| Literature DB >> 18662225 |
Marie-Claire Namroud1, Jean Beaulieu, Nicolas Juge, Jérôme Laroche, Jean Bousquet.
Abstract
Conifers are characterized by a large genome size and a rapid decay of linkage disequilibrium, most often within gene limits. Genome scans based on noncoding markers are less likely to detect molecular adaptation linked to genes in these species. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of a genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) scan focused on expressed genes in detecting local adaptation in a conifer species. Samples were collected from six natural populations of white spruce (Picea glauca) moderately differentiated for several quantitative characters. A total of 534 SNPs representing 345 expressed genes were analysed. Genes potentially under natural selection were identified by estimating the differentiation in SNP frequencies among populations (F(ST)) and identifying outliers, and by estimating local differentiation using a Bayesian approach. Both average expected heterozygosity and population differentiation estimates (H(E) = 0.270 and F(ST) = 0.006) were comparable to those obtained with other genetic markers. Of all genes, 5.5% were identified as outliers with F(ST) at the 95% confidence level, while 14% were identified as candidates for local adaptation with the Bayesian method. There was some overlap between the two gene sets. More than half of the candidate genes for local adaptation were specific to the warmest population, about 20% to the most arid population, and 15% to the coldest and most humid higher altitude population. These adaptive trends were consistent with the genes' putative functions and the divergence in quantitative traits noted among the populations. The results suggest that an approach separating the locus and population effects is useful to identify genes potentially under selection. These candidates are worth exploring in more details at the physiological and ecological levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18662225 PMCID: PMC2613251 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03840.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Ecol ISSN: 0962-1083 Impact factor: 6.185
Fig. 1Geographical distribution of the six populations (ecoregions) analysed.
Average climatic parameters and quantitative traits for the six sampled populations (ecoregions) of white spruce*
| Population | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climatic parameters and traits | No. 1 | No. 2 | No. 3 | No. 4 | No. 5 | No. 6 |
| Elevation (metres) | 269 | 211 | 205 | 771 | 334 | 198 |
| Annual number of degree-days | 1570 | 1633 | 1789 | 970 | 1305 | 1353 |
| Precipitation from June to August (millimetres) | 305 | 319 | 348 | 430 | 345 | 292 |
| Aridity index | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 0.9 | 2.5 | 4.2 |
| Total annual precipitation (millimetres) | 1058 | 1111 | 1127 | 1599 | 1090 | 1079 |
| Annual number of days without frost | 176 | 181 | 194 | 139 | 161 | 171 |
| Annual average temperature (°C) | 3.3 | 3.6 | 4.8 | –0.3 | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Maximum temperature (°C) | 33.0 | 32.8 | 32.7 | 29.2 | 31.7 | 31.6 |
| Minimum temperature (°C) | –36.8 | –34.9 | –32.1 | –37.7 | –38.4 | –33.4 |
| Height (centimetres) | 516 (4) | 494 (4) | 447 (4) | 466 (5) | 493 (3) | 449 (5) |
| Diameter at breast height (centimetres) | 7.1 (0.1) | 6.9 (0.1) | 5.9 (0.1) | 6.5 (0.1) | 6.7 (0.1) | 6.0 (0.1) |
| Wood density (g/cm3) | 0.361 (0.002) | 0.369 (0.002) | 0.382 (0.002) | 0.368 (0.003) | 0.367 (0.002) | 0.387 (0.001) |
| Date of budset (julian days) | 230 (2) | 236 (1) | 236 (1) | 229 (1) | 231 (1) | 235 (1) |
| Date of budburst (julian days) | 143 (< 1) | 143 (< 1) | 143 (< 1) | 144 (< 1) | 143 (< 1) | 143 (< 1) |
| Duration of growing season (days) | 87 (2) | 93 (1) | 94 (1) | 84 (1) | 87 (1) | 92 (1) |
Traits were measured in a common garden study (see Materials and Methods);
average estimates are for the reference period 1971–2000 and were obtained by using the biosim climate simulator (Régnière 1996);
the number of degree-days corresponds to the cumulative number of degrees above 5 °C;
quantitative traits were measured at age 22 on half-sib progenies raised in a common garden in three replicated sites for height, diameter at breast height, and wood density, and at age 3 at a nursery site with replications for phenological traits; numbers in parentheses indicate the standard errors;
the number of julian days corresponds to the number of days elapsed since noon Greenwich Mean Time on January 1st.
