| Literature DB >> 32764649 |
Kwabena Darkwa1,2, Paterne Agre1, Bunmi Olasanmi3, Kohtaro Iseki4, Ryo Matsumoto1, Adrian Powell5, Guillaume Bauchet5, David De Koeyer6, Satoru Muranaka4, Patrick Adebola7, Robert Asiedu1, Ryohei Terauchi8, Asrat Asfaw9.
Abstract
Understanding the diversity and genetic relationships among and within crop germplasm is invaluable for genetic improvement. This study assessed genetic diversity in a panel of 173 D. rotundata accessions using joint analysis for 23 morphological traits and 136,429 SNP markers from the whole-genome resequencing platform. Various diversity matrices and clustering methods were evaluated for a comprehensive characterization of genetic diversity in white Guinea yam from West Africa at phenotypic and molecular levels. The translation of the different diversity matrices from the phenotypic and genomic information into distinct groups varied with the hierarchal clustering methods used. Gower distance matrix based on phenotypic data and identity by state (IBS) distance matrix based on SNP data with the UPGMA clustering method found the best fit to dissect the genetic relationship in current set materials. However, the grouping pattern was inconsistent (r = - 0.05) between the morphological and molecular distance matrices due to the non-overlapping information between the two data types. Joint analysis for the phenotypic and molecular information maximized a comprehensive estimate of the actual diversity in the evaluated materials. The results from our study provide valuable insights for measuring quantitative genetic variability for breeding and genetic studies in yam and other root and tuber crops.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32764649 PMCID: PMC7413250 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-69925-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Eigenvalues, variance, cumulative variance, and principal component scores (Eigenvectors) of the first ten components of genetic divergence in a panel of 173 D. rotundata accessions.
| Variables | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 | PC6 | PC7 | PC8 | PC9 | PC10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days to start senescence | 0.21 | 0.79 | − 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 0.02 | − 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.02 |
| Days to flowering | 0.06 | 0.59 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.14 | − 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.24 | − 0.15 | 0.18 |
| Days to maturity | 0.29 | 0.67 | − 0.01 | 0.25 | 0.04 | 0.10 | − 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.04 |
| Number of stems | − 0.30 | 0.07 | 0.72 | − 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 0.01 | − 0.19 | 0.18 | − 0.03 |
| Stem diameter | 0.51 | − 0.24 | − 0.26 | 0.18 | − 0.01 | − 0.34 | − 0.17 | 0.25 | − 0.09 | 0.32 |
| YAD (AUDPC value) | − 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.37 | − 0.20 | − 0.04 | − 0.38 | 0.09 | 0.08 | − 0.04 | 0.10 |
| YMV (AUDPC value) | − 0.10 | 0.78 | 0.02 | 0.27 | 0.10 | − 0.21 | − 0.20 | − 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.12 |
| Plant vigor | 0.55 | − 0.23 | 0.27 | − 0.04 | − 0.15 | − 0.25 | − 0.10 | 0.04 | − 0.16 | 0.19 |
| Plant sex | 0.53 | − 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.41 | 0.21 | − 0.14 | − 0.06 | 0.10 | − 0.01 | − 0.52 |
| Flowering intensity | 0.48 | − 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.00 | − 0.20 | − 0.47 | − 0.17 | − 0.32 | − 0.49 |
| Number of tubers plant−1 | − 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.78 | 0.19 | − 0.20 | 0.27 | 0.12 | 0.10 | − 0.13 | 0.08 |
| Tuber yield (kg plant−1) | 0.91 | 0.01 | 0.24 | − 0.10 | − 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.08 | − 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.08 |
| Tuber yield (t ha−1) | 0.91 | 0.01 | 0.23 | − 0.09 | − 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | − 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.08 |
