RESULTS: In line with this, we have generated two small RNAs libraries from samples with contrasting lignin content using Illumina GAII sequencer. About 10 million sequence reads were obtained in secondary xylem of Am48 with high lignin content (41%) and a corresponding 14 million sequence reads were obtained in secondary xylem of Am54 with low lignin content (21%). Our results suggested that A. mangium small RNAs are composed of a set of 12 highly conserved miRNAs families found in plant miRNAs database, 82 novel miRNAs and a large proportion of non-conserved small RNAs with low expression levels. The predicted target genes of those differentially expressed conserved and non-conserved miRNAs include transcription factors associated with regulation of the lignin biosynthetic pathway genes. Some of these small RNAs play an important role in epigenetic silencing. Differential expression of the small RNAs between secondary xylem tissues with contrasting lignin content suggests that a cascade of miRNAs play an interconnected role in regulating the lignin biosynthetic pathway in Acacia species.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study critically demonstrated the roles of small RNAs during secondary wall formation. Comparison of the expression pattern of small RNAs between secondary xylem tissues with contrasting lignin content strongly indicated that small RNAs play a key regulatory role during lignin biosynthesis. Our analyses suggest an evolutionary mechanism for miRNA targets on the basis of the length of their 5' and 3' UTRs and their cellular roles. The results obtained can be used to better understand the roles of small RNAs during lignin biosynthesis and for the development of gene constructs for silencing of specific genes involved in monolignol biosynthesis with minimal effect on plant fitness and viability. For the first time, small RNAs were proven to play an important regulatory role during lignin biosynthesis in A. mangium.
RESULTS: Both methods differed considerably in the mass recoveries of the individual cell wall components, which changed on how we assess their degradation characteristics. For example, Method B gave a higher degradation of lignin (61.9%), as compared to Method A (33.2%). Method A, however, showed a better correlation of IVGP with the ratio of lignin to total structural carbohydrates, as compared to Method B (Pearson's r of -0.84 versus -0.69). Nevertheless, Method B provides a more accurate quantification of lignin, reflecting its actual modification and degradation. With the information on the lignin structural features, Method B presents a substantial advantage in understanding the underlying mechanisms of lignin breakdown. Both methods, however, could not accurately quantify the cellulose contents - among others, due to interference of fungal biomass.
CONCLUSION: Method A only accounts for the recalcitrant residue and therefore is more suitable for evaluating ruminal digestibility. Method B allows a more accurate quantification of cell wall, required to understand and better explains the actual modification of the cell wall. The suitability of both methods, therefore, depends on their intended purposes. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.