| Literature DB >> 21084430 |
Tim L Setter1, Jianbing Yan, Marilyn Warburton, Jean-Marcel Ribaut, Yunbi Xu, Mark Sawkins, Edward S Buckler, Zhiwu Zhang, Michael A Gore.
Abstract
In maize, water stress at flowering causes loss of kernel set and productivity. While changes in the levels of sugars and abscisic acid (ABA) are thought to play a role in this stress response, the mechanistic basis and genes involved are not known. A candidate gene approach was used with association mapping to identify loci involved in accumulation of carbohydrates and ABA metabolites during stress. A panel of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes from these metabolic pathways and in genes for reproductive development and stress response was used to genotype 350 tropical and subtropical maize inbred lines that were well watered or water stressed at flowering. Pre-pollination ears, silks, and leaves were analysed for sugars, starch, proline, ABA, ABA-glucose ester, and phaseic acid. ABA and sugar levels in silks and ears were negatively correlated with their growth. Association mapping with 1229 SNPs in 540 candidate genes identified an SNP in the maize homologue of the Arabidopsis MADS-box gene, PISTILLATA, which was significantly associated with phaseic acid in ears of well-watered plants, and an SNP in pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase, a key regulator of carbon flux into respiration, that was associated with silk sugar concentration. An SNP in an aldehyde oxidase gene was significantly associated with ABA levels in silks of water-stressed plants. Given the short range over which decay of linkage disequilibrium occurs in maize, the results indicate that allelic variation in these genes affects ABA and carbohydrate metabolism in floral tissues during drought.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21084430 PMCID: PMC3003815 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erq308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Averages, standard deviations, and broad sense heritabilities for traits measured on ears and silks in 2005–2006
| Organ | Trait | Sampling stage, DAA | Units | 2006 | 2005 | 2006–2005 | |||
| WS average | WW average | WS average | Phenotypic SD | Broad sense heritability | G×E | ||||
| Growth | |||||||||
| Ear | DW | 0 | g | 0.47*** | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.16 | 0.62 | *** |
| Ear | DW | 7 | g | 0.56*** | 0.81 | 0.59 | 0.20 | 0.49 | *** |
| Silk | DW | 0 | g | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.17 | 0.31 | *** |
| Silk | DW | 7 | g | 0.57*** | 0.76 | 0.74 | 0.22 | 0.43 | *** |
| Phenology | |||||||||
| Tassel | Anthesis | d from sowing | 90.9*** | 95.8 | 96.1 | 4.71 | 0.82 | *** | |
| Carbohydrates | |||||||||
| Ear | Glc | 0 | mmol g−1 DW | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.86 | 0.17 | 0.30 | *** |
| Ear | Glc | 7 | mmol g−1 DW | 1.20*** | 1.08 | 1.11 | 0.26 | 0.41 | *** |
| Ear | Tot. sugar | 0 | mmol g−1 DW | 1.22*** | 1.02 | 1.59 | 0.30 | 0.25 | *** |
| Ear | Tot. sugar | 7 | mmol g−1 DW | 2.18*** | 1.59 | 1.64 | 0.38 | 0.31 | *** |
| Ear | Suc | 0 | mmol g−1 DW | 0.85*** | 0.64 | 0.72 | 0.20 | 0.41 | * |
