLso(+), and CLso(−) conditions at 7, 14, and 21 DAI (Supplementary Table 1). Previous studies showed that lincRNAs are mostly species-specific9,30,31. For instance, only ~12% of human lincRNAs show sequence conservation with non-human species32. Consistent with this, when we compared potato lincRNAs with those of Arabidopsis and rice (downloaded from the CANTATAdb v2.0 database), we observed poor inter-species conservation (<1%) of the lncRNAs. In contrast, ~35% of potato lincRNAs were conserved with the lncRNAs of other Solanaceous plants (Fig. 1a; Supplementary Data 1a). Moreover, 4379 lincRNAs identified in this study were substantially higher than the previously reported lincRNAs under temporal infection with P. carotovorum subsp. brasiliense in the tolerant and susceptible potato cultivars17. On the contrary, about 3175 lncRNAs were detected from the apical buds of potato tubers21. Therefore, this study expanded the potato lincRNAs repertoire to include novel ones perturbed during biotic stress response.Fig. 1 Identification and characteristics of potato lincRNAs.

a A Venn diagram compares potato lncRNAs available in the CANTATAdb v2.0 database with those detected in the current study. b The distribution of lincRNAs in the 12 potato chromosomes is shown in a pie chart. The fraction (%) of the highest and least number of lincRNAs is depicted. c Lengthwise distribution of the lincRNAs and comparison with protein-coding genes (PCGs) is shown via kernel density plot.

Genomic attributes of potato lincRNAs

The identified lincRNAs were distributed across all chromosomes (Chr) of the potato, with the most found on Chr 1 (12.66%) and the least on Chr 5 (5.93%) (Fig. 1b; Supplementary Data 1b). The transcript length of the lincRNAs ranged from 201 to 5095 bp with an average size of 491 bp, and ~95% of them were shorter than 1 kb. The length distribution of lincRNAs and PCGs revealed that the length of lincRNAs (average length 491 bp) was significantly shorter than that of PCGs (average length 1415 bp) (p value < 0.05, Welch’s two-sided t-test) (Fig. 1c; Supplementary Data 1c). Likewise, we analyzed the structural organization of the lincRNAs. In general, lincRNAs were predominantly mono- or di-exonic, whereas >50% of PCGs contained three or more exons (Fig. 2a; Supplementary Data 2). Consistent with other plant species, including Arabidopsis maize and soybean (Glycine max)3,7,8,11, the proportion of potato lincRNAs containing a single exon (~58%) was higher than that of lincRNAs containing multiple exons.Fig. 2 Distribution of exons and orientation of potato lincRNAs.

a The distribution of exons in lincRNAs and comparison with PCGs is shown in bar plot. b Types of lincRNAs based on orientation concerning their proximal PCGs are graphically depicted.

Previous studies suggested that lincRNAs can influence the expression of their proximal PCGs10,17. We analyzed PCGs located in the proximal (≤50 kb) regions in the up- or downstream regions of the lincRNAs. The average distance of the lincRNAs from their nearest PCGs was ~25 kb away. About 89% of the lincRNAs were located within 50 kb regions of their nearest PCGs, and therefore, we assigned these genes as proximal PCGs hereafter. Further, we analyzed the orientation of the lincRNAs relative to their proximal PCGs. Almost half (49–51%) of the lincRNAs were found to be oriented either in the same or opposite direction respective to proximal PCGs. Among the ~51% of lincRNAs oriented in the opposite direction, convergent type (~36%) represented a major fraction as compared to divergently (~15%) oriented lincRNAs (Fig. 2b). A previous study also showed a higher representation of convergently orientated lincRNAs with respect to their associated proximal PCGs33.

Functional relevance of potato lincRNAs as plausible miRNA decoys

Some lincRNAs could act as miRNA decoys by mimicking the target mRNA sequences, and consequently, the target mRNAs can be protected from degradation34–36. For instance, in Arabidopsis, the lincRNA Induced by Phosphate Starvation1 (IPS1) serves as a decoy to ath-miR399. It interferes with the binding of ath-miR399 to its primary target PHO2 transcript and rescue from post-transcriptional silencing in governing phosphate homeostasis in Arabidopsis37. However, lincRNAs that may act as miRNA decoys in potatoes have not been explored. The 4397 potato lincRNAs identified in this study were compared for sequence homology against the known potato mature miRNA sequences in the CANTATAdb v2.0 database. Six lincRNAs (lincRNA.ID.00006654, lincRNA.ID.00002569, lincRNA.ID.00018937, lincRNA.ID.00004487, lincRNA.ID.00010417, and lincRNA.ID.00012834) were predicted to harbor complementary sequences to known miRNAs and could serve as potential miRNA decoys (target mimics). Among them, lincRNA.ID.00006654 and five PCGs harbored binding sites of stu-miR482a-5p. Likewise, lincRNA.ID.00012834 along with three PCGs and lincRNA.ID.00002569, lincRNA.ID.00018937, lincRNA.ID.00004487, and lincRNA.ID.00010417 each with two PCGs harbored binding sites of same miRNAs (Supplementary Fig. 1a; Supplementary Data 3,  8). The PCGs encoded ATP binding protein, expansin, DNA repair protein, multidrug resistance, carboxylic ester hydrolase, a ubiquitin ligase, methyladenine DNA glycosylase, pentatricopeptide repeat protein, and potassium transporter.

Of the six, two lncRNAs (lincRNA.ID.00002569 and lincRNA.ID.00004487) were downregulated in CLso(+) infected tissues at 21 DAI based on the transcriptome analysis (Supplementary Fig. 1b; Supplementary Data 3). However, only one lincRNA.ID.00002569 showed significant downregulation by RT-qPCR (Supplementary Fig. 1c). This lincRNA had complementarity to a potato stu-miR8005a miRNA and similarity to the target PCGs: PGSC0003DMT400008676 (encoding Rad50 ATPase) and PGSC0003DMT400011415 (encoding Multidrug resistance pump protein). The RT-qPCR results also showed that the downregulation of lincRNA.ID.00002569 in CLso(+) infection paralleled the downregulation of PGSC0003DMT400011415 but not PGSC0003DMT400008676 (Supplementary Fig. 1; Supplementary Data 3), suggesting lincRNA.ID.00002569 could act as a potential miRNA decoy of PGSC0003DMT400011415.

Differentially expressed potato lincRNAs in response to CLso and psyllid

LincRNAs are important in regulating diverse biological processes via complex regulatory networks with PCGs. To examine the role of lincRNAs under pathogen infection, we identified sets of differentially expressed lincRNAs under conditions of psyllid challenges without CLso [CLso(−)/CT], psyllid carrying CLso [CLso(+)/CT] and pathogen-specific [CLso(+)/CT]/[CLso(−)/CT] temporally at 7, 14, and 21 DAI. A total of 775 unique lincRNAs were found to be differentially expressed in any of the 9 different comparisons (Supplementary Data 4). A substantially higher number of lincRNAs were found to be differentially expressed at 21 DAI preferentially under [CLso(+)/CT] followed by [CLso(+)/CT]/[CLso(−)/CT] condition (Fig. 3a; Supplementary Data 4). Furthermore, we performed principal component analysis (PCA) of the nine sets of differentially expressed lincRNAs. The first component (PC1) variation was up to 88.4%. We ruled out the extent of variation due to outliers and lack of reproducibility among the biological replicates since we used the differentially expressed values in the log2 scale. Moreover, variation due to time of sampling is unlikely as we observed a distinct and diverse differential expression profile of lincRNAs specifically at 21 DAI (Fig. 3b). The results suggest a dynamic and plausible role of lincRNAs in response to CLso and psyllid infection at the terminal stage of ZC disease in potato.Fig. 3 Differential expression profiles of lincRNAs modulated during Candidatus Liberibacter spp. (CLso) infection.

a Differential expression profile of lincRNAs under CLso(−)/CT, CLso(+)/CT, and CLso(+)/CLso(−) conditions at 7 days after infection (DAI), 14 DAI, and 21 DAI is shown via heatmap. The scale represents differential expression in log2 fold change. b The similarity/difference among the nine sets of differentially expressed lincRNAs described in (a) is shown via a PCA plot. Each data point represents the differential expression status of individual lincRNA.

