| Literature DB >> 34122467 |
Mahendar Thudi1, Yinglong Chen2, Jiayin Pang2, Danamma Kalavikatte1, Prasad Bajaj1, Manish Roorkiwal1, Annapurna Chitikineni1, Megan H Ryan2, Hans Lambers2, Kadambot H M Siddique2, Rajeev K Varshney1,2,3.
Abstract
Chickpea-the second most important grain legume worldwide-is cultivated mainly on marginal soils. Phosphorus (P) deficiency often restricts chickpea yields. Understanding the genetics of traits encoding P-acquisition efficiency and P-use efficiency will help develop strategies to reduce P-fertilizer application. A genome-wide association mapping approach was used to determine loci and genes associated with root architecture, root traits associated with P-acquisition efficiency and P-use efficiency, and any associated proxy traits. Using three statistical models-a generalized linear model (GLM), a mixed linear model (MLM), and a fixed and random model circulating probability unification (FarmCPU) -10, 51, and 40 marker-trait associations (MTAs), respectively were identified. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) locus (Ca1_12310101) on Ca1 associated with three traits, i.e., physiological P-use efficiency, shoot dry weight, and shoot P content was identified. Genes related to shoot P concentration (NAD kinase 2, dynamin-related protein 1C), physiological P-use efficiency (fasciclin-like arabinogalactan protein), specific root length (4-coumarate-CoA ligase 1) and manganese concentration in mature leaves (ABC1 family protein) were identified. The MTAs and novel genes identified in this study can be used to improve P-use efficiency in chickpea.Entities:
Keywords: chickpea; genetic mapping; genome-wide association study; phosphorus-acquisition efficiency; phosphorus-use efficiency; root traits
Year: 2021 PMID: 34122467 PMCID: PMC8192852 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.636973
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Summary of marker trait associations identified using three statistical models namely GLM, MLM and FarmCPU.
| Trait | Code | GLM | MLM | FarmCPU | |||||
| No. of MTAs | R2 | No. of MTAs | No. of MTAs | ||||||
| Average branch length | (ABL; cm per branch) | – | – | – | 2 | 5.92 × 10–8 to 3.69 × 10–8 | 5.01–8.24 | 1 | 5.02 × 10–8 |
| Branch density | (BD; cm–1 taproot) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 6.41 × 10–10 to 2.67 × 10–10 |
| Branch intensity | (BI; cm–1 root) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 7.51 × 10–9 |
| Root diameter s2 | (RD_s2; mm) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 5.14 × 10–9 |
| Subsoil root diameter | (RD_sub; mm) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 7.2 × 10–14 |
| Topsoil root diameter | (RD_top; mm) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 7.46 × 10–12 |
| Root growth rate | (RGR; cm d–1) | 1 | 2.2 × 10–8 | 13.13 | 12 | 5.62 × 10–15 to 1.9 × 10–8 | 9.2–11.78 | – | – |
| Root length ratio | (RLR_top/sub) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1.06 × 10–8 |
| Root length s2 | (RL_s2; cm) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1.59 × 10–8 |
| Root mass | (RM; mg) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 3.86 × 10–8 |
| Root mass ratio | RMR | – | – | – | 6 | 4.4 × 10–25 to 1.73 × 10–8 | 20.86–30.12 | 1 | 3.8 × 10–8 |
| Root_2 | Root diameter (mm) | – | – | – | 1 | 1.77 × 10–12 | 7.52 | – | – |
| Root tissue density | (RTD; mg cm–3) | 2 | 2.88 × 10–9 to 6.73 × 10–8 | 14.23 to 16.95 | – | – | – | 2 | 7.18 × 10–15 to 4.58 × 10–10 |
| Shoot dry weight | SDW (mg) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 6.31 × 10–9 |
| Specific root length | (SRL; m g–1 dry mass) | 3 | 2.48 × 10–9 to 5.94 × 10–8 | 17.2 to 20.31 | 2 | 1.88 × 10–10 to 1.44 × 10–9 | 17.63 | 3 | 2.99 × 10–11 to 4.06 × 10–9 |
| Taproot length zone1 | (TRL_z1; cm) | – | – | – | 1 | 7.15 × 10–8 | 13.59 | 1 | 7.15 × 10–8 |
| Taproot length zone2 | (TRL_z2; cm) | – | – | – | 1 | 1.48 × 10–11 | 9.64 | 1 | 1.48 × 10–11 |
| WUE | WUE (A/gs) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 2.80 × 10–11 to 1.85 × 10–8 |
| Total rhizo dry soil (g plant-1) | Total rhizo (g plant–1) | – | – | – | 6 | 5.66 × 10–17 to 1.34 × 10–11 | 5–17.63 | – | – |
| Phosphorous-utilization efficiency | – | – | – | 13 | 4.45 × 10–18 to 8.41 × 10–15 | 20.23–26.16 | 1 | 2.13 × 10–9 | |
| Physiological P-use efficiency | PPUE (μmol g–1 P s–1) | 1 | 5.46519E-08 | 11.95 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Shoot phosphorous concentration | mg g–1 | 3 | 2.85 × 10–9 to 7.65 × 10–8 | 27.67 to 40.33 | 2 | 5.23 × 10–9 to 2.85 × 10–9 | 27.69–32.97 | – | – |
| Shoot P content | Shoot P content | – | – | – | 5 | 8.2 × 10–9 to 7.7 × 10–8 | 39.41.3 | 1 | 1.68 × 10–13 |
| Carboxylate_2 | Carboxylate conc (μmol g–1 root DW) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 5.93 × 10–8 |
| Ci | Ci | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 8.52 × 10–10 |
| Citric_2 | Citric (μmol plant–1) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1.42 × 10–9 |
| Malonic (μmol plant–1) | Malonic (μmol plant–1) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 4.82 × 10–10 |
| Mn concentration in mature leaves | Mn_ML | – | – | – | – | – | – | 7 | 6.08 × 10–21 |
| P_ML | P_ML (mg g–1) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 6.08 × 10–21 |
| P_Pn | Pn_area (μmol m–2 s–1) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2.6 × 10–8 |
| Pn_mass | Pn_mass (μmol g–1 s–1) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 3.57 × 10–9 |
| Rhizo-pH | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 1.72 × 10–15 to 2.24 × 10–8 | |
| Specific rhizosheath weight | (g g–1 root DW) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2.97 × 10–8 |
| Total MTAs | 10 | 51 | 40 | ||||||
FIGURE 1GWAS signals for phosphorus (P) -acquisition and P-use efficiency-related traits. (A) Shoot P concentration, (B) physiological P-use efficiency, (C) P-utilization efficiency, and (D) total shoot P content. Three different statistical models GLM, MLM, and FarmCPU were used to identify the MTAS. The significant MTAs were determined using Bonferroni correction (Table 1).
FIGURE 2An SNP locus (Ca1_12310101) on Ca1 showing association with three traits (A) physiological phosphorus (P)-use efficiency, (B) shoot dry weight, and (C) shoot P content. Three different statistical models GLM, MLM, and FarmCPU were used to identify the MTAS. The significant MTAs were determined using Bonferroni correction (Table 1).
FIGURE 3GWAS signal for manganese concentration in mature leaves. Of seven MTAs identified, three on Ca2 were unique and two each on Ca4 and Ca7 were the same SNP loci associated with the trait at different significance levels. (A) Manhattan plot showing significant MTAs and (B) Q-Q plots for the trait. Three different statistical models GLM, MLM, and FarmCPU were used to identify the MTAS. The significant MTAs were determined using Bonferroni correction (Table 1).