| Ear | Suc | 7 | mmol g−1 DW | 0.98*** | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.25 | 0.43 | ** |
| Ear | Frac. suc | 0 | 0.69*** | 0.62 | 0.45 | 0.08 | 0.62 | *** | |
| Ear | Frac. suc | 7 | 0.44*** | 0.30 | 0.31 | 0.10 | 0.52 | *** | |
| Ear | Starch | 0 | mmol g−1 DW | 1.79*** | 2.21 | 2.41 | 0.34 | 0.44 | *** |
| Ear | Starch | 7 | mmol g−1 DW | 1.61*** | 1.28 | 1.92 | 0.48 | 0.47 | *** |
| Silk | Glc | 0 | mmol g−1 DW | 1.19 | 1.16 | 1.41 | 0.25 | 0.22 | *** |
| Silk | Glc | 7 | mmol g−1 DW | 1.94* | 2.00 | 1.19 | 0.36 | 0.45 | *** |
| Silk | Tot. sugar | 0 | mmol g−1 DW | 2.03 | 2.08 | 1.83 | 0.43 | 0.22 | *** |
| Silk | Tot. sugar | 7 | mmol g−1 DW | 2.27*** | 2.57 | 1.51 | 0.44 | 0.47 | *** |
| Silk | Suc | 0 | mmol g−1 DW | 0.83*** | 0.92 | 0.40 | 0.21 | 0.13 | *** |
| Silk | Suc | 7 | mmol g−1 DW | 0.34*** | 0.55 | 0.32 | 0.17 | 0.20 | *** |
| Silk | Frac. suc | 0 | 0.40*** | 0.43 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.12 | *** | |
| Silk | Frac. suc | 7 | 0.14*** | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.17 | *** | |
| Silk | Starch | 0 | mmol g−1 DW | 0.111** | 0.121 | 0.129 | 0.05 | 0.28 | *** |
| Silk | Starch | 7 | mmol g−1 DW | 0.051** | 0.055 | 0.097 | 0.03 | 0.65 | *** |
| ABA metabolites and proline | |||||||||
| Ear | ABA | 0 | pmol g−1 DW | 5384*** | 1337 | 3200 | 1608 | 0.43 | *** |
| Ear | ABA | 7 | pmol g−1 DW | 5155*** | 1344 | 3228 | 1611 | 0.31 | *** |
| Ear | ABA-GE | 0 | pmol g−1 DW | 445*** | 215 | 1073 | 362 | 0.26 | *** |
| Ear | ABA-GE | 7 | pmol g−1 DW | 885*** | 191 | 1108 | 486 | 0.41 | *** |
| Ear | PA | 0 | pmol g−1 DW | 605*** | 442 | 432 | 193 | 0.47 | *** |
| Ear | PA | 7 | pmol g−1 DW | 382*** | 199 | 409 | 196 | 0.13 | * |
| Silk | ABA | 0 | pmol g−1 DW | 8142*** | 3402 | 3607 | 2179 | 0.20 | *** |
| Silk | ABA | 7 | pmol g−1 DW | 6217*** | 2372 | 3276 | 2032 | 0.41 | *** |
| Silk | ABA-GE | 0 | pmol g−1 DW | 2147*** | 1161 | 1811 | 891 | 0.10 | ** |
| Silk | ABA-GE | 7 | pmol g−1 DW | 5127*** | 1119 | 1660 | 1662 | 0.21 | *** |
| Silk | PA | 0 | pmol g−1 DW | 399*** | 207 | 542 | 163 | 0.18 | *** |
| Silk | PA | 7 | pmol g−1 DW | 191*** | 152 | 267 | 102 | 0.43 | *** |
| Ear | Proline | 0 | μmol g−1 DW | 68*** | 45 | 42 | 18 | 0.47 | *** |
| Ear | proline | 7 | μmol g−1 DW | 65*** | 32 | 58 | 19 | 0.37 | *** |
| Silk | Proline | 0 | μmol g−1 DW | 147* | 142 | 42 | 22 | 0.11 | *** |
| Silk | Proline | 7 | μmol g−1 DW | 124*** | 105 | 33 | 27 | 0.34 | *** |
Phenotypic standard deviations and broad sense heritabillities represent composite estimates from ANOVAs on combined data sets of 2005 and 2006. Statistical significance of comparisons between water stress (WS) and well-watered (WW) treatments, and for genotype by treatment interaction (G×E) are indicated where applicable.
Statistical significance of means comparisons between WS and WW.
*, **, *** Significant at P ≤ 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, respectively.
ABA-GE, abscisic acid-glucose ester; DW, dry weight; Frac. suc, fraction of sugar as sucrose; Glc, glucose; PA, phaseic acid; Suc, sucrose; Tot. sugar, total sugar.
