Figures (9)  Tables (8)
    • Figure 1. 

      Floral characteristics of 21 early-flowering and 21 late-flowering peony cultivars at full-bloom stage. A: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Taoyan Hong', B: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Huolian Jindan', C: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Pinghu Qiuyue', D: Paeonia suffruticosa 'JiaoHong', E: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Dapeng Zhanchi', F: Paeonia suffruticosa 'CangJiao', G: Paeonia suffruticosa 'LanJu', H: Paeonia suffruticosa 'HaiBo', I: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Lan Hudie', J: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Lan Yueliang', K: Paeonia suffruticosa 'ZhaoFen', L: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Yucui Caidie', M: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Jianshi Fen', N: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Xishi Fen', O: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Mantian Xing', P: Paeonia suffruticosa 'JingYu', Q: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Suxin Bai', R: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Xueyuan Hongxing', S: Paeonia rockii 'Ziban Bai', T: Paeonia suffruticosa 'ErQiao', U: Paeonia ostii 'FengDan', a: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Feiyan Hongzhuang', b: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Shouan Hong', c: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Haitang Zhengrun', d: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Daduo Lan', e: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Doulv', f: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Shenhei Zi', g: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Zihong Zhengyan', h: Paeonia rockii 'MingMou', i: Paeonia rockii 'Xian Emao', j: Paeonia rockii 'Bai Zhangbing', k: Paeonia rockii 'Bai Yanwei', l: Paeonia rockii 'Yuban Xiuqiu', m: Paeonia rockii 'Bingxin Fenhe', n: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Fen Zhouchou', o: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Xiuqiu Hong', p: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Zilou Xiangcui', q: Paeonia suffruticosa 'ZiYan', r: Paeonia suffruticosa 'JinGe', s: Paeonia suffruticosa 'JinZhi', t: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Baiwang Shizi', u: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Lian He'.

    • Figure 2. 

      The flower development of Paeonia ostii 'FengDan' occurred in 16 stages: (a) overwintering dormancy, (b) bud break, (c) bud swelling, (d) bud elongation, (e) erect bud stage, (f) small bell stage, (g) large bell stage, (h) round peach stage, (i) flat peach stage, (j) color exposure, (k) bud cracking, (l) initial flowering, (m) half flowering, (n) full bloom, (o) onset of senescence, (p) full senescence. (a)–(e): bud stage, (f)–(i) flower bud stage, (j)–(p) flowering stage.

    • Figure 3. 

      Electrophoresis detection of total RNA. Marker: DNA marker DL2000; 1–21: flower development period of a tree peony.

    • Figure 4. 

      Amplification results of each primer. Marker: DNA marker DL2000; 1–23: amplification results of the 23 reference genes to be tested.

    • Figure 5. 

      The melting curve of each primer. a–w: Melting curve plots corresponding to each of the 23 tested candidate reference genes, each showing a single specific amplification peak without non-specific products or primer dimers.

    • Figure 6. 

      Expression levels of the 23 candidate reference genes in a tree peony. (a) Expression levels in full-bloom petals of early- and late-flowering cultivars. (b) Expression levels during 16 stages of floral bud differentiation and flower development.

    • Figure 7. 

      Results of early- and late-flowering variety experiments using geNorm software. a: Average expression stability value (M) ranking of 23 candidate reference genes (genes arranged from least stable on the left to most stable on the right); b: Pairwise variation (V) analysis to determine the optimal number of reference genes for normalization.

    • Figure 8. 

      Results of bud differentiation and flower development experiments using geNorm software. a: Average expression stability value (M) ranking of 23 candidate reference genes; genes arranged from left to right represent the least stable to the most stable. b: Pairwise variation (V) analysis to determine the optimal number of internal reference genes for normalization; the threshold value of V is set as 0.15.

    • Figure 9. 

      Results of expression verification analysis of PsFRL5 in different varieties of peony flowers at 7 stages of development. a: PPC; b: GTP; c: PP2A. Notes: MU: mutant of Paeonia ostii 'Fengdan'; FD: Paeonia ostii 'Fengdan'; LH: Paeonia suffruticosa 'Lianhe'.

