| Literature DB >> 28484473 |
Xuanli Guan1,2,3, Nana Yuyama4, Alan Stewart5, Chenglong Ding6, Nengxiang Xu6, Takako Kiyoshi7, Hongwei Cai1,2,3,4.
Abstract
To assess the genetic diversity and population structure of Lolium species, we used 32 nuclear simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers and 7 cytoplasmic gene markers to analyze a total of 357 individuals from 162 accessions of 9 Lolium species. This survey revealed a high level of polymorphism, with an average number of alleles per locus of 23.59 and 5.29 and an average PIC-value of 0.83 and 0.54 for nuclear SSR markers and cytoplasmic gene markers, respectively. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) revealed that 16.27 and 16.53% of the total variation was due to differences among species, with the remaining 56.35 and 83.47% due to differences within species and 27.39 and 0% due to differences within individuals in 32 nuclear SSR markers set and 6 chloroplast gene markers set, respectively. The 32 nuclear SSR markers detected three subpopulations among 357 individuals, whereas the 6 chloroplast gene markers revealed three subpopulations among 160 accessions in the STRUCTURE analysis. In the clustering analysis, the three inbred species clustered into a single group, whereas the outbreeding species were clearly divided, especially according to nuclear SSR markers. In addition, almost all Lolium multiflorum populations were clustered into group C4, which could be further divided into three subgroups, whereas Lolium perenne populations primarily clustered into two groups (C2 and C3), with a few lines that instead grouped with L. multiflorum (C4) or Lolium rigidum (C6). Together, these results will useful for the use of Lolium germplasm for improvement and increase the effectiveness of ryegrass breeding.Entities:
Keywords: Lolium; cytoplasm gene; genetic diversity; nuclear SSR; population structure
Year: 2017 PMID: 28484473 PMCID: PMC5399756 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00584
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Materials used in this study.
| 26 | 76 | |
| 34 | 34 | |
| 19 | 19 | |
| 2 | 2 | |
| 32 | 86 | |
| 44 | 131 | |
| 2 | 4 | |
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 4 | |
| Total | 162 | 357 |
The genetic diversity for five major .
| 76 | 17.88 | 0.30 | 0.84 | 0.30 | 0.82 | 26 | 4.50 | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 0.52 | |
| 34 | 4.28 | 0.74 | 0.36 | 0.03 | 0.34 | 34 | 3.17 | 0.74 | 0.35 | 0.00 | 0.32 | |
| 19 | 2.34 | 0.83 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 0.21 | 19 | 2.17 | 0.75 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.27 | |
| 86 | 14.72 | 0.40 | 0.74 | 0.23 | 0.72 | 32 | 4.17 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.00 | 0.51 | |
| 131 | 17.34 | 0.28 | 0.84 | 0.30 | 0.83 | 42 | 3.83 | 0.58 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.44 | |
No. of sample: Number of samples used. AN, Number of alleles; AF, Frequency of major allele; GD, Genetic diversity; H, Heterozygosity; PIC, Polymorphism information content.
Pair-wise estimates of F.
| 0.26 | 0.3 | 0.22 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.16 | 0.14 | ||
| 0.52 | 0.36 | 0.28 | 0.3 | 0.26 | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.49 | ||
| 0.57 | 0.3 | 0.58 | 0.35 | 0.29 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.62 | ||
| 0.63 | 0.31 | 0.48 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.46 | ||
| 0.27 | 0.52 | 0.6 | 0.61 | 0.09 | 0.27 | 0.2 | 0.16 | ||
| 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.18 | 0.16 | ||
| 0.58 | 0.67 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 0.57 | 0.6 | 0.58 | 0.48 | ||
| 0.65 | 0.7 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.49 | 0.4 | ||
| 0.55 | 0.68 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.48 | 0.59 | 0.66 | 0.69 |
Pair-wise estimates of F.
| 0.20 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.47 | 0.43 | ||
| 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.27 | 0.42 | 0.33 | ||
| 0.34 | 0.15 | 0.53 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 0.68 | ||
| 0.45 | 0.34 | 0.16 | 0.24 | 0.18 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 0.48 | ||
| 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.27 | 0.24 | ||
| 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.17 | ||
| 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.56 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.23 | 0.21 | ||
| 0.41 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.22 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.65 | 0.38 | ||
| 0.52 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.63 | 0.37 | 0.51 | 0.47 | 0.72 |
Figure 1Population structure of . Bar plot was sorted by Q-values in single line.
Figure 2Population structure of . Bar plot was sorted by Q-values in single line.
Figure 3Unrooted neighbor-joining tree comprising 357 individuals from 162 accessions of .
Figure 4Unrooted neighbor-joining tree of 160 accessions of .