Averages, standard deviations, and broad sense heritabilities for traits measured on leaves in 2005–2006
| Organ | Trait | Sampling stage, week | Units | 2006 | 2005 | 2006–2005 | |||
| WS average | WW average | WS average | Phenotypic SD | Broad sense heritability | G×E | ||||
| Leaf | SLW | 2 | mg cm−2 | 5.85*** | 5.62 | 6.28 | 0.57 | 0.57 | *** |
| Leaf | SLW | 4 | mg cm−2 | 5.95** | 6.05 | 6.44 | 0.55 | 0.46 | *** |
| Leaf | Glc | 2 | nmol cm−2 | 77*** | 90 | 133 | 46 | 0.48 | *** |
| Leaf | Glc | 4 | nmol cm−2 | 87*** | 112 | 129 | 53 | 0.53 | *** |
| Leaf | Tot. sugar | 2 | nmol cm−2 | 1056 | 1081 | 1421 | 51 | 0.40 | *** |
| Leaf | Tot. sugar | 4 | nmol cm−2 | 460*** | 681 | 1231 | 308 | 0.37 | *** |
| Leaf | Suc | 2 | nmol cm−2 | 977 | 989 | 1281 | 320 | 0.39 | *** |
| Leaf | Suc | 4 | nmol cm−2 | 370*** | 564 | 1096 | 271 | 0.34 | *** |
| Leaf | Frac. glc | 2 | 7.7*** | 8.9 | 8.7 | 2.7 | 0.62 | *** | |
| Leaf | Frac. glc | 4 | 18.6*** | 16.6 | 10.0 | 4.3 | 0.55 | *** | |
| Leaf | Proline | 2 | nmol cm−2 | 198*** | 164 | 98 | 30 | 0.25 | ** |
| Leaf | Proline | 4 | nmol cm−2 | 239*** | 137 | 120 | 39 | 0.04 | *** |
| Leaf | ABA | 2 | pmol cm−2 | 15.75*** | 5.13 | 5.36 | 4.52 | 0.28 | *** |
| Leaf | ABA | 4 | pmol cm−2 | 6.29*** | 2.53 | 11.57 | 3.74 | 0.11 | |
| Leaf | ABA-GE | 2 | pmol cm−2 | 9.48*** | 3.36 | 8.90 | 4.17 | 0.30 | *** |
| Leaf | ABA-GE | 4 | pmol cm−2 | 18.55*** | 14.82 | 18.02 | 8.68 | 0.34 | *** |
| Leaf | PA | 2 | pmol cm−2 | 13.51*** | 5.55 | 7.48 | 5.26 | 0.64 | *** |
| Leaf | PA | 4 | pmol cm−2 | 9.53*** | 5.29 | 17.57 | 7.18 | 0.12 | *** |
| Plant | Ear height | m | 0.734** | 0.716 | 0.700 | 0.15 | 0.70 | *** | |
| Plant | Plant height | m | 1.232 | 1.240 | 1.250 | 0.20 | 0.61 | *** |
Phenotypic standard deviations and broad sense heritabillities represent composite estimates from ANOVAs on combined data sets of 2005 and 2006. Statistical significance of comparisons between water stress (WS) and well-watered (WW) treatments, and for genotype by treatment interaction (G×E) are indicated where applicable.
Weeks after withholding irrigation.
Statistical significance of means comparisons between WS and WW.
*, **, *** Significant at P ≤ 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, respectively.
ABA-GE, abscisic acid-glucose ester; Frac. glc, fraction of sugar as glucose; Glc, glucose; PA, phaseic acid; SLW, specific leaf weight; Suc, sucrose; Tot. sugar, total sugar.
Correlation matrix for ear (E) traits in 2006; data from water stress plots (lower left) and well-watered plots (upper right) of 350 maize inbreds
| E_DW | E_Glc | E_Tsug | E_Suc | E_Fsuc | E_Str | E_Pro | E_ABA | E_ABA-GE | E_PA | S_DW | |
| E_DW | –0.36 | –0.04 | –0.03 | –0.36 | |||||||
| E_Glc | –0.23 | 0.10 | –0.39 | –0.22 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 0.24 | 0.23 | –0.22 | ||
| E_Tsug | 0.36 | –0.04 | 0.10 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.32 | |||||
| E_Suc | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 0.26 | |||||
| E_Fsuc | –0.39 | 0.22 | 0.32 | –0.11 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.15 | ||||
| E_Str | 0.29 | –0.35 | –0.09 | 0.27 | –0.28 | –0.15 | –0.17 | 0.07 | |||
| E_Pro | –0.33 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.19 | –0.09 | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.09 | –0.17 | ||
| E_ABA | 0.25 | 0.39 | 0.18 | 0.40 | –0.39 | ||||||
| E_ABA-GE | 0.32 | 0.17 | |||||||||
| E_PA | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.19 | –0.23 | 0.40 | –0.32 | ||||
| S_DW | –0.27 | –0.40 | –0.31 | –0.08 | 0.33 | –0.37 | –0.39 | –0.28 |
Shown are Pearson's correlation coefficients for average of plots sampled 0 d and 7 d after anthesis. Values < –0.18 or > +0.18 are significant at P ≤ 0.001. Values < –0.40 or >0.40 are in bold. Also shown is silk (S) dry weight.
