| Literature DB >> 30914040 |
Fangjie Yao1, Xuemei Zhang1, Xueling Ye1, Jian Li1, Li Long1, Can Yu1, Jing Li1, Yuqi Wang1, Yu Wu1, Jirui Wang1,2, Qiantao Jiang1, Wei Li3, Jian Ma1, Yuming Wei1,2, Youliang Zheng1,2, Guoyue Chen4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stripe rust is a serious fungal disease of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) caused by Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici (Pst), which results in yield reduction and decreased grain quality. Breeding for genetic resistance to stripe rust is the most cost-effective method to control the disease. In the present study, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) was conducted to identify markers linked to stripe rust resistance genes (or loci) in 93 Northern Chinese wheat landraces, using Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT) and simple sequence repeat (SSR) molecular marker technology based on phenotypic data from two field locations over two growing seasons in China.Entities:
Keywords: Diversity arrays technology; Genome-wide association study; Landrace; Simple sequence repeat; Stripe rust; Wheat
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30914040 PMCID: PMC6434810 DOI: 10.1186/s12863-019-0736-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Fig. 1Violin plots illustrating the density distribution of stripe rust response in four environments and BLUE_ALL. The IT data for 2016M, 2016C, 2017M and 2017C were converted from 0, 0; 1, 2, 3 and 4 to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 scale, respectively, to allow comparison across all data sets. The white dot displays the median, the top and bottom of the thick black vertical bars represent first and third quartiles, respectively, and the green fill shows DS and IT estimates (n = 93). The two graphs were drawn using the omicshare online tool violin2 (http://www.omicshare.com/tools/Home/Soft/violin2)
Summary of stripe rust responses in four environments and BLUE_ALL
| 2016 M | 2016C | 2017 M | 2017C | BLUE_ALL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT (1–6) | DS (%) | IT (1–6) | DS (%) | IT (1–6) | DS (%) | IT (1–6) | DS (%) | IT (1–6) | DS (%) | |
| Minimum | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1.50 | 0.00 |
| Average | 4.57 | 37.91 | 4.82 | 58.67 | 3.73 | 13.21 | 4.05 | 40.90 | 4.29 | 36.43 |
| Maximum | 6 | 100 | 6 | 100 | 6 | 80 | 6 | 100 | 6.00 | 91.00 |
| Stdeva | 1.11 | 31.16 | 1.29 | 33.67 | 1.69 | 19.40 | 1.62 | 39.75 | 1.21 | 25.82 |
| CVb | 0.24 | 0.82 | 0.27 | 0.57 | 0.45 | 1.47 | 0.40 | 0.97 | 0.28 | 0.71 |
| σG 2c | 7.47**e | 6.83** | ||||||||
|
| 0.85 | 0.80 | ||||||||
a Stdev = Standard Deviation
b CV = Coefficient of Variation
c σG2 = Estimate of genotypic variance
d H = Heritability
e **P < 0.001
Fig. 2Model-based population structure of the 93 Northern Chinese wheat landraces combined with markers. (a) The result obtained from Structure Harvester analysis (k = 2); (b) Population structure of the wheat gene pool based on Bayesian inference among 7899 DArT and SSR polymorphism markers; (c) Cluster analysis was based on the neighbor-joining algorithm. The red block indicates the 66 accessions varieties of subpopulation 1 and the green block indicates the 27 accessions varieties of subpopulation 2 (Additional file 1)
Summary of markers numbers, PIC, gene diversity and MAF for each of the 21 chromosomes in the wheat genome
| Chromosome | Number of marker | PICa | Gene Diversity | MAFb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1A | 361 | 0.2490 | 0.3042 | 0.2179 |
| 2A | 641 | 0.2437 | 0.2938 | 0.2010 |
| 3A | 205 | 0.2589 | 0.3174 | 0.2253 |
| 4A | 403 | 0.2410 | 0.2925 | 0.2056 |
| 5A | 184 | 0.2461 | 0.2998 | 0.2120 |
| 6A | 444 | 0.2655 | 0.3272 | 0.2363 |
| 7A | 339 | 0.2603 | 0.3211 | 0.2349 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1B | 578 | 0.2654 | 0.3283 | 0.2396 |
| 2B | 764 | 0.2501 | 0.3061 | 0.2188 |
| 3B | 831 | 0.2541 | 0.3105 | 0.2205 |
| 4B | 300 | 0.2501 | 0.3058 | 0.2202 |
| 5B | 563 | 0.2469 | 0.3003 | 0.2091 |
| 6B | 302 | 0.2402 | 0.2898 | 0.1984 |
| 7B | 317 | 0.2735 | 0.3393 | 0.2503 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1D | 204 | 0.2529 | 0.3112 | 0.2284 |
| 2D | 315 | 0.2527 | 0.3094 | 0.2192 |
| 3D | 130 | 0.2460 | 0.2988 | 0.2090 |
| 4D | 102 | 0.2574 | 0.3147 | 0.2231 |
| 5D | 255 | 0.2460 | 0.3002 | 0.2147 |
| 6D | 290 | 0.2606 | 0.3193 | 0.2257 |
| 7D | 371 | 0.2740 | 0.3415 | 0.2556 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a PIC, polymorphism information content
b MAF, minor allele frequency
c genome information were labeled in bold
Fig. 3Linkage disequilibrium decay plot for 93 Northern Chinese wheat landraces based on 5486 DArT markers. The scatter plots showing pairwise DArT markers LD r value as a function of inter-marker genetic distances (cM). (a) Genome-wide average LD decay plot; (b) LD decay plot of A genome; (c) LD decay plot of B genome; (d) LD decay plot of D genome