Further, we specifically determined up- and downregulated lincRNAs among the three sets of comparisons [CLso(−)/CT, CLso(+)/CT, and CLso(+)/CLso(−)] within each stage of infection. For instance, at 7 DAI, 8 and 11 lincRNAs were specifically up- and downregulated under CLso(−)/CT condition, suggesting a psyllid-specific response. Likewise, four and six lincRNAs exhibited up- and downregulation under CLso(+)/CT condition at 7 DAI, suggesting either a psyllid or CLso-specific response. However, only one lincRNA showed upregulation under the CLso(+)/CLso(−) condition at 7 DAI (Fig. 4a; Supplementary Data 4), suggesting a CLso-specific response. Similarly, quite a few differentially expressed lincRNAs exhibiting specific expression in the three sets of comparisons were detected at 14 DAI, too (Fig. 4b; Supplementary Data 4). At 21 DAI, the number of specifically up- and downregulated lincRNAs was substantially high under CLso(+)/CT [up: 133 and down: 161] followed by CLso(+)/CLso(−) condition [up: 20 and down: 34] (Fig. 4c; Supplementary Data 4). These results suggest a dynamic regulation of lincRNAs at the subsequent stages of ZC disease in response to CLso infection preferentially at 21 DAI. Furthermore, we examined the PCGs located in the proximal regions of the specifically up- and downregulated lincRNAs under CLso(+)/CT condition at 21 DAI as they constitute a major fraction (294) of the differentially expressed lncRNAs. Intriguingly, PCGs encoding TFs (HBP and HAT), signaling transduction components (auxin/ethylene signaling genes and serine/threonine protein kinase), and those involved in stress responses, including, cytochrome P450 monooxygenase CYP736B, disease resistance protein BS2, glutathione S-transferase (GST), lipoxygenase, resistance protein PSH-RGH6 and SAUR family protein were detected at the proximal regions of the differentially expressed lncRNAs. The dynamic expression of the lincRNAs may influence the regulation of these PCGs and could impact disease tolerance.Fig. 4 Comparison of differentially expressed lincRNAs within each landmark stage.

Several common and unique lncRNAs exhibiting differential expression under CLso(−)/CT, CLso(+)/CT, and CLso(+)/CLso(−) conditions at 7 DAI (a), 14 DAI (b), and 21 DAI (c) are depicted via Venn diagrams. Labels on top (black), bottom left (red), and bottom right (blue) indicate the number of differentially expressed, upregulated, and downregulated lncRNAs, respectively.

Transcriptional regulatory networks of potato lincRNAs and protein-coding genes

The interactions of lincRNAs and PCGs are complex and poorly understood. However, a few studies revealed that lincRNAs can also influence the expression of their proximal PCGs4,10. We examined to identify sets of co-up and co-downregulated lincRNAs–PCGs pairs located proximal to each other under CLso(−)/CT, CLso(+)/CT, and CLso(−)/CLso(+) conditions at 7, 14, and 21 DAI. We did not observe co-differentially expressed lincRNAs and proximal PCG pairs at 7 and 14 DAI. However, at least 25 co-up and 21 co-downregulated lincRNA and proximal PCG pairs were detected under CLso(+)/CT condition at 21 DAI (Supplementary Data 9). Pearson’s correlation for the set of co-upregulated (r = 0.77, p < 0.01) lincRNA–PCG pairs was higher than the set of co-downregulated pairs (r = 0.31). Among the 46 co-regulated lincRNA–PCG pairs, a majority of them were oriented in opposite directions (29), which were further categorized into convergent (16) and divergent (13) types. Conversely, the remaining 17 lincRNA–PCG pairs were oriented in the same direction. Many of the co-differentially expressed lncRNAs, along with their proximal PCGs, were involved in biotic stress responses38–43 such as wound-inducible carboxypeptidase, SAUR, GST, F-box, and chitinases (Supplementary Data 9).

Further, to examine the co-expression networks among transcripts, we performed weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA)44 to determine sets of co-upregulated transcripts under CLso(−)/CT, CLso(+)/CT, and CLso(+)/CLso(−) conditions at 7, 14, and 21 DAI. At least four distinct modules (turquoise, blue, brown, and gray) representing distinct sets of differentially co-expressed transcripts were detected (Fig. 5a, b). The turquoise module was the largest among the different modules and comprised 331 transcripts (lincRNAs and PCGs) (Supplementary Data 5). The turquoise module was significantly associated with the CLso(+) treatment at 21 DAI (r = 0.93 and p = 1e − 12) (Fig. 5b). Further, we examined the functional relevance of the co-expressed transcripts belonging to the turquoise module by determining the enrichment of gene family and gene ontology (GO) terms using the corresponding PCGs as input. Functional terms related to acyl lipid metabolism superfamily, APETALA2 (AP2)/ethylene-responsive element binding proteins (EREBP), nucleoside transporter, GST, protein kinase and small auxin upregulated RNA (SAUR) processes were significantly enriched (Supplementary Data 10). Previous studies have shown that genes encoding AP2/EREBP, GST, and SAUR play crucial roles in plant defense against pathogen invasion41–43. In addition, GO terms involved in cell wall modification (GO:0009827), defense response to bacteria (GO:1900424), ion transport (GO:0006811), DNA binding (GO:0003677), glutathione peroxidase activity (GO:0004602), cell wall (GO:0005618), and plasma membrane (GO:0005886) were found to be significantly enriched (Supplementary Data 10). The results suggest the possible contribution of lincRNAs in governing different biological processes involved in biotic stress responses.Fig. 5 Identification and interaction of co-expressed transcripts.

a A hierarchical clustering of the transcripts exhibiting a co-expression network based on topological overlap dissimilarity is shown via dendrogram. b Different sets (modules) of co-expressed transcripts in CT, CLso(−), and CLso(+) conditions at 7 DAI, 14 DAI, and 21 DAI are shown via heatmap. Labels in each module indicate Pearson’s correlation (R) and significance level (p value). The scale on the right side indicates Pearson’s correlation (R). c A co-expression network of the topmost 24 hub transcripts belonging to the turquoise module is shown. Light-green triangles indicate lncRNAs specific to CLso. Likewise, pink and blue ovals indicate lncRNAs and PCGs, respectively.

Further, we examined regulatory networks among the transcripts of either lincRNAs or PCGs within the turquoise module to identify hub transcripts. A total of 24 transcripts exhibited the most interactions among themselves, and we considered them hub transcripts. Among them, 11 transcripts belonged to lincRNAs, including seven lincRNAs specific to CLso (Fig. 5c). The remaining 13 transcripts were PCGs, including genes encoding expansin, GST, and SAUR. The role of expansin and SAUR genes was implicated in defense responses against different types of biotic and abiotic stresses43,45. Overexpression of expansin genes led to increased tolerance in response to varying abiotic stresses, such as heat, drought, and salinity45. In plants, the accumulation of reactive oxygen species and programmed cell death processes has been implicated in response to pathogen invasion. Glutathione peroxidase activity encoded by GSTs inhibits the spread of cell death in infected plants46. Likewise, the function of SAUR genes in cell wall biosynthesis has been implicated in biotic stress responses43,47. The results suggest an intricate network between coding and non-coding transcripts preferentially at the later stage (21 DAI) of ZC disease progression.

