| Literature DB >> 31052464 |
Tussipkan Dilnur1, Zhen Peng2, Zhaoe Pan3, Koffi Kibalou Palanga4, Yinhua Jia5, Wenfang Gong6, Xiongming Du7.
Abstract
Salinity is not only a major environmental factor which limits plant growth and productivity, but it has also become a worldwide problem. However, little is known about the genetic basis underlying salt tolerance in cotton. This study was carried out to identify marker-trait association signals of seven salt-tolerance-related traits and one salt tolerance index using association analysis for 215 accessions of Asiatic cotton. According to a comprehensive index of salt tolerance (CIST), 215 accessions were mainly categorized into four groups, and 11 accessions with high salinity tolerance were selected for breeding. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) revealed nine SNP rich regions significantly associated with relative fresh weight (RFW), relative stem length (RSL), relative water content (RRWC) and CIST. The nine SNP rich regions analysis revealed 143 polymorphisms that distributed 40 candidate genes and significantly associated with salt tolerance. Notably, two SNP rich regions on chromosome 7 were found to be significantly associated with two salinity related traits, RFW and RSL, by the threshold of -log10P ≥ 6.0, and two candidate genes (Cotton_A_37775 and Cotton_A_35901) related to two key SNPs (Ca7_33607751 and Ca7_77004962) were possibly associated with salt tolerance in G. arboreum. These can provide fundamental information which will be useful for future molecular breeding of cotton, in order to release novel salt tolerant cultivars.Entities:
Keywords: Gossypium arboretum; association mapping.; salt tolerance; single nucleotide polymorphisms
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31052464 PMCID: PMC6540053 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20092168
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Relative value frequency distribution diagram of seven salt tolerance traits and one salt tolerance index of 215 G. arboreum accessions.
Analysis of the traits related salt treatment in G. arboretum accessions.
| Traits 1 | Mean | SD | Min | Max | CV | Mean Square | F | P > F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.936 | 10.77 | 0 | 40 | 54.02 | 338.55 | 8.16 | <0.0001 | |
| 0.371 | 0.089 | 0.02 | 0.77 | 24.2 | 0.128 | 34.16 | <0.0001 | |
| 4.969 | 1.481 | 0.40 | 10.2 | 29.84 | 40.77 | 49.76 | <0.0001 | |
| 1.112 | 3.481 | 0.36 | 96.97 | 312.9 | 31.83 | 4.01 | <0.0001 | |
| 39.47 | 9.96 | 3.50 | 50.2 | 25.53 | 6763.5 | 8.31 | <0.0001 | |
| 31.47 | 42.54 | 0.116 | 844.4 | 135.19 | 541.2 | 6.49 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 0.007 | 0.0046 | 0 | 0.04 | 59.8 | 0.000095 | 14.36 | <0.0001 |
1 GR germination rate; FW fresh weight; SL stem length; WC water content; ChlC relative chlorophyll content; EC electric conduct; MDA methylene dioxyamphetamine.
Analysis of traits related salt treatment of G. arboretum accessions (Pearson correlation coefficient).
| Trait 1 | GR | FW | SL | WC | ChlC | EC | MDA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.22 *** | 0.295 *** | −0.0178 | 0.112 ** | 0.0841 | 0.012 | |
| 1 | 0.575 *** | −0.043 | 0.070 *** | 0.0613 | 0.135 *** | ||
| 1 | −0.017 | 0.115 *** | −0.051 | 0.030 | |||
| 1 | 0.048 | 0.002 | 0.059 * | ||||
| 1 | 0.1 ** | −0.073 * | |||||
| 1 | 0.079 * | ||||||
|
| 1 |
1 For trait abb. Look at Table 1. * Significant at P < 0.05; ** Significant at P < 0.01; *** Significant at P < 0.001 for the correlation coefficient.
Figure 2Quantile-quantile plots of versus expected −log10P values of GWAS result. The red dashed line in each plot represents an idealized case where theoretical test statistics quantile match simulated test statistic quantile. (a) Relative germination rate (RGR). (b) Relative fresh weight (RFW). (c) Relative stem length (RSL). (d) Relative water content (RWC). (e) Relative chlorophyll content (RChlC). (f) Relative electric conductivity (REC). (g) Relative MDA (RMDA). (h) Comprehensive index of salt tolerance (CIST).
