| Literature DB >> 24914686 |
Jennifer R Mandel1, Edward V McAssey1, Savithri Nambeesan1, Elena Garcia-Navarro2, John M Burke1.
Abstract
Evolutionary analyses aimed at detecting the molecular signature of selection during crop domestication and/or improvement can be used to identify genes or genomic regions of likely agronomic importance. Here, we describe the DNA sequence-based characterization of a pool of candidate genes for crop-related traits in sunflower. These genes, which were identified based on homology to genes of known effect in other study systems, were initially sequenced from a panel of improved lines. All genes that exhibited a paucity of sequence diversity, consistent with the possible effects of selection during the evolution of cultivated sunflower, were then sequenced from a panel of wild sunflower accessions an outgroup. These data enabled formal tests for the effects of selection in shaping sequence diversity at these loci. When selection was detected, we further sequenced these genes from a panel of primitive landraces, thereby allowing us to investigate the likely timing of selection (i.e., domestication vs. improvement). We ultimately identified seven genes that exhibited the signature of positive selection during either domestication or improvement. Genetic mapping of a subset of these genes revealed co-localization between candidates for genes involved in the determination of flowering time, seed germination, plant growth/development, and branching and QTL that were previously identified for these traits in cultivated × wild sunflower mapping populations.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24914686 PMCID: PMC4051887 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099620
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
List of sunflower accessions analyzed in this study.
| Panel | Name | USDA Accession Number |
|
| Ames 14400 | PI 649851 |
| Ann-1114 | PI 613727 | |
| Ames 1473 | PI 413027 | |
| Ames 1455 | PI 413011 | |
| Ames 1516 | PI 413067 | |
| Ames 23238 | PI 649853 | |
| Ames 23940 | PI 649854 | |
| Ann-646 | PI 435552 | |
|
| Havasupai | PI 369358 |
| Hidatsa | PI 600721 | |
| Hopi | PI 432504 | |
| Mandan | PI 600717 | |
| Maiz Negro | PI 650761 | |
| Seneca | PI 369360 | |
|
| Mammoth | PI 476853 |
| HA 234 | PI 599778 | |
| HA 316 | NSL 208764 | |
| HA 404 | PI 597368 | |
| HA 821 | PI 599984 | |
| RHA 280 | PI 552943 | |
| RHA 328 | NSL 202284 | |
| RHA 358 | PI 531071 | |
| VIR 847 | PI 386230 | |
| RHA 408 | PI 603989 | |
| RHA 426 | PI 617099 | |
| RHA 801 | PI 599768 | |
| SF 33 | --- | |
| SF 230 | --- |
*Accessions from the French National Institute for Agricultural Research.
Population genetic diversity statistics for candidate and neutral/control genes.
| Type | Panel | N | S (SE) | Sig. | π (SE) | Sig. | θ (SE) | Sig. |
|
| W | 24 | 6.25 (1.48) | X | 0.022 (0.005) | X | 0.024 (0.005) | X |
| P | 6 | 3.77 (1.68) | XY | 0.012 (0.008) | XY | 0.013 (0.006) | XY | |
| I | 24 | 0.91 (0.33) | Y | 0.0028 (0.001) | Y | 0.0029 (0.001) | Y | |
|
| W | 11 | 7.18 (1.55) | A | 0.039 (0.006) | A | 0.043 (0.008) | A |
| P | 11 | 3.55 (0.93) | B | 0.027 (0.005) | B | 0.025 (0.005) | B | |
| I | 11 | 3.27 (1.10) | B | 0.020 (0.005) | B | 0.014 (0.004) | C |
Panel: W = wild, P = primitive, I = improved; N = number of genes sequenced; S = number of segregating synonymous sites; π = nucleotide diversity for synonymous sites; θ = Waterson's theta for synonymous sites; Sig. = results of posterior Tukey-Kramer test with different letters representing significantly different values. ANOVA results: Neutral genes: θ (F 2, 20 = 8.58, p<0.0001), π (F 2, 20 = 8.73, p<0.0001), S (F 2, 20 = 4.89, p = 0.0009). Candidate genes: π (F 2, 10 = 5.26, p = 0.001), θ (F 2, 10 = 5.19, p = 0.01), S, (F 2, 10 = 3.56, p = 0.03).
