| Literature DB >> 25143963 |
Rocío Pineda-Martos1, Antonio J Pujadas-Salvà2, José M Fernández-Martínez1, Kiril Stoyanov3, Leonardo Velasco1, Begoña Pérez-Vich1.
Abstract
Orobanche cumana is a holoparasitic plant naturally distributed from central Asia to south-eastern Europe, where it parasitizes wild Asteraceae species. It is also an important parasitic weed of sunflower crops. The objective of this research was to investigate genetic diversity, population structure, and virulence on sunflower of O. cumana populations parasitizing wild plants in eastern Bulgaria. Fresh tissue of eight O. cumana populations and mature seeds of four of them were collected in situ on wild hosts. Genetic diversity and population structure were studied with SSR markers and compared to weedy populations. Two main gene pools were identified in Bulgarian populations, with most of the populations having intermediate characteristics. Cross-inoculation experiments revealed that O. cumana populations collected on wild species possessed similar ability to parasitize sunflower to those collected on sunflower. The results were explained on the basis of an effective genetic exchange between populations parasitizing sunflower crops and those parasitizing wild species. The occurrence of bidirectional gene flow may have an impact on wild populations, as new physiological races continuously emerge in weedy populations. Also, genetic variability of wild populations may favour the ability of weedy populations to overcome sunflower resistance mechanisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25143963 PMCID: PMC4131075 DOI: 10.1155/2014/150432
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Host species, collecting site, characteristics, and number of individuals analyzed for the studied Orobanche cumana populations.
| Population | Host species | Collecting site | Region | Latitude, Longitude, Altitude | Year |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| CUMBUL-1 |
| Bulgaria, Burgas, Atanasovsko Lake | South-Eastern Bulgaria | 42°33′02.7′′N; 27°29′24′′E; 14 m | 2006 | 16 |
| CUMBUL-2 |
| Bulgaria, Burgas, Pomorie-Aheloj | South-Eastern Bulgaria | 42°37′02.8′′N; 27°37′31.1′′E; 17 m | 2006 | 30 |
| CUMBUL-3 |
| Bulgaria, Kranevo | North-Eastern Bulgaria | 43°20′05.6′′N; 28°3′41.9′′E; 112 m | 2006 | 6 |
| CUMBUL-4 |
| Bulgaria, Balchik | North-Eastern Bulgaria | 43°24′36.9′′N; 28°9′23.5′′E; 21 m | 2006 | 29 |
| CUMBUL-5_1 |
| Bulgaria, Kavarna, Gorun-Tyulenovo | North-Eastern Bulgaria | 43°29′12.6′′N; 28°31′13.3′′E; 44 m | 2006 | 28 |
| CUMBUL-5_2 |
| Bulgaria, Kavarna, Gorun-Tyulenovo | North-Eastern Bulgaria | 43°29′12.6′′N; 28°31′13.3′′E; 44 m | 2006 | 20 |
| CUMBUL-6 |
| Bulgaria, Burgas, Poda Protected Area | South-Eastern Bulgaria | 42°26′35.91′′N; 27°27′58.64′′E; 7 m | 2012 | 23 |
| CUMBUL-7 |
| Bulgaria, Burgas, Atanasovsko Lake | South-Eastern Bulgaria | 42°33′05.88′′N; 27°29′22.91′′E; 8 m | 2012 | 14 |
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| CUMBUL-8 |
| Bulgaria, Sadovo | Central Bulgaria | 42°07′13.49′′N; 24°54′53.40′′E; 156 m | 2012 | 20 |
| CUMBUL-9 |
| Bulgaria, Plodiv | Central Bulgaria | 42°03′35.43′′N; 24°49′26.28′′E; 189 m | 2012 | 20 |
| CUMBUL-10 |
| Bulgaria, Balgarevo | North-Eastern Bulgaria | 43°24′58.14′′N; 28°26′43.83′′E; 81 m | 2012 | 18 |
| IASCum-2 |
| Spain, Sevilla, Écija | Southern Spain | 37°34′24′′N; 5°8′45′′W; 181 m | 2008 | 12 |
| IASCum-3 |
| Spain, Sevilla, Osuna | Southern Spain | 37°15′19′′N; 5°3′49′′W; 304 m | 2008 | 12 |
| IASCum-4 |
| Spain, Cuenca, Montalbo | Central Spain | 39°51′03′′N; 02°39′54′′W; 838 m | 2008 | 12 |
n, final studied sample size [including a number of plants excluded from the analysis because of lack of amplification, belonging to each of the populations CUMBUL-1 (four plants excluded), CUMBUL-4 (one plant), CUMBUL-5_1 (two plants), CUMBUL-5_2 (two plants), CUMBUL-6 (three plants), and CUMBUL-10 (two plants)].
