| Literature DB >> 28480143 |
Emma C Wallace1, Lina M Quesada-Ocampo1.
Abstract
Downy mildew pathogens affect several economically important crops worldwide but, due to their obligate nature, few genetic resources are available for genomic and population analyses. Draft genomes for emergent downy mildew pathogens such as the oomycete Pseudoperonospora cubensis, causal agent of cucurbit downy mildew, have been published and can be used to perform comparative genomic analysis and develop tools such as microsatellites to characterize pathogen population structure. We used bioinformatics to identify 2,738 microsatellites in the P. cubensis predicted transcriptome and evaluate them for transferability to the hop downy mildew pathogen, Pseudoperonospora humuli, since no draft genome is available for this species. We also compared the microsatellite repertoire of P. cubensis to that of the model organism Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis, which causes downy mildew in Arabidopsis. Although trends in frequency of motif-type were similar, the percentage of SSRs identified from P. cubensis transcripts differed significantly from H. arabidopsidis. The majority of a subset of microsatellites selected for laboratory validation (92%) produced a product in P. cubensis isolates, and 83 microsatellites demonstrated transferability to P. humuli. Eleven microsatellites were found to be polymorphic and consistently amplified in P. cubensis isolates. Analysis of Pseudoperonospora isolates from diverse hosts and locations revealed higher diversity in P. cubensis compared to P. humuli isolates. These microsatellites will be useful in efforts to better understand relationships within Pseudoperonospora species and P. cubensis on a population level.Entities:
Keywords: Comparative genomics; Downy mildew; Microsatellites; Population genetics; Pseudoperonospora cubensis; Simple Sequence Repeats
Year: 2017 PMID: 28480143 PMCID: PMC5417063 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Pseudoperonospora isolates used for microsatellite screening.
| KIN2-1-4 | Electrophoresis | Infected leaf tissue | Lenoir County, NC | 2013 | ||
| WAY2-2A-1S | Electrophoresis | Sporangia | Haywood County, NC | 2013 | ||
| Kin2-2a-4 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Lenoir County, NC | 2013 | ||
| 14cle2-1-6a | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2014 | ||
| 14cle-1-7 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2014 | ||
| 14kin2-1-3B | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Lenoir County, NC | 2014 | ||
| way2-3-1 | Both | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2013 | ||
| 14kin2-3-2a | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Lenoir County, NC | 2014 | ||
| 14cle2-3-6a | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2014 | ||
| cle2-3-10 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2013 | ||
| way2-4-3 | Both | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2013 | ||
| 14cle2-4-3a | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2014 | ||
| cle2-4-8 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2013 | ||
| way2-4-7 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2013 | ||
| CLAY5_2 | Electrophoresis | Infected leaf tissue | Johnston County, NC | 2013 | ||
| cle-5-7 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2013 | ||
| 14kin2-5-5a | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Lenoir County, NC | 2014 | ||
| kin-5-4 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Lenoir County, NC | 2013 | ||
| kin-5-9 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Lenoir County, NC | 2013 | ||
| way2-6-2 | Both | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2013 | ||
| 14cle2-6-8a | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2014 | ||
| 14kin-6-6 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Lenoir County, NC | 2014 | ||
| cle2-6-6 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2013 | ||
| CLE2-7-3 | Electrophoresis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2013 | ||
| cle-7-3 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2013 | ||
| cle2-7-12 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2013 | ||
| way-7-10 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2013 | ||
| cle-11-12 | Both | Infected leaf tissue | Rowan County, NC | 2013 | ||
| way-11-7 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2013 | ||
| way-12-9 | Both | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2013 | ||
| way-12-6 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2013 | ||
| 14way-13-3a | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2014 | ||
| MSU-1 | Both | Sporangia | Homerville, Ohio, Provided by Brad Day (36) | 2007 | ||
| MSU2-B | Both | Sporangia | MI, Provided by Mary Hausbeck | 2013 | ||
| sw003 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | South Carolina, Provided by Peter Ojiambo | 1982 | ||
| NY10 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Suffolk, New York, Provided by Christine Smart | 2013 | ||
| NY8 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Ontario, New York, Provided by Christine Smart | 2013 | ||
| NY60 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Seneca, New York, Provided by Christine Smart | 2013 | ||
