| Literature DB >> 29169344 |
Jindong Liu1,2, Zhonghu He1,3, Awais Rasheed1, Weie Wen1, Jun Yan4, Pingzhi Zhang5, Yingxiu Wan5, Yong Zhang1, Chaojie Xie2, Xianchun Xia6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Black point is a serious threat to wheat production and can be managed by host resistance. Marker-assisted selection (MAS) has the potential to accelerate genetic improvement of black point resistance in wheat breeding. We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) using the high-density wheat 90 K and 660 K single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) assays to better understand the genetic basis of black point resistance and identify associated molecular markers.Entities:
Keywords: 660 K SNP array; 90 K SNP array; Enzymatic browning; Favorable and unfavorable allele; GWAS
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29169344 PMCID: PMC5701291 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-017-1167-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1Population structure analysis of 166 wheat accessions. a Estimated ∆K over five repeats of structure analysis; b three subgroups inferred by structure analysis; c neighbor-joining (NJ) tree; d principal components analysis (PCA) plots
Analysis of variance of black point scores in 166 wheat accessions
| Source of variation |
| Mean square |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Replicates (nested in environments) | 9 | 3896 | 7.4*** |
| Environments | 4 | 499,230 | 480.6*** |
| Genotypes | 165 | 5326 | 35.3*** |
| Genotypes × Environments | 660 | 798 | 4.9*** |
| Error | 1650 | 153 |
***significant at P < 0.0001
Loci for black point resistance in 166 wheat accessions identified by both the Tassel v5.0 and FarmCPU
| Markera | Chrb | Physical intervalc (bp) | Environment d | SNPe |
|
| QTL/geneh |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2A | 709,831,643-709,831,743 | E1, E2, E3, E4, E6 | T/ | 1.2–9.8 E−04 | 7.9–14.7 |
|
|
| 2A | 712,188,721–712,187,200 | E1, E2, E3, E4, E6 | – | 2.4–5.5 E−04 | 9.9–11.6 |
|
|
| 2B | 714,389,068–714,388,998 | E2, E3, E4, E6 |
| 2.0–7.3 E−04 | 8.8–11.5 |
|
|
| 3A | 9,605,904–9,605,974 | E2, E3, E4, E6 | A/ | 2.4–8.6 E−04 | 8.3–10.4 | |
|
| 3B | 58,767,930–58,768,000 | E1, E3 | A/ | 1.5–9.7 E−04 | 7.9–11.0 | |
|
| 3B | 695,967,481–695,967,411 | E1, E2, E3, E6 | A/ | 1.2–9.6 E−04 | 8.0–11.9 |
|
|
| 3D | 4,066,092–4,066,162 | E2, E3, E4, E6 | A/ | 4.1–9.4 E−04 | 8.2–9.7 | |
|
| 4B | 6,961,084–6,961,154 | E5 | C/ | 1.7–9.4 E−05 | 8.0–10.5 | |
|
| 4B | 504,944,902–504,944,832 | E1, E2, E3, E6 | A/ | 7.0 E−06-2.6 E−04 | 9.9–15.5 | |
|
| 5A | 32,887,598–32,887,698 | E3 | A/G | 1.9–5.3 E−04 | 8–8.9 |
|
|
| 5A | 535,780,381–535,780,311 | E1, E3, E6 | T/ | 4.8–9.9 E−04 | 8.1–11.4 | |
|
| 5A | 592,276,555–592,276,708 | E1, E2, E3, E4, E6 | A/ | 3.4 E−06-9.4 E−04 | 8.0–18.0 | |
|
| 5B | 302,177,272–302,177,428 | E2 | A/ | 8.60 E−04 | 8.1 | |
|
| 5B | 531,539,253–531,539,323 | E2, E3 | A/ | 1.4–9.5 E−04 | 8.0–11.5 | |
|
| 5B | 556,183,885–556,183,955 | E5 | T/ | 4.2–7.3 E−04 | 8.3–11.0 | |
|
| 6A | 94,2114,60–94,211,390 | E4 | C/ | 1.4–8.0 E−04 | 9.1–11.2 |
|
|