Overexpression of lincRNAs confers potato tolerance to CLso

Next, we sought to characterize if lincRNAs can mediate resistance to CLso infection in potatoes. Four lincRNAs were selected with criteria of (1) co-upregulated along with their proximal PCGs, (4) belonging to the hub transcripts, and (3) progressively induced (7 and 21 DAI) during the progression of ZC disease. The respective lincRNAs were cloned in an overexpression vector under the control of a double-enhanced CaMV35S promoter (DE35S-P). Moreover, the vector harbored a GFP reporter (Fig. 6a). The constructs were used for Rhizobium rhizogenes (R. rhizogenes)-mediated potato hairy root transformation48. After 28 days post-transformation, transgenic hairy roots were analyzed to confirm the overexpression of the four lincRNAs via RT-qPCR and GFP marker fluorescence (Fig. 6b, c; Supplementary Data 6). The transgenic hairy roots showed significantly higher expression of the lincRNAs than control plants (Fig. 6c; Supplementary Data 6).Fig. 6 Overexpression of lincRNAs conferred tolerance to Candidatus Liberibacter spp.

a Schematic diagram showing plasmid vector employed for overexpression (OE) of the selected lincRNAs. b Photographs showing the phenotype of the transformed potato plants at 28 d post-transformation and GFP fluorescence. Scale bars indicate 1 cm (left) and 10 µm (right). c The relative expression level of the lincRNAs between the CT and OE plants estimated via RT-qPCR is shown in the bar plot. d Likewise, the relative expression level of the proximal PCGs located either in up- and downstream regions of the lincRNAs between CT and OE plants estimated via RT-qPCR is shown in bar plots. e Relative Candidatus Liberibacter spp. (CLso) titer between CT and the OE plants estimated via qPCR is shown via bar plot. Asterisks represent statistically significant (p value ≤ 0.05) differences compared to control (CT) as estimated by Student’s t-test. The error bars represent the standard error among the three biological replicates.

To examine the influence of overexpression of the lincRNAs on their proximal PCGs, we selected three PCGs, each located in the upstream and downstream regions of the lincRNA. The expression level of these proximal PCGs was compared between the control and overexpression lines via RT-qPCR. We observed a predominantly negative correlation between higher expression of the lincRNAs and their proximal PCGs expression. For instance, overexpressing lincRNA.ID.00017498 exhibited downregulation of all the six proximal PCGs compared to their controls. Interestingly, RNAi-mediated knockdown of lincRNA.ID.00017498 showed converse effects on the expression dynamics of the proximal PCGs, implicating a role of the lincRNAs in regulating PCG gene expression (Supplementary Fig. 2; Supplementary Data 7). Likewise, overexpression of lincRNA.ID.00013924 reduced the expression of the most proximal PCGs except one located in the upstream region. Conversely, the influence of overexpressing lincRNA.ID.00017902 and lincRNA.ID.00013620 represented both higher and lower expression of their proximal PCGs (Fig. 6d; Supplementary Data 6). The results suggest that lincRNAs could govern the expression level of their proximal PCGs both negatively and positively. Previous studies have also shown that lincRNAs can influence the expression of their proximal PCGs4,10. The functional annotations of the proximal PCGs, with altered expression in the lincRNA-overexpressed hairy roots, included genes encoding proteinases, ubiquitin-protein ligase components, B2 proteins, and ribosomal proteins. Many of these genes could impact plant biotic stress responses49–51. Next, we determined whether overexpression of candidate lincRNAs impacted potato tolerance to CLso. Overexpression of three of the four lincRNA exhibited significantly lower CLso titers in transgenic hairy roots compared to control roots transformed with an empty vector. The amplitude of CLso titer reduction was about sixfold in lincRNA.ID.0007902 and lincRNA.ID.0007498 overexpressing hairy roots, while about halffold in the lincRNA.ID.0003924 hairy roots (Fig. 6e; Supplementary Data 6). The results suggest that these three lincRNAs could also impact CLso accumulation.

Discussion

Long intergenic RNAs are emerging as crucial players in the transcriptome programming of PCGs during various plant and animal developmental processes and stress responses. However, the study of lncRNAs is largely underrepresented, although they can be identified from the transcript sequences obtained from RNA-Seq data, a few studies employed strand-specific RNA sequencing to identify natural antisense transcripts (lincNATs)7,8,22. Intriguingly, lincNATs were found to be up to 20% in the Arabidopsis PCGs, implicating a crucial role of lncRNAs22. The repertoire of lncRNAs is further expanded due to variable regions of origin such as lincRNAs and intronic lincRNAs4,7,8, and also due to polymorphic alternatively spliced variants. Although less attention has been paid to lncRNAs earlier, leveraging the availability of a large number of RNA-Seq data can be employed to identify and unravel the roles of lncRNAs in different biological processes. A few plant lncRNAs have been characterized, and their roles are crucial in plant growth and development. For instance, vernalization-induced expression of the COLDAIR lncRNA triggered flower initiation by repressing the FLC locus by recruiting polycomb repressive complex 252. Another classic example is lncRNA PS1, which competes with PHO2 mRNA due to harboring a competing binding site of a miRNA (ath-miR399). Eventually, post-transcriptional degradation of the PHO1 mRNA is rescued under low phosphate stimulus in Arabidopsis37. LncRNAs can also govern the spread of heterochromatization to the neighboring genomic/chromatin region52. Prioritization of candidate lncRNAs is crucial to studying the role of lncRNAs. Therefore, genome-wide identification followed by assessment of dynamic regulation are prerequisites for understanding lncRNAs. Moreover, the role of lncRNAs in response to pathogens is largely unknown.

Here, we identified potato lincRNAs and studied their role in response to CLso infection. Our analysis identified ~4397 lincRNAs in healthy and infected potatoes at different stages of ZC disease progression. The fidelity of the identified lincRNAs was corroborated by shorter transcript lengths and structural features of the exons and introns33,53. The number of detected lincRNAs in this study was substantially higher than previously reported potato lncRNAs17,21. This could be due to the activation of several lincRNAs that respond primarily to the pathogen (CLso) and the insect vector (psyllid). Therefore, our study expanded the potato lincRNAs repertoire by uncovering novel plant–pathogen/insect-responsive lncRNAs.

Furthermore, by sequence comparisons, we identified six potato lincRNAs whose sequences had complementarity to known potato miRNAs (Supplementary Data 8). Previous reports showed that a few lncRNAs may act as potential decoys of miRNAs, thus influencing the miRNA primary target PCG(s) expression or protein accumulation. Interestingly, a lincRNA (lincRNA.ID.00002569), with a sequence similarity to a potato miRNA (stu-miR8005a), was downregulated in CLso infection and paralleled the expression of a PCG target encoding a Multidrug resistance pump protein (PGSC0003DMT400011415) (Supplementary Fig. 1). Although further biochemical and functional studies are needed to understand the cellular interactions of the lincRNAs, miRNAs, and the target PCGs, our results implicate the role of potato lincRNAs as potential miRNA decoys.

