Transcriptome analysis of Aphis gossypii sulfoxaflor and acetamiprid-resistant strains with different genetic backgrounds of resistance

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.12.023

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 To explore the differences in resistance mechanisms to sulfoxaflor and acetamiprid in cotton aphid with different genetic backgrounds of resistance.【Methods】 Transcriptome sequencing by Illumina high-throughput sequencing technology was performed on initial field strain, acetamiprid-resistant strain and sulfoxaflor-resistant strain of cotton aphids with different genetic backgrounds (Yarkant and Jinghe), respectively.Meanwhile, differentially expressed genes in resistant strains of cotton aphid with different genetic backgrounds were analyzed by bioinformatics methods.【Results】 By comparing the transcriptome data of sulfoxaflor- and acetamiprid-resistant strains from Yarkant and Jinghe, it was found that the sulfoxaflor- and acetamiprid-resistant strains from Yarkant had differential expression of 806 and 149 genes, respectively, and the sulfoxaflor- and acetamiprid-resistant strains from Jinghe had differential expression of 233 and 160 genes.In the sulfoxaflor- and acetamiprid-resistant strains of Yarkant, CYP6CY59, CYP6DC1, and CYP380C45 were up-regulated, but CYP6CY12 and CYP380C46 were down-regulated.In the sulfoxaflor- and acetamiprid-resistant strains of Jinghe, CYP380C46 was up-regulated whereas CYP6DC1 was down-regulated.In addition, CYP380C45 was up-regulated in Yarkant sulfoxaflor- and acetamiprid-resistant strains, and the Jinghe acetamiprid-resistant strain.CYP6DC1 was up-regulated in both Yarkant resistant strains, but down-regulated in both Jinghe resistant strains.CYP380C46 was up-regulated in both resistant strains in Jinghe but down-regulated in both resistant strains in Yarkant.【Conclusion】 Several P450 genes were involved in resistance to sulfoxaflor and acetamiprid in cotton aphids.Differences in differentially expressed P450 genes were found between sulfoxaflor- and acetamiprid-resistant strains of cotton aphids with the same genetic background, and found between sulfoxaflor-resistant strains of cotton aphids of different genetic backgrounds, as well as between acetamiprid-resistant strains.

Key words: Aphis gossypii; resistance; differentially expressed genes

摘要：

【目的】 研究不同抗性遗传背景棉蚜对氟啶虫胺腈和啶虫脒抗性机制差异。【方法】 利用Illumina高通量测序技术,分别对2个不同抗性遗传背景棉蚜(莎车县和精河县)的田间初始品系、啶虫脒抗性品系和氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系进行转录组测序,利用生物信息学方法比较分析2个不同抗性遗传背景棉蚜种群各品系差异表达基因。【结果】 莎车县氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系和啶虫脒抗性品系分别有806个和149个基因差异表达;精河县氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系和啶虫脒抗性品系与精河县的田间初始品系相比分别有233个和160个基因差异表达。在莎车县氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系和啶虫脒抗性品系中,CYP6CY59、CYP6DC1和CYP380C45均上调表达,CYP6CY12和CYP380C46均下调表达;在精河县氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系和啶虫脒抗性品系中,CYP380C46均上调表达,CYP6DC1均下调表达。此外,CYP380C45在莎车县氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系、精河县氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系和莎车县啶虫脒抗性品系中均上调表达;CYP6DC1在莎车县2个抗性品系中上调表达,但在精河县2个抗性品系中下调表达;相反,CYP380C46在精河县2个抗性品系中上调表达,但在莎车县2个抗性品系中下调表达。【结论】 有多个P450基因参与棉蚜对氟啶虫胺腈和啶虫脒的抗性。相同抗性遗传背景的棉蚜氟啶虫胺腈与啶虫脒抗性品系之间差异表达的P450基因存在差异,而且不同抗性遗传背景棉蚜的氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系之间以及啶虫脒抗性品系之间差异表达的P450基因也存在差异。

关键词: 棉蚜, 抗性, 差异表达基因

CLC Number:

WANG Wei, ZHANG Renfu, LIU Haiyang, DING Ruifeng, LIANG Gemei, YAO Ju. Transcriptome analysis of Aphis gossypii sulfoxaflor and acetamiprid-resistant strains with different genetic backgrounds of resistance[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(12): 3078-3088.

