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.