| Literature DB >> 28558696 |
Paula A M R Valdisser1,2, Wendell J Pereira3, Jâneo E Almeida Filho4, Bárbara S F Müller3, Gesimária R C Coelho1, Ivandilson P P de Menezes5, João P G Vianna2, Maria I Zucchi2, Anna C Lanna1, Alexandre S G Coelho6, Jaison P de Oliveira1, Alessandra da Cunha Moraes1, Claudio Brondani1, Rosana P Vianello7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Common bean is a legume of social and nutritional importance as a food crop, cultivated worldwide especially in developing countries, accounting for an important source of income for small farmers. The availability of the complete sequences of the two common bean genomes has dramatically accelerated and has enabled new experimental strategies to be applied for genetic research. DArTseq has been widely used as a method of SNP genotyping allowing comprehensive genome coverage with genetic applications in common bean breeding programs.Entities:
Keywords: Diversity analysis; Diversity arrays technology; Linkage disequilibrium; Loci under selection; Phaseolus vulgaris L
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28558696 PMCID: PMC5450071 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-017-3805-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
SNPs-DArTseq distribution by common bean chromosomes
| Chromosome | Number of SNPs | Chromosome size (kbp)a | Mean of SNP per Mbp |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 533 | 52183.50 | 10.21 |
| 2 | 792 | 49033.70 | 16.15 |
| 3 | 623 | 52218.60 | 11.93 |
| 4 | 389 | 45793.20 | 8.49 |
| 5 | 431 | 40237.50 | 10.71 |
| 6 | 532 | 31973.20 | 16.64 |
| 7 | 537 | 51698.40 | 10.39 |
| 8 | 656 | 59634.60 | 11.00 |
| 9 | 523 | 37399.60 | 13.98 |
| 10 | 401 | 43213.20 | 9.28 |
| 11 | 529 | 50203.60 | 10.54 |
| Scaffolds | 15 | - | - |
| Total | 5961 | 513589.10 | 11.58 |
aSchmutz et al. [9]
Fig. 1Distribution and positioning of SNPs along P. vulgaris chromosomes
Fig. 2Functional annotation of SNPs with high and moderate impact predicted by SnpEff. The terms were filtered according to the node score. The numbers represent the amount of transcripts related to each term
Fig. 3Population structure a Population structure inferred by the Bayesian approach based on SNPs for K = 2 to 5. K = 2 subdivided genotypes in Mesoamerican (red) and Andean (green). K = 3 subdivided the Mesoamerican genotypes into two groups: M1 (red) and M2 (blue). K = 5 subdivided the Mesoamerican genotypes into four groups: M1 (red), M2 (blue), M3 (pink), and M4 (yellow). b Dendrogram showing the division between the two gene pools: Andean (green), Mesoamerican (red), and admixture (blue)
Fig. 4a DAPC using the set of 5531 SNPs showing the separation between Mesoamerican cultivars/lines (red) and landraces (yellow). 1: Andean cultivars/lines; 2: Andean landraces; 3: Mesoamerican cultivars/lines; 4: Mesoamerican landraces; b Dendrogram showing the division between the two gene pools: Andean cultivars/lines (dark green), Andean landraces (light green), admixture (blue), Mesoamerican cultivars/lines (red), and Mesoamerican landraces (yellow)
Genetic diversity and divergence within Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools
| Group | S | P | NAP | HO (SE) | HE (SE) | F (SE) | FST (SE) | FIS (SE) | FIT (SE) | PI | PE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andean | 64 | 82.99% | 511 | 0.040 ± 0.002 | 0.102 ± 0.002 | 0.561 ± 0.006 | 0.747 ± 0.001 | 0.822 ± 0.001 | 0.955 ± 0.0031 | 1.05E-249 | 1 |
| Mesoamerican | 111 | 90.76% | 941 | 0.035 ± 0.001 | 0.168 ± 0.002 | 0.652 ± 0.006 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Total | 175 | 100 | - | 0.0373 ± 0.001 | 0.4425 ± 0.001 | 0.9082 ± 0.003 | 0 | 1 |
The sample size (S), percentage of polymorphic loci (P), number of private alleles (NAP), observed heterozygosity (H ), gene diversity (H E), inbreeding coefficient (F), genetic differentiation (F ), fixation index (F ), total inbreeding (F ), probability of identity (PI), probability of exclusion (PE), and standard deviations (SE) are presented
Genetic diversity and divergence among cultivars/lines and landraces of the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools
| Group | S | P | NAP | HO (SE) | HE (SE) | F (SE) | FST (SE) | FIS (SE) | FIT (SE) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mesoamerican | Cult/Linesa | 57 | 87.51% | 463 | 0.038 ± 0.001 | 0.177 ± 0.003 | 0.652 ± 0.006 | 0.031 ± 0.001 | 0.836 ± 0.001 | 0.841 ± 0.001 |
| Landraces | 54 | 90.78% | 627 | 0.040 ± 0.001 | 0.185 ± 0.002 | 0.646 ± 0.006 | ||||
