| Literature DB >> 29078746 |
Jian Zhang1, Kai Chen1,2, Yunlong Pang1, Shahzad Amir Naveed1, Xiuqin Zhao1, Xiaoqian Wang1, Yun Wang1, Michael Dingkuhn3,4, Julie Pasuquin4, Zhikang Li1,2,5, Jianlong Xu6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ferrous iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) at high concentration in the soil cause heavy metal toxicity and greatly affect rice yield and quality. To improve rice production, understanding the genetic and molecular resistance mechanisms to excess Fe and Zn in rice is essential. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) is an effective way to identify loci and favorable alleles governing Fe and Zn toxicty as well as dissect the genetic relationship between them in a genetically diverse population.Entities:
Keywords: Fe toxicity; GWAS; QTL; Rice; Zn toxicity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29078746 PMCID: PMC5658907 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-017-4221-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Fig. 1Box plot of seven measured traits in two Fe (a) and Zn (b) experiments. CK, Control condition; Fe, Ferrous iron toxicity stress condition; Zn, Zinc toxicity stress condition; SH, Shoot height; RL, Root length; SFW, Shoot fresh weight; SDW, Shoot dry weight; RDW, Root dry weight; SWC, Shoot water content; SFe, Fe concentration in shoot; SZn, Zn concentration in shoot
Distributions of markers on 12 chromosomes
| Chr | Start (bp) | End (bp) | Size (Mb) | Count | Spacing | Length (Mb)a | Coverage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1579 | 43,256,417 | 43.25 | 47,895 | 903 | 45.06 | 96.0 |
| 2 | 2057 | 35,935,335 | 35.93 | 40,309 | 891 | 36.82 | 97.6 |
| 3 | 20,925 | 36,413,109 | 36.39 | 36,812 | 989 | 37.26 | 97.7 |
| 4 | 2212 | 35,462,406 | 35.46 | 35,119 | 1010 | 35.86 | 98.9 |
| 5 | 10,557 | 29,907,310 | 29.90 | 28,729 | 1041 | 30.04 | 99.5 |
| 6 | 2922 | 31,246,064 | 31.24 | 31,993 | 977 | 32.12 | 97.3 |
| 7 | 1638 | 29,691,817 | 29.69 | 28,919 | 1027 | 30.36 | 97.8 |
| 8 | 4149 | 28,441,872 | 28.44 | 30,496 | 933 | 28.53 | 99.7 |
| 9 | 38,389 | 22,939,999 | 22.90 | 25,045 | 914 | 23.84 | 96.1 |
| 10 | 3835 | 23,205,372 | 23.20 | 23,532 | 986 | 23.66 | 98.1 |
| 11 | 2041 | 29,020,003 | 29.02 | 36,841 | 788 | 30.83 | 94.1 |
| 12 | 2372 | 27,530,630 | 27.53 | 29,863 | 922 | 27.76 | 99.2 |
| Total | 372.96 | 395,553 | 943 | 382.15 | 97.7 |
aThe length of each chromosome and whole genome published by International Rice Genome Sequencing Project