| 6B | 676,210,414–676,210,344 | E1 | A/ | 4.2–5.1 E−04 | 8.6–8.9 | |
|
| 6D | 217,194,463–217,194,533 | E4 | A/ | 6.30 E−04 | 8.5 | |
|
| 7A | 88,862,791–88,862,721 | E1, E6 | T/ | 2.2–8.8 E−04 | 8.6–11.6 | |
|
| 7A | 136,398,412–136,398,482 | E4, E5, E6 | A/ | 5.0–9.8 E−04 | 7.9–9.2 | |
|
| 7A | 609,508,901–609,508,971 | E2 | T/ | 8.50 E−04 | 8.2 |
|
|
| 7A | 670,876,731–670,876,661 | E5, E6 | C/ | 2.6–4.9 E−04 | 9.0–12.8 | |
|
| 7A | 70,8211,110–708,211,040 | E4 | A/ | 1.7–9.1 E−04 | 8.4–11.2 | |
|
| 7B | 729,224,017–729,224,087 | E1, E2, E3, E6 | A/ | 3.0 E−05-8.6 E−04 | 8.0–13.0 | |
|
| 7D | 129,917,622–129,917,692 | E1, E3 | A/ | 5.2–9.5 E−04 | 8.7–9.6 | |
|
| 7D | 615,826,844–615,826,914 | E5 | A/ | 8.30 E−04 | 8.2 |
aRepresentative markers at the resistance loci
bChr: Chromosome
cThe physical positions of SNP markers based on wheat genome sequences from the International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium (IWGSC, http://www.wheatgenome.org/)
dE1: Anyang 2013; E2: Anyang 2014; E3: Anyang 2015; E4: Suixi 2013; E5: Suixi 2014; E6: Best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) calculated from all five environments. The data from the results of Tassel v5.0
eFavorable allele (SNP) is underlined
fThe P-values were calculated by the Tassel v5.0
gPercentage of phenotypic variance explained by the MTA from the results of Tassel v5.0
hThe previously reported QTL or genes within the same chromosomal regions
Fig. 2Manhattan plots for black point resistance in 166 wheat accessions by the mixed linear model (MLM) in Tassel v5.0. a Anyang 2013; b Anyang 2014; c Anyang 2015; d Suixi 2013; e Suixi 2014; f Best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) values for black point scores calculated from all five environments. The -log10 (P) values from a genome-wide scan are plotted against positions on each of the 21 chromosomes. Horizontal lines indicate genome-wide significance thresholds
Fig. 3Manhattan plots for black point resistance in 166 wheat accessions by the FarmCPU. a Anyang 2013; b Anyang 2014; c Anyang 2015; d Suixi 2013; e Suixi 2014; f Best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) values for black point scores calculated from all five environments. The -log10 (P) values from a genome-wide scan are plotted against positions on each of the 21 chromosomes. Horizontal lines indicate genome-wide significance thresholds
Fig. 4Linear regression between the number of favorable alleles (a) and unfavorable alleles (b) and the BLUP values for black point scores
Candidate genes for SNPs significantly associated with black point resistance
| Chromosome | Marker | Candidate gene | Sequence similarity (%) | Sequence coverage (%) | Quality parameters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2AL |
| F-box repeat | 98 | 98 | 4 E−36 |
| 2AL |
| Polyphenol oxidase ( | – | – | – |
| 2AL |
| Peroxisomal biogenesis factor 2 | 97 | 97 | 4 E−12 |
| 2B |
| Serine/threonine-protein kinase | 97 | 96 | 6 E−06 |
| 3A |
| Disease resistance RPP8-like protein | 97 | 96 | 1 E−08 |
| 5AL |
| Serine/threonine-protein kinase | 100 | 99 | 8 E−39 |
| 5A |
| Gibberellin biosynthetic process | 97 | 100 | 4 E−07 |