| Literature DB >> 28603340 |
Monika Rakoczy-Trojanowska1,2, Paweł Krajewski3, Jan Bocianowski4, Małgorzata Schollenberger1, Wojciech Wakuliński1, Paweł Milczarski5, Piotr Masojć5, Małgorzata Targońska-Karasek1,2, Zofia Banaszak6, Katarzyna Banaszak6, Waldemar Brukwiński6, Wacław Orczyk7, Andrzej Kilian8.
Abstract
Rye is a crop with relatively high resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. However, the resistance to brown rust (Puccinia recondita f. sp. secalis) and pre-harvest sprouting are still not satisfactory. High α-amylase activity is also among the main disadvantages of this species. Therefore, effective tools, e.g. molecular markers, allowing precise and environmentally independent selection of favourable alleles are desirable. In the present study, two kinds of association mapping-genome-wide association mapping (GWAM) based on sequences of DArTSeq markers and candidate gene association mapping (CGAM) based on sequences of ScBx genes-were chosen for development of molecular markers fulfilling these criteria. The analysed population consisted of 149 diverse inbred lines (DILs). Altogether, 67 and 11 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified in, respectively, GWAM and CGAM, were significantly associated with the investigated traits: 2 SNPs with resistance to brown rust, 71 SNPs with resistance to pre-harvest sprouting and 5 SNPs with α-amylase activity in the grain. Fifteen SNPs were stable across all environments. The highest number (13) of environmentally stable SNPs was associated with pre-harvest sprouting resistance. The test employing the Kompetitive Allele Specific PCR method proved the versatility of four markers identified in both GWAM and CGAM.Entities:
Keywords: Candidate gene association mapping; DArTSeq; Genome-wide association mapping; Kompetitive allele specific PCR; ScBx genes
Year: 2017 PMID: 28603340 PMCID: PMC5443880 DOI: 10.1007/s11105-017-1030-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Mol Biol Report ISSN: 0735-9640 Impact factor: 1.595
Statistical characteristics of observations in field experiments
| Experiment | Number of DILs | Mean | Std. error of mean value | Minimum | Maximum | Coefficient of variation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-R (0–5 scale) | ||||||
| DANKO 2013 | 102 | 3.56 | 0.07 | 0.67 | 5.00 | 19.93 |
| DANKO 2014 | 152 | 3.66 | 0.05 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 16.08 |
| WPUT 2013 | 103 | 3.38 | 0.06 | 1.50 | 4.67 | 19.02 |
| WPUT 2014 | 149 | 2.97 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 23.65 |
| PHS-R (%) | ||||||
| DANKO 2013 | 100 | 37.12 | 1.51 | 8.63 | 78.42 | 40.59 |
| DANKO 2014 | 145 | 36.50 | 1.38 | 4.08 | 84.19 | 45.51 |
| WPUT 2013 | 103 | 44.30 | 3.11 | 3.54 | 98.75 | 71.22 |
| WPUT 2014 | 150 | 53.97 | 2.11 | 8.00 | 95.81 | 47.86 |
| AMY (U/mL) | ||||||
| DANKO 2013 | 98 | 11.97 | 0.10 | 9.00 | 16.00 | 8.67 |
| DANKO 2014 | 151 | 9.43 | 0.07 | 6.67 | 13.38 | 9.04 |
| WPUT 2013 | 102 | 10.35 | 0.08 | 8.50 | 14.75 | 8.24 |
| WPUT 2014 | 148 | 10.90 | 0.09 | 7.50 | 15.25 | 10.47 |
Correlations of observed mean values for DILs in four experiments
| Experiment | Trait | R-R | PHS-R | AMY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DANKO 2014 | R-R | 1 | ||
| PHS-R | −0.048 | 1 | ||
| AMY | 0.070 | 0.046 | 1 | |
| DANKO 2014 | R-R | 1 | ||
| PHS-R | 0.101 | 1 | ||
| AMY | 0.005 | 0.131 | 1 | |
| WPUT 2013 | R-R | 1 | ||
| PHS-R | 0.107 | 1 | ||
| AMY | 0.169* | −0.020 | 1 | |
| WPUT 2014 | R-R | 1 | ||
| PHS-R | −0.003 | 1 | ||
| AMY | 0.061 | −0.002 | 1 |
*Significant at P < 0.05
Phenotypic and genetic correlations between environments for observed traits
| Correlation between | In | R-R | PHS-R | AMY | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenotypica | Geneticb | Phenotypica | Geneticb | Phenotypica | Geneticb | ||