It is well established that the host immune responses against pathogen infection can be dynamic and oscillate during the disease progression54,55. Recent studies have implicated lincRNAs in regulating plant defense hormone pathways56,57. Here, we analyzed differentially expressed lincRNAs in nine different sets of comparisons described earlier. The majority, approximately 86.5% (671), of the differentially expressed lincRNAs were detected at 21 DAI stage under CLso+ condition [CLso(+)/CT]. Conversely, the fraction of differentially expressed lincRNAs under psyllid alone condition at 21 DAI [CLso(−)/CT] was substantially low (97; 12.5%). This suggests that most of the unique lincRNAs that are differential regulated are primarily a response to pathogen infection with greater preference under CLso stimulus at 21 DAI.

The role of lincRNAs in influencing the expression of PCGs is complex and poorly understood. Growing evidence showed that lincRNAs can govern nearby PCGs by proliferating similar chromatin structures locally10,58. Here, we identified several lincRNA-proximal PCGs that appear co-regulated with the lincRNAs (Supplementary Data 9). These PCGs had putative functions in biotic stress response, such as chitinase, GST, F-box, and wound-inducible carboxypeptidase. Likewise, using weighted gene co-expression analysis, we identified another set of PCGs co-expressed with lincRNAs (Fig. 5). The most significant and highest correlated module was detected under the CLso(+) condition at 21 DAI. These PCGs include EREBP, GST, and SAURs (Supplementary Data 10)41,42,59. These results suggest that the potato lincRNAs may influence the expression of PCGs involved in biotic stress and plant signaling.

The role of selected lincRNAs in potato defenses was evaluated by overexpressing four candidates in transgenic potato hairy roots (Fig. 6a–c). The overexpression of the lincRNAs modulated the expression of their respective neighboring PCGs (Fig. 6d). Interestingly, our analysis indicates that these disease-associated lincRNAs could predominantly act as transcriptional repressors of PCGs. Strikingly, we observed a significant reduction of CLso titer when three of the four lincRNA candidates were overexpressed in plant tissues (Fig. 6e), implicating these lincRNAs in resistance to CLso. These lincRNA–PCG modules are prime candidates for further mechanistic studies to determine their mode of action in disease resistance.

Methods

Plant materials, inoculation with pathogens, and RNA sequencing

Potato (S. tuberosum L. var. Atlantic) plants were grown inside growth chambers at 20 °C, 50% relative humidity with a periodic setting of 14 h light and 10 h dark. About 4–6 weeks old plants were challenged with psyllid alone [B. cockerelli (Šulc)] [CLso(−)] and CLso vectored by the psyllid [CLso(+)]. The control (CT) plants were unchallenged plants. Young leaf tissues from CT, [CLso(−)], and [CLso(+)] potato plants were collected at 7, 14, and 21 DAI in three independent biological replicates. The leaf tissues were immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until further use. Total RNA was extracted from the leaf samples using the Direct-zol RNA Miniprep kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA). The quality of the RNA was estimated by analyzing the absorbance ratio at 260/230, and the quantity was determined using a NanoDrop-1000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). RNA-seq library preparation and sequencing was performed at the Texas A&M AgriLife Genomics and Bioinformatics Services (College Station, TX). Libraries were prepared using TruSeq Stranded Library Synthesis with Ribo depletion (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Libraries were multiplexed and sequenced using a HiSeq 4000 instrument (Illumina, San Diego, CA) to obtain 150 bp long paired-end reads.

Identification and differential expression analysis of lincRNAs

The raw paired-end reads were processed to remove low-quality reads, adapter sequences, and reads containing excessive uncalled bases60. The filtered high-quality reads were mapped to the S. tuberosum reference genome (DM v4.04)27 using HISAT261,62. The SAM files were converted into sorted BAM files using SAMtools (v1.3.1)63. LincRNAs were identified from the mapped BAM files via modules implemented in Read Mapping-Transcript Assembly-Evolinc29. The high-quality reads mapped uniquely to the reference genome were used to estimate read counts via the featureCounts tool64. Subsequently, the read count matrixes of two samples (conditions) were used as input to identify differentially expressed lincRNAs using DESeq2 (v1.28.1)65. In total, nine different sets of differentially expressed lincRNAs were determined under CLso(−)/CT, CLso(+)/CT, and CLso(+)/CLso(−) conditions each at 7 DAI, 14 DAI, and 21 DAI. Transcripts with ≥1 and ≤ −1 log2 fold change and <0.05 p value adjusted with the Benjamini–Hochberg method were considered as differentially expressed. Similarity/difference among the nine sets of differentially expressed lincRNAs was analyzed using PCA with factoextra (v1.0.7) and FactoMineR (v2.4) packages implemented in the R program. We used the log2 transformed differential expression values of the nine comparisons under the CLso(+)/CT, CLso(+)/CT, and CLso(+)/CLso(−) conditions at 7, 14, and 21 DAI for the PCA analysis. To examine common and unique sets of up- and downregulated lincRNAs within each disease stage, we employed the Venn Diagram (v1.6.20) package implemented in the R program. The Nextflow pipeline was run on the Texas A&M High-Performance Research Computing (Grace) cluster with 50 computing nodes (48 cores and 384 GB RAM for each node).

Analysis of lincRNAs harboring binding sites of microRNAs (miRNAs)

The lincRNAs that act as potential miRNA decoys (miRNA target mimics) were predicted using the psMimic standalone tool36. The parameters used for miRNA decoy prediction include no more than four mismatches and two mismatches allowed between the second and eighth positions of miRNA. The putative target of identified miRNAs was identified using the psRNATarget36 using potato transcriptome sequences (Phytozome 13, 448_v4.03). We selected the top transcript targets based on the expectation I value (<3). Subsequently, we examined the expression level of those lincRNAs and PCGs in CT, CLso(−), and CLso(+) conditions at 21 DAI via RT-qPCR, and the primer sequences have been provided in Supplementary Table 2.

Differential co-expression network analysis

To identify co-up and co-downregulated lincRNA and PCG pairs under CLso(−)/CT, CLso(+)/CT, and CLso(+)/CLso(−) conditions at 7 DAI, 14 DAI, and 21 DAI, WGCNA was performed44. The log2 fold change differential expression values of the 9 comparisons were used as an input with the criteria of soft thresholding power of 5 and minimum size of 30 using the dynamic tree cut method. Distinct sets/modules of co-up and co-downregulated lincRNAs and PCGs pairs were visualized using plotDendroAndColors. Moreover, the topmost 24 hub transcripts (either lincRNAs or PCGs) based on the highest number of interactions found within the turquoise module were identified and displayed in Cytoscape (v3.8.2)66. Further, we examined the functional relevance of the co-up and co-downregulated PCGs via enrichment analysis of GO terms and gene family via GenFam tool (Supplementary Data 10)67,68.

Overexpression and knockdown of lincRNAs in potato hairy roots

For overexpression, the selected four lincRNAs were commercially synthesized and cloned at StuI and KpnI restriction sites in a binary vector containing the GFP reporter gene (pBIN-mGFP) under the control of a double-enhanced CaMV35S promoter (DE35S-P) and 35S terminator (35S-T). The constructs were subsequently used for R. rhizogenes-mediated potato hairy root transformation48. For RNAi-mediated knockdown of lincRNA, a hairpin RNA containing a PDK (pyruvate orthophosphate dikinase) intron flanked by the sense and antisense lincRNA sequence was commercially synthesized and cloned at StuI and KpnI restriction sites in the pBIN-mGFP binary vector. Briefly, CLso-infected potato shoots were transformed with either the lincRNA overexpression or RNAi constructs and the empty vector (GFP alone) using R. rhizogenes (ATCC 43056). The composite plants’ newly formed transgenic hairy roots were verified by microscopy based on GFP fluorescence at ~28 days post-transformation. RT-qPCR confirmed the overexpression or knockdown of the lincRNAs in the transformed hairy roots. Total RNA was extracted from the transgenic hairy roots (three biological replicates) using the Direct-zol RNA Miniprep Plus kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA). First-strand cDNAs were synthesized from 1.0 µg of total RNA using Superscript IV First-Strand Synthesis System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) followed by qPCR analysis. Further, the expression of the six nearest PCGs (three each located in up- and downstream regions of the lincRNAs) was analyzed by RT-qPCR to determine their expression changes.