    • Primers Sequences 5'-3'
      EF1-α-1-F CATCGGACAAGCCACTGCGT
      EF1-α-1-R CGTTATCACCAGGCAGTCCC
      Ubi-lp-F CCATCCTGGTGAAGTGGCTAA
      Ubi-lp-R TCAAGTGGGACAAACCGCAT
      UBQ-F CATCGGACAAGCCACTGCGT
      UBQ-R CGTTATCACCAGGCAGTCCC
      UBC-F TCTTAGGGTTTCTGTGCGGG
      UBC-R GAAGGCTTGCCAATGGAACA
      UPL-F TGTTGGCGACATTCCTTTCCT
      UPL-R TCCTACCGTTTGCTCCTACCTC
      GAPDH-F GGAAAATCCGTTGCCATCAT
      GAPDH-R CCTCTGTAACGGCATCTTTGG
      HIS-F CGAAAGTCTGCTCCTACTACGG
      HIS-R ATCCTTGGGCATAATGGTGAC
      CYP-F CCTCCAAACCCTAAAAATCCA
      CYP-R GAACTGGCATCCCTTGTAACC
      RPL-F GTGGGTTCGCATTCCTGAGA
      RPL-R AGCCAACCTCAAACCACCCT
      CSLD-F TCGTCCGCTACCACTTCCG
      CSLD-R CCTTGCCTCAACTACATCGTCA
      KOR-F ACACCGAACAATGCGAGAAC
      KOR-R AAGAAATGCTCCCATCAGGTT
      AGD-F TGCCATCGTCACCTGTTGC
      AGD-R CCCCCCAGCCTTTCCAAT
      ARP-F CGTTTGGTGTTTGGCGTTAT
      ARP-R AAACATCCCATCCACATCCTT
      IWS-F CTCTGCCACTCCACCGAAGC
      IWS-R AACACGGACTGGGTCGGATG
      GTP-F TCCTCGCATCGCTTGGTCTA
      GTP-R TGTCGGCTGGTGCTGAACTAA
      PP2A-F TGTGAGGGACAAAGCAGTGGA
      PP2A-R CCAGGTTTGACGCAGCAGAC
      eIF3-F ATCGCAAAAACCCTACCCGTC
      eIF3-R CGGGAGTTCTGATTGTAGTTGCG
      eIF2-F AGCCTGGTTATGAGGTTGACG
      eIF2-R GACCCACCAACCTATCAGCAC
      PPR-F CTCGTTCAGGTTATTAGCGGTG
      PPR-R CAGAAACAGAGACAGCCCAATC
      HDH-F GGCACTCAGTCACAGTTTCAC
      HDH-R TGTCCCGCTCGCATAATCTC
      PPC-F CTTGGTATCGGGTCCTATCGT
      PPC-R GGGACAACTCGTAATGGCTTC
      EF1-α-F CCGCCAGAGAGGCTGCTAAT
      EF1-α-R GCAATGTGGGAAGTGTGGCA
      Tubulin-α-F CCGTCAACTTTTCCACCCTG
      Tubulin-α-R CCTCACTCGGTCAAGGCAGA

      Table 1. 

      Primer sequences of candidate reference genes.

    • Gene name Tm (°C) Slope R2 Efficiency
      EF1-α-1 64 −3.508 0.987 92.8%
      UBi-lp 61 −3.283 0.977 101.7%
      UBQ 61 −3.238 0.987 101.7%
      UBC 61 −3.392 0.994 97.1%
      UPL 62 −3.194 0.981 108.2%
      GAPDH 58 −3.101 0.971 110.1%
      HIS 59 −3.162 0.983 98.5%
      CYP 59 −3.111 0.978 97.3%
      RPL 61 −3.249 0.990 103.7%
      CSLD2 62 −3.468 0.970 99.4%
      KOR 58 −3.445 0.980 95.7%
      AGD 61 −3.144 0.973 102.8%
      ARP 59 −3.220 0.970 104.2%
      IWS 59 −3.306 0.980 98.1%
      GTP 62 −3.528 0.999 97.2%
      PP2A 61 −3.165 0.990 106.2%
      eIF2 59 −3.231 0.991 94.65
      eIF3 64 −3.125 0.986 95.9%
      PPR 62 −3.284 0.993 96.9%
      HDH 61 −3.5755 0.970 99.5%
      PPC 59 −3.2020 0.996 97.6%
      EF1-α 62 −3.2965 0.980 99.8%
      Tubulin-α 62 −3.1160 0.990 102.6%

      Table 2. 