| Average tuber weight (kg) | 0.91 | − 0.02 | − 0.04 | − 0.18 | − 0.04 | − 0.05 | 0.02 | − 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.09 |
| Tuber appearance | 0.16 | 0.40 | 0.21 | − 0.53 | − 0.21 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.16 | − 0.11 | − 0.14 |
| Spines on tuber | 0.38 | − 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 0.01 | − 0.48 | − 0.10 | 0.18 |
| Tuber cracks | − 0.28 | − 0.53 | − 0.08 | 0.14 | − 0.10 | − 0.19 | 0.06 | − 0.05 | 0.37 | − 0.01 |
| Tuber hairiness | 0.42 | − 0.15 | − 0.03 | 0.29 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.03 | − 0.33 | − 0.15 | 0.05 |
| Canopy architecture | − 0.04 | − 0.04 | 0.43 | − 0.19 | 0.14 | 0.16 | − 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.31 | − 0.05 |
| Leaf density | 0.76 | − 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.13 | − 0.22 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.17 | − 0.11 | 0.05 |
| Leaf shape | − 0.38 | 0.26 | − 0.17 | − 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.38 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.02 | − 0.21 |
| Senescence class | − 0.42 | − 0.02 | 0.30 | − 0.16 | 0.22 | − 0.35 | − 0.06 | − 0.37 | 0.07 | 0.25 |
| Spines on stem | 0.18 | − 0.22 | − 0.17 | − 0.18 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 0.31 | − 0.20 | 0.25 |
| Inflorescence type | 0.22 | − 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.39 | 0.19 | − 0.06 | 0.34 | 0.17 | 0.59 | − 0.12 |
| Stem color | − 0.08 | 0.13 | − 0.07 | 0.19 | − 0.37 | − 0.14 | 0.59 | 0.05 | − 0.22 | − 0.17 |
| Tuber length | 0.65 | 0.00 | − 0.15 | − 0.48 | 0.36 | − 0.16 | 0.21 | − 0.13 | 0.10 | − 0.10 |
| Tuber width | 0.70 | 0.03 | − 0.34 | − 0.28 | − 0.29 | 0.09 | − 0.08 | − 0.14 | 0.23 | − 0.04 |
| Tuber area | − 0.05 | 0.00 | − 0.26 | 0.23 | − 0.71 | 0.30 | − 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.07 |
| Tuber flesh oxidation | 0.28 | 0.57 | − 0.08 | − 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.13 | − 0.12 | − 0.04 |
| Dry matter content | − 0.04 | − 0.65 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.07 | − 0.03 | 0.33 | − 0.13 | − 0.03 |
| Eigenvalue | 6.26 | 3.56 | 2.26 | 1.78 | 1.63 | 1.51 | 1.34 | 1.21 | 1.13 | 1.01 |
| % variance | 20.87 | 11.85 | 7.55 | 5.94 | 5.43 | 5.05 | 4.45 | 4.05 | 3.76 | 3.38 |
| Cumulative variance (%) | 20.87 | 32.72 | 40.27 | 46.20 | 51.64 | 56.68 | 61.14 | 65.18 | 68.94 | 72.32 |
PC principal component, YAD yam anthracnose disease, YMV yam mosaic virus, AUDPC area under disease progression curve.
Results of the cophenetic correlation coefficients (CCC) for comparing diversity matrices and clustering methods for phenotypic and molecular data in white Guinea yam.
| Dissimilarity matrices | Clustering methods | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward.D2 | Single | Average (UPGMA) | Median | Mcquitty (WPGM) | Complete | |
| Gower | 0.58 | 0.67 | 0.91 | 0.61 | 0.80 | 0.78 |
| Manhattan | 0.74 | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.88 |
| Euclidean | 0.74 | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.87 |
| Mahalanobis | 0.59 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.81 |
| IBS | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.83 | 0.90 | 0.88 |
| Jaccard | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.79 | 0.89 | 0.86 |
| Nei | 0.81 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.88 |
| Roger | 0.81 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.88 |
| Gower + IBS | 0.56 | 0.62 | 0.75 | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.71 |
Figure 1Hierarchical cluster dendrogram based on the ‘Gower’ morphological dissimilarity matrix using the 23 most discriminant phenotypic traits showing the grouping pattern of the 173 Dioscorea rotundata accessions evaluated.
Figure 2Hierarchical cluster representing the genetic relationships among the 173 D. rotundata accessions based on the Identity by state (IBS) dissimilarity matrix obtained from the 136,429 SNP markers. Each color represents a different cluster.
