| Literature DB >> 35331143 |
Rong Huang1, Yinrong Liu1, Jianling Chen1, Zuyu Lu1, Jiajia Wang1, Wei He1, Zhi Chao2,3,4, Enwei Tian5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angelica dahurica belongs to the Apiaceae family, whose dry root is a famous traditional Chinese medicine named as "Bai zhi". There are two cultivars (A. dahurica cv. 'Hangbaizhi' and A. dahurica cv. 'Qibaizhi'), which have been domesticated for thousands of years. Long term artificial selection has led to great changes in root phenotypes of the two cultivars, and also decreased their adaptability to environment. We proposed hypothesis that the cultivars may have lost some of the genetic diversity found in the wild species and may be highly differentiated from the latter during the domestication process. However, few studies have been carried out on how domestication affected the genetic variation of this species. Here, we accessed the levels of genetic variation and differentiation within and between wild A. dahurica populations and two cultivars using 12 microsatellite markers.Entities:
Keywords: Angelica dahurica; Cluster analysis; Domestication; Genetic differentiation; Genetic diversity; SSR
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35331143 PMCID: PMC8953045 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-022-03545-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Summary of genetic diversity analysis for 15 populations of Angelica dahurica assessed with 12 microsatellite loci
| Pop. | Sample size | Alleles | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild ( | |||||||||
| BX | 24 | 54 | 2 | 4.500 | 2.469 | 0.573 | 0.537 | 1.039 | −0.130 |
| AS | 17 | 46 | 1 | 3.833 | 2.403 | 0.590 | 0.529 | 0.948 | −0.100 |
| KS | 24 | 41 | 0 | 3.417 | 2.351 | 0.558 | 0.532 | 0.947 | −0.051 |
| CD | 24 | 46 | 3 | 3.833 | 1.922 | 0.463 | 0.403 | 0.760 | −0.121 |
| BJ | 24 | 46 | 2 | 3.833 | 1.966 | 0.403 | 0.430 | 0.810 | 0.152** |
| DH | 14 | 58 | 3 | 4.833 | 2.818 | 0.605 | 0.563 | 1.110 | −0.004 |
| HEB | 20 | 50 | 2 | 4.167 | 2.464 | 0.470 | 0.474 | 0.915 | 0.090 |
| Mean | 21 | 49 | 1.9 | 4.059 | 2.342 | 0.523 | 0.495 | 0.933 | |
| Cultivars | |||||||||
| | |||||||||
| PA | 24 | 43 | 4 | 3.583 | 1.922 | 0.420 | 0.395 | 0.723 | −0.011 |
| GY | 24 | 42 | 2 | 3.500 | 1.968 | 0.367 | 0.384 | 0.730 | −0.005 |
| SN | 24 | 30 | 0 | 2.500 | 1.678 | 0.232 | 0.265 | 0.475 | 0.372** |
| Mean | 24 | 38.3 | 2 | 3.194 | 1.856 | 0.340 | 0.348 | 0.643 | |
| | |||||||||
| AG | 24 | 39 | 3 | 3.250 | 1.835 | 0.346 | 0.340 | 0.621 | 0.222** |
| CG | 21 | 26 | 0 | 2.167 | 1.511 | 0.329 | 0.264 | 0.426 | −0.262 |
| YZ | 24 | 39 | 1 | 3.250 | 1.623 | 0.299 | 0.307 | 0.567 | 0.188** |
| JN | 24 | 28 | 0 | 2.333 | 1.511 | 0.249 | 0.250 | 0.437 | 0.118 |
| ZC | 24 | 36 | 1 | 3.000 | 1.578 | 0.281 | 0.288 | 0.521 | 0.059 |
| Mean | 23.4 | 33.6 | 1 | 2.800 | 1.612 | 0.301 | 0.290 | 0.514 | |
| Cultivars Mean | 23.6 | 35 | 1.4 | 2.948 | 1.703 | 0.316 | 0.312 | 0.562 | |
| Species Mean | 22.4 | 42 | 1.6 | 3.467 | 2.001 | 0.412 | 0.397 | 0.735 | |
Note: Ap: number of private alleles; Na: number of observed alleles; Ne: number of effective alleles; I: Shannon’sindex; Ho: observed heterozygosity; He: expected heterozygosity; FIS: inbreeding coefficient
