Figure legends
Figure 1. Generalized workflow combining the strengths of
transcriptome, proteome, metabolome and physiology analyses for the
study of salt tolerance of AVF and revealing the mechanism of quality
formation. Transcriptomics and proteomics were applied to identify the
proteins in different levels of salt-stressed AVF. After GO, KEGG and
STRING analysis, DEPs played important roles in response to salt stress
combined with physiology and metabolomics analysis in our previous
reports to revealed the mechanisms of salt tolerance and quality
formation of AVF.
Figure 2. Summary of the iTRAQ information. Bar charts showed
the peptide length distribution (A), isoelectric distribution (B),
peptide number distribution (C), distribution of proteins’ sequences
coverage (D) and a pie chart represented the percentage for protein mass
distribution (E).
Figure 3. Overview of the DEPs in salt-stressed AVF compared to
the control. Venn diagram showed the number of proteins with significant
expression changes in AVF exposed to different levels of salt compared
with control (A). Histograms revealed the up and down DEPs in
salt-treated plants compared with control (B). Functional classification
of the DEPs (C).
Figure 4. KEGG pathway of the DEPs in AVF exposed to different
levels of salt compared to the control.
Figure 5. The protein–protein interaction network of the DEPs
in AVF exposed to low, moderate and high levels of salt stress compared
to the control, respectively. DEPs with strong interactions were marked
within the red oval.
Figure 6. Overview of the shared DEPs in salt-treated AVF
samples compared to the control. Heat map (A), molecular function (B),
biological process (C), KEGG pathway analysis (D) and protein-protein
interaction (E).
Figure 7. Relative abundances of salt responsive proteins
compared with control in AVF revealed by qRT-PCR. (A) Ferritin
(Pr_AVENL_17965_1); (B) uncharacterized protein
(Pr_AVENL_20218_1); (C) ATP synthase subunit delta, chloroplastic
(Pr_AVENL_23089_1); (D) uncharacterized protein
(Pr_AVENL_25878_1); (E) hypothetical protein B456_003G066700
(Pr_AVENL_27306_1); (F) ruBisCO large subunit-binding protein subunit
beta, chloroplastic (Pr_AVENL_3558_1); (G) catalase
(Pr_AVENL_4882_1); (H) pathogenesis related protein
(Pr_AVENL_23055_1); (I) dehydrin 1 (Pr_AVENL_972_1). Bars
represent mean ± SE (n = 3). Differences were evaluated by
unpaired Student’s t -test at 0.05 level.
Figure 8. Gene expression levels using RNA-seq and qRT-PCR in
AVF under different levels of salt stress compared with control.
Figure 9. Correlation between transcripts and proteins in AVF
under different levels of salt stress compared with control. A, 100 mM
vs 0; B, 200 mM vs 0; C, 300 mM vs 0; D, salt treatment vs 0,
respectively. rho, correlation coefficient between DEGs and their
corresponding DEPs.
Figure 10. Molecular models of salt tolerance in different
levels of salt-stressed AVF based on proteomics. Protein expression
patterns under salt stress were shown by marking the proteins in red for
up-regulated proteins and in green for down-regulated proteins in heat
maps.