| Literature DB >> 25157628 |
Chuan Chen1, Pan Li2, Rui-Hong Wang2, Barbara A Schaal3, Cheng-Xin Fu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Domestic cultivation of medicinal plants is an important strategy for protecting these species from over harvesting. Some species of medicinal plants have been brought into cultivation for more than hundreds years. Concerns about severe loss of genetic diversity and sustainable cultivation can potentially limit future use of these valuable plants. Genetic studies with comprehensive sampling of multiple medicinal species by molecular markers will allow for assessment and management of these species. Here we examine the population genetic consequences of cultivation and domestication in Scrophularia ningpoensis Hemsl. We used chloroplast DNA and genomic AFLP markers to clarify not only the effects of domestication on genetic diversity, but also determine the geographic origins of cultivars and their genetic divergence from native populations. These results will allow both better management of cultivated populations, but also provide insights for crop improvement.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25157628 PMCID: PMC4144873 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Details of sample locations and sample sizes (N) of Scrophularia ningpoensis.
| Population code | Locality | Altitude (m) | Lat. (°N) Long. (°E) | N CpDNA | N AFLP | Vouchers |
|
| ||||||
| GZC | Guangze, Fujian Province | 234 | 117°20′, 27°32′ | 15 | 15 | LP0805GZ |
| JFC | Jinfo Mountain, Chongqin Province | 1282 | 107°12′, 29°00′ | 14 | 13 | FU0810321 |
| SCC | Guangyuan, Sichuan Province | 594 | 105°47′, 32°27′ | 14 | 19 | GW20070705 |
| XJC | Xianju, Zhejiang Province | 63 | 120°44′, 28°51′ | 10 | 10 | CC20060601 |
|
| Pan'an, Zhejiang Province | 356 | 120°24′, 28°54′ | 15 | 4 | CC20060602 |
|
| Pan'an, Zhejiang Province | 357 | 120°33′, 29°05′ | 11 | 4 | CC20060603 |
|
| Pan'an, Zhejiang Province | 537 | 120°39′, 29°08′ | 10 | 4 | CC20060604 |
|
| Pan'an, Zhejiang Province | 581 | 120°32′, 28°59′ | 14 | 4 | CC20060605 |
| YLC | Yangling, Shanxi Province | 459 | 108°04′, 34°15′ | 15 | 10 | LP20080811 |
| ZPC | Zhenping, Shanxi Province | 1013 | 109°33′, 31°45′ | 15 | 10 | LP20090610 |
| KKC | Suiyan, Guizhou Province | 1572 | 107°09′, 28°13′ | 10 | 8 | WY20090618 |
| LOC | Long Mountain, Hunan Province | 843 | 109°43′, 29°36′ | 15 | 10 | ST20090601 |
| NSC | Enshi, Hubei Province | 1606 | 110°12′, 30°44′ | 13 | 10 | ZZ20080721 |
|
| ||||||
| HNW | Pingjiang, Hunan Province | 1428 | 113°49′, 28°38′ | 15 | 15 | SS20070821 |
| JGW | Jinggang Mountain, Jiangxi Province | 975 | 114°07′, 26°35′ | 15 | 15 | CC0708J029 |
| JHW | Jiuhua Mountain, Anhui Province | 1246 | 117°49′, 30°28′ | 22 | 22 | CC20080507 |
| JMW | Junma, Henan Province | 673 | 111°25′, 33°28′ | 13 | 13 | SS20070703 |
| LAW | Tiantang zhai, Anhui Province | 492 | 115°47′, 31°11′ | 15 | 14 | LP0906508 |
| LSW | Lenshui, Jiangxi Province | 80 | 117°11′, 28°15′ | 15 | 15 | SS20070701 |
| MTW | Matou, Jiangxi Province | 101 | 115°53′, 29°27′ | 15 | 15 | SS20070702 |
| PTW | Putuo, Zhejiang Province | 17 | 122°23′, 30°00′ | 9 | 9 | CC20080527 |
| THW | Tiantai Mountain, Zhejiang Province | 960 | 121°05′, 29°14′ | 15 | 14 | LP0910919 |
| TNW | Tianmu Mountain, Zhejiang Province | 1477 | 119°25′, 30°20′ | 15 | 14 | LP0906TMS |
| TTW | Tiantong, Ningbo, Zhejiang | 348 | 121°47′, 29°48′ | 10 | 10 | CC20071001 |
| TM1W | Tianmu Mountain, Zhejiang Province | 315 | 119°26′, 30°19′ | 10 | 10 | CC20061001 |
| TM2W | Tianmu Mountain, Zhejiang Province | 266 | 119°29′, 30°19′ | 15 | 10 | CC20070706 |
| TWW | Dapan Mountain, Zhejiang University | 469 | 120°23′, 28°54′ | 9 | 9 | CC20060901 |
*In AFLP analysis, four populations RCC, YCC, SHC and DPC are combined as one population coded PAC, and in Figure 1C these four populations are also indicated as PAC.
Figure 1Analyses of 21 chloroplast (cp) DNA haplotypes of Scrophularia ningpoensis.