Fig. 2Manhattan plots of iron toxicity tolerance QTL in the whole genome. Significant SNPs from different conditions are displayed in different colors: control is green, ferrous iron stress is yellow, the ratio value between ferrous iron stress and control is red. The associated traits are represented by different symbols: shoot height = triangle up, root length = triangle down, shoot fresh weight = ×, shoot dry weight = square, root dry weight = circle, shoot water content = star, ion concentration = +
QTL identified with significant association to ferrous iron toxicity tolerance related traits
| Traita | QTL | Chr | Interval (Mb) | Control | Fe stress | Ratio of stress to control | Previously reported QTL or gene | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Effectc |
|
| Effect |
|
| Effect |
| |||||
| SH |
| 1 | 38.11–38.54 | 4.62E-06 | −3.1 | 5.9 | |||||||
|
| 2 | 24.35–24.56 | 3.07E-05 | 3.0 | 4.8 | 9.03E-05 | 2.2 | 6.1 | 3.79E-05 | −0.04 | 7.3 | ||
|
| 6 | 10.17–10.38 | 5.69E-06 | 3.1 | 8.3 | 1.38E-06 | 3.3 | 9.5 |
| ||||
|
| 12 | 19.73–19.81 | 6.63E-05 | 3.2 | 4.4 | 3.49E-05 | 2.0 | 6.9 | |||||
| RL |
| 2 | 11.17–11.19 | 4.59E-05 | −0.7 | 8.3 | 1.51E-05 | 0.07 | 9.5 | ||||
|
| 3 | 23.50–23.68 | 1.56E-05 | 1.3 | 9.4 | 8.16E-05 | −0.8 | 7.8 | |||||
| SFW |
| 2 | 25.87–25.97 | 5.32E-06 | −30.1 | 9.7 | 4.21E-06 | −0.05 | 10.2 | ||||
|
| 3 | 26.68–26.79 | 7.39E-06 | 66.1 | 7.0 | 2.82E-05 | 42.1 | 5.5 | |||||
|
| 5 | 14.23–14.33 | 1.83E-05 | 58.3 | 8.6 | ||||||||
|
| 6 | 10.03–10.38 | 1.10E-05 | 40.5 | 9.0 | ||||||||
|
| 11 | 23.03–23.42 | 8.06E-05 | 47.0 | 7.4 | 5.41E-07 | 53.5 | 11.9 | |||||
| SDW |
| 3 | 26.68–26.79 | 3.16E-06 | 13.6 | 8.3 | 4.49E-06 | 12.7 | 9.3 |
| |||
|
| 3 | 35.01–35.29 | 2.60E-05 | 11.2 | 5.9 | 3.80E-06 | 13.6 | 8.8 |
| ||||
|
| 6 | 10.12–10.38 | 1.03E-05 | 5.4 | 9.2 | 6.35E-05 | 0.06 | 7.9 |
| ||||
|
| 11 | 23.03–23.19 | 5.35E-06 | 7.1 | 10.3 | 1.51E-06 | 6.8 | 11.0 |
| ||||
|
| 12 | 0.48–0.49 | 5.82E-05 | 7.3 | 7.9 | 5.24E-06 | 7.5 | 9.8 | |||||
| RDW |
| 3 | 15.60–15.70 | 1.04E-05 | −0.7 | 8.5 | 4.18E-05 | −0.9 | 7.8 |
| |||
|
| 5 | 14.24–14.33 | 3.05E-05 | 1.1 | 8.0 | ||||||||
|
| 6 | 10.03–10.38 | 1.78E-05 | 1.0 | 8.5 | ||||||||
|
| 8 | 25.15–25.22 | 3.91E-06 | 1.0 | 9.4 | ||||||||
|
| 9 | 14.56–14.84 | 2.97E-06 | 1.1 | 9.7 | 2.19E-05 | 1.2 | 8.4 |
| ||||
|
| 11 | 23.00–23.18 | 6.87E-05 | 0.8 | 6.9 | 6.62E-06 | 1.2 | 9.5 | |||||
|
| 12 | 0.42–0.48 | 1.19E-05 | 1.3 | 8.9 | ||||||||
| SWC |
| 2 | 24.17–24.41 | 2.38E-05 | −0.8 | 8.4 | 2.79E-05 | −0.01 | 8.6 | ||||
|
| 11 | ~23.95 | 1.14E-07 | −1.5 | 13.5 | 2.88E-06 | −0.02 | 10.9 |
| ||||
|
| 12 | 17.94–17.99 | 2.63E-05 | −1.4 | 9.0 | ||||||||
| SFe |
| 2 | 29.81–29.93 | 7.43E-06 | 1.7 | 9.4 | |||||||
|
| 5 | 11.18–11.19 | 5.66E-05 | 2.3 | 7.5 | ||||||||
|
| 6 | ~10.38 | 2.62E-05 | 1.8 | 8.2 | ||||||||