Associated SNPs of different salinity traits distribution on chromosome 1.
| Chromosome | Total | RGR | RFW | RSL | RWC | RChlC | REC | RMDA | CIST |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 163 | 1 | 26 | 22 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 70 | 3 | |
| 152 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 39 | 3 | 12 | 49 | 24 | |
| 332 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 278 | 24 | 0 | |
| 201 | 3 | 12 | 26 | 27 | 51 | 59 | 19 | 4 | |
| 155 | 2 | 7 | 17 | 21 | 4 | 94 | 8 | 2 | |
| 112 | 10 | 16 | 11 | 22 | 2 | 21 | 23 | 7 | |
| 295 | 2 | 67 | 108 | 67 | 6 | 24 | 14 | 7 | |
| 99 | 15 | 10 | 8 | 27 | 4 | 9 | 24 | 2 | |
| 104 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 47 | 7 | 24 | 3 | |
| 80 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 34 | 4 | 11 | 7 | 6 | |
| 112 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 17 | 20 | 24 | 18 | 15 | |
| 57 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 31 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |
| 100 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 29 | 16 | 6 | 32 | 2 | |
| 100 | 3 | 14 | 7 | 28 | 4 | 19 | 20 | 5 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 the SNP exceeding a significant threshold(−log10(P) ≥ 4.0); 2 For trait abb. Look at Table 1; CIST comprehensive index of salt tolerance.
Figure 3GWAS results for RFW and RSL, and analysis of the peaks on chromosome 7 (Group 1 and Group 2). (a) Manhattan plot for RFW. The horizontal line represents the significant threshold (−log10P = 4). The pink color surrounds represent SNP rich regions (Group 1 and Group 2). (b) Manhattan plot for RSL. The horizontal line represents the significant threshold (−log10P = 4). The pink color surrounds represent SNP rich regions (Group 1 and Group 2). (c) LD surrounding the peak of Group 1. (d) LD surrounding the peak of Group 2. (e) Phenotypic differences for RFW based on the key SNP (Ca7_33607751) of Group 1. (f) Phenotypic differences for RSL based on the key SNP (Ca7_33607751) of Group 1. (g) Phenotypic differences for RFW based on the key SNP (Ca7_77004962) of Group 2. (h) Phenotypic differences for RSL based on the key SNP (Ca7_77004962) of Group 2.
Figure 4GWAS results for RChlC and analysis of the peaks on chromosome 4, 9 and 11. (a) Manhattan plot for RChlC. The horizontal line represents the significant threshold (−log10P = 4). The pink color surrounds represent SNP rich regions (Group 3, Group 4, Group 5 and Goup 6). (b) LD surrounding the peak of Group 3. (c) LD surrounding the peak of Group 4. (d) LD surrounding the peak of Group 5. (e) LD surrounding the peak of Group 6. (f) Haplotypes in Group 3. (g) Haplotypes in Group 4 (h) Haplotypes in Group 5. (i) Phenotypic differences of RChlC between two haplotypes in Group 3. (j) Phenotypic differences of RChlC between two haplotypesin Group 4. (k) Phenotypic differences of RChlC between two haplotypesin Group 5. (l) Phenotypic differences for RChlC based on the key SNP (Ca11_47011718) of Group 6.
Figure 5GWAS results for RWC and analysis of the peak on chromosome 7. (a) Manhattan plot for RWC. The horizontal line represents the significant threshold (−log10P = 4). The pink color surround represents SNP rich region (Group 7). (b) LD surrounding the peak of Group 7. (c) Haplotypes in Group 7. (d) Phenotypic differences of RWC between two haplotypes.
Figure 6GWAS results for CIST and analysis of the peaks on chromosome 2 and 11. (a) Manhattan plot for CIST. The horizontal line represents the significant threshold (−log10P = 4). The pink color surrounds represent SNP rich regions (Group 8 and Group 9). (b) LD surrounding the peak of Group 8. (c) LD surrounding the peak of Group 9. (d) Haplotypes in Group 8. (e) Haplotypes in Group 9. (f) Phenotypic differences of CIST between two haplotypes in Group 8. (g) Phenotypic differences of CIST among three haplotypes in Group 9.