| Literature DB >> 26112802 |
Rena Sanetomo1, Christiane Gebhardt2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various wild species germplasm has been used in European potato breeding since the first introduction of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to Europe. As the plant cytoplasmic genome including chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes is transmitted only through the maternal parent, cytoplasmic markers are useful tools in breeding programs to determine cytoplasmic genome types and to trace maternal ancestors. The potato cytoplasmic genome can be distinguished into six distinct types (M, P, A, W, T, and D). Male sterility was found in genotypes with S. demissum-derived D-type cytoplasm and S. stoloniferum-derived W/γ-type cytoplasm. These wild species were frequently used to incorporate superior pathogen resistance genes. As a result, the percentage of these two types is increasing unintentionally in the European germplasm pool. Other than cytoplasmic male sterility, little is known about effects of the cytoplasmic genome on complex agronomic traits in potato. RESULT: The cytoplasm types of 1,217 European potato cultivars and breeding clones were determined with type specific DNA markers. Most frequent were T- (59.4 %), D- (27.4 %), and W- (12.2 %) type cytoplasm, while A- (0.7 %) and M-type cytoplasm (0.3 %) was rare and P-type cytoplasm was absent. When comparing varieties with breeding clones, the former showed a relatively higher frequency of T-type and lower frequency of D- and W-type cytoplasm. Correlation analysis of cytoplasm types and agronomic data showed that W/γ-type cytoplasm was correlated with increased tuber starch content and later plant maturity. Correlation with quantitative resistance to late blight was observed for D-type and M-type cytoplasm. Both cytoplasm types had a positive effect on resistance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26112802 PMCID: PMC4480903 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-015-0545-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Populations used and quantitative agronomic trait data evaluated previously
| Population | Varieties | Breeding clones | Total | Traits evaluateda | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRUISE | 85 | 120 | 205 | BI, SCB, PM, TS, TSC, TY | [ |
| CHIPS-ALL | 34 | 194 | 228 | CQA, CQS, TSC, TY, TSY | [ |
| EURO-CUL | 187 | 3 | 190 | - | [ |
| GBC | 511 | 25 | 536 | PM, RLBF, RLBT | [ |
| PIN184 | - | 184 | 184 | PM, rAUDPC, MCR, TSC | [ |
| SUGAR40 | 39 | 1 | 40 | RSC | [ |
aBI, bruising index; SCB, starch corrected bruising; PM, plant maturity; TS, tuber shape; TSC tuber starch content; TY, tuber yield; TSY, starch yield (=TSC × TY); CQA, chip quality after harvest; CQS, chip quality after 3 months storage at 4 °C; RLBF, foliage resistance to late blight; RLBT, tuber resistance to late blight; rAUDPC, the relative area under disease progress curve for the field infestation of Phytophthora infestans; MCR, maturity corrected resistance to late blight; RSC, tuber reducing sugar content
The number of genotypes and percentages with different cytoplasm types in each population
| Population | T | D | A | M | W/α | W/β | W/γ | W/αβ | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRUISE | 105 (54)a | 69 (21) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (1) | 30 (9) | 0 | 205 |
| 51.2 % | 33.7 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.5 % | 14.6 % | 0.0 % | ||