| SCD3 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | South Carolina, Provided by Peter Ojiambo | 2012 | ||
| FL2013E1 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Florida, Provided by Peter Ojiambo | 2013 | ||
| CA081 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | California, Provided by Peter Ojiambo | 2008 | ||
| SL1010 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Israel, Provided by Yigal Cohen | 2013 | ||
| SANT2-5 | Both | Sporangia | Henderson County, NC | 2014 | ||
| Cas5 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Henderson County, NC | 2014 | ||
| HDM-501ba | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Oregon, Provided by David Gent | 2012 | ||
| HDM-499 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Oregon, Provided by David Gent | 2013 | ||
| hdm503ac | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Vermont, Provided by David Gent | 2013 | ||
| hdm481j-1 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | New York, Provided by David Gent | 2011 | ||
| hdm457 e3 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Oregon, Provided by David Gent | 2011 | ||
| hdm254 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Oregon, Provided by David Gent | 2008 | ||
| hdm257 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Oregon, Provided by David Gent | 2008 | ||
| hdm110-2 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Washington, Provided by David Gent | 2006 | ||
| hdm140 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Oregon, Provided by David Gent | 2006 | ||
| hdm482 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | New York, Provided by David Gent | 2011 | ||
| hdm506cb | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | New York, Provided by David Gent | 2013 | ||
| hdm484A | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Czech Republic, Provided by David Gent | 2012 | ||
| 502aa | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Oregon, Provided by David Gent | 2013 | ||
| hdm490 | Both | Sporangia | Japan, Provided by David Gent | 2012 | ||
| hdm247 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Washington, Provided by David Gent | 2008 | ||
| hdm224 | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Oregon, Provided by David Gent | 2008 | ||
| Gal | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Henderson County, NC | 2014 | ||
| Zeus | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Henderson County, North Carolina | 2014 | ||
| Nug | Fragment analysis | Sporangia | Henderson County, North Carolina | 2014 | ||
| 14wayhop14 | Fragment analysis | Infected leaf tissue | Haywood County, NC | 2014 |
Number and distribution of microsatellite in transcript sequences according to MISA.
| Size of genome assembly (Mb) | 64.33 | 78.90 |
| Contig N50 (kbp) | 3.96 | 41.56 |
| Total number of sequences examined | 23,522 | 14,548 |
| Total size covered by examined sequences (Mb) | 26.90 | 13.94 |
| Total number of SSRs identified | 2,738 | 2,119 |
| Perfect | 2,638 (96.4%) | 1,964 (92.7%) |
| Compound | 100 (3.7%) | 155 (7.3%) |
| Number of SSR-containing sequences | 2,398 (10.2%) | 1,691 (11.6%) |
| Number of sequences containing more than one SSR | 280 (1.2%) | 316 (2.2%) |
| Total relative abundance (SSRs/Mb) | 101.79 | 152.01 |
| Total relative density (bp/Mb) | 1421.66 | 2322.89 |
Notes.
Data obtained from Savory et al. (2012a) and Savory et al. (2012b).
Data obtained from Baxter et al. (2010).
Percentage of total SSRs identified.
Percentage of total number of sequences examined.
Relative abundance is defined as the total number of SSRs per Mb of sequence analyzed.
Relative density is defined as the total sequence length (bp) contributed by SSRs per Mb of DNA of total sequence analyzed.
Percentage, relative abundance, and relative density of microsatellites in downy mildew transcripts.
| di | 563 | 20.56% | 20.93 | 205.44 | |
| tri | 1,675 | 61.18% | 62.27 | 732.99 | |
| tetra | 305 | 11.14% | 11.34 | 133.10 | |
| penta | 47 | 1.72% | 1.75 | 26.02 | |
| hexa | 148 | 5.41% | 5.50 | 89.45 | |
| di | 252 | 11.89% | 18.08 | 172.74 | |
| tri | 1,511 | 71.31% | 108.40 | 1207.53 | |
| tetra | 221 | 10.43% | 15.85 | 178.19 | |
| penta | 29 | 1.37% | 2.08 | 26.54 | |
| hexa | 105 | 4.96% | 7.53 | 114.06 |
Notes.
Percentage was calculated for each organism on the basis of the corresponding total SSRs count.
Relative abundance is defined as the total number of SSRs per Mb of sequence analyzed.
Relative density is defined as the total sequence length (bp) contributed by SSRs per Mb of DNA of total sequence analyzed.
Most common repeat motifs identified from perfect and compound microsatellites in two downy mildew transcriptomes.
| AGC/CTG | 451 | AGC/CTG | 495 |
| CG/CG | 400 | AAG/CTT | 330 |
| AAG/CTT | 359 | ACG/CGT | 227 |
| CCG/CGG | 238 | AGG/CCT | 149 |
| ACG/CGT | 172 | AG/CT | 119 |
| ACC/GGT | 164 | ATC/ATG | 107 |
| AGG/CCT | 104 | ACC/GGT | 82 |
| ATC/ATG | 104 | AC/GT | 76 |
| AG/CT | 87 | AAC/GTT | 55 |
| AC/GT | 74 | CG/CG | 48 |
| AAC/GTT | 69 | CCG/CGG | 40 |
| CCGG/CCGG | 33 | ACAG/CTGT | 29 |
| CCCG/CGGG | 32 | ACT/AGT | 24 |
| AGCC/CTGG | 28 | AAGG/CCTT | 19 |
| AAGC/CTTG | 27 | AGCG/CGCT | 17 |
Figure 1Frequency of number of repeats by motif-type and source transcriptome.