王伟, 张仁福, 刘海洋, 丁瑞丰, 梁革梅, 姚举. 不同抗性遗传背景棉蚜氟啶虫胺腈及啶虫脒抗性品系转录组分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(12): 3078-3088.

Figures/Tables 7

References 41

[1]	热依汗古丽·阿布都热合曼, 艾合买提·吾斯曼, 魏新政, 等. 2019年新疆棉花主要病虫害发生概况[J]. 中国棉花, 2019, 46(11): 7-9. DOI
	Reyihanguli Abudureheman, Aihemaiti Wusiman, WEI Xinzheng, et al. Overview of main cotton diseases and insect pests in Xinjiang in 2019[J]. China Cotton, 2019, 46(11): 7-9. DOI
[2]	热依汗古丽·阿布都热合曼, 伊力亚尔·达吾提江, 艾合买提江·努力买买提, 等. 2020年新疆棉花主要病虫害发生概况[J]. 中国棉花, 2021, 48(2): 10-12, 16. DOI
	Reyihanguli Abudureheman, Yiliyaer Dawutijiang, Aihemaitijiang Nulimaimaiti, et al. Overview of main cotton diseases and insect pests in Xinjiang in 2020[J]. China Cotton, 2021, 48(2): 10-12, 16. DOI
[3]	帕提玛·乌木尔汗, 郭佩佩, 马少军, 等. 新疆地区棉蚜田间种群对10种杀虫剂的抗性[J]. 植物保护, 2019, 45(6): 273-278.
	Patima Wumuerhan, GUO Peipei, MA Shaojun, et al. Resistance of different field populations of Aphis gossypii to ten insecticides in Xinjiang[J]. Plant Protection, 2019, 45(6): 273-278.
[4]	马康生, 王静慧, 解晓平, 等. 棉蚜对新烟碱类杀虫剂的抗性现状及其治理策略[J]. 植物保护学报, 2021, 48(5): 947-957.
	MA Kangsheng, WANG Jinghui, XIE Xiaoping, et al. Status and management strategies of neonicotinoid insecticide resistance in Aphis gossypii Glover[J]. Journal of Plant Protection, 2021, 48(5): 947-957.
[5]	Zhang H H, Yang H L, Dong W Y, et al. Mutations in the nAChR β1 subunit and overexpression of P 450 genes are associated with high resistance to thiamethoxam in melon aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover[J]. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, 2022, 258: 110682.
[6]	Chen X W, Xia J, Shang Q L, et al. UDP-glucosyltransferases potentially contribute to imidacloprid resistance in Aphis gossypii glover based on transcriptomic and proteomic analyses[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2019, 159: 98-106.
[7]	Pan Y O, Zeng X C, Wen S Y, et al. Multiple ATP-binding cassette transporters genes are involved in thiamethoxam resistance in Aphis gossypii glover[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2020, 167: 104558.
[8]	Bass C, Denholm I, Williamson M S, et al. The global status of insect resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2015, 121: 78-87. DOI PMID
[9]	Hirata K, Jouraku A, Kuwazaki S, et al. The R81T mutation in the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor of Aphis gossypii is associated with neonicotinoid insecticide resistance with differential effects for cyano- and nitro-substituted neonicotinoids[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2017, 143: 57-65.
[10]	Kim J I, Kwon M, Kim G H, et al. Two mutations in nAChR beta subunit is associated with imidacloprid resistance in the Aphis gossypii[J]. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, 2015, 18(2): 291-296.
[11]	Chen X W, Li F, Chen A Q, et al. Both point mutations and low expression levels of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor β1 subunit are associated with imidacloprid resistance in an Aphis gossypii (Glover) population from a Bt cotton field in China[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2017, 141: 1-8.
[12]	Shi X G, Zhu Y K, Xia X M, et al. The mutation in nicotinic acetylcholine receptor β1 subunit may confer resistance to imidacloprid in Aphis gossypii (Glover)[J]. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 2012, 10(2): 1227-1230.
[13]	Koo H N, An J J, Park S E, et al. Regional susceptibilities to 12 insecticides of melon and cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and a point mutation associated with imidacloprid resistance[J]. Crop Protection, 2014, 55: 91-97.
[14]	Wei X, Pan Y O, Xin X C, et al. Cross-resistance pattern and basis of resistance in a thiamethoxam-resistant strain of Aphis gossypii Glover[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2017, 138: 91-96.
[15]	IRAC. The IRAC mode of action classification online[J/OL] 2023, [2023-4-12]. https://irac-online.org/mode-of-action/classification-online.
[16]	Babcock J M, Gerwick C B, Huang J X, et al. Biological characterization of sulfoxaflor, a novel insecticide[J]. Pest Management Science, 2011, 67(3): 328-334. DOI PMID
[17]	Cutler P, Slater R, Edmunds A J F, et al. Investigating the mode of action of sulfoxaflor: a fourth-generation neonicotinoid[J]. Pest Management Science, 2013, 69(5): 607-619. DOI PMID
[18]	Kim D, Langmead B, Salzberg S L. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements[J]. Nature Methods, 2015, 12(4): 357-360. DOI PMID
[19]	Pertea M, Pertea G M, Antonescu C M, et al. StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads[J]. Nature Biotechnology, 2015, 33(3): 290-295. DOI PMID
