| Literature DB >> 24692652 |
Fabien Chardon1, Sophie Jasinski2, Monique Durandet2, Alain Lécureuil2, Fabienne Soulay2, Magali Bedu2, Philippe Guerche2, Céline Masclaux-Daubresse2.
Abstract
Sequential and monocarpic senescence are observed at vegetative and reproductive stages, respectively. Both facilitate nitrogen (N) remobilization and control the duration of carbon (C) fixation. Genetic and environmental factors control N and C resource allocation to seeds. Studies of natural variation in Arabidopsis thaliana revealed differences between accessions for leaf senescence phenotypes, seed N and C contents, and N remobilization efficiency-related traits. Here, a quantitative genetics approach was used to gain a better understanding of seed filling regulation in relation to leaf senescence and resource allocation. For that purpose, three Arabidopsis recombinant inbred line populations (Ct-1×Col-0, Cvi-0×Col-0, Bur-0×Col-0) were used to map QTL (quantitative trait loci) for ten traits related to senescence, resource allocation, and seed filling. The use of common markers across the three different maps allowed direct comparisons of the positions of the detected QTL in a single consensus map. QTL meta-analysis was then used to identify interesting regions (metaQTL) where QTL for several traits co-localized. MetaQTL were compared with positions of candidate genes known to be involved in senescence processes and flowering time. Finally, investigation of the correlation between yield and seed N concentration in the three populations suggests that leaf senescence disrupts the negative correlation generally observed between these two traits.Entities:
Keywords: Leaf senescence; flowering time.; harvest index; nitrogen and carbon allocation; yield
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24692652 PMCID: PMC4106442 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eru125
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Measured or computed traits
| Trait name | Kind | Phenotyping scoring |
|---|---|---|
| Leaf senescence | Measured | Scores of leaf senescence before flowering time by visual phenotyping of leaf yellowing, from score 0: fully green plants to score 4: yellow rosette (Diaz |
| Flowering time | Measured | Number of d following stratification to opening of first flower |
| Rosette | Measured | Dry rosette weight at harvest (mg/plant) |
| Stem | Measured | Inflorescence dry weight measured as the weight of stem and silique envelopes at harvest (mg/plant) |
| Seeds | Measured | Seed yield measured as the weight of all dry seeds (mg/plant) |
| HI | Computed | Ratio between Seeds and total plant dry weight (Seeds + Stem + Rosette) |
| RV | Computed | Ratio between reproductive organ weight (Stem + Seeds) and vegetative organ weight (Rosette) |
| Seed C% | Measured | Carbon percentage (g. (100g dry matter)–1) in seeds estimated by NIRS |
| Seed N% | Measured | Nitrogen percentage (g. (100g dry matter)–1) in seeds estimated by NIRS |
| TGW | Measured | Thousand grain (seed) weight (mg/plant) |
Descriptive statistics of traits in the three RIL populations and the parental lines
For each RIL population, mean and SD of each trait is calculated from all the RILs including three plant repeats per RIL.