RT-qPCR and qPCR analysis

To examine the expression level of lincRNAs and PCGs, we employed RT-qPCR. Primers were designed using NCBI and Primer3web (v4.1.0)69 (Supplementary Tables 3, 4). Relative CLso titer was estimated at ~28 days post-transformation using qPCR. All qPCR and RT-qPCR reactions were performed using iTaq SYBR Green Supermix (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) with three biological and two technical replicates. The potato housekeeping gene RPL2 was used as an internal reference. Relative expression and bacterial titers were analyzed using the ∆∆Ct method.

Statistics and reproducibility

The details of the statistical tests to identify the significance level of differences have been described in the “Results”, “Methods”, and figure legends. The RNA-seq data from nine different samples under CT, CLso(−), and CLso(+) conditions at 7 DAI, 14 DAI, and 21 DAI in three independent biological replicates were processed to identify lincRNAs. The differential expression of the lincRNAs between two samples/conditions was detected using default algorithms implemented in DESeq2 (v1.28.1). Furthermore, distinct modules of co-expressed transcripts were identified with default algorithms implemented in WGCNA. The significance of the difference in the expression level of the lincRNAs and their proximal PCGs between the wild type and mutant plants (overexpression/RNAi) was detected using Student’s t-test.

Reporting summary

Information on the research design and ethics is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Supplementary information

Peer review file

Supplementary Figs. and Tables

Description of additional supplementary files

Supplementary Data 1–7

Supplementary Data 8

Supplementary Data 9

Supplementary Data 10

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s42003-024-06763-9.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by funds from USDA-NIFA (2021-70029-36056, HATCH TEX09621), Texas A&M AgriLife Research Insect-vectored Disease Seed Grants (124190-96210), Texas A&M AgriLife Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture to K.M. We acknowledge the support of the Texas A&M AgriLife Genomics and Bioinformatics Services for the RNA sequencing and the Texas A&M High-Performance Research Computing (HPRC) for bioinformatics resources. We thank Denise Rossi and Victoria Garza (Texas A&M AgriLife Research) for their technical assistance with plant and insect propagation.

Author contributions

K.M. conceived and supervised the project. R.B., A.N., N.R.K., M.R., M.S.R., and S.I. performed and interpreted the experiments. All authors contributed to the preparation of the manuscript.

Peer review

Peer review information

Communications Biology thanks Erik Alexandersson and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Leena Tripathi and David Favero. A peer review file is available.

Data availability

The raw FASTQ files of RNA-seq data used in this study have been deposited in the NCBI SRA database and are accessible under BioProject accession number PRJNA1076479. Source data underlying graphs in the manuscript are provided as Supplementary Datasets 1–7.

Code availability

We have not used in-house or custom codes/algorithms to draw the conclusions of the study. The details of the publicly available software and parameters employed in this study have been described in the “Methods” section.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Renesh Bedre, Naga Rajitha Kavuri.
==== Refs
References