aSame as in Fig. 1
bthe peak value in the chromosome region
cAllele effect with respect to the minor allele
dPhenotypic variance explained
Fig. 3Manhattan plots of zinc toxicity tolerance QTL in the whole genome. Significant SNPs from different conditions are displayed in different colors: control is green, zinc stress is blue, the ratio between zinc stress and control is red. The symbols of associated traits are same as Fig. 2
QTL identified with significant association to zinc toxicity tolerance related traits
| Trait | QTL | Chr | Interval (Mb) | Control | Zn stress | Ratio of stress to control | Previously reported | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Effectb |
|
| Effect |
|
| Effect |
| QTL | ||||
| SH |
| 1 | 37.93–38.54 | 2.85E-06 | −3.4 | 3.7 | 6.39E-06 | −1.8 | 4.7 | ||||
|
| 4 | 0.87–0.89 | 4.24E-05 | 1.7 | 3.8 | 2.06E-05 | 0.03 | 9.0 | |||||
|
| 4 | 16.38–16.87 | 5.42E-05 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 1.70E-05 | 2.3 | 4.2 | |||||
|
| 7 | 6.19–6.27 | 1.00E-05 | 2.6 | 3.3 | ||||||||
|
| 10 | 11.54–11.55 | 3.22E-05 | 2.2 | 3.9 | ||||||||
| RL |
| 2 | 11.10–11.11 | 1.99E-05 | −0.6 | 8.0 | 9.73E-05 | −0.05 | 6.9 | ||||
|
| 4 | 5.10–5.11 | 3.69E-05 | 0.4 | 6.8 | ||||||||
|
| 8 | 24.66–24.77 | 6.27E-05 | −0.9 | 7.0 | 1.31E-05 | −0.07 | 8.7 | |||||
| SFW |
| 3 | 26.69–26.84 | 3.17E-06 | 87.7 | 6.7 | 3.91E-06 | 51.1 | 8.2 | ||||
|
| 3 | 35.03–35.16 | 1.15E-06 | 95.9 | 7.3 | 1.70E-06 | 61.1 | 8.8 |
| ||||
|
| 4 | 16.41–16.58 | 8.09E-07 | 47.1 | 9.4 | ||||||||
|
| 5 | 1.76–1.86 | 7.04E-05 | −31.2 | 6.0 | 2.63E-05 | −0.07 | 7.9 | |||||
|
| 10 | 13.05–13.09 | 3.85E-05 | 24.6 | 6.4 | 2.05E-05 | 0.06 | 8.1 | |||||
|
| 12 | 0.46–0.48 | 9.63E-07 | 64.9 | 9.3 | ||||||||
| SDW |
| 1 | 22.54–22.59 | 8.77E-06 | 8.7 | 6.4 | 3.80E-05 | 8.2 | 6.3 | ||||
|
| 3 | 26.69–26.84 | 6.20E-05 | 9.9 | 5.2 | 1.85E-06 | 8.3 | 4.4 | |||||
|
| 3 | 35.01–35.22 | 3.12E-05 | 9.0 | 5.6 | 1.47E-06 | 8.6 | 10.5 |
| ||||
|
| 4 | 16.46–16.58 | 4.13E-05 | 5.5 | 6.2 | ||||||||
|
| 5 | 7.24–7.55 | 1.04E-06 | 6.9 | 9.0 | ||||||||
|
| 7 | 28.83–28.87 | 9.88E-06 | −7.7 | 6.3 | ||||||||
|
| 8 | 19.65–19.68 | 2.55E-05 | 4.1 | 6.6 | ||||||||
|
| 12 | 0.47–0.48 | 5.52E-05 | 8.6 | 5.2 | 5.11E-06 | 8.6 | 7.8 | |||||
| RDW |
| 2 | 31.59–31.63 | 4.77E-06 | 0.8 | 9.8 | |||||||
|
| 5 | 11.07–11.19 | 1.40E-05 | −1.3 | 8.7 | 2.80E-05 | −1.2 | 8.1 | |||||
|
| 6 | ~10.38 | 1.68E-05 | −0.9 | 8.6 | 3.67E-05 | −0.06 | 8.4 | |||||
|
| 12 | 0.46–0.48 | 9.22E-05 | −0.8 | 7.1 | 2.50E-05 | −0.05 | 8.8 | |||||
| SWC |
| 5 | 1.83–2.03 | 8.47E-06 | −1.02 | 9.4 | 3.15E-05 | −0.01 | 7.3 | ||||
|
| 9 | 10.81–11.19 | 2.65E-06 | 0.64 | 10.5 | 1.67E-06 | 0.01 | 8.6 | |||||