(A) The maximum likelihood tree of 21 chloroplast (cp) DNA haplotypes of S. ningpoensis, S. buergeriana, S. spicata and S. dentata were used as the outgroup. Statistical supports (Bayesian posterior probability ≥80/maximum likelihood bootstrap value ≥50/maximum parsimony bootstrap value ≥50) are indicated on the branches. (B) 95% plausible network of the 21 cpDNA haplotypes of S. ningpoensis (A–E11). The size of circles corresponds to the frequency of each haplotype. Each solid line represents one mutational step that interconnects two haplotypes for which parsimony is supported at the 95% level. The small open circles indicate inferred intermediate haplotypes not detected in this investigation. (C) A geographic distribution of 21 cpDNA haplotypes (A–E11) detected in Scrophularia ningpoensis. The populations correspond to those detailed in Table 1. Squares represent cultivated populations and circles represent wild populations.
Chloroplast DNA sequence polymorphisms detected in two intergenic spacer (IGS) regions of Scrophularia ningpoensis identifying 21 haplotypes (A-E11).
| Halpotype | Nucleotide position | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | |
| 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 5 | ||||
| 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 5 | |||||||||||
| A | A | T | 1 | C | 0 | 0 | C | A | C | 0 | A | T | C | T | G | T | A | T | A | 2 | T | T | C | C | C | A |
| B | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| C | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | |
| D | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | A | . |
| E | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | A | . |
| C1 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | G | . | . | . | C | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| C2 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | G | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| C3 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | G | A | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| D1 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | A | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | A | C |
| D2 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | A | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | A | . |
| E1 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | C | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| E2 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| E3 | . | . | . | . | . | 1 | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | 2 | G | C | . | . | . | . |
| E4 | T | . | 0 | T | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | A | . |
| E5 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | G | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | G | . | . | A | A | C |
| E6 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | G | T | 1 | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | G | . | . | A | A | C |
| E7 | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | G | . | . | . | A | . |
| E8 | . | . | 1 | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | A | . |
| E9 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | C | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | A | . |
| E10 | . | A | . | . | . | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | A | . |
| E11 | . | . | . | . | 1 | . | . | . | T | . | . | . | A | . | . | A | T | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | A | . |
All sequences are compared to the reference haplotype H1. Numbers ‘0/1’ in the sequences indicate absence/presence of four length polymorphisms, and ‘2’ presence of an inversion, whereby superscripts identify corresponding character states. Note that poly-A or poly-T stretches were excluded from analyses.
: AAGC;
: AATC;
:TTTTTATTA;
:AATTTTA;
: AT;
: CCTCTTGATAGAACAAGAAAAA;
:TTTTTCTTGTTCTATCAAGAGG.
Comparisons of genetic diversity and genetic structure between wild and cultivated Scrophularia ningpoensis populations based on chloroplast DNA sequences.
| Parameter | wild | cultivated |
| Number of haplotype | 21 | 3 |
| haplotype diversity ( | 0.919 | 0.399 |
| Within-population diversity( | 0.444 | 0 |
| Nucleotide diversity(πT), | 0.00301 | 0.00076 |
Hierarchical analysis of molecular variance for 28 populations of Scrophularia ningpoensis based on chloroplast DNA sequences.
| Regional grouping of populations | Source of variation | d.f. | Sum of squares | Variance components | Percentage of variation | F-statistics(P) |
| Cultivated | Among populations | 12 | 79.731 | 0.50613 | 100 |
|
| Within populations | 158 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Wild | Among populations | 13 | 156.171 | 0.79368 | 41.46 |
|
| Within populations | 179 | 200.576 | 1.12053 | 58.54 | ||
| Cultivated vs. wild | Among groups | 1 | 167.858 | 0.87163 | 41.02 |
|
| Among populations within groups | 25 | 235.902 | 0.65791 | 30.96 |
| |
| Within populations | 337 | 200.576 | 0.59518 | 28.01 |
|
F ST: genetic differences among populations; F CT: genetic differences among groups defined a priori; F SC: genetic differences among population within groups.
Genetic diversity in 24 populations of S. ningpoensis based on AFLP.