1. Nelson ADL A genomic analysis of factors driving lincRNA diversification: lessons from plants G3 Genes Genom. Genet. 2016 6 2881 2891 10.1534/g3.116.030338
Nelson, A. D. L. et al. A genomic analysis of factors driving lincRNA diversification: lessons from plants. G3 Genes Genom. Genet. 6, 2881–2891 (2016).10.1534/g3.116.030338
2. Wang KC Chang HY Molecular mechanisms of long noncoding RNAs Mol. Cell 2011 43 904 914 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.08.018 21925379
Wang, K. C. & Chang, H. Y. Molecular mechanisms of long noncoding RNAs. Mol. Cell 43, 904–914 (2011).21925379 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.08.018
3. Li L Genome-wide discovery and characterization of maize long non-coding RNAs Genome Biol. 2018 19 13059 10.1186/s13059-018-1508-z
Li, L. et al. Genome-wide discovery and characterization of maize long non-coding RNAs. Genome Biol. 19, 13059 (2018).10.1186/s13059-018-1508-z
4. Xu W Differential expression networks and inheritance patterns of long non-coding RNAs in castor bean seeds Plant J. 2018 95 324 340 10.1111/tpj.13953 29738104
Xu, W. et al. Differential expression networks and inheritance patterns of long non-coding RNAs in castor bean seeds. Plant J. 95, 324–340 (2018).29738104 10.1111/tpj.13953
5. Zhang C Long non-coding RNAs of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) in multiple dehydration stresses BMC Plant Biol. 2018 18 79 10.1186/s12870-018-1288-3 29728055
Zhang, C. et al. Long non-coding RNAs of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) in multiple dehydration stresses. BMC Plant Biol. 18, 79 (2018).29728055 10.1186/s12870-018-1288-3
6. Qi X Xie S Liu Y Yi F Yu J Genome-wide annotation of genes and noncoding RNAs of foxtail millet in response to simulated drought stress by deep sequencing Plant Mol. Biol. 2013 83 459 473 10.1007/s11103-013-0104-6 23860794
Qi, X., Xie, S., Liu, Y., Yi, F. & Yu, J. Genome-wide annotation of genes and noncoding RNAs of foxtail millet in response to simulated drought stress by deep sequencing. Plant Mol. Biol. 83, 459–473 (2013).23860794 10.1007/s11103-013-0104-6
7. Wang H Genome-wide identification of long noncoding natural antisense transcripts and their responses to light in Arabidopsis Genome Res. 2014 24 444 453 10.1101/gr.165555.113 24402519
Wang, H. et al. Genome-wide identification of long noncoding natural antisense transcripts and their responses to light in Arabidopsis. Genome Res. 24, 444–453 (2014).24402519 10.1101/gr.165555.113
8. Zhao X Global identification of Arabidopsis lncRNAs reveals the regulation of MAF4 by a natural antisense RNA Nat. Commun. 2018 9 5056 10.1038/s41467-018-07500-7 30498193
Zhao, X. et al. Global identification of Arabidopsis lncRNAs reveals the regulation of MAF4 by a natural antisense RNA. Nat. Commun. 9, 5056 (2018).30498193 10.1038/s41467-018-07500-7
9. Ransohoff JD Wei Y Khavari PA The functions and features of intergenic lncRNAs Physiol. Behav. 2016 176 100 106
Ransohoff, J. D., Wei, Y. & Khavari, P. A. The functions and features of intergenic lncRNAs. Physiol. Behav. 176, 100–106 (2016).
10. Gil N Ulitsky I Regulation of gene expression by cis-acting long non-coding RNAs Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020 21 102 117 10.1038/s41576-019-0184-5 31729473
Gil, N. & Ulitsky, I. Regulation of gene expression by cis-acting long non-coding RNAs. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 102–117 (2020).31729473 10.1038/s41576-019-0184-5
11. Golicz AA Singh MB Bhalla PL The long intergenic noncoding RNA (LincRNA) Landscape of the soybean genome Plant Physiol. 2018 176 2133 2147 10.1104/pp.17.01657 29284742
Golicz, A. A., Singh, M. B. & Bhalla, P. L. The long intergenic noncoding RNA (LincRNA) Landscape of the soybean genome. Plant Physiol. 176, 2133–2147 (2018).29284742 10.1104/pp.17.01657
12. Hon CC Ramilowski JA Harshbarge J An atlas of human long non-coding RNAs with accurate 5′ ends Nature 2017 543 199 204 10.1038/nature21374 28241135
Hon, C. C., Ramilowski, J. A. & Harshbarge, J. An atlas of human long non-coding RNAs with accurate 5′ ends. Nature 543, 199–204 (2017).28241135 10.1038/nature21374
13. Derrien T The GENCODE v7 catalog of human long noncoding RNAs: analysis of their gene structure, evolution, and expression Genome Res. 2012 22 1775 1789 10.1101/gr.132159.111 22955988
Derrien, T. et al. The GENCODE v7 catalog of human long noncoding RNAs: analysis of their gene structure, evolution, and expression. Genome Res. 22, 1775–1789 (2012).22955988 10.1101/gr.132159.111
14. Blein T Landscape of the noncoding transcriptome response of two Arabidopsis ecotypes to phosphate starvation Plant Physiol. 2020 183 1058 1072 10.1104/pp.20.00446 32404413
Blein, T. et al. Landscape of the noncoding transcriptome response of two Arabidopsis ecotypes to phosphate starvation. Plant Physiol. 183, 1058–1072 (2020).32404413 10.1104/pp.20.00446
15. Severing E Arabidopsis thaliana ambient temperature responsive lncRNAs BMC Plant Biol. 2018 18 145 10.1186/s12870-018-1362-x 30005624
Severing, E. et al. Arabidopsis thaliana ambient temperature responsive lncRNAs. BMC Plant Biol. 18, 145 (2018).30005624 10.1186/s12870-018-1362-x
16. Kindgren P Ard R Ivanov M Marquardt S Transcriptional read-through of the long non-coding RNA SVALKA governs plant cold acclimation Nat. Commun. 2018 9 4561 10.1038/s41467-018-07010-6 30385760
Kindgren, P., Ard, R., Ivanov, M. & Marquardt, S. Transcriptional read-through of the long non-coding RNA SVALKA governs plant cold acclimation. Nat. Commun. 9, 4561 (2018).30385760 10.1038/s41467-018-07010-6
17. Kwenda S Birch PR Moleleki LN Genome-wide identification of potato long intergenic noncoding RNAs responsive to Pectobacterium carotovorum subspecies brasiliense infection BMC Genomics 2016 17 614 10.1186/s12864-016-2967-9 27515663
Kwenda, S., Birch, P. R. & Moleleki, L. N. Genome-wide identification of potato long intergenic noncoding RNAs responsive to Pectobacterium carotovorum subspecies brasiliense infection. BMC Genomics 17, 614 (2016). 18.27515663 10.1186/s12864-016-2967-9
18. Shuai P Genome-wide identification and functional prediction of novel and drought-responsive lincRNAs in Populus trichocarpa J. Exp. Bot. 2014 65 4975 4983 10.1093/jxb/eru256 24948679
Shuai, P. et al. Genome-wide identification and functional prediction of novel and drought-responsive lincRNAs in Populus trichocarpa. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 4975–4983 (2014).24948679 10.1093/jxb/eru256
19. Zhang W Identification of maize long non-coding RNAs responsive to drought stress PLoS ONE 2014 9 e98958 10.1371/journal.pone.0098958 24892290
Zhang, W. et al. Identification of maize long non-coding RNAs responsive to drought stress. PLoS ONE 9, e98958 (2014).24892290 10.1371/journal.pone.0098958
20. Chung PJ Transcriptome profiling of drought responsive noncoding RNAs and their target genes in rice BMC Genomics 2016 17 563 10.1186/s12864-016-2997-3 27501838
Chung, P. J. et al. Transcriptome profiling of drought responsive noncoding RNAs and their target genes in rice. BMC Genomics 17, 563 (2016).27501838 10.1186/s12864-016-2997-3
21. Hou X Genome-wide analysis of long non-coding RNAs in potato and their potential role in tuber sprouting process Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018 19 101 10.3390/ijms19010101
Hou, X. et al. Genome-wide analysis of long non-coding RNAs in potato and their potential role in tuber sprouting process. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19, 101 (2018).10.3390/ijms19010101
22. Zhu QH Stephen S Taylor J Helliwell CA Wang MB Long noncoding RNAs responsive to Fusarium oxysporum infection in Arabidopsis thaliana New Phytol. 2014 201 574 584 10.1111/nph.12537 24117540
Zhu, Q. H., Stephen, S., Taylor, J., Helliwell, C. A. & Wang, M. B. Long noncoding RNAs responsive to Fusarium oxysporum infection in Arabidopsis thaliana. New Phytol. 201, 574–584 (2014).24117540 10.1111/nph.12537
23. Joshi RK Megha S Basu U Rahman MH Kav NN Genome wide identification and functional prediction of long non-coding RNAs responsive to sclerotinia sclerotiorum infection in Brassica napus PLoS ONE 2016 11 e0158784 10.1371/journal.pone.0158784 27388760
