| Literature DB >> 27317430 |
Zhengwei Liu1, Honglian Zhu1, Yuping Liu1, Jing Kuang1, Kai Zhou1, Fan Liang2, Zhenhua Liu2, Depeng Wang3, Weidong Ke4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sacred lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) is widely cultivated in China for its edible rhizomes and seeds. Traditional plant breeding methods have been used to breed cultivars with increased yields and quality of rhizomes and seeds with limited success. Currently, the available genetic maps and molecular markers in lotus are too limited to be useful for molecular genetics based breeding programs. However, the development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has enabled large-scale identification of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for genetic map construction. In this study, we constructed an SNP-based high-density genetic map for cultivated lotus using double digest restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (ddRADseq).Entities:
Keywords: Assembly anchoring; Double digest RADSeq; Genetic map; Molecular breeding; Nelumbo nucifera; Next generation sequencing; Single-nucleotide polymorphisms
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27317430 PMCID: PMC4912719 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-016-2781-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Fig. 1The main phenotypic differences between parent cultivars. a the seed lotus cultivar ‘Mantianxing’ used as female parent was planted in field in fast-growing stage; b the rhizome cultivar ‘Juwuba’ used as male parent was planted in field in fast-growing stage; c, d, e and f is the flower, fruit, seed and rhizome of ‘Mantianxing’, respectively; g, h, i and j is the flower, fruit, seed and rhizome of Juwuba, respectively
Summary of RAD sequencing for SNP calling from the rhizome lotus Juwuba and the seed lotus Mantianxing (N. nucifera) and their F2 progenies
| Sample | Total reads | Total base (Gb) | Mapped reads | Mapped base (Gb) | Alignment rate (%) | Coverage (%) | Depth (X) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mantianxing | 16,429,464 | 1.64 | 14,359,968 | 1.44 | 87.40 | 7.20 | 57.94 |
| Juwuba | 19,032,200 | 1.90 | 17,741,926 | 1.77 | 93.22 | 6.56 | 78.57 |
| Average of F2 population | 11,136,905 | 1.38 | 7,377,795 | 0.91 | 65.76 | 1.46 | 48.35 |
| Total | 1,088,935,610 | 133.65 | 730,348,710 | 89.44 | 65.00 | 1.70 | 48.65 |
Note: total line, all samples were calculated including parents and F2 population
Fig. 2The reads number (a), read coverage (b) and integrity of SNP markers (c) of parents and 97 F2 progenies. Depth: mapped reads depth on the genome; integrity of SNP markers: the number of genotyped SNP markers in sample divided by total SNP numbers used to construct genetic map
Summary of eight linkage groups of high-density genetic map
| Linkage group | SNP markers | Bin markers | Linkage distance (cM) | Mean distance (cM) | Largest gap (cM) | No. of distorted segregation markers ( | No. of SDRs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LG1 | 3,131 | 253 | 188.7 | 0.75 | 4.0 | 22 | 1 |
| LG2 | 1,416 | 100 | 78.4 | 0.78 | 3.9 | 9 | 2 |
| LG3 | 1,155 | 104 | 40.2 | 0.39 | 4.5 | 23 | 4 |
| LG4 | 682 | 73 | 48.5 | 0.66 | 2.7 | 10 | 2 |
| LG5 | 716 | 79 | 64.5 | 0.82 | 4.3 | 4 | 1 |
| LG6 | 760 | 70 | 63.3 | 0.90 | 8.4 | 7 | 1 |
| LG7 | 719 | 56 | 48.9 | 0.87 | 3.3 | 10 | 2 |
| LG8 | 392 | 56 | 49.0 | 0.87 | 2.90 | 3 | 0 |
| Total | 8,971 | 791 | 581.4 | 0.74 | — | 88 | 13 |
Note: SDRs, segregation distorted regions
Fig. 3Distribution of normal (black bar) and segregation distorted bin markers (red bar) on 8 linkage groups. The x-axis indicates genetic distance (centiMorgan as unit) and the y-axis represents linkage group number
The scaffold number, total length, physical size, marker density and effective length of eight pseudochromosomes
| Pseudochromosome | No. of Scaffold | Total length (bp) | Linkage distance (cM) | Mb/cM | Effective length (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| chr1 | 236 | 177,951,281 | 188.7 | 1.06 | 173,848,305 |
| chr2 | 149 | 90,702,750 | 78.4 | 0.86 | 88,660,738 |
| chr3 | 129 | 77,900,568 | 40.2 | 0.52 | 76,335,923 |
| chr4 | 67 | 48,236,206 | 48.5 | 1.01 | 47,320,720 |
| chr5 | 74 | 52,360,038 | 64.5 | 1.23 | 51,365,207 |
| chr6 | 77 | 49,297,711 | 63.3 | 1.28 | 48,249,537 |
| chr7 | 50 | 48,522,756 | 48.9 | 1.01 | 47,495,387 |
| chr8 | 27 | 20,903,902 | 49.0 | 2.34 | 20,529,685 |
| Total | 809 | 565,875,212 | 581.4 | 1.03 | 553,805,502 |
Note: total length, pseudochromosome length containing unknown base pairs in genome assembly; effective length, the pseudochromosome length without unknown base pairs
The correspondence between our genetic map and two published SSR-based maps [9] for scoring SSR markers
| Mantianxing × Juwuba | Male parent linkage group (number of SSR markers) | Female parent linkage group (number of SSR markers) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| LG1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LG2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| LG3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| LG4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LG5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LG6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LG7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LG8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Note: numbers in the table are shared SSR markers between Mantianxing × Juwuba map and the lotus genetic map constructed by Yang et al. ( the male and female genetic map) [9]
Fig. 4Comparison of LG1 in this study with LG1-M and LG7-M in SSR-based maps [9]. SSR marker information came from Yang et al. [9]