ABA, abscisic acid; ABA-GE, ABA-glucose ester; DW, dry weight; Fsuc, fraction of sugar as sucrose; Glc, glucose; PA, phaseic acid; Pro, proline; Str, starch; Suc, sucrose; Tsug, total sugar.
Correlation matrix for silk (S) traits in 2006; data from water stress plots (lower left) and well-watered plots (upper right) of 350 maize inbreds
| S_DW | S_Glc | S_Tsug | S_Suc | S_Fsuc | S_Str | S_Pro | S_ABA | S_ABA-GE | S_PA | E_DW | |
| S_DW | –0.21 | 0.19 | –0.33 | –0.35 | |||||||
| S_Glc | –0.13 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.31 | –0.23 | |||||
| S_Tsug | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.23 | 0.33 | –0.18 | |||||
| S_Suc | 0.22 | 0.34 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.25 | –0.06 | |||||
| S_Fsuc | –0.16 | –0.09 | 0.29 | 0.16 | 0.00 | –0.05 | –0.13 | 0.01 | 0.11 | ||
| S_Str | –0.20 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.14 | –0.3 | |
| S_Pro | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.12 | 0.28 | |||||||
| S_ABA | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.30 | –0.02 | –0.18 | |||||
| S_ABA-GE | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.14 | –0.10 | –0.32 | |||||
| S_PA | 0.33 | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.38 | 0.23 | –0.31 | |||||
| E_DW | –0.25 | –0.18 | –0.04 | 0.10 | –0.08 | –0.26 | –0.28 | –0.22 |
Shown are Pearson's correlation coefficients for average of plots sampled 0 d and 7 d after anthesis. Values < – 0.18 or > +0.18 are significant at P ≤ 0.001. Values < –0.40 or >0.40 are in bold. Also shown is ear (E) dry weight.
ABA, abscisic acid; ABA-GE, ABA-glucose ester; DW, dry weight; Fsuc, fraction of sugar as sucrose; Glc, glucose; PA, phaseic acid; Pro, proline; Str, starch; Suc, sucrose; Tsug, total sugar.
Correlation matrix for leaf (L) traits in 2006; data from water stress plots (lower left) and well-watered plots (upper right) of 350 maize inbreds
| L_Slw | L_Glc | L_Tsug | L_Suc | L_%glc | L_Pro | L_ABA | L_ABA-GE | L_PA | |
| L_Slw | 0.40 | –0.03 | 0.19 | 0.35 | 0.31 | ||||
| L_Glc | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.26 | 0.34 | 0.15 | ||||
| L_Tsug | 0.23 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.21 | |||
| L_Suc | 0.24 | –0.05 | 0.16 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.20 | |||
| L_%glc | –0.02 | 0.10 | –0.05 | –0.19 | 0.12 | 0.26 | 0.02 | ||
| L_Pro | 0.31 | –0.08 | 0.02 | 0.05 | –0.06 | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.19 | |
| L_ABA | 0.15 | –0.13 | –0.26 | –0.26 | 0.08 | 0.10 | |||
| L_ABA-GE | 0.08 | 0.06 | –0.09 | –0.12 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.30 | ||
| L_PA | 0.28 | –0.07 | –0.14 | –0.13 | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.27 |
Shown are Pearson's correlation coefficients for average of plots sampled 0 d and 7 d after anthesis. Values < –0.18 or > +0.18 are significant at P ≤ 0.001. Values < –0.40 or > 0.40 are in bold.
ABA, abscisic acid; ABA-GE, ABA-glucose ester; Fsuc, fraction of sugar as sucrose; Glc, glucose; PA, phaseic acid; Pro, proline; SLW, specific leaf weight; Str, starch; Suc, sucrose; Tsug, total sugar.