Genotyping success of SNP markers and genes using the Illumina GoldenGate multiplex assay
| Category | Number of SNPs | Percentage of SNPs | Number of genes | Percentage of genes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Failed SNPs (Gentrain score < 0.25) | 166 | 21.6 | 20 | 4.7 |
| Successful SNPs but monomorphic | 68 | 8.9 | 27 | 6.4 |
| Successful SNPs and polymorphic | 534 | 69.5 | 345 | 81.4 |
| Total | 768 | 100 | 424 | 100 |
The GenTrain score reflects the degree of separation between homozygote and heterozygote clusters for each SNP and the placement of the individual call within each cluster (Shen ).
Fig. 2Allele frequency distribution at 534 SNP loci.
Genetic parameters of the six sampled populations (ecoregions) of white spruce*
| Population | Number of trees sampled | A | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. 1 | 25 | 1.93 | 0.293 | 0.274 | –0.073 |
| No. 2 | 31 | 1.94 | 0.277 | 0.273 | –0.019 |
| No. 3 | 25 | 1.91 | 0.263 | 0.266 | 0.011 |
| No. 4 | 20 | 1.90 | 0.283 | 0.268 | –0.059 |
| No. 5 | 34 | 1.93 | 0.269 | 0.269 | –0.001 |
| No. 6 | 23 | 1.92 | 0.271 | 0.269 | –0.008 |
| Mean | 26.3 | 1.92 | 0.276 | 0.270 | –0.025 |
| SD | 5.2 | 0.01 | 0.011 | 0.003 | 0.033 |
A is the mean number of alleles per SNP, HOis the average observed heterozygosity; HEis the average unbiased expected heterozygosity (Nei 1978); F is the average fixation index; SD is the standard deviation;
P ≤ 0.01 based on 10 000 permutations between individuals within the same population.
Fig. 3Outlier detection and distribution of empirical FST values as a function of expected heterozygosity. The solid line indicates the 99% upper and lower confidence levels and the grey line indicates the 95% upper and lower confidence levels, as estimated using the summary-statistic method of Beaumont & Nichols (1996). The identification of 20 outlier SNPs (above the 95% confidence level, fdist 2) is indicated by circled dots.
Fig. 4Distribution of empirical FST values over the 12 linkage groups of white spruce with linkage groups (LG) order following Pelgas . The vertical dotted lines indicate approximate boundaries between consecutive linkage groups. The identification of 20 outlier SNPs (above the 95% confidence level, fdist 2, Fig. 3) is indicated by asterisks above vertical solid lines. cM is centimorgans.
Fig. 5(a) Distribution of empirical FST values over linkage group 1 (LG1) with focus on two outlier SNPs (above the 99% confidence level, fdist 2) in grey and black. cM is centimorgans. (b) and (c) Distribution of the mean gamma values (γ) of the two outlier SNPs highlighted in (a) and indicative of local adaptation among the six populations studied. Gamma values were estimated with a Bayesian method and reflect the interaction between the locus and the population effects. (d) and (e) Distribution of gamma values (γ) for all SNPs in populations no. 3 and no. 6 relative to their overall FST values estimated with the summary-statistic method (fdist 2).
