| Literature DB >> 35328040 |
Xiao Li1, Dongliang Guo1, Min Xue1, Gongze Li1, Qingcheng Yan1, Haixia Jiang1, Huiqing Liu1, Jiaxun Chen1, Yanfang Gao1, Lepeng Duan1, Liqiong Xie1.
Abstract
Soil salinization seriously affects the growth and distribution of flax. However, there is little information about the salt tolerance of flax. In this study, the salt tolerance of 200 diverse flax accessions during the germination stage was evaluated, and then the Genome-wide Association Study (GWAS) was carried out based on the relative germination rate (RGR), relative shoot length (RSL) and relative root length (RRL), whereby quantitative trait loci (QTLs) related to salt tolerance were identified. The results showed that oil flax had a better salt tolerance than fiber flax. A total of 902 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were identified on 15 chromosomes. These SNPs were integrated into 64 QTLs, explaining 14.48 to 29.38% (R2) of the phenotypic variation. In addition, 268 candidate genes were screened by combining previous transcriptome data and homologous gene annotation. Among them, Lus10033213 is a single-point SNP repeat mapping gene, which encodes a Glutathione S-transferase (GST). This study is the first to use GWAS to excavate genes related to salt tolerance during the germination stage of flax. The results of this study provide important information for studying the genetic mechanism of salt tolerance of flax, and also provide the possibility to improve the salt tolerance of flax.Entities:
Keywords: GWAS; flax (Linum usitatissimum L.); germination stage; salt tolerance
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328040 PMCID: PMC8949523 DOI: 10.3390/genes13030486
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.096
Figure 1Phenotypic variation and correlation analysis of RGR, RSL and RRL traits. (A,B) Phenotypic diversity under salt stress during the germination stage; (A) Difference of GR under Salt Stress; (B) Difference of SL and RL under Salt Stress. Phenotype of flax accessions after 7 days of control and salt treatment. The photographs show representative seedlings. Scale bar, 1 cm; (C–E) Violin plot of phenotypic indexes; (C) RGR; (D) RSL; (E) RRL; (F) Correlation of all traits and environmental repeats. RGR1, RSL1 and RRL1 in environment 1 (E1). RGR2, RSL2 and RRL2 in environment 2 (E2). RGR3, RSL3 and RRL3 in environment 3 (E3).
Figure 2Evaluation of salt tolerance of flax germplasms. (A) Salt tolerance grades of 200 accessions of flax; (B–D) Distribution of salt tolerance indexes in subpopulations; (B) RGR-AVG; (C) RSL-AVG; (D) RRL-AVG; (E) D value. The difference between subpopulations was analyzed by t-tests.
Figure 3Physical map of 64 QTLs. QTLs repeatedly detected at the same SNP locus in three environments are marked in red. QTLs overlapping with those of Soto-Cerda et al. 2019 were marked in orange boxes. QTLs overlapping with those of Sertse et al. 2021 were marked in green boxes. QTLs overlapping with those of Soto-Cerda et al. 2020 and Sertse et al. 2021 were marked in blue boxes.
Ten QTLs were detected in all three environments.
| QTL 1 | Traits | Lead SNP 2 | Model | Chr | Position (bp) 3 | −log10 ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RGR1 *, RGR2, RGR3 | SNP92745 | GLM *, MLM | 2 | 17,310,510 # | 10.09 | 24.53 |
|
| RGR1, RGR2, RGR3 *, RSL1 | SNP192459 | GLM *, MLM | 4 | 14,692,534 # | 13.27 | 29.38 |
|
| RSL2, RSL3 *, RRL1 | SNP194815 | GLM *, MLM | 4 | 17,154,148 | 7.24 | 15.41 |
|
| RGR1 *, RGR2, RGR3 | SNP206061 | GLM * | 5 | 1,440,001 | 8.80 | 21.88 |
|
| RSL1 *, RSL2, RSL3 | SNP253553 | GLM *, MLM | 6 | 3,866,787 | 7.87 | 17.01 |
|
| RGR1 *, RGR2, RGR3, RSL3 | SNP439280 | GLM *, MLM | 10 | 15,921,726 # | 7.69 | 19.45 |
|
| RSL2, RSL3, RRL1 *, RRL2 | SNP470912 | GLM *, MLM | 11 | 15,408,746 | 9.09 | 20.39 |
|
| RSL1 *, RSL2, RSL3 | SNP610085 | GLM *, MLM | 14 | 7,354,242 | 10.68 | 23.43 |
|
| RSL1, RSL2, RSL3 *, RRL2 | SNP610721 | GLM, MLM * | 14 | 7,956,601 | 6.45 | 18.99 |
|
| RGR1, RGR2, RGR3 *, RSL1, RSL3, RRL3 | SNP672146 | GLM *, MLM | 15 | 14,770,681 # | 8.16 | 19.73 |
1 QTL = quantitative trait locus. Naming method: “q” + “target trait” + “chromosome number” + “.” + “order number”; 2 Lead SNP = The most significant SNP in QTL; 3 Position (bp) is the Lead SNP; 4 R2 (%) = Coefficient of determination indicating percent phenotypic variance explained. * Connected to Lead SNPs. # Indicates this position is repeatedly detected in three environments.
Figure 4Compared with previous reports. (A) Comparison of the 64 QTLs involved in flax salt-tolerance detected in this study and the QTLs regulating drought tolerance reported previously; (B) Comparison of the 1591 preliminary candidate genes involved in flax salt-tolerance detected in this study and the transcriptome genes with salt stress reported previously.
Seven genes consistent with the transcriptome genes with salt stress reported previously.
| Gene | QTL | Chr | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 3 |
| RING/U-box superfamily protein [ |
|
|
| 4 |
| Unknown protein |
|
|
| 11 |
| Protein phosphatase 2C family protein [ |
|
|
| 11 |
| Glutamine-dependent asparagine synthase 1 [ |
|
|
| 12 |
| Disease resistance protein (TIR-NBS-LRR class) family [ |
|
|
| 14 |
| Unknown protein |
|
|
| 15 |
| RAB GTPase homolog C2A [ |
Figure 5GWAS for RGR traits, and candidate genes were obtained for the peak region on chromosome 2. (A–C) Manhattan plots based on GLM; (A) RGR1; (B) RGR2; (C) RGR3. The horizontal blue dotted line indicates the threshold, and the points above the threshold are significant SNPs. The point indicated by the blue arrow is the lead SNP in the repeatedly detected QTLs; (D) Local Manhattan plot (top) and LD heatmap (bottom) surrounding the peak on chromosome 2. The blue arrow indicates a significant SNP (Lead SNP: 17310510) in qRGR2.3; (E) Gene structure of Lus10033213; (F) Boxplot for haplotypes based on the lead SNP in qRGR2.3; (G) The distribution of allele frequencies of strong SNP are located in qRGR2.3 which was distributed in Oil, OF and Fiber subpopulations. The GG and AA alleles are shown in blue and pink, respectively. The difference between haplotypes was analyzed by t tests.