Figure 1Geographical distribution of Orobanche cumana Bulgarian populations collected on wild and cultivated hosts (left side of the figure) and map of mean membership probabilities per population as obtained using Bayesian clustering analysis resulting from STRUCTURE at K = 2 (right side of the figure). Pie size is proportional to the size of each population.
Figure 2Details of population CUMBUL-1 of Orobanche cumana parasitizing Artemisia maritima in Burgas, Bulgaria.
Genetic diversity parameters of Orobanche cumana populations from Bulgaria collected on wild hosts and on sunflower (prefix CUMBUL-) and from Spain collected on sunflower (prefix IASCum-).
| Population | P | Na (±SE) | Na ≥ 5% (±SE) | Ne (±SE) | Npa (±SE) | Ho (±SE) | He (±SE) | I (±SE) | Pairwise differences | Genotypic richness | Fis (±SE) | S | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| CUMBUL-1 | 66.7 | 1.733 (0.15) | 1.667 (0.13) | 1.391 (0.10) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.004 (0.01) | 0.229 (0.05) | 0.349 (0.08) | 3.111 (1.66) | 7 | 0.40 | 0.984 (0.01) | 0.992 |
| CUMBUL-2 | 86.9 | 2.000 (0.14) | 1.933 (0.15) | 1.521 (0.10) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.297 (0.05) | 0.458 (0.07) | 4.393 (2.20) | 8 | 0.24 | 1.000 (0.00) | 1.000 |
| CUMBUL-3 | 0.0 | 1.000 (0.00) | 1.000 (0.00) | 1.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 1 | 0.00 | — | — |
| CUMBUL-4 | 53.3 | 1.600 (0.16) | 1.333 (0.13) | 1.145 (0.05) | 0.067 (0.07) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.105 (0.03) | 0.184 (0.06) | 1.595 (0.96) | 6 | 0.18 | 1.000 (0.00) | 1.000 |
| CUMBUL-5_1 | 80.0 | 2.000 (0.17) | 1.867 (0.16) | 1.250 (0.07) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.032 (0.01) | 0.171 (0.04) | 0.306 (0.06) | 2.449 (1.34) | 11 | 0.37 | 0.776 (0.04) | 0.874 |
| CUMBUL-5_2 | 80.0 | 1.933 (0.15) | 1.933 (0.15) | 1.418 (0.10) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.014 (0.01) | 0.248 (0.05) | 0.400 (0.07) | 3.597 (1.86) | 7 | 0.32 | 0.920 (0.04) | 0.958 |
| CUMBUL-6 | 73.3 | 1.800 (0.14) | 1.667 (0.16) | 1.294 (0.10) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.003 (0.01) | 0.181 (0.05) | 0.300 (0.07) | 2.629 (1.43) | 10 | 0.41 | 0.968 (0.03) | 0.984 |
| CUMBUL-7 | 73.3 | 1.800 (0.14) | 1.800 (0.14) | 1.467 (0.12) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.010 (0.01) | 0.258 (0.05) | 0.398 (0.08) | 3.947 (2.04) | 7 | 0.46 | 0.975 (0.01) | 0.987 |
|
| 64.2 | 1.733 (0.06) | 1.650 (0.12) | 1.311 (0.03) | 0.008 (0.01) | 0.008 (0.002) | 0.186 (0.02) | 0.299 (0.03) | 2.715 (0.05) | 7.1 | 0.30 | 0.946 | 0.971 |
|
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| CUMBUL-8 | 40.0 | 1.400 (0.13) | 1.133 (0.09) | 1.039 (0.02) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.021 (0.01) | 0.034 (0.01) | 0.071 (0.03) | 0.446 (0.41) | 3 | 0.11 | 0.194 (0.10) | 0.325 |
| CUMBUL-9 | 13.3 | 1.133 (0.09) | 1.133 (0.09) | 1.014 (0.01) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.013 (0.01) | 0.026 (0.02) | 0.195 (0.25) | 2 | 0.05 | 1.000 (0.00) | 1.000 |
| CUMBUL-10 | 46.7 | 1.467 (0.13) | 1.467 (0.13) | 1.175 (0.06) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.015 (0.01) | 0.123 (0.04) | 0.201 (0.06) | 1.825 (1.07) | 8 | 0.41 | 0.915 (0.04) | 0.956 |
|
| 33.3 | 1.333 (0.10) | 1.244 (0.11) | 1.076 (0.05) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.012 (0.01) | 0.057 (0.03) | 0.099 (0.05) | 0.822 (0.51) | 4.3 | 0.19 | 0.703 | 0.760 |
| IASCum-2 | 0.0 | 1.000 (0.00) | 1.000 (0.00) | 1.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 1 | 0.00 | — | — |
| IASCum-3 | 0.0 | 1.000 (0.00) | 1.000 (0.00) | 1.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 1 | 0.00 | — | — |
| IASCum-4 | 6.7 | 1.067 (0.07) | 1.067 (0.07) | 1.026 (0.03) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.019 (0.02) | 0.030 (0.03) | 0.290 (0.32) | 2 | 0.09 | 1.000 (0.02) | 1.000 |
|
