| Literature DB >> 31182579 |
David B Lowry1,2,3, John T Lovell4,5, Li Zhang5, Jason Bonnette5, Philip A Fay6, Robert B Mitchell7, John Lloyd-Reilley8, Arvid R Boe9, Yanqi Wu10, Francis M Rouquette11, Richard L Wynia12, Xiaoyu Weng5, Kathrine D Behrman5, Adam Healey4, Kerrie Barry13, Anna Lipzen13, Diane Bauer13, Aditi Sharma13, Jerry Jenkins4, Jeremy Schmutz4,13, Felix B Fritschi14, Thomas E Juenger15.
Abstract
Local adaptation is the process by which natural selection drives adaptive phenotypic divergence across environmental gradients. Theory suggests that local adaptation results from genetic trade-offs at individual genetic loci, where adaptation to one set of environmental conditions results in a cost to fitness in alternative environments. However, the degree to which there are costs associated with local adaptation is poorly understood because most of these experiments rely on two-site reciprocal transplant experiments. Here, we quantify the benefits and costs of locally adaptive loci across 17° of latitude in a four-grandparent outbred mapping population in outcrossing switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), an emerging biofuel crop and dominant tallgrass species. We conducted quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping across 10 sites, ranging from Texas to South Dakota. This analysis revealed that beneficial biomass (fitness) QTL generally incur minimal costs when transplanted to other field sites distributed over a large climatic gradient over the 2 y of our study. Therefore, locally advantageous alleles could potentially be combined across multiple loci through breeding to create high-yielding regionally adapted cultivars.Entities:
Keywords: G × E; bioenergy; ecotype; local adaptation; plasticity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31182579 PMCID: PMC6600931 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1821543116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Geographic and environmental variation across 10 common garden sites. (A). The 10 common gardens cover 1,866 km, 16.7° of latitude and 16.2 °C of mean annual temperature variation. The latitudinal transect of this study spans much of the natural distribution of switchgrass. The green/yellow layer is colored by historical annual temperature and is bounded by the US distribution of native switchgrass populations, calculated from georeferenced herbarium records. (B–D) The genotypic means of each of the two southern lowland (AP13, WBC) and two northern upland (VS16, DAC) grandparents as points. The phenotypic distributions of the F2 mapping population for three key traits are depicted as violin plots. Data from 2016 (left violin) and 2017 (right violin) are included for each site.
Fig. 2.Mapping positions of QTL across five traits. −log10 P value support for QTL is plotted in each track, where the mapping position (centimorgans) is the x axis. Each minor tick on the outer segments indicates 20-cM distance. The primary phenotype, biomass, is presented along the outer track on its own scale. The remaining four phenological and morphologic traits are all on an identical scale. All significant QTL are highlighted from the center as gray rays. Six focal QTL (A–F) are indicated with arrows. The genotypic effects of these QTL are plotted in Fig. 3 following this naming scheme. All significant QTL for each trait are indicated by an asterisk. Plot includes data analyzed across both 2016 and 2017.
Fig. 3.Genotypic effects and climatic correlates of six QTL. (A–F) The genotypic effect (±SD) for each QTL is presented as the difference between genotypes, when substituting the upland allele for the lowland. These allelic effects are plotted independently for each side of the cross, where effects are displayed as bars arranged from the southernmost (left-red) to northernmost (right-blue) field sites. A×B is the cross between AP13 (lowland) and DAC6 (upland). C×D is the cross between WBC3 (lowland) and VS16 (upland). Positive additive effects indicate that the upland allele increased the trait value, while negative additive effects indicate that the lowland allele increased the size of the trait. QTL× trait combinations with no significant QTL are indicated as such. QTL are named following the chromosome@position convention. (G–I) The predicted biomass changes of a set of QTL (indicated by asterisks), where climatic principal components were used to model genotypic effects. The empty areas in the prediction surface are either beyond the geographic or climatic scope of the study.
Fig. 4.Magnitude of fitness trade-offs for biomass QTL. (A) For each biomass QTL, the absolute value of the additive effect of an allele at the best field site (x axis) is plotted against the absolute value of additive effect of that same allele at its worst-performing site (y axis). For all loci, the allele effects at the worst performing site were either zero or in the opposite direction. (B) For each biomass QTL, the sum of additive effects of an allele for all field sites where it is beneficial (x axis) is plotted against the sum of additive effects for all field sites where it has effects in the opposite direction on biomass (y axis). For both plots, points that are closer the diagonal dashed line represent strong fitness trade-offs, while those closer to zero on the y axis have little or no fitness trade-offs. Note that the largest effect QTL show no evidence of fitness trade-offs.
Fig. 5.How upland and lowland alleles contribute to the optimal genotype at each field site. (A) The bar plots above zero correspond to the summed effects of alleles across loci, where the upland allele made plants larger. Bar plots below zero correspond to the summed effects of alleles across loci, where the lowland allele made plants larger. (B) The percentage of the overall biomass increase caused by lowland alleles for the optimal genotype at each field site. To calculate values, the genotypic effects of all significant QTL (effect >2 SE from zero) at each site were extracted. The predicted effects and SEs of these QTL were then multiplied by the sign of the effect at each site and summed for each site.