ANOVA for candidate genes performed on the six candidate genes that were sequenced in all three panels.
Population genetic diversity statistics for the invariant genes tested for evidence of positive selection.
| Gene | Trait | Panel | L |
| S | π | θ | Sig. |
|
| Pleiotropic effects on | W | 549 | 48.67 | 2 | 0.01761 | 0.01585 | ns |
| plant development | P | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| I | 549 | 48.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns | ||
|
| Branching | W | 383 | 12.17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 383 | 12.17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns | ||
|
| Plant growth; regulation | W | 310 | 40.81 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns |
| of auxin | P | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| I | 310 | 40.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns | ||
|
| Flowering | W | 483 | 114.17 | 9 | 0.03213 | 0.02787 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 483 | 114.11 | 4 | 0.00518 | 0.00919 | ns | ||
|
| Plant growth | W | 375 | 88.67 | 3 | 0.01015 | 0.0136 | ns |
|
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| I | 375 | 88.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns | ||
|
| Plant growth | W | 380 | 37.98 | 2 | 0.00943 | 0.01587 | ns |
|
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| I | 380 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns | ||
|
| Fruit development | W | 435 | 43.17 | 0 | 0.02978 | 0.0268 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 435 | 43.17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns | ||
|
| Seed development | W | 639 | 88.31 | 7 | 0.028370.02493 | 0.02493 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 639 | 89 | 4 | 0.0124 | 0.01204 | ns | ||
|
| Cell fate/division affecting | W | 625 | 90.04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns |
|
| plant development | P | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| I | 625 | 90.58 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns | ||
|
| Flowering | W | 737 | 38.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 737 | 38.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns | ||
|
| Branching | W | 367 | 86.11 | 11 | 0.02669 | 0.0385 | ns |
|
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| I | 367 | 85.98 | 2 | 0.00391 | 0.00598 | ns | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| Branching | W | 104 | 0 | - | - | - | - |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 104 | 0 | - | - | - | - | ||
|
| Branching | W | 227 | 52.25 | 11 | 0.05391 | 0.06345 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 225 | 52.37 | 4 | 0.0202 | 0.0202 | ns | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| Flowering | W | 447 | 46.5 | 2 | 0.02085 | 0.01424 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 447 | 46.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ns | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| Flowering | W | 457 | 103.48 | 14 | 0.0379 | 0.04254 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 457 | 103.42 | 5 | 0.01029 | 0.01267 | ns | ||
|
| Root/shoot development | W | 411 | 101.92 | 11 | 0.02743 | 0.03253 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 411 | 101.93 | 2 | 0.0063 | 0.00504 | ns | ||
|
| Flowering | W | 246 | 50.31 | 3 | 0.017560.01797 | 0.01797 | ns |
| P | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| I | 246 | 50.33 | 1 | 0.00841 | 0.00511 | ns | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Panel, W = wild, P = primitive, I = improved; L = alignment length in basepairs; l = number of synonymous sites; S = number of segregating synonymous sites; π = nucleotide diversity for synonymous sites; θ = Waterson's theta for synonymous sites; Sig. = ML-HKA significance: ns = not significant, P<0.001 = ***, P<0.01 = **, P<0.05 = *. Bold genes are those that showed significant evidence of selection. Note: we were unable to successfully sequence the IPT5 gene in P.
Figure 1Nucleotide diversity in wild, primitive, and improved sunflower for the genes shown to be under positive selection during the evolution of cultivated sunflower.
Error bars indicate standard deviations. Note that we were unable to obtain sequence information for the IPT5 gene in the primitive panel.
Figure 2Co-localization of candidates for genes under selection and QTL for flowering time, branching, germination.
, and a number of plant growth and development traits that were previously identified in an improved x wild (shown in blue) or in both an improved x wild and a primitive x wild (shown in purple) sunflower QTL mapping population. QTL presented as 1-LOD are marker with an asterisk. All QTL and candidate gene positions are presented in the context of the sunflower consensus map (Bowers et al. 2012).