| CHIPS-ALL | 114 (13) | 78 (17) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 32 (4) | 0 | 227 |
| 50.2 % | 34.4 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 1.3 % | 14.1 % | 0.0 % | ||
| EURO-CUL | 118 (118) | 42 (40) | 4 (4) | 0 | 1 (1) | 2 (1) | 22 (22) | 1 (1) | 190 |
| 62.1 % | 22.1 % | 2.1 % | 0.0 % | 0.5 % | 1.1 % | 11.6 % | 0.5 % | ||
| GBC | 375 (369) | 109 (99) | 5 (5) | 0 | 2 | 12 (12) | 32 (25) | 1 (1) | 536 |
| 70.0 % | 20.3 % | 0.9 % | 0.0 % | 0.4 % | 2.2 % | 6.0 % | 0.2 % | ||
| PIN184 | 84 | 65 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 25 | 0 | 183 |
| 45.9 % | 35.5 % | 0.5 % | 2.2 % | 0.0 % | 2.2 % | 13.7 % | 0.0 % | ||
| SUGAR40 | 22 (21) | 8 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 (10) | 0 | 40 |
| 55.0 % | 20.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 25.0 % | 0.0 % | ||
| Total without duplicates | 723 | 333 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 18 | 126 | 1 | 1217 |
| 59.4 % | 27.4 % | 0.7 % | 0.3 % | 0.2 % | 1.5 % | 10.4 % | 0.1 % |
aThe number of cultivars is shown in parentheses
One-way ANOVA or Welch’s test of cytoplasm types with phenotypic scores for agronomic traits
| Population | Traita | Cytoplasm type | No. of genotypes | Mean (SD) | Statistics | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F ratiob | Levelc | |||||
| BRUISE | BI | T | 104 | 31.0 (2.05) |
| a |
| Resistant (0) − highly susceptible (100) | D | 69 | 36.5 (2.51) | ab | ||
| W/γ | 30 | 46.6 (3.81) | b | |||
| SCB | T | 104 | −1.87 (1.469) |
| ||
| Lower value indicates higher resistance | D | 69 | −0.95 (1.804) | |||
| W/γ | 30 | 2.63 (2.736) | ||||
| PM | T | 104 | 3.49 (0.102) |
| a | |
| Very early (1) − very late (9) | D | 68 | 3.47 (0.127) | a | ||
| W/γ | 30 | 4.38 (0.191) | b | |||
| TS | T | 104 | 3.79 (0.084) |
| a | |
| Completely circular (1) − longitudinal (9) | D | 69 | 3.56 (0.103) | a | ||
| W/γ | 30 | 3.14 (0.156) | b | |||
| TSC | T | 104 | 15.0 (0.23) |
| a | |
| % fresh weight | D | 69 | 15.7 (0.29) | ab | ||
| W/γ | 30 | 16.7 (0.43) | b | |||
| TY | T | 96 | 489.8 (7.36) |
| a | |
| dt/ha | D | 59 | 512.1 (9.39) | ab | ||
| W/γ | 26 | 528.0 (14.14) | b | |||
| CHIPS-ALL | CQA | T | 114 | 6.22 (0.187) |
| |
| Very dark (1) − very light (9) | D | 78 | 6.03 (0.226) | |||
| W/β | 3 | 6.27 (1.155) | ||||
| W/γ | 32 | 5.96 (0.354) | ||||
| CQS | T | 114 | 2.36 (0.206) |
| ||
| Very dark (1) − very light (9) | D | 78 | 2.54 (0.249) | |||
| W/β | 3 | 2.55 (1.269) | ||||
| W/γ | 32 | 3.08 (0.389) | ||||
| TSC | T | 114 | 16.4 (0.29) |
| a | |
| % fresh weight | D | 78 | 16.8 (0.35) | a | ||
| W/β | 3 | 16.6 (1.79) | ab | |||
| W/γ | 32 | 18.5 (0.55) | b | |||
| TY | T | 114 | 660.4 (9.06) |
| ||
| dt/ha | D | 78 | 637.0 (10.95) | |||
| W/β | 3 | 645.2 (55.85) | ||||
| W/γ | 32 | 622.2 (17.10) | ||||
| TSY | T | 114 | 107.8 (2.21) |
| ||
| =TSC × TY | D | 78 | 106.2 (2.67) | |||
| W/β | 3 | 106.4 (13.62) | ||||
| W/γ | 32 | 114.4 (4.17) | ||||
| GBC | PM | T | 365 | 4.35 (0.096) |
| |
| Very late (1) − very early (9) | D | 109 | 4.04 (0.175) | |||
| A | 5 | 2.80 (0.817) | ||||
| W/β | 12 | 4.00 (0.527) | ||||
| W/γ | 32 | 4.06 (0.323) | ||||
| RLBF | T | 317 | 4.80 (0.093) |
| a | |
| Highly susceptible (0) − highly resistant (9) | D | 95 | 5.76 (0.171) | b | ||
| A | 4 | 3.25 (0.831) | a | |||
| W/β | 12 | 5.83 (0.480) | b | |||
| W/γ | 25 | 5.84 (0.332) | b | |||
| RLBT | T | 287 | 5.49 (0.100) |
| ||
| Highly susceptible (0) − highly resistant (9) | D | 84 | 5.67 (0.185) | |||
| A | 4 | 3.25 (0.847) | ||||