| N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GST |
| |
|
| ||||||||||
| GZC | 15 | 1.0796 | 1.0253 | 0.0177 | 0.0295 | 23 | 7.96 | 13.26 | ||
| JFC | 13 | 1.2491 | 1.1515 | 0.0875 | 0.1307 | 72 | 24.91 | 8.38 | ||
| SCC | 19 | 1.0311 | 1.0114 | 0.0076 | 0.0123 | 9 | 3.11 | 8.54 | ||
| XJC | 10 | 1.0484 | 1.0236 | 0.0149 | 0.0232 | 14 | 4.84 | 8.68 | ||
| PAC | 16 | 1.0657 | 1.0226 | 0.0150 | 0.0247 | 19 | 6.57 | 14.70 | ||
| YLC | 10 | 1.0796 | 1.0326 | 0.0215 | 0.0345 | 23 | 7.96 | 4.80 | ||
| ZPC | 10 | 1.1211 | 1.0597 | 0.0371 | 0.0576 | 35 | 12.11 | 7.72 | ||
| KKC | 8 | 1.1280 | 1.0821 | 0.0467 | 0.0694 | 37 | 12.80 | 3.57 | ||
| LOC | 10 | 1.1349 | 1.0458 | 0.0324 | 0.0537 | 39 | 13.49 | 5.79 | ||
| NSC | 10 | 1.2768 | 1.1427 | 0.0874 | 0.1346 | 80 | 27.68 | 7.74 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| HNW | 15 | 1.3322 | 1.1797 | 0.1083 | 0.1649 | 96 | 33.22 | 21.92 | ||
| JGW | 15 | 1.4256 | 1.2273 | 0.1369 | 0.2088 | 123 | 42.56 | 24.79 | ||
| JHW | 22 | 1.5052 | 1.2271 | 0.1405 | 0.2195 | 146 | 50.52 | 14.90 | ||
| JMW | 13 | 1.3668 | 1.1982 | 0.1197 | 0.1825 | 106 | 36.68 | 20.05 | ||
| LAW | 14 | 1.5087 | 1.2677 | 0.1614 | 0.2469 | 147 | 50.87 | 12.51 | ||
| LSW | 15 | 1.4394 | 1.2559 | 0.1503 | 0.2260 | 127 | 43.94 | 10.81 | ||
| MTW | 15 | 1.4221 | 1.2135 | 0.1291 | 0.1985 | 122 | 42.21 | 22.32 | ||
| PTW | 9 | 1.2422 | 1.1340 | 0.0812 | 0.1235 | 70 | 24.22 | 5.40 | ||
| THW | 14 | 1.4498 | 1.1980 | 0.1233 | 0.1943 | 130 | 44.98 | 9.77 | ||
| TNW | 14 | 1.4429 | 1.2196 | 0.1345 | 0.2078 | 128 | 44.29 | 9.33 | ||
| TTW | 10 | 1.4118 | 1.2271 | 0.1374 | 0.2092 | 119 | 41.18 | 6.87 | ||
| TM1W | 10 | 1.2318 | 1.1402 | 0.0821 | 0.1231 | 67 | 23.18 | 6.33 | ||
| TM2W | 10 | 1.3702 | 1.1929 | 0.1175 | 0.1806 | 107 | 37.02 | 5.39 | ||
| TWW | 9 | 1.2215 | 1.1331 | 0.0791 | 0.1187 | 64 | 22.15 | 5.04 | ||
| Cultivated | 121 | 1.654 | 1.2591 | 0.1554 | 0.2422 | 189 | 65.4 | 0.7568 | 0.1607 | |
| Wild | 185 | 1.8893 | 1.3385 | 0.2171 | 0.3466 | 257 | 88.93 | 0.4352 | 0.6490 | |
| Species | 306 | 1.9031 | 1.3551 | 0.2202 | 0.3481 | 261 | 90.31 | 0.6111 | 0.3181 | |
Observed number of alleles; Effective number of alleles [Kimura and Crow (1964)]; : Nei's (1973) gene diversity; : Shannon's Information index [Lewontin (1972)]; estimate of gene flow from G ST or G CS. E.g., N M = 0.5(1−G ST)/G ST; N: the number of individuals in population; the number of polymorphic fragments; : the percentage of polymorphic fragments; the frequency down-weighed marker value.
Hierarchical analysis of molecular variance for 24 populations of S. ningpoensis based on AFLP.
| Regional grouping of populations | Source of variation | d.f. | Sum of squares | Variance components | Percentage of variation |
|
| Cultivated | Among populations | 9 | 2251.916 | 18.72650 | 76.97 |
|
| Within populations | 111 | 666.615 | 5.60181 | 23.03 | ||
| Wild | Among populations | 13 | 2451.695 | 12.85266 | 39.60 |
|
| Within populations | 171 | 3351.516 | 19.59951 | 60.40 | ||
| Cultivated vs. wild | Among groups | 1 | 1299.331 | 7.09433 | 19.62 |
|
| Among populations within groups | 22 | 4703.610 | 15.21535 | 42.07 |
| |
| Within populations | 282 | 4018.131 | 13.85563 | 38.31 |
|
F ST: genetic differences among populations; F CT: genetic differences among groups defined a priori; F SC: genetic differences among population within groups.
Figure 2Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of 306 individuals from 24 populations of S. ningpoensis based on the Euclidean distance generated from AFLP data.
To simplify comparison, cultivated S. ningpoensis are indicated by triangles, while wild S. ningpoensis are indicated by circles.
Figure 3Neighbor-Joining and STRUCTURE analyses of the AFLP data.
(A) Neighbor-Joining analysis of the AFLP data for all individuals of S.ningpoensis based on Nei's (1979) genetic distances with S. buergeriana as the outgroup. (B) Result of the model from clustering (K = 2) of all wild individuals and 10 cultivated individuals of S. ningpoensis using STRUCTURE based on the AFLP data set.
Figure 4The estimated mean logarithmic likelihood of K values ranging from 2 to 14 with 10 replicates for each K calculated using the R-script Structure–sum.