| Total | 111 | 100.00% | - | 0.039 ± 0.001 | 0.185 ± 0.002 | 0.652 ± 0.006 | ||||
| Andean | Cult/Linesa | 31 | 88.39% | 1217 | 0.046 ± 0.002 | 0.145 ± 0.002 | 0.647 ± 0.007 | 0.012 ± 0.002 | 0.738 ± 0.001 | 0.741 ± 0.001 |
| Landraces | 33 | 73.49% | 533 | 0.050 ± 0.002 | 0.099 ± 0.002 | 0.377 ± 0.007 | ||||
| Total | 64 | 100.00% | - | 0.048 ± 0.002 | 0.123 ± 0.002 | 0.561 ± 0.007 | ||||
The sample size (S), percentage of polymorphic loci (P), number of private alleles (NAP), observed heterozygosity (H ), gene diversity (H E), inbreeding coefficient (F), genetic differentiation (F ), fixation index (F ), total inbreeding (F ), and standard deviations (SE) are presented
aCult/Lines: cultivars/lines
Fig. 5Genome-wide loess curves for genetic differentiation (F ST), Watterson’s θ (θW), and Tajima’s D for all 11 chromosomes in the P. vulgaris genome for each gene pool. F ST is given as an average across all pairwise comparisons between Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools. The results of Tajima’s D and θW are given for each gene pool separately: Mesoamerican (red) and Andean (green), and estimated for the whole population (grey). F ST, Tajima’s D and θW summary statistics were calculated for each 100 kb non-overlapping sliding window
Summary of the P. vulgaris genome-wide diversity based on SNPs-DArTseq
| Gene pool | Group | N | S | Θw | SE – θw | NDw | SE - NDw | π | SE - π | P | M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andean | Cult/Linesa | 31 | 3506 | 0.000777 | 0.000015 | 0.000554 | 0.000014 | 0.002171 | 0.000281 | 3858 | 1415 |
| Landraces | 33 | 2647 | 0.000580 | 0.000013 | 0.000386 | 0.000011 | 0.001357 | 0.000228 | 3190 | 2083 | |
| Total | 64 | 3889 | 0.000728 | 0.000013 | 0.000471 | 0.000012 | 0.001781 | 0.000266 | 4364 | 909 | |
| Mesoamerican | Cult/Linesa | 57 | 3283 | 0.000641 | 0.000014 | 0.000665 | 0.000020 | 0.004386 | 0.000488 | 4177 | 1096 |
| Landraces | 54 | 3460 | 0.000667 | 0.000014 | 0.000677 | 0.000019 | 0.004330 | 0.000566 | 4340 | 933 | |
| Total | 111 | 3957 | 0.000667 | 0.000012 | 0.000685 | 0.000019 | 0.004541 | 0.000572 | 4778 | 495 | |
| Whole | All | 181 | 5241 | 0.000713 | 0.000010 | 0.002038 | 0.000029 | 0.017125 | 0.001540 | 5273 | 0 |
The number of samples (N), number of segregating sites (S), Watterson’s nucleotide diversity (θw), nucleotide diversity within (NDw), diversity from Nei (π), number of polymorphic SNPs (P), number of monomorphic SNPs (M), and standard deviations (SE) are presented
aCult/Lines: cultivars/lines
Fig. 6LD decay without correction (r2, panels a, b and c) and corrected for relatedness and population structure (r2 sv, panels d, e and f) for the Mesoamerican (a and d), Andean (b and e) and the grouped accessions (c and f)
Haplotype blocks identification using the SNPs-DArTseq for the all accessions and within Andean (AND) and Mesoamerican (MESO) gene pools
| Chromosomes | Total of blocks | Average SNP/block | Blocks size (kb) | Physical length (kb)a | Block coverage (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | AND | MESO | All | AND | MESO | All | AND | MESO | All | All | |
| 1 | 31 | 2 | 22 | 13.94 | 4 | 3.64 | 42497.69 | 67.1 | 1831.76 | 52183.5 | 81.44 |
| 2 | 56 | 25 | 41 | 10.71 | 8.16 | 1.07 | 38734.17 | 22616.37 | 10256.22 | 49033.7 | 78.99 |
| 3 | 37 | 5 | 20 | 12.95 | 2.2 | 4.2 | 42067.03 | 28.27 | 6336.05 | 52218.6 | 80.56 |
| 4 | 35 | 19 | 18 | 6.83 | 6.11 | 5.22 | 30826.24 | 18181.43 | 20469.35 | 45793.2 | 67.32 |
| 5 | 35 | 9 | 20 | 8.89 | 7.33 | 3.8 | 28497.35 | 3365.23 | 10704.77 | 40237.5 | 70.82 |
| 6 | 40 | 10 | 23 | 10.58 | 7.4 | 3 | 24709.16 | 132885.33 | 1542.29 | 31973.2 | 77.28 |
| 7 | 37 | 5 | 18 | 11.35 | 2 | 2.78 | 35632.69 | 31.9 | 506.8 | 51698.4 | 68.92 |
| 8 | 62 | 5 | 36 | 6.9 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 35786.86 | 354.41 | 2954.98 | 59634.6 | 60.01 |
| 9 | 33 | 4 | 16 | 13.27 | 4.5 | 3.63 | 30338.75 | 1362.9 | 1922.26 | 37399.6 | 81.12 |
| 10 | 36 | 6 | 17 | 6.89 | 5.5 | 3.06 | 26847.85 | 1712.86 | 3235.07 | 43213.2 | 62.13 |
| 11 | 35 | 8 | 17 | 9.6 | 4.13 | 3.29 | 32104.09 | 659.16 | 2795.36 | 50203.6 | 63.95 |
| Total | 437 | 98 | 248 | 9.96 | 6.04 | 3.18 | 368041.88 | 181264.96 | 62554.91 | 513589.1 | 71.66b |
aSchmutz et al. [9]
bAverage genome block coverage for the all accessions
Fig. 7Spatial distribution of the genetic diversity (a) on the maps of total annual rainfall (b) and average annual temperature (c). The circle represents accessions from Mesoamerican origin and square from Andean origin. Source: IBGE, 2016 with modifications