| W/β | 11 | 5.18 (0.511) | ||||
| W/γ | 23 | 5.70 (0.353) | ||||
| PIN184 | MCR | T | 84 | 0.03 (0.007) |
| a |
| Lower value indicates higher resistance | D | 65 | −0.02 (0.008) | b | ||
| M | 4 | −0.13 (0.033) | c | |||
| W/β | 4 | 0.01 (0.033) | ab | |||
| W/γ | 25 | 0.03 (0.013) | a | |||
| rAUDPC | T | 84 | 0.42 (0.009) |
| a | |
| Lower value indicates higher resistance | D | 65 | 0.34 (0.010) | bc | ||
| M | 4 | 0.25 (0.039) | c | |||
| W/β | 4 | 0.32 (0.039) | abc | |||
| W/γ | 25 | 0.38 (0.016) | ab | |||
| PM | T | 84 | 5.82 (0.139) |
| a | |
| Very late (1) − very early (9) | D | 65 | 5.39 (0.158) | bc | ||
| M | 4 | 6.82 (0.637) | ab | |||
| W/β | 4 | 3.73 (0.637) | d | |||
| W/γ | 25 | 5.00 (0.255) | b | |||
| TSC | T | 84 | 16.0 (0.29) |
| a | |
| % fresh weight | D | 65 | 17.0 (0.33) | ab | ||
| M | 4 | 15.2 (1.32) | ab | |||
| W/β | 4 | 21.8 (1.32) | c | |||
| W/γ | 25 | 17.9 (0.53) | bc | |||
| SUGAR40 | RSC | T | 8 | 1.36 (0.355) |
| |
| % dry weight | D | 22 | 0.60 (0.214) | |||
| W/γ | 10 | 0.96 (0.318) | ||||
aSee Table 1 for abbreviations of traits
b *, **, and ***: Significance levels at 5 %, 1 %, and 0.1 %, respectively. ANOVA test was performed for TY, TSC, TSY, SCB, rAUDPC and MCR and Welch’s test for BI, PM, TS, CQA, CQS, PM, RLBE, RLBT, and RSC
cMeans of each pair were compared using Tukey’s test or Kruskal-Wallis test. Means that are not sharing the same alphabets are significantly different at the 5 % level
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between D-type cytoplasm and the nuclear markers linked with resistance genes R1, R3a and R3b
| Population | Nuclear marker | Correlation coefficient ( |
|---|---|---|
| GBC | R11400 | 0.23 |
| R11800 | −0.08 | |
| CosA210 | 0.22 | |
| GP179570 | −0.11 | |
| PIN184 | CosA210 | 0.06 |
| R3a | 0.16 | |
| R3b | 0.27 |
aCorrelation coefficient (r) was analyzed for the D-type cytoplasm with four markers in the GBC population, and with three markers in the PIN184 population.
Welch’s test for cytoplasmic differences on allele frequencies of SNP haplotype StAOS2_A C in the PIN184 population
| Cytoplasm type | No. of genotypes | Allele frequency (SD) | F ratioa | Levelb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | 82 | 0.40 (0.235) |
| a |
| D | 63 | 0.55 (0.285) | b | |
| M | 4 | 0.69 (0.239) | b | |
| W/β | 4 | 0.56 (0.375) | ab | |
| W/γ | 25 | 0.49 (0.310) | ab |
a *: Significance level at 5 %
bMeans of each pair were compared using Kruskal-Wallis test. Means that are not sharing the same alphabets are significantly different at the 5 % level
Interaction for effects of combinations of presence (+) and absence (−) of nuclear markers with presence (+) or absence (−) of D-type cytoplasm on resistance to late blight and plant maturity in the GBC population. In case differences were found among marker classes, two-way ANOVA was performed to explore the factors contributing the differences
| Marker combination | Marker class | Foliage resistance to late blight (RLBF) | Tuber resistance to late blight (RLBT) | Plant maturity (PM) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean (SD) | Welch’s test | Two-way ANOVA | n | Mean (SD) | Welch’s test | Two-way ANOVA | n | Mean (SD) | Welch’s test | Two-way ANOVA | ||
| R11400/D | +/+ | 48 | 5.9 (1.52) | *** | D*** | 44 | 5.8 (1.42) | ** | R11400* | 53 | 3.7 (1.84) | ns | |
| −/+ | 41 | 5.7 (1.52) | 35 | 5.6 (1.87) | 46 | 4.3 (2.09) | |||||||
| +/− | 94 | 5.3 (1.78) | 81 | 6.1 (1.55) | 104 | 4.0 (1.75) | |||||||