Joshi, R. K., Megha, S., Basu, U., Rahman, M. H. & Kav, N. N. Genome wide identification and functional prediction of long non-coding RNAs responsive to sclerotinia sclerotiorum infection in Brassica napus. PLoS ONE 11, e0158784 (2016).27388760 10.1371/journal.pone.0158784
24. Wang J Genome-wide analysis of tomato long non-coding RNAs and identification as endogenous target mimic for microRNA in response to TYLCV infection Sci. Rep. 2015 5 16946 10.1038/srep16946 26679690
Wang, J. et al. Genome-wide analysis of tomato long non-coding RNAs and identification as endogenous target mimic for microRNA in response to TYLCV infection. Sci. Rep. 5, 16946 (2015).26679690 10.1038/srep16946
25. Hameed A Zaidi SSeA Shakir S Mansoor S Applications of new breeding technologies for potato improvement Front. Plant Sci. 2018 9 925 10.3389/fpls.2018.00925 30008733
Hameed, A., Zaidi, S. Se. A., Shakir, S. & Mansoor, S. Applications of new breeding technologies for potato improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 925 (2018).30008733 10.3389/fpls.2018.00925
26. Levy JG Mendoza A Miller JC Tamborindeguy C Pierson EA Global gene expression in two potato cultivars in response to ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ infection BMC Genomics 2017 18 960 10.1186/s12864-017-4313-2 29228896
Levy, J. G., Mendoza, A., Miller, J. C., Tamborindeguy, C. & Pierson, E. A. Global gene expression in two potato cultivars in response to ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ infection. BMC Genomics 18, 960 (2017).29228896 10.1186/s12864-017-4313-2
27. Xu X Genome sequence and analysis of the tuber crop potato Nature 2011 475 189 195 10.1038/nature10158 21743474
Xu, X. et al. Genome sequence and analysis of the tuber crop potato. Nature 475, 189–195 (2011).21743474 10.1038/nature10158
28. Peri S Read mapping and transcript assembly: a scalable and high-throughput workflow for the processing and analysis of ribonucleic acid sequencing data Front. Genet. 2019 10 1361 10.3389/fgene.2019.01361 32038716
Peri, S. et al. Read mapping and transcript assembly: a scalable and high-throughput workflow for the processing and analysis of ribonucleic acid sequencing data. Front. Genet. 10, 1361 (2019).32038716 10.3389/fgene.2019.01361
29. Nelson ADL A tool for the identification and evolutionary comparison of long intergenic non-coding RNAs Front. Genet. 2017 8 52 10.3389/fgene.2017.00052 28536600
Nelson, A. D. L. et al. A tool for the identification and evolutionary comparison of long intergenic non-coding RNAs. Front. Genet. 8, 52 (2017).28536600 10.3389/fgene.2017.00052
30. Ulitsky I Bartel DP LincRNAs: genomics, evolution, and mechanisms Cell 2013 154 26 46 10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.020 23827673
Ulitsky, I. & Bartel, D. P. LincRNAs: genomics, evolution, and mechanisms. Cell 154, 26–46 (2013).23827673 10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.020
31. Statello L Guo CJ Chen LL Huarte M Gene regulation by long non-coding RNAs and its biological functions Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2021 22 96 118 10.1038/s41580-020-00315-9 33353982
Statello, L., Guo, C. J., Chen, L. L. & Huarte, M. Gene regulation by long non-coding RNAs and its biological functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 96–118 (2021).33353982 10.1038/s41580-020-00315-9
32. Ransohoff JD Wei Y Khavari PA The functions and unique features of long intergenic non-coding RNA Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2018 19 143 157 10.1038/nrm.2017.104 29138516
Ransohoff, J. D., Wei, Y. & Khavari, P. A. The functions and unique features of long intergenic non-coding RNA. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 143–157 (2018).29138516 10.1038/nrm.2017.104
33. Wang HLV Chekanova JA Long noncoding RNAs in plants Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2017 1008 133 154 10.1007/978-981-10-5203-3_5 28815539
Wang, H. L. V. & Chekanova, J. A. Long noncoding RNAs in plants. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1008, 133–154 (2017).28815539 10.1007/978-981-10-5203-3_5
34. Fan C Hao Z Yan J Li G Genome-wide identification and functional analysis of lincRNAs acting as miRNA targets or decoys in maize BMC Genomics 2015 16 793 10.1186/s12864-015-2024-0 26470872
Fan, C., Hao, Z., Yan, J. & Li, G. Genome-wide identification and functional analysis of lincRNAs acting as miRNA targets or decoys in maize. BMC Genomics 16, 793 (2015).26470872 10.1186/s12864-015-2024-0
35. Franco-Zorrilla JM Target mimicry provides a new mechanism for the regulation of microRNA activity Nat. Genet. 2007 39 1033 1037 10.1038/ng2079 17643101
Franco-Zorrilla, J. M. et al. Target mimicry provides a new mechanism for the regulation of microRNA activity. Nat. Genet. 39, 1033–1037 (2007).17643101 10.1038/ng2079
36. Wu HJ Wang ZM Wang M Wang XJ Widespread long noncoding RNAs as endogenous target mimics for microRNAs in plants Plant Physiol. 2013 161 1875 1884 10.1104/pp.113.215962 23429259
Wu, H. J., Wang, Z. M., Wang, M. & Wang, X. J. Widespread long noncoding RNAs as endogenous target mimics for microRNAs in plants. Plant Physiol. 161, 1875–1884 (2013).23429259 10.1104/pp.113.215962
37. Kuo HF Chiou TJ The role of microRNAs in phosphorus deficiency signaling Plant Physiol. 2011 156 1016 1024 10.1104/pp.111.175265 21562333
Kuo, H. F. & Chiou, T. J. The role of microRNAs in phosphorus deficiency signaling. Plant Physiol. 156, 1016–1024 (2011).21562333 10.1104/pp.111.175265
38. Quilis J A potato carboxypeptidase inhibitor gene provides pathogen resistance in transgenic rice Plant Biotechnol. J. 2007 5 537 553 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00264.x 17547659
Quilis, J. et al. A potato carboxypeptidase inhibitor gene provides pathogen resistance in transgenic rice. Plant Biotechnol. J. 5, 537–553 (2007).17547659 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00264.x
39. Maldonado-Calderón MT Sepúlveda-García E Rocha-Sosa M Characterization of novel F-box proteins in plants induced by biotic and abiotic stress Plant Sci. 2012 186 208 217 10.1016/j.plantsci.2011.10.013
Maldonado-Calderón, M. T., Sepúlveda-García, E. & Rocha-Sosa, M. Characterization of novel F-box proteins in plants induced by biotic and abiotic stress. Plant Sci. 186, 208–217 (2012).10.1016/j.plantsci.2011.10.013
40. Ali M Chitinase gene positively regulates hypersensitive and defense responses of pepper to Colletotrichum acutatum infection Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 21 6624 10.3390/ijms21186624 32927746
Ali, M. et al. Chitinase gene positively regulates hypersensitive and defense responses of pepper to Colletotrichum acutatum infection. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 6624 (2020).32927746 10.3390/ijms21186624
41. Najafi S Sorkheh K Nasernakhaei F Characterization of the APETALA2/Ethylene-responsive factor (AP2/ERF) transcription factor family in sunflower Sci. Rep. 2018 8 16 18 10.1038/s41598-018-29526-z 29311647
Najafi, S., Sorkheh, K. & Nasernakhaei, F. Characterization of the APETALA2/Ethylene-responsive factor (AP2/ERF) transcription factor family in sunflower. Sci. Rep. 8, 16–18 (2018).29311647 10.1038/s41598-018-29526-z
42. Han Q A glutathione S-transferase gene from Lilium regale Wilson confers transgenic tobacco resistance to Fusarium oxysporum Sci. Hortic. 2016 198 370 378 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.11.047
Han, Q. et al. A glutathione S-transferase gene from Lilium regale Wilson confers transgenic tobacco resistance to Fusarium oxysporum. Sci. Hortic. 198, 370–378 (2016).10.1016/j.scienta.2015.11.047
43. Deng G Identification and expression of saur genes in the cam plant Agave Genes 2019 10 555 10.3390/genes10070555 31340544
Deng, G. et al. Identification and expression of saur genes in the cam plant Agave. Genes 10, 555 (2019).31340544 10.3390/genes10070555
44. Langfelder P Horvath S WGCNA An R package for weighted correlation network analysis BMC Bioinform. 2008 9 559 10.1186/1471-2105-9-559
Langfelder, P., Horvath, S. & WGCNA An R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinform. 9, 559 (2008).10.1186/1471-2105-9-559
45. Chen Y A comprehensive expression analysis of the expansin gene family in potato (Solanum tuberosum) discloses stress-responsive expansin-like B genes for drought and heat tolerances PLoS ONE 2019 14 0219837
