| Literature DB >> 21447154 |
Abhishek Bohra1, Anuja Dubey, Rachit K Saxena, R Varma Penmetsa, K N Poornima, Naresh Kumar, Andrew D Farmer, Gudipati Srivani, Hari D Upadhyaya, Ragini Gothalwal, S Ramesh, Dhiraj Singh, Kulbhushan Saxena, P B Kavi Kishor, Nagendra K Singh, Christopher D Town, Gregory D May, Douglas R Cook, Rajeev K Varshney.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] is an important legume crop of rainfed agriculture. Despite of concerted research efforts directed to pigeonpea improvement, stagnated productivity of pigeonpea during last several decades may be accounted to prevalence of various biotic and abiotic constraints and the situation is exacerbated by availability of inadequate genomic resources to undertake any molecular breeding programme for accelerated crop improvement. With the objective of enhancing genomic resources for pigeonpea, this study reports for the first time, large scale development of SSR markers from BAC-end sequences and their subsequent use for genetic mapping and hybridity testing in pigeonpea.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21447154 PMCID: PMC3079640 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-11-56
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Figure 1Annotation pipeline for analysis of BESs. This pipeline resulted in selection of non-redundant genomic BAC-ends which excluded organeller sequences, and further identification, annotation of non-redundant sequences together with SSR discovery, selection and primer designing.
BAC-end sequence (BES) characteristics
| Annotation | Retro-element | Genes | G + RE | Transposable
| G + TE | Non-annotated | Totals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17928 | 17255 | 2,566 | 327 | 148 | 44,157 | 82,381 | |
| 7,401 | 11,233 | 913 | 201 | 44 | 32,147 | 51,939 | |
| 2.42 | 1.54 | 2.81 | 1.63 | 3.36 | 1.37 | 1.69 | |
| 58,25,082 | 81,60,879 | 7,59,831 | 1,54,620 | 44,218 | 2,02,54,481 | 3,51,99,111 | |
| 302 | 1,083 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 3,188 | 4,597 | |
| 593 | 1,483 | 21 | 15 | 0 | 4100 | 6,212 | |
| 10.2 | 18.2 | 2.8 | 9.7 | 0 | 20 | 17.7 | |
| 124 | 646 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1943 | 2,719 | |
| 32 | 241 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 568 | 839 | |
| 5.0 ± 1.7 | 5.4 ± 1.7 | na | na | na | 5.8 ± 2.1 | 5.7 ± 2.0 | |
| 0.53 ± 0.20 | 0.58 ± 0.18 | na | na | na | 0.57 ± .19 | 0.57 ± 0.18 |
aTotal unique clusters represent the total number of sequence clusters plus the number of singleton (non-clustered) sequences.
bTotal unique sequence represents the sum of the nucleotide length of all unique sequence clusters.
cThree polymorphic markers are from BAC ends annotated as "chloroplast" and are not listed in this table.
d2,964 SSR markers were derived from 2,719 BESs, with some BESs containing multiple SSRs
Figure 2Distribution of BAC end categories according to BES cluster depth. Cluster depth supported the repetitive nature of mobile genetic elements while genic regions were mostly associated with less repetitive sequences.
Figure 3Distribution and frequency of SSRs in differing genome fractions. Maximum frequency and maximum amount of SSRs was exhibited by non annotated regions followed by the regions containing 'genes'.
List of genotypes used and their characters
| Accession ID | Species | Maturity group | cDM | dDF | Seed color |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICP 28 | - | - | - | - | |
| ICPW 94 | - | - | - | - | |
| ICPB 2049 | aMD | 160 | 118 | B | |
| ICPL 99050 | MD | 175 | 123 | B | |
| ICPL 20096 | MD | 185 | 127 | B | |
| ICPL 332 | MD | 178 | 118 | B | |
| ICP 7035 | MD | 192 | 130 | P | |
| TTB7 | - | - | - | - | |
| ICPL 87091 | bSD | 121 | 74 | C | |
| ICPL 87119 | MD | 180 | 122 | B | |
| ICP 8863 | MD | 176 | 114 | B | |
| ICPL 20097 | MD | 187 | 131 | B | |
| ICPL 88034 | SD | 137 | 88 | B | |
| ICPL 84023 | SD | 134 | 68 | B | |
| ICPR 2671 | MD | 180 | 122 | B | |
| ICPA 2043 | MD | 175 | 115 | B | |
| ICPR 3467 | - | - | - | - | |
| ICPR 2438 | - | - | - | - | |
| ICPA 2039 | MD | 122 | 80 | ||
| ICPR 2447 | - | - | - | - | |
| ICPL 20108 | MD | 181 | 125 | C | |