Statistics of polymorphic primers for P. cubensis and P. humuli.
| SSR79 | TGGCATGGC TTCGTACATGT | TAGTGGTGA GGAGGGGTCTG | Tankyrase 2 | (TCT)7 | 430–448 | 2 | 2 | 0.39 | 0.24 | 0.81 | 0.63 |
| SSR85 | GGAGGAGGA GGAGGAGGAAG | TCAACGTCG GGATCTTGACG | Digestive organ expansion factor | (AGA)7 | 285–390 | 6 | 5 | 0.60 | 0.18 | 0.72 | 0.38 |
| SSR97 | TGTTTCCGG TGAAGATCGCA | GCTTCCACGA TGAACGCATC | Crinkler (CRN) family protein | (GA)5 | 241–253 | 5 | 3 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.79 | 0.88 |
| SSR102 | CAAAAAGCG CGATATCGGCA | CCCAACC ACGTCTTCTTCGA | Crinkler (CRN) family protein | (AGA)4 | 288–309 | 7 | 4 | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 0.80 |
| SSR57 | GACAAAAA CGTGGACACCCG | TGGACCTT TTCCCCCATTGG | ATP-binding Cassette (ABC) Superfamily | (GGCGGT)4 | 230–284 | 5 | 2 | 0.26 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.88 |
| SSR66 | AGCGTCGTT CACCAAGATGT | CAGTGTCGTT GGCTGTTTCG | Type II (General) Secretory Pathway (IISP) Family | (TGGAGG)3 | 243-303 | 6 | 4 | 0.74 | 0.33 | 0.85 | 0.49 |
| SSR34 | AGGTGCAA GGTCTGATGACG | TCCTTCACT CTCCCTGTCGT | TIMELESS interacting protein | (AGA)7 | 162-198 | 3 | 2 | 0.26 | 0.46 | 0.52 | 0.91 |
| SSR88 | CAAATGCC CATGGGAATGCC | ACTCATCT GCGCGATCTGAG | Conserved gene of unknown function | (AATGCA)3 | 118–130 | 3 | 2 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.80 | 0.98 |
| SSR29 | GGAAGAAG AGGGCGACACAA | GATCTATG CTGGGTGCTGCT | AP-1 complex subunit beta | (CAA)8 | 122–176 | 7 | 3 | 0.35 | 0.21 | 0.42 | 0.49 |
| SSR16 | TCAGCCTT CTAATGCCCAGC | GTTGCTGT TGTTGCTGCTGT | Multiple banded antigen | (CAACAG)6 | 236–278 | 4 | 2 | 0.66 | 0.10 | 0.88 | 0.48 |
| SSR1 | TAGCTGCT GTGGATGTGACG | TACTTTCTC TGGGCAGCTGC | Conserved gene of unknown function | (AAG)12 | 275–341 | 9 | 3 | 0.75 | 0.49 | 0.68 | 0.73 |
| Mean | 5.18 | 2.91 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.69 | 0.70 | |||||
Notes.
Heterozygosity is Nei (1978) gene diversity.
Evenness is a measure of the distribution of MLGs within the isolates (Pielou, 1975; Grünwald et al., 2003).
Figure 2A genotype accumulation curve for 51 isolates of P. cubensis and P. humuli across 11 loci.
The dashed line marks the set threshold of when 90% of the observed MLGs can be detected. This occurs when 7–8 markers are used.
Figure 3Multi Locus Genotypes for Pseudoperonospora isolates.
A rarefaction curve demonstrating P. cubensis is expected to have 20.87 MLGs and P. humuli is expected to have 16 MLGs at the largest, shared sample size (n = 16).
Figure 4Index of association in Pseudoperonospora isolates calculated from 999 resamplings.
(A) The distribution of I for P. cubensis isolates showing a failure to reject the null hypothesis of sexual reproduction. (B) The distribution of I for P. humuli showing a rejection of the null hypothesis, thus suggesting a clonal population.
Figure 5UPGMA dendrogram of Bruvo’s distance between individuals of P. cubensis and P. humuli.
Analysis implemented 1,000 bootstrap replications.