| Literature DB >> 28644843 |
Jun Wang1,2, Zhilan Wang1,2, Xiaofen Du1,2, Huiqing Yang1,2, Fang Han3, Yuanhuai Han4, Feng Yuan1,2, Linyi Zhang1,2, Shuzhong Peng1,2, Erhu Guo1,2.
Abstract
Foxtail millet (Setaria italica), a very important grain crop in China, has become a new model plant for cereal crops and biofuel grasses. Although its reference genome sequence was released recently, quantitative trait loci (QTLs) controlling complex agronomic traits remains limited. The development of massively parallel genotyping methods and next-generation sequencing technologies provides an excellent opportunity for developing single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for linkage map construction and QTL analysis of complex quantitative traits. In this study, a high-throughput and cost-effective RAD-seq approach was employed to generate a high-density genetic map for foxtail millet. A total of 2,668,587 SNP loci were detected according to the reference genome sequence; meanwhile, 9,968 SNP markers were used to genotype 124 F2 progenies derived from the cross between Hongmiaozhangu and Changnong35; a high-density genetic map spanning 1648.8 cM, with an average distance of 0.17 cM between adjacent markers was constructed; 11 major QTLs for eight agronomic traits were identified; five co-dominant DNA markers were developed. These findings will be of value for the identification of candidate genes and marker-assisted selection in foxtail millet.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28644843 PMCID: PMC5482450 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Phenotypic data analyses of eight agronomic traits for 124 F2 individuals.
| Trait | P1 | P2 | Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Max | Min | Skewness | Kurtosis | |||
| PH (cm) | 154.0 | 176.8 | 185.5 | 214.0 | 113.5 | -1.60 | 5.39 |
| MPL (cm) | 21.7 | 19.4 | 24.3 | 34.6 | 11.8 | -0.23 | 1.07 |
| MPD (cm) | 1.8 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 5.3 | 3.2 | 0.23 | -0.56 |
| FMID (cm) | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.16 | 0.48 |
| SMID (cm) | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.10 | 0.52 |
| TMID (cm) | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 1.91 |
| MPWP (g) | 11.6 | 28.3 | 37.0 | 77.2 | 10.5 | 0.55 | 0.95 |
| MGWP (g) | 10.0 | 27.1 | 29.8 | 60.7 | 3.9 | 0.10 | 0.68 |
Correlation coefficients among agronomic traits in 124 F2 individuals.
| Traits | PH | MPL | MPD | FMID | SMID | TMID | MPWP |
| MPL | 0.488 | ||||||
| MPD | -0.088 | 0.355 | |||||
| FMID | 0.064 | 0.400 | 0.548 | ||||
| SMID | 0.052 | 0.346 | 0.516 | 0.916 | |||
| TMID | 0.011 | 0.310 | 0.542 | 0.848 | 0.897 | ||
| MPWP | 0.223 | 0.462 | 0.678 | 0.610 | 0.622 | 0.623 | |
| MGWP | 0.238 | 0.389 | 0.595 | 0.530 | 0.543 | 0.551 | 0.973 |
*, ** Correlation is significant at the probability levels of 0.05 and 0.01, respectively plant height (PH, cm), main panicle length (MPL, cm), main panicle diameter (MPD, cm), first main internode diameter (FMID, cm), second main internode diameter (SMID, cm), third main internode diameter (FMID, cm), Main panicle weight per plant (MPWP), main grain weight per plant (MGWP)
Number and coverage of SNP markers on the nine chromosomes.
| Chr. | Marker | Cover length (Mb) | Chr. Length (Mb) | Coverage (%) | Density (marker/Mb) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4414 | 42.11 | 42.15 | 99.92 | 104.82 |
| 2 | 7592 | 49.14 | 49.20 | 99.87 | 154.51 |
| 3 | 8017 | 50.65 | 50.65 | 100.00 | 158.28 |
| 4 | 5323 | 40.38 | 40.41 | 99.93 | 131.82 |
| 5 | 6274 | 47.08 | 47.25 | 99.63 | 133.27 |
| 6 | 6048 | 35.97 | 36.01 | 99.87 | 168.15 |
| 7 | 7542 | 35.38 | 35.96 | 98.37 | 213.19 |
| 8 | 10625 | 40.61 | 40.69 | 99.81 | 261.63 |
| 9 | 9166 | 58.72 | 58.97 | 99.57 | 156.10 |
| Total | 65001 | 400.03 | 401.30 | 99.66 | 164.64 |
Fig 1Number of markers for each segregation pattern.
Fig 2Genetic linkage map and QTLs controlling agronomic traits.
Characteristics of the high-density genetic map.
| Linkage group | No. of markers | Distance (cM) | Average distance between markers (cM) | Largest gap | Missing data (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chr. 1 | 369 | 186.0 | 0.50 | 34.23 | 7.80% |
| Chr. 2 | 1373 | 197.3 | 0.14 | 8.00 | 8.36% |
| Chr. 3 | 1553 | 197.5 | 0.13 | 16.80 | 7.58% |
| Chr. 4 | 597 | 177.2 | 0.30 | 23.21 | 7.16% |
| Chr. 5 | 605 | 199.2 | 0.33 | 16.65 | 6.69% |
| Chr. 6 | 841 | 144.3 | 0.17 | 18.95 | 8.42% |
| Chr. 7 | 1212 | 155.8 | 0.13 | 7.77 | 6.52% |
| Chr. 8 | 2541 | 199.9 | 0.08 | 7.41 | 7.24% |
| Chr. 9 | 877 | 191.6 | 0.22 | 17.70 | 7.96% |
| Total | 9968 | 1648.8 | 0.17 | 34.23 | 8.42% |
Fig 3Genetic distance vs. physical distance for 9,968 SNPs in foxtail millet.
QTLs controlling agronomic traits in the Hongmiaozhangu × Changnong35 F2 population.
| Trait | QTL | Chr. | P | LOD-threshold | LOD | Position (cM) | Marker number | PVE (%) | Additive effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PH (cm) | 1 | 0.2 | 3.10 | 3.36 | 184.84 | 19 | 11.1 | 6.03 | |
| MPL (cm) | 1 | 0.1 | 3.47 | 3.48 | 102.48 | 11 | 11.5 | 1.44 | |
| 1 | 0.1 | 3.47 | 3.57 | 105.15 | 5 | 11.8 | 1.36 | ||
| 8 | 0.2 | 3.11 | 3.66 | 20.39 | 65 | 12.1 | 1.63 | ||
| MPD (cm) | 7 | 0.1 | 3.60 | 3.85 | 81.12 | 16 | 12.6 | -0.15 | |
| FMID (cm) | 9 | 0.05 | 3.98 | 4.80 | 110.86 | 47 | 15.5 | 0.10 | |
| 5 | 0.1 | 3.59 | 3.67 | 49.33 | 1 | 12.1 | -0.09 | ||
| SMID (cm) | 9 | 0.05 | 3.97 | 4.11 | 113.15 | 3 | 13.5 | 0.09 | |
| TMID (cm) | 2 | 0.2 | 3.19 | 3.30 | 64.86 | 22 | 11.0 | 0.08 | |
| 5 | 0.2 | 3.19 | 3.26 | 49.33 | 1 | 10.8 | -0.09 | ||
| MPWP (g) | 9 | 0.1 | 3.64 | 3.92 | 187.83 | 10 | 12.9 | -2.48 |
Fig 4The amplification of newly developed DNA markers in the parents and F2 individuals.