| Literature DB >> 31443503 |
Nicola Criscuolo1, Francesco Guarino1, Claudia Angelini2, Stefano Castiglione1, Tonino Caruso1, Angela Cicatelli3.
Abstract
Morphometric, biochemical and genetic analyses were conducted on Olea europaea L. of Campania, an area of Southern Italy highly suited to the cultivation of olive trees and the production of extra virgin olive oil (EVOO). We aimed to characterize the distribution of morphological, biochemical and genetic diversity in this area and to develop a practical tool to aid traceability of oils. Phenotypes were characterized using morphometric data of drupes and leaves; biochemical and genetic diversity were assessed on the basis of the fatty acid composition of the EVOOs and with microsatellite markers, respectively. We provide an open-source tool as a novel R package titled 'OliveR', useful in performing multivariate data analysis using a point and click interactive approach. These analyses highlight a clear correlation among the morphological, biochemical and genetic profiles of samples with four collection sites, and confirm that Southern Italy represents a wide reservoir of phenotypic and genetic variability.Entities:
Keywords: Olea europaea L.; R.; diversity; fatty acids; microsatellites; multivariate statistics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31443503 PMCID: PMC6783963 DOI: 10.3390/plants8090297
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Geographic distribution of the 169 olive trees in Campania Region and corresponding tree collection sites [CE: Cilento hinterland (brown color), CM: Cilento coastal area (green color), OIR: olives of the Irpinia area (red color), OSE: olives along the Sele river (blue color)]. The projection system used to generate geographic maps is the Universal Transverse Mercator with the distances measured in meters (Table S1).
Mean values and standard deviation of morphometric parameters and fatty acids concentration divided for the four collection sites (left) and results of the Kruskal–Wallis post-hoc test (right) with multiple comparison test for every measured parameter. Significant differences between pairs of groups are represented by the T (TRUE); non-significant differences are represented by the F (False).
| Mean Values and Standard Deviation of Morphometric Parameters and Fatty Acids | Kruskal-Wallis Post-hoc Test | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collection Site | Pairwise Comparison between Collection Sites | ||||||||||
| CE | CM | OIR | OSE | CE-CM | CE-OIR | CE-OSE | CM-OIR | CM-OSE | OIR-OSE | ||
| Morphometric Parameters | |||||||||||
| Olive Weight [g] | 1.63 (0.37) | 1.13 (0.26) | 2.12 (0.45) | 1.73 (0.23) | T | T | F | T | T | F | |
| Major Olive Axis [cm] | 1.81 (0.22) | 1.71 (0.18) | 2.03 (0.26) | 1.82 (0.21) | F | T | F | T | F | T | |
| Leaf Area [ | 4.71 (1.06) | 7.14 (1.63) | 4.72 (1.24) | 5.09 (1.32) | T | F | F | T | T | F | |
| Fatty Acids [%] | - | - | - | - | Reference Values of EVOO (%) | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| C16:0 (Palmitic) | 12.69 (0.71) | 16.35 (2.93) | 12.51 (1.97) | 10.63 (1.2) | - | T | F | T | T | T | T |
| C16:1 (Palmitoleic) | 2.23 (0.44) | 0.9 (0.68) | 1.03 (0.57) | 0.54 (0.18) | 0.3–3.5 | T | T | T | F | F | T |
| C17:1 (Heptadecenoic) | 0 (0) | 0.33 (0.09) | 0.04 (0.11) | 0.01 (0.02) | ≤0.3 | T | T | F | T | T | F |
| C18:1 (Oleic) | 72.86 (1.79) | 70.72 (3.36) | 76.94 (5.14) | 80.01 (3.12) | 55.0–83.0 | F | T | T | T | T | F |
| C18:1t (t-Octadecenoic) | 3.84 (0.53) | 1.49 (0.53) | 0.27 (1.06) | 0 (0) | - | T | T | T | T | T | F |
| C18:2 (Linoleic) | 7.47 (1.22) | 8.06 (1.66) | 5.06 (3.46) | 6.29 (1.68) | 2.5–21.0 | F | T | F | T | T | F |
| C18:3 (Linolenic) | 0.47 (0.12) | 0.68 (0.22) | 1 (0.38) | 0.74 (0.2) | ≤1.0 | T | T | T | T | F | F |
| C20:0 (Eicosanoic) | 0.45 (0.07) | 0.63 (0.15) | 0.02 (0.09) | 0 (0) | ≤0.6 | T | T | T | T | T | F |
| C20:1 (Eicosenoic) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.59 (0.2) | 0.61 (0.09) | ≤0.4 | F | T | T | T | T | F |
| C22:0 (Behenic) | 0 (0) | 0.09 (0.03) | 0 (0.01) | 0.02 (0.05) | ≤0.2 | T | F | F | T | T | F |
| MUFA/PUFA | 10.23 (1.96) | 8.72 (1.82) | 17.37 (8.42) | 12.40 (3.61) | - | T | T | F | T | T | F |
Genetic indexes calculated with the GenAlex software. Allelic frequency (), number of amplified DNA samples (), number of different alleles (), effective number of alleles (), frequency of the null allele (), observed () and expected () heterozygosity, weighed expected heterozygosity () and probability of the exact Hardy–Weinberg test ( -value , : significant, : not significant).