| −/− | 233 | 4.8 (1.72) | 218 | 5.3 (1.77) | 268 | 4.3 (1.82) | |||||||
| R11800/D | +/+ | 41 | 5.6 (1.63) | *** | D*** | 38 | 5.6 (1.72) | ** | R11800* | 46 | 3.8 (1.99) | ns | |
| −/+ | 43 | 6.1 (1.37) | 37 | 5.9 (1.41) | 48 | 4.1 (2.02) | |||||||
| +/− | 180 | 4.8 (1.77) | 164 | 5.3 (1.91) | 207 | 4.1 (1.73) | |||||||
| −/− | 129 | 5.3 (1.71) | 114 | 6.0 (1.34) | 145 | 4.5 (1.91) | |||||||
| CosA210/D | +/+ | 48 | 5.9 (1.57) | *** | D*** | 43 | 5.8 (1.40) | ** | CosA210* | 56 | 3.8 (1.78) | ns | |
| −/+ | 44 | 5.7 (1.53) | 39 | 5.5 (1.79) | 50 | 4.2 (2.21) | |||||||
| +/− | 94 | 5.4 (1.69) | 82 | 6.0 (1.61) | 104 | 4.0 (1.72) | |||||||
| −/− | 257 | 4.8 (1.71) | 236 | 5.3 (1.75) | 302 | 4.4 (1.81) | |||||||
| GP179570/D | +/+ | 40 | 6.2 (1.34) | *** | D*** | 35 | 6.0 (1.29) | ns | 43 | 4.1 (1.91) | ns | ||
| −/+ | 52 | 5.5 (1.63) | GP179570 × D* | 47 | 5.5 (1.77) | 62 | 3.9 (2.07) | ||||||
| +/− | 188 | 4.8 (1.72) | 171 | 5.4 (1.78) | 219 | 4.2 (1.63) | |||||||
| −/− | 162 | 5.0 (1.74) | 146 | 5.6 (1.69) | 185 | 4.5 (1.95) | |||||||
*, **, and ***indicate significance levels at 5 %, 1 %, and 0.1 %, respectively. ns, not significant
Interaction for effects of combinations of presence (+) and absence (−) of nuclear markers with presence (+) or absence (−) of D-type cytoplasm on resistance to late blight and plant maturity in the PIN184 population. In case significant differences were found among marker classes, two-way ANOVA was performed to explore the factors contributing the differences
| Marker combination | Marker class | Maturity corrected resistance (MCR) | Relative area under disease progress curve (rAUDPC) | Plant maturity (PM) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean (SD) | Welch’s test | Two-way ANOVA | n | Mean (SD) | Welch’s test | Two-way ANOVA | n | Mean (SD) | Welch’s test | Two-way ANOVA | ||
| R3a/D | +/+ | 32 | −0.01 (0.077) | *** | D*** | 32 | 0.37 (0.096) | *** | D*** | 32 | 5.6 (1.26) | ns | |
| −/+ | 33 | −0.04 (0.071) | 33 | 0.32 (0.076) | R3a* | 33 | 5.2 (1.28) | ||||||
| +/− | 39 | 0.02 (0.056) | 39 | 0.40 (0.078) | 39 | 5.8 (1.41) | |||||||
| −/− | 79 | 0.03 (0.071) | 79 | 0.40 (0.081) | 79 | 5.5 (1.33) | |||||||
| R3b/D | +/+ | 53 | −0.02 (0.076) | *** | D*** | 53 | 0.34 (0.092) | *** | D*** | 53 | 5.5 (1.23) | ns | |
| −/+ | 12 | −0.02 (0.074) | 12 | 0.33 (0.078) | 12 | 4.9 (1.44) | |||||||
| +/− | 64 | 0.01 (0.059) | 64 | 0.39 (0.081) | 64 | 5.8 (1.45) | |||||||
| −/− | 54 | 0.04 (0.071) | 54 | 0.41 (0.078) | 54 | 5.4 (1.23) | |||||||
| CosA210/D | +/+ | 16 | −0.01 (0.062) | *** | D* | 16 | 0.33 (0.060) | *** | D** | 16 | 4.7 (0.98) | * | D** |
| −/+ | 49 | −0.03 (0.079) | CosA210 × D* | 49 | 0.35 (0.097) | 49 | 5.6 (1.29) | CosA210 × D** | |||||
| +/− | 23 | 0.00 (0.077) | 23 | 0.38 (0.092) | 23 | 6.1 (1.30) | |||||||
| −/− | 95 | 0.04 (0.062) | 95 | 0.40 (0.076) | 95 | 5.5 (1.35) | |||||||
| StAOS2_SNP691/692 (AC haplotype)a/D | +/+ | 60 | −0.03 (0.075) | *** | StAOS2_SNP691/692** | 60 | 0.33 (0.086) | *** | StAOS2_SNP691/692*** | 60 | 5.3 (1.26) | ** | StAOS2_SNP691/692** |
| −/+ | 3 | 0.06 (0.017) | 3 | 0.48 (0.026) | 3 | 6.9 (1.09) | |||||||
| +/− | 108 | 0.02 (0.066) | 108 | 0.39 (0.077) | 108 | 5.5 (1.31) | |||||||
| −/− | 8 | 0.07 (0.076) | 8 | 0.48 (0.059) | 8 | 6.6 (1.16) | |||||||
aA genotype with adenine at position 691 and cytosine at position 692, irrespective of their dosages, was regarded as an AC haplotype
*, **, and ***indicate significance levels at 5 %, 1 %, and 0.1 %, respectively. ns, not significant