| Traits1 | RIL populations | Parental lines | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Mean | Min | Max | SD | CV | Mean | Min | Max | SD | CV | Mean | Min | Max | SD | CV |
|
|
|
| ||||
| Leaf senescence | 1.4 | 0 | 4 | 1.11 | 0.79 | 0.5 | 0 | 3 | 0.73 | 1.43 | 1.0 | 0 | 2 | 0.66 | 0.68 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.6 | |||
| Rosette | 265 | 65 | 533 | 87 | 0.33 | 205 | 31 | 608 | 131 | 0.64 | 411 | 57 | 799 | 120 | 0.29 | 377 | 188 | 41 | 405 | |||
| Stem | 2128 | 908 | 3199 | 479 | 0.23 | 1617 | 631 | 2809 | 465 | 0.29 | 2347 | 877 | 3576 | 432 | 0.18 | 2302 | 1883 | 576 | 2546 | |||
| Seeds | 1454 | 614 | 2241 | 339 | 0.23 | 1056 | 326 | 1888 | 334 | 0.32 | 1243 | 78 | 1874 | 367 | 0.30 | 1583 | 1570 | 465 | 1412 | |||
| HI | 0.38 | 0.22 | 0.43 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.37 | 0.24 | 0.43 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.05 | 0.43 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.45 | 0.34 | |||
| RV | 14.8 | 7.3 | 31.2 | 4.19 | 0.28 | 17.8 | 5.9 | 48.6 | 8.67 | 0.49 | 9.5 | 4.8 | 31.0 | 3.05 | 0.32 | 10.4 | 18.8 | 27.1 | 9.9 | |||
| FT | 21.0 | 16 | 35.7 | 3.01 | 0.14 | 15.4 | 5 | 40.0 | 7.15 | 0.46 | 28.3 | 21 | 42.0 | 2.93 | 0.10 | 23.9 | 16 | 7 | 27.4 | |||
| TGW | 19 | 16 | 25 | 2 | 0.08 | 23 | 16 | 30 | 3 | 0.14 | 24 | 15 | 37 | 4 | 0.15 | 17 | 20 | 27 | 27 | |||
| Seed C% | 58.0 | 56.2 | 59.4 | 0.58 | 0.01 | 56.5 | 53.8 | 58.5 | 0.84 | 0.01 | 57.2 | 54.7 | 59.4 | 0.83 | 0.01 | 57.2 | 58.8 | 56.3 | 57.3 | |||
| Seed N% | 4.00 | 3.58 | 4.65 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 4.59 | 3.82 | 5.48 | 0.30 | 0.06 | 4.26 | 3.69 | 4.78 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 4.15 | 3.89 | 4.87 | 4.45 | |||
1Traits are described in Table 1. HI, harvest index; RV, ratio between reproductive and vegetative organ weights; FT, flowering time; TGW, thousand grain weight. Min: minimal value of the trait in the population; Max: maximal value of the trait in the population; SD: standard deviation; CV: coefficient of variation. For parental lines, only means are shown (n=10).
Fig. 1.Phenotypic variation and corresponding QTL mapping for leaf senescence in the three RIL populations, Ct-1×Col-0 (A, D), Cvi-0×Col-0 (B, E), and Bur-0×Col-0 (C, F). (A–C) Distribution of RILs among the five classes of senescence, from score 0 for fully green plants to score 4 for yellow rosettes, in the three RIL populations. (D–F) QTL mapping for leaf senescence. LOD score curves for the five chromosomes are shown. Each peak above the threshold (dashed line corresponding to 2.3 LOD) identifies a QTL.
Pearson correlation coefficients between traits in each RIL population (light grey for Ct-1×Col-0, mid grey for Cvi-0×Col-0 and dark grey for Bur-0×Col-0)
For each correlation pair, only significant correlation coefficients are shown (P<0.05). ns for non-significant
| Trait1 | Leaf Senescence | Stem | Seeds | Rosette | HI | RV | FT | Seed C% | Seed N% | TGW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf Senescence | –0.65 | –0.60 | –0.54 |
| 0.21 |
| 0.39 | –0.35 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| –0.25 |
| 0.26 | –0.42 |
|
|
| |||
| Stem | –0.65 | 0.80 | 0.64 | –0.28 |
|
| –0.49 | 0.39 |
| |
|
| 0.86 | 0.78 | –0.21 | –0.62 | 0.62 |
| –0.28 |
| ||
|
| 0.31 | 0.36 |
|
| –0.28 |
|
|
| ||
| Seeds | –0.60 | 0.80 | 0.59 | 0.33 |
|
| –0.24 |
|
| |