[20]	Altschul S F, Madden T L, Schäffer A A, et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs[J]. Nucleic Acids Research, 1997, 25(17): 3389-3402. DOI PMID
[21]	邓泱泱, 荔建琦, 吴松锋, 等. nr数据库分析及其本地化[J]. 计算机工程, 2006, 32(5): 71-73, 76.
	DENG Yangyang, LI Jianqi, WU Songfeng, et al. Integrated nr database in protein annotation system and its localization[J]. Computer Engineering, 2006, 32(5): 71-73, 76.
[22]	The UniProt Consortium. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase[J]. Nucleic Acids Research, 2017, 45(D1): D158-D169.
[23]	Ashburner M, Ball C A, Blake J A, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium[J]. Nature Genetics, 2000, 25(1): 25-29. DOI PMID
[24]	Tatusov R L, Galperin M Y, Natale D A, et al. The COG database: a tool for genome-scale analysis of protein functions and evolution[J]. Nucleic Acids Research, 2000, 28(1): 33-36. DOI PMID
[25]	Koonin E V, Fedorova N D, Jackson J D, et al. A comprehensive evolutionary classification of proteins encoded in complete eukaryotic genomes[J]. Genome Biology, 2004, 5(2): R7.
[26]	Punta M, Coggill P C, Eberhardt R Y, et al. The Pfam protein families database[J]. Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, 40(Database issue): D290-D301.
[27]	Kanehisa M, Goto S, Kawashima S, et al. The KEGG resource for deciphering the genome[J]. Nucleic Acids Research, 2004, 32(Database issue): D277-D280.
[28]	Huerta-Cepas J, Szklarczyk D, Heller D, et al. eggNOG 5.0: a hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses[J]. Nucleic Acids Research, 2019, 47(D1): 309-314. DOI PMID
[29]	Florea L, Song L, Salzberg S L. Thousands of exon skipping events differentiate among splicing patterns in sixteen human tissues[J]. F1000Research, 2013,2: 188.
[30]	Love M I, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2[J]. Genome Biology, 2014, 15(12): 550.
[31]	赵鹏程, 李焱, 闫文静, 等. 新疆棉蚜不同地理种群对杀虫剂的敏感性[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 36(2): 159-163.
	ZHAO Pengcheng, LI Yan, YAN Wenjing, et al. Sensitivity of different geographical populations of Aphis gossypii(Glover) in Xinjiang to different insecticides[J]. Journal of Shihezi University (Natural Science), 2018, 36(2): 159-163.
[32]	Oliveira E E, Schleicher S, Büschges A, et al. Desensitization of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in central nervous system neurons of the stick insect (Carausius morosus) by imidacloprid and sulfoximine insecticides[J]. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2011, 41(11): 872-880. DOI PMID
[33]	ffrench-Constant R H, Bass C. Does resistance really carry a fitness cost?[J]. Current Opinion in Insect Science, 2017, 21: 39-46.
[34]	Roush R T, McKenzie J A. Ecological genetics of insecticide and acaricide resistance[J]. Annual Review of Entomology, 1987, 32: 361-380. PMID
[35]	Rivero A, Magaud A, Nicot A, et al. Energetic cost of insecticide resistance in Culex pipiens mosquitoes[J]. Journal of Medical Entomology, 2011, 48(3): 694-700. PMID
[36]	Wang W, Zhang R F, Liu H Y, et al. Resistance development, cross-resistance, and fitness costs associated with Aphis gossypii resistance towards sulfoxaflor and acetamiprid in different geographical regions[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2024, 23(7): 2332-2345.
[37]	Zhao L K, Wang C P, Gao X K, et al. Characterization of P450 monooxygenase gene family in the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover[J]. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, 2022, 25(2): 101861.
[38]	Wang L, Cui L, Wang Q Q, et al. Sulfoxaflor resistance in Aphis gossypii: resistance mechanism, feeding behavior and life history changes[J]. Journal of Pest Science, 2022, 95(2): 811-825.
[39]	Pym A, Umina P A, Reidy-Crofts J, et al. Overexpression of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase and cytochrome P450 enzymes confers resistance to sulfoxaflor in field populations of the aphid, Myzus persicae[J]. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2022, 143: 103743.
[40]	He C, Liang J J, Liu S N, et al. Molecular characterization of an NADPH cytochrome P450 reductase from Bemisia tabaci Q: potential involvement in susceptibility to imidacloprid[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2020, 162: 29-35.
[41]	Cheng Y B, Li Y M, Li W R, et al. Inhibition of hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 confers imidacloprid resistance in Nilaparvata lugens via the activation of cytochrome P450 and UDP-glycosyltransferase genes[J]. Chemosphere, 2021, 263: 128269.