| ICP 2376 | MD | 176 | 118 | C |
aMD: medium duration, bSD: short duration, cDM: days to maturation, dDF: days to flowering, B: brown, P: purple, C: cream
Distribution of polymorphic markers into different repeat classes
| SSR type | Repeat classes | Number of markers
| Number of markers
| Number of polymorphic
| PIC value | Number of
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 657 | 626 (95.28%) | 227 (36.26%) | 0.08-0.88(0.58) | 2-12 (5.74) | ||
| NN | 639 | 592 (92.64%) | 236 (39.86%) | 0.08-0.90 (0.60) | 2-14 (6.55) | |
| NNN | 200 | 194 (97%) | 66 (34.02%) | 0.08-0.85 (0.60) | 2-13 (5.87) | |
| NNNN | 62 | 61(98.38%) | 14 (22.95%) | 0.28-0.81 (0.50) | 3-9 (4.71) | |
| NNNNN | 10 | 10 (100%) | 2 (20%) | 0.52-0.76 (0.64) | 5-7 (6) | |
| NNNNNN | 43 | 43 (100%) | 10 (23.25%) | 0.52-0.76 (0.64) | 2-7 (4.4) | |
| Total | 954 | 900 (94.33%) | 328 (36.44%) | |||
| NN | 1,006 | 987 (98.11%) | 219 (22.18%) | 0.08-0.83 (0.53) | 2-9 (4.9) | |
| NNN | 455 | 451 (99.12%) | 68 (15.07%) | 0.08-0.74 (0.48) | 2-6 (4.4) | |
| Total | 1,461 | 1,438 (98.42%) | 287 (19.95%) | |||
| Grand Total | 3,072 | 2,964 (96.48%) | 842 (28.40%) |
SSR polymorphism status on 13 mapping populations
| Mapping parents | Number of
| Number of polymorphic
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICP 28 × ICPW 94 | PB | 79 | 378 |
| ICPB 2049 × ICPL 99050 | FW | 370 | 103 |
| ICP 332 × ICPL 7035 | SMD | - | 84 |
| ICPL 332 × ICPL 20096 | FW and SMD | 384 | 52 |
| ICPL 87119 × ICPL 87091 | FW and SMD | 124 | 114 |
| ICPL 8863 × ICPL 20097 | SMD | 384 | 143 |
| ICPL 88034 × ICPL 84023 | WL | - | 106 |
| ICPA 2043 × ICPR 2671 | FR | 243 | 179 |
| ICPA 2043 × ICPR 3467 | FR | 261 | 173 |
| ICPA 2039 × ICPR 2447 | FR | 123 | 149 |
| ICPA 2039 × ICPR 2438 | FR | 240 | 137 |
| ICPL 20102 × ICP 2376 | FW | - | 84 |
| TTB7 × ICP 7035 | SMD | 144 | 80 |
aPB: pod borer, FW: Fusarium wilt, SMD: sterility mosaic disease, WL: water logging,
FR: fertility restoration
Figure 4Reference genetic map of pigeonpea derived from an inter-specific F. Initially, a skeleton map with normally segregating markers was constructed using MAPMAKER/EXP 3.0 while further integration of additional markers was performed with Joinmap 3.0 by keeping the mapmaker order as "fixed". Distances between the loci (in cM) are shown to the left of the linkage group and all the loci at the right side of the map.
Details on marker groups (MGs) for multiplex assays for assessing purity of two hybrids
| Hybrid/Marker
| Number of
| Marker names |
|---|---|---|
| MG 1 | 7 | CcM0724:CcM2626:CcM2300:CcM1837:CcM1565:CcM3024:CcM1246 |
| MG 2 | 7 | CcM2350:CcM0737:CcM2517:CcM1825:CcM2228:CcM0516:CcM0171 |
| MG 3 | 6 | CcM2802:CcM2704:CcM2097:CcM0021:CcM1459:CcM0752 |
| MG 4 | 6 | CcM1895:CcM2076:CcM2948:CcM1707:CcM2257:CcM2281 |
| MG 5 | 5 | CcM1232:CcM1053:CcM1139:CcM2401:CcM0207 |
| MG 6 | 4 | CcM2370:CcM0374:CcM0257:CcM0246 |
| MG 7 | 2 | CcM1984:CcM0252 |
| MG 8 | 2 | CcM1385:CcM2453 |
| MG 9 | 2 | CcM1559:CcM0948 |
| MG 1 | 8 | CcM1825:CcM0878:CcM2672:CcM0057:CcM1713:CcM1651:CcM1647:CcM2330 |
| MG 2 | 6 | CcM1338:CcM1669:CcM2492:CcM2413:CcM0858:CcM1251 |
| MG 3 | 5 | CcM0121:CcM0008:CcM0257:CcM2380:CcM1371 |
| MG 4 | 5 | CcM1559:CcM2241:CcM1895:CcM0402:CcM1406 |
| MG 5 | 4 | CcM2386:CcM2449:CcM1565:CcM0207 |
| MG 6 | 2 | CcM0522:CcM1438 |
| MG 7 | 2 | CcM2164:CcM2781 |
| MG 8 | 2 | CcM0133:CcM0195 |
| MG 9 | 2 | CcM0481:CcM2595 |
| MG10 | 2 | CcM0948:CcM1282 |
| MG11 | 2 | CcM1616:CcM0252 |
| MG12 | 2 | CcM2982:CcM1078 |
aOut of 42 informative markers identified for ICPH 2671, only 41 primers could be grouped in different multiplexes and the marker CcM1277 could not be multiplexed in any marker group.
Figure 5Electropherogram display for the multiplex set MG 1 for purity assessment of hybrid ICPH 2671. This figure shows the analysis (GENEMAPPER output) of seven SSR markers of MG1 for ICPH 2671 in a single capillary. SSR markers labeled with the same fluorescence dye are analyzed in individual panels. A. Analysis of two VIC (green) labeled SSR markers, B. Two NED (black) labeled SSR markers, C. One PET (red) labeled SSR markers, and D. Analysis of two FAM (blue) labeled SSR markers.