| 2.2 | 1.022 (0.02) | 1.022 (0.02) | 1.009 (0.01) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.000 (0.00) | 0.006 (0.01) | 0.010 (0.01) | 0.097 (0.10) | 0.7 | 0.03 | ||
P: percentage of polymorphic loci, Na: average observed allele number, Na > 5%: number of different alleles with a frequency ≥ 5%, Ne: number of effective alleles, Npa: number of private alleles unique to a single population, Ho: observed heterozygosity, He: expected heterozygosity, I: Shannon's diversity index, Pairwise differences: mean number of pairwise differences between individuals within each population (±SD), G: number of distinct multilocus genotypes (MLGs), R: genotypic richness; F is: fixation index, and S: selfing rate.
Figure 3Principal coordinates analysis of pairwise genetic distances among 14 Orobanche cumana populations and subpopulations (260 individuals). Primary groups identified with either the 1st versus 2nd axis plot or with the 1st versus 3rd axis plot are highlighted with solid boxes. Populations from Spain (prefix IASCum) are named with their complete name, and populations from Bulgaria (prefix CUMBUL) are named with their number, without prefix.
Proportion of membership of each Bulgarian Orobanche cumana population in inferred STRUCTURE groups for K = 2. Populations collected on wild hosts are highlighted in bold.
| Population | Genetic group 1 | Genetic group 2 |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.491 | 0.509 |
|
| 0.677 | 0.323 |
|
| 0.984 | 0.016 |
|
| 0.969 | 0.031 |
|
| 0.138 | 0.862 |
|
| 0.239 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.104 | 0.896 |
|
| 0.541 | 0.459 |
| CUMBUL-8 | 0.023 | 0.977 |
| CUMBUL-9 | 0.022 | 0.978 |
| CUMBUL-10 | 0.647 | 0.352 |
Figure 4Results from STRUCTURE and InStruct analyses: (a) population structure obtained from STRUCTURE and InStruct analyses of eleven Bulgarian Orobanche cumana populations, with each individual being represented by a single vertical bar divided into two shades. Each shade represents one gene pool (K) and the length of the shaded segment shows the individual's estimated proportion of membership in that cluster and (b) number of O. cumana individuals from each Bulgarian population within intervals of membership for Gene Pool 2 in the STRUCTURE analyses.
Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) of Orobanche cumana populations from Bulgaria.
| Hierarchical structure and source of variation | AMOVA statistics |
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | Sum of squares | Variance components | % Variance | |||
| Bulgarian populations collected on wild hosts (8 populations; 166 individuals) | ||||||
| Not structured | ||||||
| Among populations | 7 | 491.05 | 1.69 | 53.64 |
| <0.001 |
| Within populations/group | 324 | 473.19 | 1.46 | 46.36 | ||
| Structured based on gene poolsb | ||||||
| Among groups | 1 | 294.36 | 2.29 | 50.37 |
| 0.032 |
| Among populations/group | 6 | 196.69 | 0.80 | 17.56 |
| <0.001 |
| Within populations/group | 324 | 473.19 | 1.46 | 32.07 |
| <0.001 |
|
| ||||||
| Total of Bulgarian populations (wild and cultivated host) (11 populations; 224 individuals) | ||||||
| Not structured | ||||||
| Among populations | 10 | 713.97 | 1.74 | 59.54 |
| <0.001 |
| Within populations/group | 437 | 517.64 | 1.18 | 40.46 | ||
| Structured based on ecological statusc | ||||||
| Among groups | 1 | 93.81 | 0.14 | 4.55 |
| 0.234 |
| Among populations/group | 9 | 620.16 | 1.68 | 56.05 |
| <0.001 |
| Within populations/group | 437 | 517.64 | 1.18 | 39.40 |
| <0.001 |
| Structured based on gene poolsd | ||||||
| Among groups | 2 | 423.05 | 1.51 | 42.01 |
| 0.002 |
| Among populations/group | 8 | 290.91 | 0.90 | 25.05 |
| <0.001 |
| Within populations/group | 437 | 517.64 | 1.18 | 32.94 |
| <0.001 |
a F-statistics represents differentiation among groups (F CT), among populations within groups (F SC), and among populations within the whole population (F ST).