| UDO36 |
| UDO6 |
| UDO17 |
| GAPU59 |
| GAPU71B |
| UDO39 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 138 | 0.012 | 144 | 0.012 | 144 | 0.003 | 204 | 0.009 | 116 | 0.009 | 104 | 0.012 | |
| 140 | 0.190 | 146 | 0.373 | 150 | 0.003 | 206 | 0.259 | 118 | 0.015 | 144 | 0.093 | |
| 142 | 0.075 | 160 | 0.088 | 152 | 0.155 | 208 | 0.003 | 120 | 0.479 | 164 | 0.003 | |
| 144 | 0.461 | 162 | 0.003 | 154 | 0.211 | 210 | 0.449 | 122 | 0.006 | 170 | 0.503 | |
| 148 | 0.003 | 164 | 0.003 | 156 | 0.082 | 212 | 0.006 | 124 | 0.015 | 174 | 0.012 | |
| 150 | 0.006 | 166 | 0.006 | 158 | 0.007 | 214 | 0.003 | 126 | 0.140 | 176 | 0.166 | |
| 152 | 0.235 | 168 | 0.158 | 160 | 0.118 | 216 | 0.098 | 128 | 0.003 | 178 | 0.024 | |
| 154 | 0.006 | 170 | 0.055 | 162 | 0.280 | 218 | 0.003 | 140 | 0.330 | 180 | 0.160 | |
| 160 | 0.006 | 172 | 0.252 | 168 | 0.125 | 220 | 0.164 | 144 | 0.003 | 186 | 0.006 | |
| 162 | 0.003 | 178 | 0.003 | 170 | 0.016 | 224 | 0.006 | 188 | 0.018 | |||
| 164 | 0.003 | 180 | 0.042 | 190 | 0.003 | |||||||
| 188 | 0.003 | |||||||||||
| 190 | 0.003 | |||||||||||
| Index | ||||||||||||
|
| 166 | 165 | 152 | 168 | 168 | 166 | ||||||
|
| 11 | 13 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 11 | ||||||
|
| 3.231 | 4.171 | 5.460 | 3.272 | 2.786 | 3.165 | ||||||
|
| 0.910 | 0.861 | 0.796 | 0.792 | 0.946 | 0.289 | ||||||
|
| 0.690 | 0.760 | 0.817 | 0.694 | 0.641 | 0.684 | ||||||
|
| 0.693 | 0.763 | 0.820 | 0.696 | 0.643 | 0.686 | ||||||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2Comparison between the dendrogram calculated with the Ward method on the genetic distance among samples, based on the similarity index of Dice–Sørensen (above), and the clustering obtained through the population analysis conducted with the STRUCTURE software [CE: Cilento hinterland (brown color), CM: Cilento coastal area (green color), OIR: olives of the Irpinia area (red color), OSE: olives along the Sele river (blue color)].
Figure 3Biplot of the first two principal components (PCs) calculated on the fatty acid dataset. The scaled values of the loadings calculated on the basis of the original variables are shown in red.
Figure 4Panel plot for the cluster analysis performed on the first two PCs calculated on the fatty acids dataset. It is reported the number of clusters that maximize the value of the gap statistic (a), the individual silhouette of each cluster the average silhouette as a measure of cluster internal accuracy (b) and the cluster membership of each sampled tree reported on the geographic basis (c). Cluster n° 1 (red color) contains all samples of the CE collection site and samples OIR73 and OIR74; cluster number 2 (green color) contains 32 out of 33 samples of the CM collection site and samples OIR2 and OIR4; cluster number 3 (blue color) contains all samples of the OSE collection site, 44 out of 48 samples of the OIR collection site and sample SM5.
Results of the Mantel test (n = 169) carried out between pairs of four different distance matrices defined for macro-descriptors (for every comparison we report the correlation coefficient r, simulated p-value < 0.001 ***).
| Mantel Test, | A. Distance Matrices—All Samples | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Morphometric Parameters | Fatty Acids | SSR | |
| Geographic Coordinates | 0.303 | 0.734 | 0.641 |
| Morphometric Parameters | - | 0.169 | 0.246 |
| Fatty Acids | - | - | 0.485 |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
| Geographic Coordinates | 0.365 | 0.827 | 0.867 |
| Morphometric Parameters | - | 0.196 | 0.438 |
| Fatty Acids | - | - | 0.620 |