Functional classification of genes containing the SNPs utilized in the association tests
| Gene classification | No. of genes | Fraction of all genes | Subclass fraction |
| ABA and stress tolerance | 92 | 0.17 | |
| ABA synthesis | 0.19 | ||
| ABA regulatory pathways | 0.47 | ||
| Stress tolerance | 0.34 | ||
| Carbohydrate and sugar regulation(enzymes, transcription factors, signalling) | 60 | 0.11 | |
| Other metabolic genes (enzymes and transporters) | 81 | 0.15 | |
| Regulation of reproductive development (transcription factors, signalling) | 120 | 0.22 | |
| Other regulation (transcription factors, signalling) | 180 | 0.33 | |
| Other | 7 | 0.01 |
Fig. 1.Quantile–quantile plot of test statistics for SNP–trait associations. (A) Traits evaluated in well-watered plots in 2006. (B) Traits evaluated in water-stressed plots in 2006. (C) Traits evaluated in water-stressed plots in 2005. The solid diagonal lines represent agreement between observed and expected probability distributions assuming null SNP–trait association. Squares represent ordered probabilities for each SNP–trait association analysed, with adjustment for population structure and kinship using MLM. The horizontal lines represent threshold probabilities for significant SNP–trait associations that deviate from the null distribution for multiple comparisons by P ≤0.10. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
SNP–trait associations which deviated from the null hypothesis for multiple testing with a Bonferroni-corrected threshold P ≤ 0.10
| SNP no. | SNP context sequence number | Chr. | Chr. bin | SNP position | SNP | MAF | N | Organ | Metabolite | Date | Treatment | Year | Gene harbouring SNP | Gene function | |
| 186 | PZB01403.4 | 1 | 1.11 | 285274032 | A/G | 0.054 | 332 | Silk | ABA | 7 | WS | 2006 | 2.8×10−8 | GRMZM2G124260 | Aldehyde oxidase, ZmAO3 |
| 251 | PZB02017.1 | 2 | 2.03 | 20958246 | A/T | 0.085 | 342 | Ear | Suc | 7 | WS | 2005 | 1.9×10−6 | GRMZM2G173784 | Casein kinase II, regulatory subunit |
| 255 | PZA03635.1 | 2 | 2.03 | 21202350 | C/T | 0.085 | 342 | Ear | Suc | 7 | WS | 2005 | 2.1×10−6 | GRMZM2G021044 | SET domain-containing protein |
| 465 | PZD00027.3 | 3 | 3.05 | 169757661 | A/C | 0.090 | 345 | Ear | PA | 0 | WW | 2006 | 7.8×10−11 | GRMZM2G110153 | MADS-domain transcription factor |
| 465 | PZD00027.3 | 3 | 3.05 | 169757661 | A/C | 0.090 | 345 | Ear | PA | 7 | WW | 2006 | 3.6×10−8 | GRMZM2G110153 | MADS-domain transcription factor |
| 947 | PZA03368.1 | 7 | 7.05 | 162878175 | C/T | 0.074 | 350 | Silk | Tot sug | 7 | WS | 2006 | 3.5×10−7 | GRMZM2G064848 | Pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase |
| 1145 | PZA03573.1 | 9 | 9.07 | 150138200 | A/G | 0.120 | 326 | Silk | Tot sug | 7–0 | WW | 2006 | 2.7×10−6 | GRMZM2G092497 | DNA cytosine methyltransferase |
| 1198 | PZA03569.2 | 10 | 10.06 | 138760685 | T/G | 0.063 | 335 | Ear | PA | 7 | WW | 2006 | 3.0×10−6 | GRMZM2G125023 | Aquaporin, MIP |
SNP number (Yan ); SNP context sequence (www.panzea.org); Chr., chromosome number; Chr. bin, bin number for maize chromosome; SNP position in base pairs numbered from the top of the respective chromosome (www.maizesequence.org Release 4a.53); MAF, minor allele fraction (fraction of lines containing the minor allele); N. number of maize genotypes for which trait data was usable for testing the SNP–trait association; P, probability that an SNP–trait association is due to random effects, uncorrected for multiple comparisons; maize identification number for gene harbouring the indicated SNP (www.maizesequence.org Release 4a.53).
Fig. 2.Gene structure of aldehyde oxidase ZmAO3 (GRMZM2G124260) on chromosome 1, bin 1.11. Gene location on the physical map of chromosome 1 is indicated in Mb. The locations of SNPs used in this study are shown, labelled with the most significant digit of context sequences PZB01403.1 to .5. Significant trait association was found for SNP 186 (in PZB01403.4). (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
Fig. 3.Phylogenetic tree of aldehyde oxidases. The arrow identifies gene in which significant association with the tissue ABA level was found. The tree was constructed using TreeView version 1.6.6 software with the Neighbor–Joining method based on ClustalX alignments of aldehyde oxidases (AOs) and xanthine dehydrogenases (XDHs) from maize (Zm prefix), rice (Os), Arabidopsis (At), human, and mouse, rooted with AtXDH NP195216.2 as the outgroup. Maize sequences are from the maize genome sequencing project (GRMZM2G prefix; http://www.maizesequence.org/index.html Release 4a.53 or 3b.50). The number at the node indicates the bootstrap value (1000 replicates). Bar=0.1 amino acid substitutions per site. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)