|
| 0.86 | 0.71 | 0.28 | –0.56 | 0.52 | 0.31 | –0.43 |
| ||
|
| 0.31 | 0.53 | 0.85 | –0.25 | –0.47 | 0.62 | –0.54 |
| ||
| Rosette | –0.54 | 0.64 | 0.59 | ns | –0.75 | 0.27 | –0.55 | 0.40 |
| |
| ns | 0.78 | 0.71 | –0.26 | –0.81 | 0.76 |
|
|
| ||
| –0.25 | 0.36 | 0.53 | 0.30 | –0.76 |
| 0.37 |
|
| ||
| HI |
| –0.28 | 0.33 |
|
| 0.48 | –0.41 |
| ||
|
| –0.21 | 0.28 | –0.26 | 0.23 | –0.29 | 0.40 | –0.32 |
| ||
|
|
| 0.85 | 0.30 | –0.27 | –0.36 | 0.62 | –0.53 |
| ||
| RV | 0.21 |
|
| –0.75 |
| –0.38 | 0.35 | –0.24 |
| |
|
| –0.62 | –0.56 | –0.81 | 0.23 | –0.75 | 0.23 |
|
| ||
| 0.26 |
| –0.25 | –0.76 | –0.27 | –0.31 | –0.25 |
|
| ||
| FT |
|
|
| 0.27 |
| –0.38 |
|
|
| |
|
| 0.62 | 0.52 | 0.76 | –0.29 | –0.75 | –0.22 |
|
| ||
| –0.42 | –0.28 | –0.47 |
| –0.36 | –0.31 | –0.24 | 0.28 |
| ||
| Seed C% | 0.39 | –0.49 | –0.24 | –0.55 | 0.48 | 0.35 |
| –0.86 |
| |
|
|
| 0.31 |
| 0.40 | 0.23 | –0.22 | –0.88 |
| ||
|
|
| 0.62 | 0.37 | 0.62 | –0.25 | –0.24 | –0.85 |
| ||
| Seed N% | –0.35 | 0.39 |
| 0.40 | –0.41 | –0.24 |
| –0.86 |
| |
|
| –0.28 | –0.43 |
| –0.32 |
|
| –0.88 |
| ||
|
|
| –0.54 |
| –0.53 |
| 0.28 | –0.85 |
| ||
| TGW |
| 0.32 |
|
| –0.22 |
|
|
|
| |
| –0.23 | –0.33 | –0.26 | –0.48 | 0.24 | 0.47 | –0.52 | 0.29 |
| ||
| –0.36 |
|
| 0.38 |
| –0.31 | 0.47 | 0.30 |
|
1Traits are described in Table 1. HI, harvest index; RV, ratio between reproductive and vegetative organ weights; FT, flowering time; TGW, thousand grain weight.
Fig. 2.Mapping of 101 QTL detected for leaf senescence and for traits related to resource allocation, onto a single consensus map. Each QTL is shown by a horizontal line, indicating the most likely position, with a vertical line indicating the confidence interval around this position. Line style indicates the population where the QTL was detected. Line colour shows the trait affected. Numbers on the right correspond to the genetic markers used to establish the consensus genetic map (Simon ).
Fig. 3.QTL Meta-analysis results in a synthetic genetic model with 13 metaQTL. MetaQTL are shown in coloured squares on the five chromosomes. Dash curves, named overview curves in Chardon , represent the density of detected QTL. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
Meta-analysis results for ten traits related to leaf senescence and resource allocation in seeds. For each locus (metaQTL), populations and traits for which QTL were detected are indicated
Estimated effects of each metaQTL on traits in each population are shown when the effect is significant. Blue and red highlight negative and positive effects, respectively, of the Col-0 allele compared with the Ct-1, Cvi-0, and Bur-0 alleles. The colour intensity corresponds to the strength of the effect: the stronger the effect, the darker the colour.
|
|
Traits are described in Table 1. HI, harvest index; RV, ratio between reproductive and vegetative organ weights; FT, flowering time; TGW, thousand grain weight
Fig. 4.MetaQTL (mQTL) were compared with the position of candidate genes for flowering time, senescence, resource allocation and the SG1 locus. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
Fig. 5.Effect of meta-QTL estimated on Seeds and Seed N% in the three RIL populations: Cvi-0×Col-0 (A), Bur-0×Col-0 (B), and Ct-1×Col-0 (C). The size of the circle is proportional to the effect of meta-QTL on leaf senescence. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)