样品 Samples	筛选后序列数 Clean reads	总碱基数 Clean bases (bp)	GC含量 GC (%)	碱基质量 Q20 (%)	碱基质量 Q30 (%)
Yarkant-FS1	20 459 252	6 117 404 890	40.12	98.4	94.94
Yarkant-FS2	19 525 238	5 841 367 886	40.46	98.21	94.37
Yarkant-FS3	21 591 363	6 460 913 442	40.21	98.36	94.82
Yarkant-SulR1	20 801 993	6 222 901 554	40.64	98.47	95.10
Yarkant-SulR2	19 984 476	5 979 120 056	43.18	98.28	94.75
Yarkant-SulR3	19 914 702	5 956 069 646	39.93	98.51	95.21
Yarkant-AceR1	21 542 227	6 444 271 438	39.76	98.46	95.04
Yarkant-AceR2	21 254 177	6 354 690 062	39.56	98.12	94.32
Yarkant-AceR3	20 547 090	6 148 349 870	41.21	98.21	94.46
Jinghe-FS1	19 777 253	5 811 422 018	39.54	97.60	93.37
Jinghe-FS2	22 433 482	6 626 850 734	39.68	97.58	93.34
Jinghe-FS3	21 619 014	6 361 974 154	40.86	97.54	93.26
Jinghe-SulR1	21 383 357	6 176 532 448	38.69	97.97	94.17
Jinghe-SulR2	20 753 424	6 135 658 884	39.86	97.52	93.15
Jinghe-SulR3	21 497 459	6 384 531 534	39.58	97.62	93.39
Jinghe-AceR1	21 500 476	6 355 105 294	39.37	97.58	93.33
Jinghe-AceR2	19 936 832	5 891 408 020	39.91	97.74	93.67
Jinghe-AceR3	21 625 765	6 290 882 412	39.90	97.57	93.40