Fig. 4The GLM (a) and MLM (b) Manhattan plot of stripe rust resistance significantly associated markers. The horizontal line shows the genome-wide significant threshold p value of 0.001 or –log10 (P) value of 3.0. The A, B and D genomes are in red and blue colors successively. Q-Q plot (c) used to assess the fit of the model
Summary of quantitative trait loci for stripe rust resistance identified at the adult plant stage among 93 northern Chinese wheat landraces
| QTL Name | Trait | Env.a | Marker | Position (cM)b | −log10( | R2 | Reported QTL/genesc | Intervald | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| DS | 2016C |
| 74.85 | 3 | 0.15 |
|
| Naruoka et al. [ |
|
|
| Quan et al. [ | |||||||
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| 84.89 | 3.22 | 0.18 |
|
| Ren et al. [ |
|
|
| Melichar et al. [ | |||||||
|
| IT | 2016 M |
| 34.17 | 3.26 | 0.18 |
| Rosewarne et al. [ | |
|
| IT | 2016 M |
| – | 3.62 | 0.2 |
|
| – |
|
| IT | 2016 M |
| 9.02 | 4.13 | 0.24 |
|
| – |
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| 52.89 | 3.2 | 0.18 |
|
| – |
|
| DS&IT | 2016 M |
| 47.09 | 3.28 | 0.15 | New | ||
| 2016 M |
| 47.09 | 3.14 | 0.14 | |||||
|
| IT | 2016 M |
| 119.65 | 4.33 | 0.25 |
|
| Dolores et al. [ |
|
| IT | 2016C |
| 132.76 | 3.6 | 0.2 |
|
| Dolores et al. [ |
| IT | 2016 M |
| 132.76 | 5.75 | 0.34 |
|
| Chen et al. [ | |
|
|
| Prins et al. [ | |||||||
|
| IT | 2016C |
| – | 3.02 | 0.13 |
|
| Lan et al. [ |
|
| DS | 2017C |
| – | 3.32 | 0.16 |
|
| – |
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| – | 3.09 | 0.17 |
|
| – |
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| 58.79 | 3.3 | 0.18 |
|
| Hou et al. [ |
|
|
| Hou et al. [ | |||||||
|
|
| Bariana et al. [ | |||||||
|
|
| Case et al. [ | |||||||
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| – | 3.26 | 0.18 |
|
| – |
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| 131.85 | 3.19 | 0.18 |
|
| Hou et al. [ |
|
|
| Hou et al. [ | |||||||
|
| IT | BLUE_ALL |
| – | 3.55 | 0.19 |
|
| – |
|
| IT | 2016 M |
| 36.52 | 3.16 | 0.18 | New | ||
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| 87.39 | 3.83 | 0.21 | New | ||
| DS | 2017 M |
| 87.60 | 3.29 | 0.18 | ||||
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| – | 4.35 | 0.25 | New | ||
| DS | 2017 M |
| – | 3.15 | 0.17 | ||||
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| 31.19 | 3.34 | 0.18 |
|
| Dong et al. [ |
| DS | 2017 M |
| 26.85 | 3.69 | 0.21 |
|
| Santra et al. [ | |
|
| IT | 2016C |
| – | 3.15 | 0.13 |
|
| Agenbag et al. [ |
|
|
| Liu et al. [ | |||||||
|
| IT | BLUE_ALL |
| – | 3.41 | 0.15 | – | – | – |
|
| DS | 2017 M |
| 65.83 | 4.12 | 0.23 | New | ||
| BLUE_ALL |
| 65.83 | 3.16 | 0.17 | |||||
|
| DS | 2016 M |
| 94.32 | 3.54 | 0.16 | New | ||
|
| 97.09 | 3.54 | 0.16 | ||||||
|
| IT | BLUE_ALL |
| – | 3.13 | 0.17 | – | – | – |
a Four environments in this study, where 2016M = 2016 Mianyang, 2016C = 2016 Chongzhou, 2017M = 2017 Mianyang, 2017C = 2017 Chongzhou; BLUE_ALL was obtained across environments considering genotypes as a fixed effect in the model
b The markers were positioned on the DArT-seq consensus map version 4.0 provided by Diversity Arrays Technology (https://www.diversityarrays.com)
c Yr genes or QTL reported in previous studies, “-” indicates the QTL detected in the present study that could not be localized on the integrated map, “New” indicates the QTL detected in the present study that have not been reported preciously
d The interval of the reported QTL or genes on the integrated map of previously reported stripe rust resistance genes and QTL (Additional file 6)
Fig. 5Chromosomal positions comparison between present detected Pst resistance QTL and reported Yr genes and QTL. All chromosomes are of standardized same relative lengths. QTL identified in this study and previously reported Yr genes are on left side of the chromosomes in red and black, respectively, and QTL for stripe rust resistance (black bar) are on right side of the chromosomes. The underlined QTL on the left side of the chromosomes might be novel loci in this study. All positions are approximations, and thus should be treated as guidelines for future studies. The detailed information of relationships between the QTL identified in this study and previously mapped Yr genes and QTL are based on this result integrated by the BioMercator V4.2 and described in the unpublished data of our research group (Table 3 and Additional file 6)
Fig. 6Regression of reaction to Pst against number of favorable alleles in the 93 accessions. (a) Infection type. (b) Disease severity. Original data are available in Additional file 5