List and properties of the 49 candidate SNPs for local adaptation representative of 47 genes*
| SNP | Locus | Gene family | Population with mean γ | Putative biological function | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01424a | AT1G50640.1 | AP2 | 3E-22 | 0.090 | 0.009 | No. 3 | GR, RE, WF, BS, AS |
| 01471a | AT3G04730.1 | Auxin | 6E-28 | 0.480 | 0.004 | No. 3 | GR, RE, WF |
| 01687n | AT1G62360.1 | Homeobox | 7E-68 | 0.446 | 0.067 | No. 4 | GR |
| 02603e | AT1G25280.2 | Tubby | 3E-46 | 0.415 | 0.028 | No. 5 | GR |
| 02892v3 | AT3G23920.1 | Beta amylase | 3E-90 | 0.088 | 0.060 | No. 5 | GR, AS |
| 03056e | AT3G12130.1 | C3H RING finger | 3E-60 | 0.413 | 0.095 | No. 3 | GR, RE |
| 03579f | AT1G76880.1 | Trihelix | 3E-46 | 0.470 | 0.044 | No. 4 | PH, RE |
| 03579 g | AT AT1G76880.1 | Trihelix | 3E-46 | 0.475 | 0.0401 | No. 4 | PH, RE |
| 03693f | AT2G37630.1 | Myb | 2E-89 | 0.333 | 0.009 | No. 6 | GR, WF, AS |
| 03713 m | AT1G66230.1 | Myb | 4E-72 | 0.426 | 0.007 | No. 3 | GR, WF, AS |
| 04148e | AT1G69780.1 | Homeobox | 5E-33 | 0.482 | 0.015 | No. 1 and No. 3 | GR |
| 04190t1 | AT5G02810.1 | C2C2-colike | 6E-23 | 0.012 | 0 | No. 1 | PH, RE |
| 04514 g | AT3G20770.1 | Pseudouridine synthase A | 2E-22 | 0.190 | 0.048 | No. 4 | GR, RE, AS |
| 04885a | AT1G50640.1 | AP2 | 3E-26 | 0.105 | 0.005 | No. 3 | GR, RE, WF, BS, AS |
| 05090v1 | AT2G19940.1 | Gamma-glutamyl- phosphate reductase | 1E-136 | 0.462 | 0.052 | No. 4 | AS |
| 05937v1 | AT5G49580.1 | Chaperone protein DnaJ | 4E-24 | 0.126 | 0.032 | No. 3 | AS |
| 05953 g | AT5G17600.1 | C3H RING finger | 3E-47 | 0.188 | 0.063 | No. 6 | GR, RE, AS |
| 06620 g | AT4G04885.1 | C2H2 zinc finger | 1E-24 | 0.414 | 0.032 | No. 6 | GR, AS |
| 06684v1 | AT1G70320.1 | E3 ubiquitin protein ligase | 4E-56 | 0.058 | 0.048 | No. 1 | GR, RE, AS |
| 07106p1 | AT1G04140.2 | WD40 | 4E-85 | 0.289 | 0.059 | No. 3 | GR, RE, PH |
| 07248e | AT3G16830.1 | WD40 | 1E-142 | 0.448 | 0.089 | No. 4 | GR, RE, PH |
| 07393f | AT1G69440.1 | Argonaute | 7E-56 | 0.195 | 0.050 | No. 1 and No. 5 | GR |
| 07506a | AT1G60710.1 | Oxidoreductase | 1E-152 | 0.482 | 0 | No. 3 | GR, BS |
| 07604v4 | AT5G26680.1 | Flap endonuclease-1 | 1E-41 | 0.192 | 0.043 | No. 6 | GR, WF |
| 07977f | AT2G47900.2 | Tubby | 1E-82 | 0.367 | 0.003 | No. 3 | GR |
| 08080 m | AT4G38620.1 | Myb | 1E-81 | 0.084 | 0.046 | No. 3 and No. 6 | GR, WF, AS |
| 08177v1 | AT4G11790.1 | Ran binding protein | 2E-44 | 0.403 | 0.016 | No. 3 | GR |
| 08349a | AT1G25280.2 | Tubby | 9E-76 | 0.264 | 0.015 | No. 3 | GR |
