| Literature DB >> 30872859 |
Michiel T Klaassen1,2, Peter M Bourke1, Chris Maliepaard1, Luisa M Trindade1.
Abstract
Protein content is a key quality trait for the potato starch industry. The objective of this study was to identify allele-specific quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for tuber protein content in cultivated potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) at the tetraploid level. We analysed 496 full-sib F1 clones in a 3-year field trial to dissect the complex genetic architecture of soluble tuber protein content. Genotypic data from a 60K single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array was used for SNP dosage scoring, constructing homologue specific linkage maps and assembly of a dense integrated chromosomal linkage map. From the integrated map, probabilistic multi-locus identity-by-descent (IBD) haplotypes (alleles) were estimated and used to detect associations between the IBD haplotypes and the phenotypic trait values. Moderate levels of trait heritability were estimated between 40 and 74% that correspond with previous studies. Our contemporary naive analysis identified potential additive QTLs on chromosomes 2, 3, 5 (top arm) and 9 across the years. Moreover, cofactor QTL analysis identified two masked QTLs on chromosomes 1 and 5 (lower arm). The QTLs on chromosomes 2, 5 (lower arm) and 9 are reported here for the first time. The QTLs that we identified on chromosomes 1, 3 and 5 (top arm) show overlap with previous studies for protein content in potato. Collectively the naive QTLs explained 12 to 17% of the phenotypic variance. The underlying alleles of the QTLs provided both positive and negative effects on the phenotype. Our work uncovers the complex genetic architecture of this trait and describes potential breeding strategies for improvement. As protein has emerged as a high-value component from industrial potato starch production, the dissection of the genetic architecture and subsequent improvement of this trait by breeding has great economic and environmental relevance.Entities:
Keywords: Alleles; Haplotypes; Potato; Protein content; QTL analysis; Tetraploid
Year: 2019 PMID: 30872859 PMCID: PMC6390886 DOI: 10.1007/s10681-018-2331-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Euphytica ISSN: 0014-2336 Impact factor: 1.895
Linkage map summary of the parental varieties Altus and Colomba
| Chr. | Totala | Altusb | Colombab | Altusc | Colombac | Length of integrated chr. linkage map (cM) | Length of physical chr. map of PGSC v4.03 (Mb) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| h1 | h2 | h3 | h4 | h1 | h2 | h3 | h4 | ||||||
| 1 | 2780 | 981 | 982 | 384 | 519 | 213 | 232 | 344 | 285 | 179 | 397 | 118.8 | 88.7 |
| 2 | 2604 | 1410 | 705 | 331 | 650 | 556 | 100 | 237 | 325 | 237 | 231 | 88.0 | 48.6 |
| 3 | 2916 | 1706 | 775 | 389 | 788 | 254 | 239 | 181 | 216 | 118 | 331 | 103.0 | 62.3 |
| 4 | 1985 | 905 | 631 | 121 | 293 | 228 | 344 | 200 | 61 | 391 | 200 | 107.5 | 72.2 |
| 5 | 1743 | 751 | 705 | 288 | 257 | 173 | 115 | 164 | 208 | 301 | 77 | 85.8 | 52.1 |
| 6 | 1991 | 1059 | 538 | 365 | 458 | 200 | 179 | 228 | 144 | 130 | 148 | 86.6 | 59.5 |
| 7 | 1814 | 807 | 600 | 310 | 192 | 209 | 117 | 123 | 167 | 247 | 227 | 81.0 | 56.8 |
| 8 | 1675 | 616 | 723 | 231 | 100 | 222 | 214 | 190 | 103 | 337 | 207 | 88.1 | 56.9 |
| 9 | 1778 | 733 | 639 | 335 | 275 | 165 | 94 | 183 | 156 | 317 | 124 | 95.2 | 61.5 |
| 10 | 1204 | 355 | 499 | 197 | 77 | 126 | 81 | 183 | 146 | 124 | 158 | 87.3 | 59.8 |
| 11 | 1454 | 574 | 608 | 217 | 130 | 119 | 143 | 171 | 278 | 98 | 151 | 77.6 | 45.5 |
| 12 | 1384 | 463 | 593 | 115 | 80 | 194 | 209 | 187 | 117 | 185 | 103 | 84.8 | 61.2 |
| Total | 23,328 | 10,360 | 7998 | 3283 | 3819 | 2659 | 2067 | 2391 | 2206 | 2993 | 2354 | 1103.7 | 725.1 |
Table S1 provides detailed information of the phased SNP markers. Chr. = chromosome. h1 to h4 = homologue 1 to homologue 4
aNumber of mapped markers on the integrated chromosomal linkage maps
bMarkers with segregating alleles from one parent only which include simplex × nulliplex and duplex × nulliplex in the parent under consideration
cNumber of homologue-specific markers in simplex condition in the parent under consideration which includes alleles from simplex × nulliplex, simplex × simplex, simplex × duplex and simplex × triplex in one parent and vice versa for the other parent
Fig. 1Plots of the genetic location (cM) versus physical position (Mbp) of SNPs across the chromosomes. The twelve chromosomes of potato are shown in the boxes. The horizontal stretches in the plotted data represent the centromeric regions on the chromosomes