|
| 10 | 13.05–13.12 | 2.31E-05 | 0.58 | 8.4 | 6.68E-05 | 0.01 | 6.7 | |||||
| SZn |
| 5 | 11.18–11.19 | 1.57E-06 | 0.72 | 11.8 | |||||||
|
| 11 | 17.63–17.83 | 4.10E-05 | −0.48 | 8.5 | ||||||||
aSame as in Fig. 1
bthe peak value in the chromosome region
cAllele effect with respect to the minor allele
dPhenotypic variance explained
List of 22 candidate genes for 10 important QTL associated with Fe or Zn toxicity tolerance
| QTL | Candidate gene | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| hypothetical protein |
|
|
| retrotransposon protein, putative, Ty3-gypsy subclass, expressed |
|
|
| NBS-LRR disease resistance protein, putative, expressed |
|
|
| expressed protein |
|
|
| Conserved hypothetical protein. |
|
|
| transposon protein, putative, CACTA, En/Spm sub-class, expressed |
|
|
| transposon protein, putative, CACTA, En/Spm sub-class |
|
|
| Similar to F-box domain containing protein. |
|
|
| LTPL95 - Protease inhibitor/seed storage/LTP family protein precursor, putative, expressed |
|
|
| conserved hypothetical protein |
|
|
| Similar to IAA-amino acid hydrolase 1 |
|
|
| cyclase/dehydrase family protein, expressed |
|
|
| hypothetical protein |
|
|
| NBS-LRR disease resistance protein, putative, expressed |
|
|
| retrotransposon protein, putative, unclassified, expressed |
|
|
| tRNA-splicing endonuclease subunit Sen2, putative, expressed |
|
|
| 40S ribosomal protein S9–2, putative, expressed |
|
|
| Ribosomal protein L34e domain containing protein |
|
|
| peroxidase precursor, putative, expressed |
|
|
| initiation factor 2 subunit family domain containing protein, expressed |
|
|
| expressed protein |
|
|
| ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme, putative, expressed |
|
|
| OsSPL19 - SBP-box gene family member, expressed |
|
|
| expressed protein |
Fig. 4Manhattan plot of important QTL and haplotype analysis of candidate genes related to QTL including qSh6 (a), qSdw3a (b and c), qSdw3b (d and e), qSdw6 (f), qSdw11 (g), qRdw9 (h), qSwc5 (i), qSwc10 (j), qSFe2 (k) and qSZn11(l). Each point was a gene in the region of the QTL. Line and histogram in different colors indicated different conditions: green is control condition, yellow is ferrous iron stress condition, blue is zinc stress condition and red is the ratio of zinc stress to control condition. Dash line showed the threshold to determine candidate genes. The ** and *** suggested significance of ANOVA at p < 0.01and p < 0.001, respectively. The letter on histogram (a and b) indicated multiple comparisons result at the significant level 0.01. The value in bracket was the number of individuals for each haplotype