| Literature DB >> 22931513 |
Catherine Bodénès1, Emilie Chancerel, Oliver Gailing, Giovanni G Vendramin, Francesca Bagnoli, Jerome Durand, Pablo G Goicoechea, Carolina Soliani, Fiorella Villani, Claudia Mattioni, Hans Peter Koelewijn, Florent Murat, Jerome Salse, Guy Roussel, Christophe Boury, Florian Alberto, Antoine Kremer, Christophe Plomion.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic markers and linkage mapping are basic prerequisites for comparative genetic analyses, QTL detection and map-based cloning. A large number of mapping populations have been developed for oak, but few gene-based markers are available for constructing integrated genetic linkage maps and comparing gene order and QTL location across related species.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22931513 PMCID: PMC3493355 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-12-153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Figure 1Relationships between the four objectives of this study. Inputs, outputs and species involved.
Description of the five full-sib mapping populations (N: sample size used for linkage mapping)
| 3P x A4 | P1 | 92 | 44°44 N, 0.46°W | France | |
| 11P x QS29 | P2 | 84 | 44°44 N, 0.46°W | France | |
| QS21 x QS28 | P3 | 78 | 44°44 N, 0.46°W | France | |
| SL03 x EF03 | P4 | 101 | 51°53'N, 9°93'E | Germany | |
| AltP1 x AltP2 | P5 | 96 | 51°98'N, 5°66'E | The Netherlands |
Summary of polymorphism statistics for the five pedigrees (P1 to P5), Na not available
| tested loci | 321 | 434 | 406 | Na | Na | |||||
| polymorphic loci | 274 (85%) | 211 (49%) | 243 (60%) | 145 (% Na) | 143 (% Na) | |||||
| marker type 1:1:1:1 | 133 | 110 | 130 | Na | 70 | |||||
| 1:1 | 134 | 96 | 100 | Na | 63 | |||||
| 1:2:1 | 7 | 5 | 13 | Na | 10 | |||||
| EST-SSR | 229 | 167 | 217 | 122 | 125 | |||||
| g-SSR | 45 | 44 | 26 | 23 | 18 | |||||
| | female | male | female | male | female | male | female | male | female | male |
| genotyped offspring | 46 | | 84 | | 78 | | 96 | | 101 | |
| discarded offspring | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 11 |
| polymorphic loci | ||||||||||
| discarded loci | 0.5% (1) | 0% (0) | 0.6% (1) | 0.7% (1) | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 2% (2) | 0% (0) | 20% (20) | 15% (16) |
| distorded | 2.4% (5) | 1.5% (3) | 1.8% (3) | 6.9% (10) | 2.1% (4) | 1.8% (3) | 2.7% (3) | 0.9% (1) | 2% (2) | 3.9% (4) |
| unlinked loci | 4.3% (9) | 6% (12) | 4% (7) | 7.6% (11) | 0.5% (1) | 0.6% (1) | 0% (0) | 0.9% (1) | 23% (23) | 25% (26) |
| mapped loci | 93% (190) | 93% (180) | 933% (158) | 85% (122) | 975% (185) | 98% (167) | 95% (105) | 98% (112) | 55% (55) | 55% (57) |
Type of SSR motifs for the five pedigrees
| di | 503 | 200 (0.4%) | 132 (0.26%) | 171 (0.34%) |
| tri | 259 | 163 (0.63%) | 58 (0.22%) | 38 (0.15%) |
| hexa | 59 | 16 (0.27%) | 4 (0.07%) | 1 (0.02%) |
Figure 2Information gained by genotyping several pedigrees (P1 to P5).
Figure 3Distribution of common loci per LG for at least two maps.
Figure 4Number of shared loci between two to ten parental maps.
LG size (in cM) for both species, and
| 84.4 | 116 | 81.5 | 62.3 | 76.8 | 74 | 63.6 | 101 | 71.1 | 76.6 | 61.3 | 64.2 | 933 | 77.8 | |
| 81.4 | 84.8 | 64.8 | 47.5 | 64.2 | 62.8 | 47 | 66.5 | 120 | 48 | 31.4 | 48.3 | 767 | 63.9 |
Figure 5LG consensus species maps of and
Mean distance between two loci for each LG and both species, and
| 2.8 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 3.3 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.9 | 2.6 | |
| 3.4 | 2.0 | 4 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 3.9 | 2.1 | 4.1 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.9 |
Segregating and mapped markers in
| genotyped samples | | 90 | |
| polymorphic loci | | 555 | |
| segregation type | 1:1 | 502 | |
| | 1:1:1:1 | 50 | |
| | 1:2:1 | 3 | |
| | | female | male |
| markers type | RAPD | 183 | 149 |
| | AFLP | 31 | 14 |
| | EST-P | 32 | 25 |
| | gSSR | 27 | 28 |
| | EST-SSR | 60 | 55 |
| | total | 333 | 271 |
| distorted loci | | 12 (3.6%) | 8 (3%) |
| discarded loci | | 20 | 10 |
| unlinked loci | | 7 | 15 |
| mapped loci | 306 (92%) | 246 (91%) | |
Correspondence between LG in (this study) and (following the nomenclature of Casasoli et al. [[27]])
| 1 | 6 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 8 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 5 | 4 |
| 6 | 11 |
| 7 | 5 |
| 8 | 7 |
| 9 | 9 |
| 10 | 10 |
| 11 | 3 |
| 12 | 12 |
Figure 6Synteny between and for LG1. Loci in red are common for both species, loci in green are located as accessory loci (theta/LOD), parts of linkage group which are represented by the same colour correspond to homologous segments between the two species.
Figure 7Syntenic relationships between oak and , grape, poplar, soybean genomes. Schematic representation of the orthologs identified between the grape chromosomes (g1 to g12) used as a reference, and the Arabidopsis (a1 to a5), poplar (p1 to p19), Medicago (m1 to m8), soybean (s1 to s20) and oak (o1 to o12) chromosomes. Each line represents an orthologous gene. The seven different colors used to represent the blocks reflect the eudicot origin from the seven ancestral chromosomes.
Figure 8Duplication relationships within the oak genome. The 5 major interchromosomal duplications in oak are illustrated. Each line represents a duplicated gene. The different colours reflect the origin of the eudicots from the seven ancestral chromosomes. Duplications were visualized using the circos software (http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/circos/.
Figure 9Oak genome paleohistory. The oak chromosomes are represented with a seven colour code to illuminate the evolution of segments from a common ancestor with seven chromosomes (A1-A7). The lineage specific shuffling events (such as chromosome fusion, CF) that have shaped the modern oak karyotype from the n = 7 or 21 ancestors are mentioned on the figure.