样品 Samples	筛选后序列数 Clean reads	总碱基数 Clean bases (bp)	GC含量 GC (%)	碱基质量 Q20 (%)	碱基质量 Q30 (%)
Yarkant-FS1	20 459 252	6 117 404 890	40.12	98.4	94.94
Yarkant-FS2	19 525 238	5 841 367 886	40.46	98.21	94.37
Yarkant-FS3	21 591 363	6 460 913 442	40.21	98.36	94.82
Yarkant-SulR1	20 801 993	6 222 901 554	40.64	98.47	95.10
Yarkant-SulR2	19 984 476	5 979 120 056	43.18	98.28	94.75
Yarkant-SulR3	19 914 702	5 956 069 646	39.93	98.51	95.21
Yarkant-AceR1	21 542 227	6 444 271 438	39.76	98.46	95.04
Yarkant-AceR2	21 254 177	6 354 690 062	39.56	98.12	94.32
Yarkant-AceR3	20 547 090	6 148 349 870	41.21	98.21	94.46
Jinghe-FS1	19 777 253	5 811 422 018	39.54	97.60	93.37
Jinghe-FS2	22 433 482	6 626 850 734	39.68	97.58	93.34
Jinghe-FS3	21 619 014	6 361 974 154	40.86	97.54	93.26
Jinghe-SulR1	21 383 357	6 176 532 448	38.69	97.97	94.17
Jinghe-SulR2	20 753 424	6 135 658 884	39.86	97.52	93.15
Jinghe-SulR3	21 497 459	6 384 531 534	39.58	97.62	93.39
Jinghe-AceR1	21 500 476	6 355 105 294	39.37	97.58	93.33
Jinghe-AceR2	19 936 832	5 891 408 020	39.91	97.74	93.67
Jinghe-AceR3	21 625 765	6 290 882 412	39.90	97.57	93.40

样品 Samples	总读数 Total reads	比对读数 Mapped reads	唯一比对读数 Unique Mapped Reads	多位点比对读数 Multiple Map Reads
Yarkant-FS1	40 918 504	38 693 204 (94.56%)	37 604 919 (91.90%)	1 088 285 (2.66%)
Yarkant-FS2	39 050 476	36 633 599 (93.81%)	35 573 040 (91.10%)	1 060 559 (2.72%)
Yarkant-FS3	43 182 726	40 047 445 (92.74%)	38 885 334 (90.05%)	1 162 111 (2.69%)
Yarkant-SulR1	41 603 986	39 985 012 (96.11%)	38 825 128 (93.32%)	1 159 884 (2.79%)
Yarkant-SulR2	39 968 952	37 938 061 (94.92%)	35 083 673 (87.78%)	2 854 388 (7.14%)
Yarkant-SulR3	39 829 404	38 129 610 (95.73%)	37 015 482 (92.94%)	1 114 128 (2.80%)
Yarkant-AceR1	43 084 454	40 187 426 (93.28%)	39 083 017 (90.71%)	1 104 409 (2.56%)
Yarkant-AceR2	42 508 354	40 515 296 (95.31%)	39 379 379 (92.64%)	1 135 917 (2.67%)
Yarkant-AceR3	41 094 180	38 622 041 (93.98%)	37 254 453 (90.66%)	1 367 588 (3.33%)
Jinghe-FS1	39 554 506	34 958 972 (88.38%)	33 158 615 (83.83%)	1 800 357 (4.55%)
Jinghe-FS2	44 866 964	40 006 333 (89.17%)	37 962 941 (84.61%)	2 043 392 (4.55%)
Jinghe-FS3	43 238 028	34 598 755 (80.02%)	32 793 966 (75.85%)	1 804 789 (4.17%)
Jinghe-SulR1	42 766 714	38 685 130 (90.46%)	36 662 189 (85.73%)	2 022 941 (4.73%)
Jinghe-SulR2	41 506 848	37 394 897 (90.09%)	35 376 927 (85.23%)	2 017 970 (4.86%)
Jinghe-SulR3	42 994 918	38 689 166 (89.99%)	36 664 856 (85.28%)	2 024 310 (4.71%)
Jinghe-AceR1	43 000 952	38 184 236 (88.80%)	36 219 365 (84.23%)	1 964 871 (4.57%)
Jinghe-AceR2	39 873 664	35 434 894 (88.87%)	33 533 163 (84.10%)	1 901 731 (4.77%)
Jinghe-AceR3	43 251 530	38 737 279 (89.56%)	36 663 404 (84.77%)	2 073 875 (4.79%)