Chen, Y. et al. A comprehensive expression analysis of the expansin gene family in potato (Solanum tuberosum) discloses stress-responsive expansin-like B genes for drought and heat tolerances. PLoS ONE 14, 0219837 (2019).
46. Gullner G Komives T Király L Schröder P Glutathione S-transferase enzymes in plant-pathogen interactions Front. Plant Sci. 2018 871 1836 10.3389/fpls.2018.01836
Gullner, G., Komives, T., Király, L. & Schröder, P. Glutathione S-transferase enzymes in plant-pathogen interactions. Front. Plant Sci. 871, 1836 (2018).10.3389/fpls.2018.01836
47. Wong JH Spartz AK Park MY Du M Gray WM Mutation of a conserved motif of PP2C.D phosphatases confers SAUR immunity and constitutive activity Plant Physiol. 2019 181 353 366 10.1104/pp.19.00496 31311832
Wong, J. H., Spartz, A. K., Park, M. Y., Du, M. & Gray, W. M. Mutation of a conserved motif of PP2C.D phosphatases confers SAUR immunity and constitutive activity. Plant Physiol. 181, 353–366 (2019).31311832 10.1104/pp.19.00496
48. Irigoyen S Plant hairy roots enable high throughput identification of antimicrobials against Candidatus Liberibacter spp Nat. Commun. 2020 11 5802 10.1038/s41467-020-19631-x 33199718
Irigoyen, S. et al. Plant hairy roots enable high throughput identification of antimicrobials against Candidatus Liberibacter spp. Nat. Commun. 11, 5802 (2020).33199718 10.1038/s41467-020-19631-x
49. Ying M Role of HECT ubiquitin protein ligases in Arabidopsis thaliana J. Plant Sci. Phytopathol. 2018 2 20 30 10.29328/journal.jpsp.1001016
Ying, M. Role of HECT ubiquitin protein ligases in Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Plant Sci. Phytopathol. 2, 20–30 (2018).10.29328/journal.jpsp.1001016
50. Carter AP Functional insights from the structure of the 30S ribosomal subunit and its interactions with antibiotics Nature 2000 407 340 348 10.1038/35030019 11014183
Carter, A. P. et al. Functional insights from the structure of the 30S ribosomal subunit and its interactions with antibiotics. Nature 407, 340–348 (2000).11014183 10.1038/35030019
51. Figueiredo L Santos RB Figueiredo A Defense and offense strategies: the role of aspartic proteases in plant–pathogen interactions Biology 2021 10 75 10.3390/biology10020075 33494266
Figueiredo, L., Santos, R. B. & Figueiredo, A. Defense and offense strategies: the role of aspartic proteases in plant–pathogen interactions. Biology 10, 75 (2021).33494266 10.3390/biology10020075
52. Kim DH Xi Y Sung S Modular function of long noncoding RNA, COLDAIR, in the vernalization response PLoS Genet. 2017 13 e1006939 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006939 28759577
Kim, D. H., Xi, Y. & Sung, S. Modular function of long noncoding RNA, COLDAIR, in the vernalization response. PLoS Genet. 13, e1006939 (2017).28759577 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006939
53. Chodroff RA Long noncoding RNA genes: conservation of sequence and brain expression among diverse amniotes Genome Biol. 2010 11 R72 10.1186/gb-2010-11-7-r72 20624288
Chodroff, R. A. et al. Long noncoding RNA genes: conservation of sequence and brain expression among diverse amniotes. Genome Biol. 11, R72 (2010).20624288 10.1186/gb-2010-11-7-r72
54. Jones JDG Dangl JL The plant immne syetem Nature 2006 444 323 329 10.1038/nature05286 17108957
Jones, J. D. G. & Dangl, J. L. The plant immne syetem. Nature 444, 323–329 (2006).17108957 10.1038/nature05286
55. Ngou BPM Ding P Jones JDG Thirty years of resistance: Zig-zag through the plant immune system Plant Cell 2022 34 1447 1478 10.1093/plcell/koac041 35167697
Ngou, B. P. M., Ding, P. & Jones, J. D. G. Thirty years of resistance: Zig-zag through the plant immune system. Plant Cell 34, 1447–1478 (2022).35167697 10.1093/plcell/koac041
56. Liu N A lncRNA fine-tunes salicylic acid biosynthesis to balance plant immunity and growth Cell Host Microbe 2022 30 1124 1138.e8 10.1016/j.chom.2022.07.001 35908550
Liu, N. et al. A lncRNA fine-tunes salicylic acid biosynthesis to balance plant immunity and growth. Cell Host Microbe 30, 1124–1138.e8 (2022).35908550 10.1016/j.chom.2022.07.001
57. Huang J Zhou W Zhang X Li Y Roles of long non-coding RNAs in plant immunity PLoS Pathog. 2023 19 e1011340 10.1371/journal.ppat.1011340 37167200
Huang, J., Zhou, W., Zhang, X. & Li, Y. Roles of long non-coding RNAs in plant immunity. PLoS Pathog. 19, e1011340 (2023).37167200 10.1371/journal.ppat.1011340
58. Greenstein RA Noncoding RNA-nucleated heterochromatin spreading is intrinsically labile and requires accessory elements for epigenetic stability Elife 2018 7 e32948 10.7554/eLife.32948 30020075
Greenstein, R. A. et al. Noncoding RNA-nucleated heterochromatin spreading is intrinsically labile and requires accessory elements for epigenetic stability. Elife 7, e32948 (2018).30020075 10.7554/eLife.32948
59. Ghanashyam C Jain M Role of auxin-responsive genes in biotic stress responses Plant Signal. Behav. 2009 4 846 848 10.4161/psb.4.9.9376 19847104
Ghanashyam, C. & Jain, M. Role of auxin-responsive genes in biotic stress responses. Plant Signal. Behav. 4, 846–848 (2009).19847104 10.4161/psb.4.9.9376
60. Bedre R Avila C Mandadi K HTSQualC is a flexible and one-step quality control software for high-throughput sequencing data analysis Sci. Rep. 2021 11 18725 10.1038/s41598-021-98124-3 34548573
Bedre, R., Avila, C. & Mandadi, K. HTSQualC is a flexible and one-step quality control software for high-throughput sequencing data analysis. Sci. Rep. 11, 18725 (2021).34548573 10.1038/s41598-021-98124-3
61. Pertea M Kim D Pertea G Transcript-level expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with HISAT, StringTie, and Ballgown Nat. Protoc. 2016 11 1650 1667 10.1038/nprot.2016.095 27560171
Pertea, M., Kim, D. & Pertea, G. Transcript-level expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with HISAT, StringTie, and Ballgown. Nat. Protoc. 11, 1650–1667 (2016).27560171 10.1038/nprot.2016.095
62. Kim D Langmead B Salzberg SL HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements Nat. Methods 2015 12 357 360 10.1038/nmeth.3317 25751142
Kim, D., Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat. Methods 12, 357–360 (2015).25751142 10.1038/nmeth.3317
63. Li H The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools Bioinformatics 2009 25 2078 2079 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 19505943
Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).19505943 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352
64. Liao Y Smyth GK Shi W FeatureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features Bioinformatics 2014 30 923 930 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt656 24227677
Liao, Y., Smyth, G. K. & Shi, W. FeatureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features. Bioinformatics 30, 923–930 (2014).24227677 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt656
65. Love MI Huber W Anders S Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2 Genome Biol. 2014 15 550 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 25516281
Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).25516281 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8
66. Demchak B Cytoscape: the network visualization tool for GenomeSpace workflows F1000Res. 2014 3 151 10.12688/f1000research.4492.2 25165537
Demchak, B. et al. Cytoscape: the network visualization tool for GenomeSpace workflows. F1000Res. 3, 151 (2014).25165537 10.12688/f1000research.4492.2
67. Ashburner M Ball CA Blake JA Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology Nat. Genet. 2000 25 25 29 10.1038/75556 10802651
Ashburner, M., Ball, C. A. & Blake, J. A. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat. Genet. 25, 25–29 (2000).10802651 10.1038/75556
68. Bedre R Mandadi K GenFam: a web application and database for gene family-based classification and functional enrichment analysis Plant Direct 2019 3 1 7 10.1002/pld3.191
Bedre, R. & Mandadi, K. GenFam: a web application and database for gene family-based classification and functional enrichment analysis. Plant Direct 3, 1–7 (2019).10.1002/pld3.191
69. Untergasser A Primer3-new capabilities and interfaces Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 40 e115 10.1093/nar/gks596 22730293
Untergasser, A. et al. Primer3-new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e115 (2012).22730293 10.1093/nar/gks596