Fig. 2Distributions of protein content across the years. The green colour stands for year 2012, the orange colour stands for year 2013, the blue colour stands for year 2014 and the pink colour stands for the BLUEs of the years 2012 to 2014. Corresponding box plots are shown below the histogram figures. The arrows indicate the mean values for the parental varieties Altus (parent 1) and Colomba (parent 2). SD standard deviation. (Color figure online)
Summary statistics of protein content for the years 2013, 2014 and 2013–2014
| Parameter | 2013 | 2014 | 2013–2014 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Min. | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.58 |
| Mean | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.93 |
| Max. | 1.63 | 1.63 | 1.63 |
| σG2 | 0.013*** | 0.021*** | 0.042*** |
| σGxY2 | – | – | 0.001 N.S. |
| σε2 | 0.039 | 0.034 | 0.062 |
|
| 0.40 | 0.55 | 0.74 |
σG2 = Genotype/clone variance, σGxY2 = Genotype/clone by Year interaction variance, σε2 = Residual variance, H2 = Broad sense heritability estimate
***P < 0.001, N.S. non-significant: P > 0.05
Fig. 3Plots of the values of protein content between the years 2012–2013, 2012–2014 and 2013–2014. The red line represents the simple linear regression line. (Color figure online)
Fig. 4LOD profiles of the naive single-locus QTL analysis. The boxes represent the twelve individual chromosomes of potato. The red dashed line represents the year 2012, the purple dotted line represents the year 2013, the blue line represents the year 2014 and the black line in bold represents the BLUEs of the years 2012–2014. The horizontal dashed line represents the permutation-based LOD threshold. (Color figure online)
Statistics of QTLs from the naive single-locus QTL analysis
| Year | Chr. | LOD peak position and LOD-2 interval (cM) | LOD score |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 |
| 56: 44–75 | 8.4 | 0.076 |
| 2013 |
| 48: 47–53 | 5.9 | 0.051 |
| 2014 |
| 21: 9–33 | 6.6 | 0.059 |
| 2014 |
| 25: 22–39 | 9.5 | 0.084 |
| BLUEs 2012–2014 |
| 30: 19–54 | 6.5 | 0.058 |
| BLUEs 2012–2014 |
| 69: 32–82 | 8.2 | 0.074 |
| BLUEs 2012–2014 |
| 48: 34–55 | 6.5 | 0.058 |
Naive represents naive QTL analysis without cofactors. Chr. represents chromosome. LOD represents logarithm of the odds. LOD-2 interval spans the support interval above the QTL threshold. BLUEs represent best linear unbiased estimates
Fig. 5Contribution of homologues on the values of protein content for the QTLs identified on chromosomes 2 (top left), 3 (top right), 5 (bottom right) and 9 (bottom left). Homologues (hom.) 1 to 4 originate from Altus (parent 1) and homologues 5 to 8 from Colomba (parent 2). The upper vertical scale in blue to red represents the contribution of the homologues on the values of protein content. The lower vertical scale in dark green to light green represents the genotypic information coefficient (GIC) of the homologues. The horizontal red dashed line in the LOD plot represents the permutation-based LOD threshold. The horizontal scale below the homologue box represents the genetic (cM) positions. (Color figure online)
Fig. 6LOD profiles of both the naive and cofactor QTL analysis for the BLUEs of the years 2012–2014. The black line in bold represents the LOD scores of the naive QTL analysis and the red dashed line represents the LOD scores of the cofactor QTL analysis with three peak QTLs set as cofactors from chromosomes 2, 3 and 9 (Table 3). The top horizontal dashed line shows the permutation-based LOD threshold for the naive QTL analysis and the lower horizontal dashed line shows the permutation-based LOD threshold for the cofactor QTL analysis. (Color figure online)
Statistics of QTLs from cofactor analysis
| Year | Naive QTL(s) as cofactor(s): chr. (position)a | LOD scores of QTLs by cofactor analysis (chr. and position)b | New QTLs identified by cofactor analysis: chr. (position)d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 5.7 ( | 0.051 | No | |
| 2013 | 7.8 ( | 0.07 | No | |
| 2013 | N.S. Fig. S3 | N.S. | No | |
| 2014 | 9.3 ( | 0.083; 0.050 | ||
| 2014 | 6.2 ( | 0.056 | No | |
| 2014 | N.S. Fig. S6 | N.S. | No | |
| BLUEs 2012–2014 | 5.4 ( | 0.049; 0.081; 0.056 | ||
| 6.8 ( | 0.062; 0.052 | No | ||
| 6.2 ( | 0.056; 0.067 | No | ||
| 6.1 ( | 0.059 | No | ||
| 8.2 ( | 0.074; 0.053 | |||
| 6.7 ( | 0.06 | No | ||
| N.S. Fig. | N.S. | No |
Chr., chromosome; Position, QTL peak position in centiMorgan (cM); LOD, logarithm of the odds; BLUEs, best linear unbiased estimates; N.S., non-significant
aQTL(s) identified by naive QTL analysis (Table 3)
bQTL(s) identified by cofactor QTL analysis after one or more QTL(s) identified by naive QTL analysis were used as cofactors
cVariance explained (R2) of QTL(s) identified by cofactor QTL analysis
dNew QTLs identified by cofactor QTL analysis that were not identified by naive QTL analysis