| Literature DB >> 29387162 |
Amandine Cornille1,2, Pierre Gladieux1,2,3, Tatiana Giraud1,2.
Abstract
Crop-to-wild gene flow have important evolutionary and ecological consequences and require careful consideration in conservation programs for wild genetic resources of potential use in breeding programs and in assessments of the risk of transgene escape into natural ecosystems. Using 26 microsatellites and a set of 1181 trees, we investigated the extent of introgression from the cultivated apple, Malus domestica, to its three closest wild relatives, M. sylvestris in Europe, M. orientalis in the Caucasus, and M. sieversii in Central Asia. We found footprints of introgression from M. domestica to M. orientalis (3.2% of hybrids), M. sieversii (14.8%), and M. sylvestris (36.7%). Malus sieversii and M. orientalis presented weak, but significant genetic structures across their geographic range. Malus orientalis displayed genetic differentiation with three differentiated populations in Turkey, Armenia, and Russia. Malus sieversii consisted of a main population spread over Central Asia and a smaller population in the Tian Shan Mountains. The low Sp values suggest high dispersal capacities for the wild apple relatives. High potential for crop-to-wild gene flow in apples needs to be considered in the implementation of in situ and ex situ actions for the conservation of wild apple genetic resources potentially useful to plant breeding.Entities:
Keywords: Venturia inaequalis; apple scab; conservation; costructure; hybridization; pathogen; tree
Year: 2013 PMID: 29387162 PMCID: PMC5779123 DOI: 10.1111/eva.12059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Figure 1Coefficients of membership in various gene pools inferred with the STRUCTURE program, based on data sets including 40 Malus domestica reference samples (green, N = 40) and one of the three wild Malus species in each case. The x‐axis is not shown in scale. Hybrids were detected by running STRUCTURE from K = 2 to K = 3 for Malus sieversii and up to K = 4 for Malus sylvestris and Malus orientalis.
Figure 2Distribution of the admixture proportion of wild genotypes to the Malus domestica gene pool (P ) inferred by STRUCTURE for (A) Malus orientalis at K = 4, (B) for Malus sieversii at K = 3 (C) for Malus sylvestris at K = 4. P admixture proportion of a wild genotype assigned to the M. domestica gene pool, average across sites for each class, P (GENOTYPES): proportion of genotypes.
Genetic variation within Malus sieversii and Malus orientalis
| Species | Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Ch Xinj | 21 | 0.71 | 0.75 | 0.05 | 3.5 |
| Kaz 3 | 8 | 0.76 | 0.74 | −0.03 | 3.5 | |
| Kaz Aksu | 7 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.007 | 3.9 | |
| Kaz Kuz | 13 | 0.69 | 0.72 | 0.05 | 3.1 | |
| Kaz djun res | 19 | 0.7 | 0.80 | 0.05 | 3.5 | |
| Kaz tauturgen | 7 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.04 | 3.2 | |
| Kaz unid 2 | 6 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.07 | 3.9 | |
| Overall | 101 | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.05 | ||
|
| ARA | 10 | 0.82 | 0.81 | −0.02 | 6.1 |
| Djermuk 1 | 10 | 0.71 | 0.82 | 0.14 | 5.7 | |
| Djermuk 2 | 9 | 0.74 | 0.77 | 0.03 | 5.4 | |
| Hermon 1 | 14 | 0.81 | 0.80 | −0.02 | 6.5 | |
| Hermon 2 | 12 | 0.78 | 0.81 | 0.04 | 6.2 | |
| Hermon 3 | 12 | 0.84 | 0.80 | −0.06 | 6.1 | |
| Jermouck | 13 | 0.77 | 0.84 | 0.08 | 7.1 | |
| Khosrov Reserve 1 | 10 | 0.74 | 0.85 | 0.13 | 6.5 | |
| Khosrov Reserve 5 | 8 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.03 | 6.5 | |
| Khosrov Reserve 6 | 15 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.03 | 6.3 | |
| Shikahogh 1 | 16 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.08 | 6 | |
| Shikahogh 3 | 16 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.03 | 6 | |
| Vorotanpass 1 | 15 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.04 | 6.3 | |
| Vorotanpass 2 | 21 | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.02 | 5.9 | |
| Overall | 211 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.06 |
N, sample size of each cluster, H O and H E, observed and expected heterozygosities, F IS, inbreeding coefficient, A R, mean allelic richness across loci, corrected by the rarefaction method.
For Malus sieversii, five sites (Ch pop1, Kaz Kokbu, Kaz Kotyr, Uzbe, Kaz Almat) with N < 6 were excluded from these analyses. 0.05 < P ≤ 0.01.
For Malus orientalis, 14 sites (KhosrovReserve 2, 3, 3bis, 3ter, 4, 7, 8, 9, unidentified, Arm unknown, Kaz Kokbu, Turkey, Russia, Shikahogh2) with N < 6 were excluded from the analyses. P < 0.001.
Figure 3Bayesian clustering results for Malus sieversii (N = 101) in Central Asia, obtained with TESS at K = 2, and associated map of mean membership probabilities per site. Each individual is represented by a vertical bar, partitioned into K segments representing the amount of ancestry of its genome corresponding to K clusters. Visualization was improved by sorting genotypes by site.
Figure 4Bayesian clustering results for Malus orientalis in the Caucasus (N = 217) obtained with TESS at K = 3 and an associated map of mean membership probabilities per site. Each individual is represented by a vertical bar, partitioned into K segments representing the amount of ancestry of its genome corresponding to K clusters. Visualization was improved by sorting the genotypes by site.