      Amplification characteristics of 23 candidate reference gene primers.

    • Gene name Stability value SD Rank
      AGD 0.52 0.09 1
      PPC 0.53 0.09 2
      eIF2 0.54 0.09 3
      GTP 0.62 0.10 4
      KOR 0.62 0.10 5
      CSLD2 0.65 0.11 6
      UBi-lp 0.68 0.11 7
      UBQ 0.70 0.11 8
      UPL 0.79 0.12 9
      HDH 0.79 0.12 10
      eIF3 0.81 0.13 11
      PPR 0.82 0.13 12
      UBC 0.85 0.13 13
      GAPDH 0.88 0.14 14
      EF1-α 0.97 0.15 15
      HIS 1.06 0.16 16
      IWS 1.15 0.17 17
      ARP 1.20 0.18 18
      PP2A 1.21 0.18 19
      EF1-α-1 1.33 0.20 20
      CYP 1.67 0.25 21
      Tubulin-α 1.78 0.26 22
      RPL 2.15 0.31 23

      Table 3. 

      Results of early- and late-flowering cultivar experiments using NormFinder software.

    • Gene name Cq Stability
      rank
      Geometric mean Mean Min Max SD CV/%
      eIF3 25.21 25.24 21.87 27.63 0.97 3.83 1
      GTP 23.85 23.89 21.27 25.95 1.08 4.54 2
      UBQ 22.82 22.87 20.17 26.28 1.11 4.85 3
      eIF2 26.73 26.78 22.81 28.79 1.24 4.63 4
      KOR 27.67 27.73 22.42 29.76 1.24 4.46 5
      UBC 22.23 22.29 19.52 27.67 1.33 5.96 6
      UBi-lp 27.35 27.40 23.40 31.88 1.36 4.95 7
      AGD 24.55 24.60 21.03 27.7 1.39 5.64 8
      PPC 26.34 26.40 21.46 28.65 1.40 5.32 9
      CSLD2 26.25 26.32 21.65 29.23 1.43 5.45 10
      HIS 25.36 25.45 19.51 28.07 1.47 5.77 11
      ARP 27.84 27.91 22.88 31.23 1.47 5.27 12
      PP2A 25.70 25.80 18.69 28.48 1.54 5.96 13
      HDH 26.66 26.73 23.36 31.39 1.57 5.87 14
      EF1-α-1 21.33 21.44 15.19 26.70 1.58 7.39 15
      EF1-α 24.62 24.72 19.29 29.89 1.63 6.61 16
      GAPDH 25.10 25.18 20.84 28.29 1.68 6.67 17
      UPL 25.30 25.39 20.43 28.95 1.68 6.62 18
      PPR 29.37 29.47 23.40 34.24 1.73 5.85 19
      Tubulin-α 24.42 24.56 20.06 35.03 1.76 7.18 20
      CYP 25.84 25.97 19.02 29.11 1.81 6.97 21
      IWS 26.00 26.09 21.48 29.81 1.96 7.52 22
      RPL 30.79 30.99 20.94 34.19 2.31 7.46 23

      Table 4. 

      Results of early- and late-flowering cultivar experiments using BestKeeper software.

    • Gene nameGeomean of ranking valuesStability rankGene nameGeomean of ranking valuesStability rank
      PPC2.061PPR12.2613
      AGD2.832GAPDH13.8414
      eIF23.873HIS14.5715
      GTP3.944EF1-α15.2416
      KOR3.945ARP16.2617
      CSLD24.366PP2A17.2818
      eIF36.567IWS18.1319
      UBQ6.938EF1-α-118.6120
      UBi-lp7.009CYP21.0021
      HDH10.5910Tubulin-α21.4822
      UPL10.6711RPL23.0023
      UBC10.7212

      Table 5. 

