| Literature DB >> 27186883 |
Prabin Bajgain1,2, Matthew N Rouse3,4, Toi J Tsilo5, Godwin K Macharia6, Sridhar Bhavani7, Yue Jin3, James A Anderson2.
Abstract
We combined the recently developed genotyping by sequencing (GBS) method with joint mapping (also known as nested association mapping) to dissect and understand the genetic architecture controlling stem rust resistance in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Ten stem rust resistant wheat varieties were crossed to the susceptible line LMPG-6 to generate F6 recombinant inbred lines. The recombinant inbred line populations were phenotyped in Kenya, South Africa, and St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. By joint mapping of the 10 populations, we identified 59 minor and medium-effect QTL (explained phenotypic variance range of 1% - 20%) on 20 chromosomes that contributed towards adult plant resistance to North American Pgt races as well as the highly virulent Ug99 race group. Fifteen of the 59 QTL were detected in multiple environments. No epistatic relationship was detected among the QTL. While these numerous small- to medium-effect QTL are shared among the families, the founder parents were found to have different allelic effects for the QTL. Fourteen QTL identified by joint mapping were also detected in single-population mapping. As these QTL were mapped using SNP markers with known locations on the physical chromosomes, the genomic regions identified with QTL could be explored more in depth to discover candidate genes for stem rust resistance. The use of GBS-derived de novo SNPs in mapping resistance to stem rust shown in this study could be used as a model to conduct similar marker-trait association studies in other plant species.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27186883 PMCID: PMC4870046 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Origin, pedigree, and stem rust reaction of parent lines used to develop the NAM population.
| Parent | Origin | Pedigree | TTKSK | QFCSC | MCCFC | TPMKC | TTTTF | Field reaction | No. of RILs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USA | Africa | |||||||||
| Ada | USA (2007) | SBY189H/‘2375’ | 3+ | ;1- | 2- | 2 | 0;/;1 | 22.3 | 11.3 | 71 |
| Fahari | Kenya (1977) | TOBARI-66/3/SRPC-527-67//CI-8154/2*FROCOR | 33+ | 0 | ; | 0 | 0 | 11.7 | 3.7 | 90 |
| Gem | Kenya (1964) | BT908/FRONTANA//CAJEME 54 | 3- | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3–1 | 10.2 | 1.0 | 97 |
| Kudu | Kenya (1966) | KENYA-131/KENYA-184-P | 3+ | 0 | ;2- | 0;/2- | 31 | 19.8 | 3.7 | 80 |
| Kulungu | Kenya (1982) | ON/TR207/3/CNO//SN64/4/KTM | 33+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22.5 | 0.3 | 59 |
| Ngiri | Kenya (1979) | SANTACATALINA/3/MANITOU/4/2*TOBARI-66 | 33+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.2 | 2.3 | 52 |
| Paka | Kenya (1975) | WISCONSIN-245/II-50-17//CI-8154/2*TOBARI-66 | 3+ | 0 | 0; | 0 | 0 | 16.5 | 3.7 | 104 |
| Pasa | Kenya (1989) | BUCK BUCK/CHAT | 3+ | 0; | 0 | 2-; | 2- | 8.6 | 5.3 | 93 |
| Popo | Kenya (1982) | KLEIN-ATLAS/TOBARI-66//CENTRIFEN/3/BLUEBIRD/4/KENYA-FAHARI | 3+ | 0 | 0 | 0; | 0 | 5.0 | 2.3 | 97 |
| Romany | Kenya (1966) | COLOTANA 261-51/YAKTANA 54A | 3+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 109 |
| LMPG-6 | Canada (1990) | LITTLE-CLUB//PRELUDE*8/MARQUIS/3/GABO | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 64.9 | 25.0 | - |
a Information obtained from Njau et al. [90], Macharia [66], Anderson et al. [32], and Knott [91]. Year (in parenthesis) indicates the year the line was released or published.
b Seedling screening of the parent lines with African stem rust race Ug99 (TTKSK, isolate ‘04KEN156/04’), and N. American stem rust races QFCSC (isolate ‘06ND76C’), MCCFC (isolate ‘59KS19’), TPMKC (isolate ‘74MN1409’), and TTTTF (isolate ‘01MN84A-1-2’). Infection types are scored on a 0 to 4 scale where 3 and 4 are considered susceptible [92].
c For USA environment, the rust response of parent lines were averaged from StP12 and StP13 environments. For Africa environment, only Ken13 data is shown. Mean severity reactions (%) are shown for both sites.
Fig 1Distributions for disease coefficient of infection (CI) and their respective transformed datasets for stem rust in each of the four environments.
The Pearson’s correlations are represented as follows: “r1” between the coefficient of infection (CI) values and square root transformed data; and “r2” between the square root transformed data and data adjusted for trial differences. “W” represents the Shapiro-Wilk test statistic between the coefficient of infection (CI) values and square root transformed data.
Fig 2Segregation distortion of loci across each RIL mapping population.
Chromosome names and the—log(p) value for SNP markers in respective chromosomes for each population is shown.
Fig 3Number of recombination events per chromosome in the joint map (gray bar) relative to the average number of recombinations per chromosome in all 10 populations.
Fig 4Chromosomes with APR QTL to stem rust detected by the joint inclusive composite interval mapping (JICIM) method.
Multiple QTL in green color on a given chromosome are hypothesized to be a single QTL.
Fig 5Heat map of additive effect estimates of alleles contributed by the 10 founder lines at the QTL for resistance to Pgt races.
QTL (columns) are named according to McIntosh et al. [89] with their chromosomal positions after the underscore (_) symbol. The allelic effect estimates for each founder allele (rows) are color coded by increments in the allelic effect estimate (legend). Each block represents the environments where the QTL were detected, as labeled.
Common quantitative trait loci (QTL) detected between the joint inclusive composite interval mapping (JICIM) in nested association mapping of 10 RIL populations, and inclusive composite interval mapping (ICIM) methods in individual populations for stem rust adult plant resistance in four environments.
| Chr | Pos (cM) | Population | Env | Left Marker | Right Marker | LOD | R2 (%) | Add |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1A | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| 1D | ||||||||
| 2A | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| 2B | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| 3B | - | |||||||
| - | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| 4B | ||||||||
| 4D | - | |||||||
| 5B | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| 5D | ||||||||
| - | ||||||||
| 6A | - | |||||||
| 7A | - | |||||||
a Chromosome location of the QTL.
b Position (centiMorgan) of the detected QTL peak in Chromosome ‘Chr’. Positions are sorted in ascending order.
c Result of JICIM is shown in bold; result of ICIM is shown in italics.
d Logarithm of odds scores for the QTL detected at position ‘Pos’, based on joint mapping.
e Percentage of phenotypic variation explained by the observed QTL, based on joint mapping.
f Additive effect for JICIM is not shown as JICIM reports additive effect for each parent individually; see S1 File for more information.