样品 Samples	总读数 Total reads	比对读数 Mapped reads	唯一比对读数 Unique Mapped Reads	多位点比对读数 Multiple Map Reads
Yarkant-FS1	40 918 504	38 693 204 (94.56%)	37 604 919 (91.90%)	1 088 285 (2.66%)
Yarkant-FS2	39 050 476	36 633 599 (93.81%)	35 573 040 (91.10%)	1 060 559 (2.72%)
Yarkant-FS3	43 182 726	40 047 445 (92.74%)	38 885 334 (90.05%)	1 162 111 (2.69%)
Yarkant-SulR1	41 603 986	39 985 012 (96.11%)	38 825 128 (93.32%)	1 159 884 (2.79%)
Yarkant-SulR2	39 968 952	37 938 061 (94.92%)	35 083 673 (87.78%)	2 854 388 (7.14%)
Yarkant-SulR3	39 829 404	38 129 610 (95.73%)	37 015 482 (92.94%)	1 114 128 (2.80%)
Yarkant-AceR1	43 084 454	40 187 426 (93.28%)	39 083 017 (90.71%)	1 104 409 (2.56%)
Yarkant-AceR2	42 508 354	40 515 296 (95.31%)	39 379 379 (92.64%)	1 135 917 (2.67%)
Yarkant-AceR3	41 094 180	38 622 041 (93.98%)	37 254 453 (90.66%)	1 367 588 (3.33%)
Jinghe-FS1	39 554 506	34 958 972 (88.38%)	33 158 615 (83.83%)	1 800 357 (4.55%)
Jinghe-FS2	44 866 964	40 006 333 (89.17%)	37 962 941 (84.61%)	2 043 392 (4.55%)
Jinghe-FS3	43 238 028	34 598 755 (80.02%)	32 793 966 (75.85%)	1 804 789 (4.17%)
Jinghe-SulR1	42 766 714	38 685 130 (90.46%)	36 662 189 (85.73%)	2 022 941 (4.73%)
Jinghe-SulR2	41 506 848	37 394 897 (90.09%)	35 376 927 (85.23%)	2 017 970 (4.86%)
Jinghe-SulR3	42 994 918	38 689 166 (89.99%)	36 664 856 (85.28%)	2 024 310 (4.71%)
Jinghe-AceR1	43 000 952	38 184 236 (88.80%)	36 219 365 (84.23%)	1 964 871 (4.57%)
Jinghe-AceR2	39 873 664	35 434 894 (88.87%)	33 533 163 (84.10%)	1 901 731 (4.77%)
Jinghe-AceR3	43 251 530	38 737 279 (89.56%)	36 663 404 (84.77%)	2 073 875 (4.79%)

基因 Gene	莎车县氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系 Yarkant-SulR		莎车县啶虫脒抗性品系 Yarkant-AceR		精河县氟啶虫胺腈抗性品系 Jinghe-SulR		精河县啶虫脒抗性品系 Jinghe-AceR
基因 Gene	log₂ FC	上调/下调	log₂ FC	上调/下调	log₂ FC	上调/下调	log₂ FC	上调/下调
CYP6CY13	1.72	up
CYP6CY20	1.72	up
CYP380C44	1.62	up
CYP6CY59	2.48	up	1.54	up
CYP380C45	2.44	up	1.24	up	1.08	up
CYP6DC1	2.14	up	1.79	up	-1.35	down	-1.24	down
CYP6CY12	-1.44	down	-1.48	down
CYP380C46	-3.05	down	-1.68	down	1.38	up	1.45	up
CYP18A1	-1.24	down
CYP6CY24					1.09	up
CYP6CY9							1.14	up