      Results of early- and late-flowering cultivar experiments using RefFinder software.

    • Gene name Stability value SD Rank
      GTP 0.27 0.04 1
      EF1-α 0.37 0.05 2
      GAPDH 0.37 0.05 3
      EF1-α-1 0.40 0.06 4
      Tubulin-α 0.42 0.06 5
      HDH 0.43 0.06 6
      PPR 0.44 0.06 7
      UBQ 0.45 0.06 8
      IWS 0.48 0.07 9
      PPC 0.48 0.07 10
      UBi-lp 0.48 0.07 11
      UBC 0.48 0.07 12
      CYP 0.51 0.07 13
      AGD 0.51 0.07 14
      KOR 0.53 0.07 15
      eIF3 0.55 0.07 16
      CSLD2 0.66 0.09 17
      ARP 0.735 0.096 18
      HIS 0.687 0.090 19
      UPL 0.757 0.099 20
      eIF2 0.810 0.105 21
      RPL 1.009 0.130 22
      PP2A 1.155 0.148 23

      Table 6. 

      Results of bud differentiation and flower development experiments using NormFinder software.

    • Gene name Cq Stability
      rank
      Geometric mean Mean Min Max SD CV/%
      RPL 28.08 28.10 26.07 29.94 0.81 2.88 1
      GTP 20.92 20.95 18.60 24.89 0.82 3.89 2
      EF1-α 20.60 20.62 19.24 24.59 0.84 4.05 3
      UBC 20.38 20.42 18.47 25.02 0.92 4.49 4
      PP2A 21.88 21.92 17.85 24.44 0.95 4.32 5
      ARP 24.80 24.83 22.48 27.31 0.97 3.89 6
      IWS 23.33 23.37 21.32 28.86 0.97 4.16 7
      EF1-α-1 19.55 19.61 17.02 26.17 1.00 5.08 8
      CYP 22.41 22.47 20.04 29.22 1.00 4.45 9
      AGD 20.71 20.75 18.27 26.63 1.03 4.98 10
      HDH 23.53 23.58 21.59 30.15 1.04 4.39 11
      UBQ 21.14 21.20 18.04 26.09 1.05 4.97 12
      Tubulin-α 19.96 20.01 17.39 25.95 1.06 5.30 13
      UBi-lp 23.82 23.88 21.51 31.37 1.06 4.45 14
      KOR 24.07 24.12 20.81 28.99 1.11 4.61 15
      GAPDH 21.58 21.63 19.12 26.98 1.15 5.34 16
      eIF3 21.79 21.84 19.51 27.58 1.16 5.30 17
      PPC 22.17 22.23 19.20 29.20 1.16 5.22 18
      HIS 20.94 20.99 18.38 24.53 1.19 5.68 19
      PPR 23.86 23.92 20.69 29.41 1.25 5.23 20
      UPL 22.47 22.53 19.46 26.85 1.33 5.91 21
      CSLD2 23.38 23.45 20.20 28.78 1.35 5.76 22
      eIF2 22.21 22.28 19.07 28.97 1.44 6.48 23

      Table 7. 

      Results of bud differentiation and flower development experiments using BestKeeper software.

    • Gene nameGeomean of ranking valuesStability rankGene nameGeomean of ranking valuesStability rank
      GTP2.061PPC10.3213
      EF1-α-12.832UBQ10.5714
      EF1-α4.363PPR10.7715
      HDH5.304ARP14.7916
      UBi-lp5.735KOR15.2417
      GAPDH6.316PP2A15.7118
      Tubulin-α6.357eIF315.7119
      CYP8.478CSLD218.1320
      IWS8.829HIS18.4921
      UBC10.0210UPL19.4722
      RPL10.1611eIF221.2223
      AGD10.2212

      Table 8. 

      Results of bud differentiation and flower development experiments using RefFinder software.