| 2013–2014 | DANKO | 0.64 | 0.84 | 0.32 | 0.44 | 0.40 | 1.00 |
| WPUT | 0.57 | 0.79 | 0.39 | 0.56 |
| 0.51 | |
| DANKO - WPUT | 2013 | 0.65 | 0.86 | 0.31 | 0.66 |
| 0.48 |
| 2014 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.55 | 1.00 | |
aCorrelations given in italics are not significant at P < 0.01
bEstimated in the mixed linear model with (year x location) combinations treated as four environments with fixed effects, and with unstructured genetic covariance matrix for interaction of lines and environments
Comparison of groups of lines
| Group of lines | R-R | PHS-R | AMY |
|---|---|---|---|
| D | 3.136a | 41.35a | 10.60a |
| OG | 3.505bc | 51.01a | 10.70a |
| P | 3.393b | 43.89a | 10.41a |
| S | 3.743c | 42.81a | 11.24b |
| W | 3.509bc | 52.33ab | 10.25a |
| WR | 3.461b | 40.12a | 10.61a |
|
| <0.001 | 0.055 | <0.001 |
| LSD0.05 | 0.29 | 10.65 | 0.56 |
Fig. 1Population structure estimated by eigenanalysis
Fig. 2Homozygosity for SNP
SNPs in DArT sequences and ScBx genes significantly and stably associated with R-R, PHS-R and AMY
| Type of association analysis | SNP ID/(consensus map position—chromosome position)a | SNP location | R-R | PHS-R | AMY | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −log10 ( | Allelic effectb | −log10 ( | Allelic effect b | −log10 ( | Allelic effect b | |||
| GWAM | 5200240/- | X | 2.94 | 3.88 | ||||
| 5217029/5RL, 160Mil | X | 2.97 | 2.81 | |||||
| 3745935/6RS, 35.9 Mil | X | 3.46 | −4.72 | |||||
| 5802575/3RL, 105 Mil | X | 3.23 | −3.16 | |||||
| 3595498/6RS, 15.9 Mil | X | 3.45 | −3.94 | |||||
| 3602388/2R, 110.7Mar | X | 3.35 | −2.33 | |||||
| 7104304/- | 2.94 | 1.06 | ||||||
| 3581291/1RL, 168.7 Mil | X | 4.02 | 0.24 | |||||
| CGAM | ScBx4_1583/5RS | First intron | 2.24 | −0.14 | ||||
| ScBx1_1367c/7RS | Promoter | 2.35 | 2.82 | |||||
| ScBx1_2474/7RS | Promoter | 2.08 | 2.68 | |||||
| ScBx1_4515c /7RS | Seventh exon | 2.19 | 2.61 | |||||
| ScBx1_4663/7RS | 3′UTR | 2.53 | 2.70 | |||||
| ScBx1_4736/7RS | 3′UTR | 2.20 | 2.36 | |||||
| ScBx4_1627/5RS | First intron | 2.17 | 2.97 | |||||
Map positions of ScBx genes—according to Sue et al. (2011). Mil—maps of Milczarski et al. (2011); Milczarski et al. (2016); Bolibok-Brągoszewska (unpublished) and Milczarski et al. (unpublished); Mar—map of Martis et al. (2013)
aFor GWAM-based markers
bAllelic (SNP) effects refer to the ALT allele with respect to the REF allele
cMarkers validated in KASP analysis;
Evaluation of accuracy of selected markers in detecting trait phenotype
| Marker | Zygote | Associated trait | EXS | EVS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean value ± sd of the associated trait | % of mismatchesa | Mean value ± sd of the associated trait | % of mismatchesa | |||
| 3,602,388 | REF (G/G) | PHS-R | 63.84 ± 17.20 | 11.11 | 62.73 ± 3.98 | 0.00 |
| ALT (A/A) | 19.17 ± 11.79 | 5.56 | 11.91 ± 6.22 | 0.00 | ||
| heterozygote (G/A) | 72.94 ± 0.00b | – | –c | – | ||
| ScBx1_1367 | REF (G/G) | PHS-R | 17.15 ± 2.72 | 0.00 | 9.61 ± 5.94 | 0.00 |
| ALT (A/A) | 66.43 ± 14.11 | 5.26 | 62.32 ± 3.74 | 0.00 | ||
| heterozygote (G/A) | 49.32 ± 34.46 | – | 97.00 ± 0.00b | – | ||
| ScBx1_4515 | REF (T/T) | PHS-R | 19.16 ± 11.80 | 5.56 | 11.91 ± 6.22 | 0.00 |
| ALT (C/C) | 63.00 ± 18.73 | 13.33 | 60.05 ± 12.29 | 3.84 | ||
| heterozygote (T/C) | 49.32 ± 34.46 | – | –c | – | ||
| ScBx5_1593 | REF (C/C) | R-R | 3.90 ± 0.36 | 5.00 | 3.81 ± 0.64 | 3.85 |
| ALT (G/G) | 2.49 ± 0.48 | 7.14 | 2.04 ± 0.32 | 7.69 | ||
| heterozygote (C/G) | 3.12 ± 0.80 | – | –c | – | ||
REF homozygote with the same alleles as present in the reference line L318, ALT homozygote with alleles resulting from a given SNP
aEstimated only for homozygotes
bOnly one heterozygote present in EVS
cNo heterozygotes present in EVS