| Literature DB >> 22870400 |
Chunfang Wang1, Guanqing Jia, Hui Zhi, Zhengang Niu, Yang Chai, Wei Li, Yongfang Wang, Haiquan Li, Ping Lu, Baohua Zhao, Xianmin Diao.
Abstract
As an ancient cereal of great importance for dryland agriculture even today, foxtail millet (Setaria italica) is fast becoming a new plant genomic model crop. A genotypic analysis of 250 foxtail millet landraces, which represent 1% of foxtail millet germplasm kept in the Chinese National Gene Bank (CNGB), was conducted with 77 SSRs covering the foxtail millet genome. A high degree of molecular diversity among the landraces was found, with an average of 20.9 alleles per locus detected. STRUCTURE, neighbor-jointing, and principal components analyses classify the accessions into three clusters (topmost hierarchy) and, ultimately, four conservative subgroups (substructuring within the topmost clusters) in total, which are in good accordance with eco-geographical distribution in China. The highest subpopulation diversity was identified in the accessions of Pop3 from the middle regions of the Yellow River, followed by accessions in Pop1 from the downstream regions of the Yellow River, suggesting that foxtail millet was domesticated in the Yellow River drainage area first and then spread to other parts of the country. Linkage disequilibrium (LD) decay of less than 20 cM of genetic distance in the foxtail millet landrace genome was observed, which suggests that it could be possible to achieve resolution down to the 20 cM level for association mapping.Entities:
Keywords: foxtail millet; landrace; linkage disequilibrium; population structure
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22870400 PMCID: PMC3385983 DOI: 10.1534/g3.112.002907
Source DB: PubMed Journal: G3 (Bethesda) ISSN: 2160-1836 Impact factor: 3.154
Origin of landraces selected in this trial
| Eco-regions | Province | No. of Accessions |
|---|---|---|
| Early-spring sowing region (ESR) | Heilongjiang | 34 |
| Spring sowing region (SR) | Shanxi | 19 |
| Shannxi | 14 | |
| Gansu | 16 | |
| Inner Mongolia | 17 | |
| North Hebei | 3 | |
| Qinghai | 10 | |
| Tibet | 5 | |
| Xinjiang | 9 | |
| Ningxia | 8 | |
| Summer and spring sowing region (SSSR) | Beijing | 5 |
| South Hebei | 19 | |
| Henan | 16 | |
| Shandong | 15 | |
| Tianjin | 2 | |
| Jilin | 11 | |
| Liaoning | 9 | |
| Southern China region (SCR) | Sichuan | 8 |
| Hubei | 4 | |
| Hunan | 3 | |
| Guangxi | 5 | |
| Guangdong | 1 | |
| Jiangsu | 5 | |
| Zhejiang | 1 | |
| Jiangxi | 5 | |
| Hainan | 4 | |
| Guizhou | 1 | |
| Yunnan | 1 |
Chromosomal locations of SSR markers used for this study
| Chromosome No. | No. of Markers | Marker Name |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 | b165 p3 p8 p88 p33 b153 p58 b218 b126 p16 |
| 2 | 3 | b242 p80 MPGD13 |
| 3 | 8 | b163 b186 p61 b225 p98 b101 MPGD32 |
| 4 | 6 | b109 p2 p42 b236 b247 p100 |
| 5 | 5 | p17x b223 b237 si017 |
| 6 | 4 | p10 b263 b159 MPGA50 |
| 7 | 6 | p59 b123 b180 p45 p29 b200 |
| 8 | 3 | b185 b258 si227 |
| 9 | 15 | b269 p4 p44 b241 b246 b187 b217 b166 b174 b171 p20 p41 b102 si119 |
| Unclear | 17 | b224 b169 b266 b250 b249 b189 b182 b181 b117 p89 p78 b145 p32 p14 B1(AGDZ23-35) |
Primers from Jia , except as noted.
Primers developed by Gupta .
Primers developed by X. Diao’s lab, China (Table S2).
Primer sources from BAC sequencing by Bennetzen’s lab, Georgia (Table S2).
Molecular diversity of model-based subpopulations inferred by STRUCTURE
| Subpopulation | Sample Size | Genotype No./Locus | Allele No./Locus | Gene Diversity/Locus | PIC/Locus | Population-specific Allele No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pop1 | 96 | 15.96 | 14.54 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 153 |
| Pop2N | 33 | 9.57 | 9.10 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 43 |
| Pop2S | 24 | 9.66 | 9.50 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 79 |
| Pop3 | 97 | 16.94 | 15.88 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 239 |
PIC, Polymorphism information content.