| 08438b | AT3G55770.2 | LIM | 4E-84 | 0.328 | 0 | No. 2 and No. 6 | WF |
| 08987p1 | AT1G22190.1 | AP2 | 1E-26 | 0.130 | 0.029 | No. 5 | GR, RE, WF, BS, AS |
| 09562a | AT2G19810.1 | C3H RING finger | 6E-83 | 0.109 | 0.011 | No. 3 | GR, RE, AS |
| 09644v2 | AT1G60420.1 | Peroxidase | 6E-71 | 0.326 | 0.024 | No. 3 | WF, AS |
| 09863a | AT2G01570.1 | GRAS | 1E-140 | 0.231 | 0.011 | No. 3 | GR, WF |
| 09889b | AT3G12390.1 | NAC | 6E-48 | 0.241 | 0.025 | No. 3 | GR, BS |
| 09982e | AT1G10200.1 | LIM | 1E-73 | 0.177 | 0 | No. 5 | WF |
| 10016v1 | AT5G06720.1 | Peroxidase | 7E-91 | 0.443 | 0.056 | No. 3 | WF, AS |
| 10125n | AT3G15610.1 | WD40 | 1E-128 | 0.469 | 0.037 | No. 6 | GR, RE, PH |
| 10398e | AT1G08830.2 | Superoxide dismutase | 3E-49 | 0.056 | 0.127 | No. 6 | PH, AS, BS |
| 10494v1 | AT1G55670.1 | Photosystem I reaction centre subunit V | 6E-53 | 0.124 | 0.084 | No. 3 | PH |
| 10583v1 | AT2G21490.1 | Dehydrin | 1E-21 | 0.473 | 0.035 | No. 4 | AS |
| 10614t2 | PTU09554 | AGP | 3E-85 | 0.338 | 0.013 | No. 3 | WF |
| 11176a | AT4G24020.1 | Nin-like | 2E-58 | 0.141 | 0.061 | No. 4 | BS |
| 11176b | AT4G24020.1 | Nin-like | 2E-58 | 0.160 | 0.077 | No. 1 and No. 6 | BS |
| 12347a | AT1G16070.2 | Tubby | 2E-31 | 0.105 | 0.008 | No. 3 | GR |
| 13634e | AT3G13040.2 | Myb | 7E-34 | 0.486 | 0.006 | No. 3 | GR, WF, AS, BS |
| 14328e | AT4G32600.1 | C3H RING finger | 4E-76 | 0.143 | 0.023 | No. 1 | GR, RE, AS |
| 14745f | AT1G78070.2 | WD40 | 5E-70 | 0.394 | 0.028 | No. 3 | GR, RE, PH |
| 15115e | AT5G47390.1 | Myb | 4E-58 | 0.413 | 0.052 | No. 3 | GR, WF, AS, BS |
| 90002e | AT5G47670.2 | CCAAT box-binding factor E22 | 1E-54 | 0.220 | 0.036 | No. 3 | RE, PH |
Candidate SNPs for local adaptation are those exhibiting a mean locus–population interaction parameter (γ) higher than 0.10 based on the Bayesian method;
SNP annotations and nomenclature are detailed in Pavy ; related transcript sequences can be found in the spruce gene database at http://biodata.cbri.umn.edu/spruce/;
Sequences were paired to an Arabidopsis locus based on sequence highest homology through tblastx searches against Arabidopsis blastsets database (ftp://ftp.arabidopsis.org/home/tair/Sequences/blast_datasets/TAIR7_blastsets/TAIR7_seq_20070320);
Expected heterozygosity;
FST was calculated as an estimate of Weir & Cockerham's (1984) β statistics as described in Beaumont & Nichols (1996);
The γ parameter is the mean locus–population interaction parameter as defined by Beaumont & Balding (2004);
PH, phenology; GR, growth; RE, reproduction; AS, abiotic stress; BS, biotic stress; WF, wood formation.