bThe gene pools defined with clustering analyses comprised (i) populations CUMBUL-3 and -4 and (ii) populations CUMBUL-1, -2, -5_1, -5_2, -6, and -7.
cThe structured groups based on the ecological status were (i) wild hosts (populations CUMBUL-1, -2, -3, -4, -5_1, -5_2, -6, and -7) and (ii) cultivated host (sunflower) (populations CUMBUL-8, -9, -10).
dThe gene pools defined with clustering analyses were (i) populations CUMBUL-3, -4, (ii) populations CUMBUL-8 and -9, and (iii) populations CUMBUL-1, -2, -5_1, -5_2, -6, -7, and -10.
Number of emerged Orobanche cumana shoots per sunflower plant (mean ± standard deviation) in the evaluation of O. cumana populations CUMBUL-1, CUMBUL-2, and CUMBUL-4, collected in Bulgaria on Artemisia maritima, CUMBUL-5_1, collected in Bulgaria on Anthemis arvensis, and control population OC-88, collected in Spain on cultivated sunflower, on two sunflower lines (B117 and B206) with no genetic resistance to O. cumana, conducted in pots in 2007a.
| B117b | B206a | |
|---|---|---|
| CUMBUL-1 | 14.5 ± 9.9b | 35.3 ± 13.1c |
| CUMBUL-2 | 39.5 ± 7.7c | 36.3 ± 11.3c |
| CUMBUL-4 | 5.2 ± 4.7a | 1.7 ± 1.0a |
| CUMBUL-5_1 | 11.5 ± 8.9ab | 14.3 ± 4.5b |
| OC-88 | 10.3 ± 6.0ab | 18.5 ± 7.2b |
aEight pots per each combination of sunflower cultivar and O. cumana population.
bMeans with different letters for each sunflower cultivar differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Number of emerged Orobanche cumana shoots per sunflower plant (mean ± standard deviation) in the evaluation of O. cumana populations CUMBUL-1, CUMBUL-2, and CUMBUL-4, collected in Bulgaria on Artemisia maritima, CUMBUL-5_1, collected in Bulgaria on Anthemis arvensis, OC-9, OC-11, and OC-13, collected in Bulgaria on cultivated sunflower, and OC-88, collected in Spain on cultivated sunflower, on six sunflower lines with different levels of genetic resistance, conducted in pots in 2008a. The O. cumana race to which each sunflower line is expected to be resistant (if any) is given in parenthesis.
| B117b | J8281 (B) | AC03-1589 (C) | S1358 (D) | P-1380 (E) | P96 (F) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CUMBUL-1 | 17.7 ± 6.3bc | 2.6 ± 2.4ab | 1.1 ± 1.2a | NEc | 0a | 0 |
| CUMBUL-2 | 20.6 ± 3.2c | 1.3 ± 1.7ab | 0.5 ± 1.1a | 2.0 ± 1.4a | 0a | 0 |
| CUMBUL-4 | 10.9 ± 7.1ab | 0.1 ± 0.4a | 0.6 ± 0.7a | NE | 0a | 0 |
| CUMBUL-5_1 | 12.6 ± 6.7ab | 2.0 ± 1.1ab | 5.1 ± 2.6b | NE | 0.4 ± 0.7a | 0 |
| OC-9 | 13.8 ± 7.4abc | 3.0 ± 2.5ab | 0.5 ± 0.8a | 0.8 ± 1.0a | 0a | 0 |
| OC-11 | 8.6 ± 5.3a | 2.5 ± 2.1ab | 0.2 ± 0.4a | 0.7 ± 0.8a | 0a | 0 |
| OC-13 | 14.3 ± 7.9abc | 4.1 ± 1.9b | 1.1 ± 1.1a | 1.2 ± 0.8a | 0a | 0 |
| OC-88 | 9.9 ± 6.9a | 16.6 ± 6.5c | 1.6 ± 1.3a | 1.2 ± 1.2a | 6.9 ± 4.3b | 0 |
aEight pots per each combination of sunflower cultivar and O. cumana population.
bMeans with different letters for each sunflower cultivar differ significantly (P < 0.05).
cNE = not evaluated.