Genetic diversity indices based on phenotypic and SNP data in the D. rotundata accessions.
| Shannon–Wiener Index (H′) | Inverse Simpson’s (HB) | Simpson's Index (λ) | Pilou evenness (J) | Fixation index (Fst) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenotypic | 5.11 | 160.0 | 0.9937 | 0.1933 | NA |
| Genotypic | 5.14 | 169.7 | 0.9941 | 0.1933 | 0.15783 |
Figure 3(A) Gower’s dissimilarity matrix from the phenotypic data and (B) IBS dissimilarity matrix generated from the genotypic data of the D. rotundata accessions. The color gradient graphically expresses the dissimilarity between the white yam accessions. Pink indicates the most similar accessions, while the blue color indicates the most dissimilar accessions. The dissimilarity matrices were symmetric, and values below the diagonal are equivalent to those above the diagonal.
Figure 4Comparison of hierarchical clustering dendrograms of the 173 D. rotundata accessions from phenotypic (left) and the genotypic (right) data. The black lines in between the two dendrograms represent mismatched accessions while the purple lines are accessions in the same position from phenotypic to the genotypic cluster.
Figure 5Hierarchical clustering of the 173 D. rotundata accessions based on the combined phenotypic (Gower matrix) and molecular data (IBS) using the UPGMA method. Each color represents different cluster.
Phenotypic and genotypic parameter variation across the genetic groups identified by the combined analysis.
| Phenotypic traits | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | SD | Average | SD | Average | SD | |
| Days to start senescence | 226.15 | 10.11 | 177.98 | 38.44 | 229.58 | 4.43 |
| Days to flower | 139.88 | 41.67 | 81.03 | 32.45 | 136.92 | 18.27 |
| Days maturity | 254.10 | 22.75 | 202.82 | 39.16 | 249.27 | 4.41 |
| No. of stems | 1.45 | 0.57 | 2.12 | 1.66 | 1.13 | 0.16 |
| Stem diameter | 3.96 | 0.77 | 3.70 | 1.03 | 3.47 | 0.62 |
| YMV (AUDPC value) | 350.03 | 30.53 | 268.33 | 86.06 | 330.13 | 19.89 |
| Plant vigor | 1.83 | 0.33 | 1.76 | 0.52 | 1.75 | 0.22 |
| Plant sex | 0.93 | 0.65 | 0.47 | 0.62 | 0.54 | 0.49 |
| Flower intensity | 3.17 | 2.40 | 2.21 | 1.55 | 2.55 | 2.54 |
| Number of tubers per plant | 1.38 | 0.45 | 1.38 | 0.44 | 1.08 | 0.17 |
| Tuber weight (kg plant−1) | 1.13 | 0.48 | 0.69 | 0.44 | 1.00 | 0.35 |
| Tuber weight (t ha−1) | 11.15 | 4.68 | 6.65 | 4.39 | 9.88 | 3.49 |
| Average tuber weight | 1.00 | 0.44 | 0.63 | 0.47 | 0.98 | 0.37 |
| Tuber appearance | 1.85 | 0.65 | 1.37 | 0.61 | 2.07 | 0.62 |
| Tuber cracks | 0.50 | 0.45 | 1.27 | 1.02 | 0.23 | 0.28 |
| Leaf density | 5.02 | 0.72 | 4.48 | 1.16 | 4.76 | 0.54 |
| Inflorescence type | 1.23 | 0.35 | 1.16 | 0.25 | 1.08 | 0.10 |
| Stem color | 1.64 | 0.69 | 1.43 | 0.48 | 1.76 | 0.70 |
| Tuber length | 22.34 | 5.31 | 18.78 | 7.10 | 26.12 | 2.11 |
| Tuber width | 9.43 | 2.32 | 7.61 | 2.19 | 10.16 | 2.48 |
| Tuber area | 0.44 | 0.10 | 0.46 | 0.18 | 0.40 | 0.10 |
| Oxidation | 1.75 | 1.27 | 0.09 | 0.85 | 2.29 | 1.55 |
| Dry matter | 33.61 | 3.38 | 37.96 | 3.38 | 35.30 | 4.78 |
| Minor allele frequency | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.22 | |||
| Observe heterozygosity | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.44 | |||
| Expected heterozygosity | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.25 | |||
| Polymorphism information content | 0.26 | 0.65 | 0.56 | |||
Figure 6Venn diagram showing the concordance of cluster memberships across the phenotypic, genotypic and combined clusters of the 174 D. rotundata accessions.
Figure 7Mantel correlation among phenotypic, genotypic and the combined data.