| Literature DB >> 28482802 |
Aifen Tao1, Long Huang2, Guifen Wu3, Reza Keshavarz Afshar4, Jianmin Qi5, Jiantang Xu1, Pingping Fang1, Lihui Lin1, Liwu Zhang1, Peiqing Lin1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic mapping and quantitative trait locus (QTL) detection are powerful methodologies in plant improvement and breeding. White jute (Corchorus capsularis L.) is an important industrial raw material fiber crop because of its elite characteristics. However, construction of a high-density genetic map and identification of QTLs has been limited in white jute due to a lack of sufficient molecular markers. The specific locus amplified fragment sequencing (SLAF-seq) strategy combines locus-specific amplification and high-throughput sequencing to carry out de novo single nuclear polymorphism (SNP) discovery and large-scale genotyping. In this study, SLAF-seq was employed to obtain sufficient markers to construct a high-density genetic map for white jute. Moreover, with the development of abundant markers, genetic dissection of fiber yield traits such as plant height was also possible. Here, we present QTLs associated with plant height that were identified using our newly constructed genetic linkage groups.Entities:
Keywords: Corchorus capsularis L; Genetic map; Plant height; QTL; SLAF
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28482802 PMCID: PMC5421330 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-017-3712-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Fig. 1Depth and number of markers for each of the F8 individual and their parents. The x-axis in a and b indicates the plant accession including the female parent and the male parent followed by each of the F8 individuals, the y-axis indicates depth in a and number of markers in b
SLAF markers mining results
| Type of markers | Number of SLAF markers | Total depth | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polymorphisms | 5,074 | 3,124,714 | 7.31% |
| Non-polymorphisms | 64,372 | 42,268,156 | 92.69% |
| Total | 69,446 | 45,392,870 | 100% |
Fig. 2Number of markers for eight segregation patterns
Description on basic characteristics of the 11 LGs
| Linkage group ID | Marker number | Total distance (cM) | Average distance (cM) | Largest Gap | Gaps < = 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LG1 | 210 | 406.34 | 1.93 | 5.18 | 99.04% |
| LG2 | 161 | 300.35 | 1.87 | 4.16 | 100% |
| LG3 | 127 | 246.46 | 1.94 | 4.16 | 100% |
| LG4 | 108 | 243.60 | 2.26 | 4.42 | 100% |
| LG5 | 64 | 107.53 | 1.68 | 3.77 | 100% |
| LG6 | 62 | 66.99 | 1.08 | 2.76 | 100% |
| LG7 | 55 | 63.26 | 1.15 | 2.8 | 100% |
| LG8 | 39 | 71.41 | 1.83 | 2.82 | 100% |
| LG9 | 34 | 41.47 | 1.22 | 1.57 | 100% |
| LG10 | 28 | 44.31 | 1.58 | 2.84 | 100% |
| LG11 | 25 | 29.66 | 1.19 | 1.24 | 100% |
| Max linkage group | 210 | 406.34 | 1.93 | 5.18 | 99.04% |
| Min linkage group | 25 | 29.66 | 1.19 | 1.24 | 100% |
| Total | 913 | 1621.42 | |||
| Average | 83.00 | 147.40 | 1.61 | 3.25 | 99.91% |
‘Gap < =5’ indicates the percentages of gaps in which the distance between adjacent markers was smaller than 5 cM
Fig. 3High-density linkage map and QTLs associated with plant height for white jute
Description on type of the markers
| Linkage group | Number of total markers | SNP_only | InDel_ only | SNP&InDel |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 210 | 183 | 23 | 4 |
| 2 | 161 | 141 | 17 | 3 |
| 3 | 127 | 106 | 19 | 2 |
| 4 | 108 | 96 | 10 | 2 |
| 5 | 64 | 54 | 7 | 3 |
| 6 | 62 | 53 | 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 55 | 41 | 11 | 3 |
| 8 | 39 | 34 | 5 | 0 |
| 9 | 34 | 29 | 2 | 3 |
| 10 | 28 | 23 | 4 | 1 |
| 11 | 25 | 21 | 3 | 1 |
| Total | 913 | 781 | 109 | 23 |
| Average | 83 | 71 | 10 | 2 |
Fig. 4Percentages of diverse types of markers on each linkage group
Statistic of mapped SNP marker types
| Type | Number | Ratio |
|---|---|---|
| M(A/C) | 66 | 8.40% |
| R(A/G) | 266 | 34.11% |
| Y(C/T) | 273 | 34.96% |
| S(C/G) | 46 | 5.95% |
| W(A/T) | 72 | 9.25% |
| K(G/T) | 57 | 7.33% |
| Total | 781 | 100% |
Distribution of segregation distortion markers
| Linkage group | Number of total markers | Percentage | Number of segregation distortion markers | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 210 | 23.00% | 184 | 87.62% |
| 2 | 161 | 17.63% | 153 | 95.03% |
| 3 | 127 | 13.91% | 115 | 90.55% |
| 4 | 108 | 11.83% | 102 | 94.44% |
| 5 | 64 | 7.01% | 59 | 92.19% |
| 6 | 62 | 6.79% | 56 | 90.32% |
| 7 | 55 | 6.02% | 46 | 83.64% |
| 8 | 39 | 4.27% | 36 | 92.31% |
| 9 | 34 | 3.72% | 30 | 88.24% |
| 10 | 28 | 3.07% | 26 | 92.86% |
| 11 | 25 | 2.74% | 23 | 92.00% |
| Total | 913 |
Fig. 5Frequency distribution of plant height in the RIL population of white jute in 2011 and 2012. The x-axis indicates the plant height of the RIL population and the parents, and the y-axis indicates the distributing frequency of plant height. Arrows indicate the distributing frequency of plant height for each parent
QTLs for plant height in the RIL population in both 2011 and 2012
| QTL | Position(cM) | Left Marker | Right Marker | LOD | PVE | ADD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 222.5–225.5 | Marker4534 | Marker36189 | 2.65 | 4.14 | −0.05 |
|
| 8.5–10.5 | Marker31754 | Marker37873 | 4.93 | 9.37 | 0.07 |
|
| 129.5–131.5 | Marker29182 | Marker24007 | 4.81 | 9.51 | 0.07 |
|
| 222.5–225.5 | Marker595 | Marker17742 | 7.20 | 15.63 | −0.08 |
|
| 230.5–233.5 | Marker28534 | Marker26538 | 3.16 | 5.41 | −0.04 |
|
| 269.5–270.5 | Marker34442 | Marker21780 | 5.27 | 9.91 | −0.08 |
|
| 229.5–231.5 | Marker21995 | Marker35742 | 3.33 | 6.33 | −0.06 |
|
| 9.5–12.5 | Marker29916 | Marker20881 | 2.84 | 4.73 | −0.06 |
|
| 17.5–21.5 | Marker27537 | Marker25534 | 3.47 | 5.55 | −0.06 |
|
| 30.5–36.5 | Marker5567 | Marker15972 | 3.22 | 5.35 | −0.06 |
|
| 33.5–37.5 | Marker16051 | Marker33314 | 2.92 | 4.84 | −0.06 |