Pairwise estimates of Fst and Nei’s genetic distance based on 77 SSR loci among four model based subpopulations
| Subpopulation | Pop1 | Pop2N | Pop2S | Pop3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pop1 | 2.1345 | 2.3403 | 2.7991 | |
| Pop2N | 0.3117 | 2.4809 | 2.1574 | |
| Pop2S | 0.3384 | 0.4003 | 2.3038 | |
| Pop3 | 0.2095 | 0.3241 | 0.3498 |
Fst estimates appear above the diagonal and pairwise genetic distance appears below the diagonal.
Genetic diversity of 250 foxtail millet landrace accessions assessed by 77 SSR markers
| Per Locus | Na | Ne | I | Genotype No. | Gene Diversity | PIC | Obs_Hom |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | 20.9351 | 9.9101 | 2.3868 | 24.5455 | 0.8571 | 0.8420 | 0.9859 |
| Range | 6∼47 | 2.6732∼23.8019 | 1.3196∼3.3637 | 6∼46 | 0.6310∼0.9580 | 0.5937∼0.9563 | 0.9440 ∼1 |
| SD | 8.9873 | 5.4482 | 0.5806 | 10.0322 | 0.0906 | 0.1041 | 0.0126 |
Na, observed number of alleles; Ne, effective number of alleles (Kimura and Crow 1964); I, Shannon’s information index (Lewontin 1972); PIC, Polymorphism information content; Obs_Hom, Observed homozygosity.
Figure 1 The two different methods for determining optimal value of K and inferred population structure of Chinese foxtail millet landrace accessions. (A) The ad hoc procedure described by Pritchard . (B) The second order of statistics (△K) based on Evanno . (C) Optimal population structure (K = 3) and substructuring (K = 2) of Pop2. Each landrace is represented by a single vertical line, each color represents one cluster or subpopulations, and the length of the colored segment shows the landrace’s estimated proportion of membership in that cluster as calculated by STRUCTURE.
Figure 2 Neighbor-jointing (NJ) analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) of Chinese foxtail millet landraces. (A) Unrooted neighbor-jointing tree of 250 landraces; each colored branch represents one accession collected from corresponding inferred subpopulation. (B) NJ tree of inferred subgroups based on Nei’s genetic distance; bootstrap value (out of 1000) is indicated at the branch point. (C) Differentiation of genotypes from subpopulations based on the first three principal components derived from 77 SSR markers diversity analysis.
Figure 3 Map of the collection locations of Chinese foxtail millet landraces grouped by four subpopulations inferred in the investigations. Diverse color spots represent individuals from the various subpopulations. The four eco-regions in China for foxtail millet are illustrated by orange circles and lines.
AMOVA for inferred subpopulations
| Source of Variations | Sum of Variances | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Within populations | Pop1 | 11854.7325 | 0.3606 |
| Pop2N | 3737.4325 | 0.1137 | |
| Pop2S | 2874.5608 | 0.0874 | |
| Pop3 | 12050.7434 | 0.3666 | |
| Within individuals | Pop1 | 141.0000 | 0.0043 |
| Pop2N | 54.0000 | 0.0016 | |
| Pop2S | 26.0000 | 0.0008 | |
| Pop3 | 104.0000 | 0.0032 | |
| Among populations | 2028.5863 | 0.0617 | |
| Total | 32871.0556 | 1.0000 |
Percentage of SSR locus pairs in significant (P < 0.05) LD and LD statistics D’ and r2 of Chinese foxtail millet landrace populations
| No. of Significant Marker Pairs in LD | No. of Marker Pairs Evaluated | Fraction of Locus Pairs (%) | Extent of LD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D’ | r2 | ||||
| Pop1 | 537 | 2836 | 18.94 | 0.536 | 0.017 |
| Pop2N | 382 | 2739 | 13.95 | 0.719 | 0.057 |
| Pop2S | 484 | 2774 | 17.45 | 0.808 | 0.077 |
| Pop3 | 575 | 2884 | 19.94 | 0.560 | 0.017 |
| All | 1602 | 2844 | 56.33 | 0.426 | 0.007 |
Figure 4 Scatterplot of linkage disequilibrium (LD) statistics D’ (A) and r2 (B) between SSR pairs vs. intermarker genetic distance (cM) for the whole population. The observed values for interchromosomal markers are compiled in a single file at 350 cM.