**p < 0.01
Fig. 1Distribution of allele frequency in populations of Angelica dahurica and its two cultivar, A. dahurica cv. ‘Hangbaizhi’ and cv. ‘Qibaizhi’
Analyses of molecular variance (AMOVAs) for 15 Angelica dahurica populations assessed with 12 microsatellite loci
| Source | d.f. | Variance component | Percentage of variation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonhierarchical | |||||
| Species | |||||
| Among populations | 14 | 0.803 | 34.53% | 0.000 | |
| Within populations | 657 | 1.522 | 65.47% | ||
| Wild | |||||
| Among populations | 6 | 0.618 | 19.41% | 0.000 | |
| Within populations | 287 | 2.564 | 80.59% | ||
| Cultivars | |||||
| Among populations | 7 | 0.467 | 48.58% | 0.000 | |
| Within populations | 370 | 0.494 | 51.42% | ||
| Hierarchical | |||||
| Wild vs Cultivated | |||||
| Between groups | 1 | 0.719 | 26.99% | 0.000 | |
| Among populations within group | 13 | 0.423 | 15.89% | 0.000 | |
| Within populations | 657 | 1.522 | 57.13% | ||
| Haibaizhi vs Qibaizhi | |||||
| Between groups | 1 | 0.145 | 14.78% | 0.000 | |
| Among populations within group | 187 | 0.351 | 35.84% | 0.000 | |
| Within populations | 189 | 0.484 | 49.38% | ||
Note: d. f. degree of freedom, Fct genetic differentiation between groups, Fst genetic differentiation among populations within group
Fig. 2Bayesian clustering results of the STRUCTURE analysis for Angelica dahurica and its two cultivar, A. dahurica cv. ‘Hangbaizhi’ and cv. ‘Qibaizhi’ assessed with 12 microsatellite loci. A Estimates of ΔK with respect to K; B Plot of the probability of the data (LnP(D)) values; C Genetic group structure with K = 2, 3 and 4
Fig. 3UPGMA dendrogram (A) and unrooted neighbour-joining (B) tree of seven wild Angelica dahurica populations and eight cultivated populations assessed with 12 microsatellite loci
Fig. 4Principal coordinate analysis of 147 individuals from seven wild Angelica dahurica populations (circles) and 189 individuals from eight cultivated populations (triangles), assessed with 12 microsatellite loci
Fig. 5Geographic distribution of sampled populations of Angelica dahurica and its two cultivar, A. dahurica cv. ‘Hangbaizhi’ and cv. ‘Qibaizhi’. The map was drawn by the authors with reference to Google Maps. The map can be found at https://maps.google.com/
Summary of sample locations and sample sizes of Angelica dahurica and its cultivars
| Species | Types | Voucher no. | Locantions (abbreviations) | Latitude, Longitude | Sample sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild | 2,017,811-BX(1 ~ 24) | Benxi, Liaoning Province (BX) | 44°22′47″ N, 124°57′58″ E | 24 | |
| Wild | 2,017,808-AS(1 ~ 17) | Anshan, Liaoning Province (AS) | 41°00′55″ N, 123°08′05″ E | 17 | |
| Wild | 2,017,812-KS(1 ~ 24) | Tonghua, Jilin Province (KS) | 42°25′49″ N, 126°06′36″ E | 24 | |
| Wild | 2,017,826-CD(1 ~ 24) | Chengde, Hebei Province (CD) | 40°40′12″ N, 117°40′12″ E | 24 | |
| Wild | 2,018,816-BJ(1 ~ 24) | Beijing (BJ) | 39°58′47″ N, 115°25′40″ E | 24 | |
| Wild | 2,018,824-DH(1 ~ 14) | Dunhua, Jilin Province (DH) | 43°34′14″ N, 128°00′50″ E | 14 | |
| Wild | 2,018,825-HEB(1 ~ 20) | Haerbin, Heilongjiang Province (HEB) | 45°42′24″ N, 126°38′37″ E | 20 | |
| Cultivated | 2,018,625-PA(1 ~ 24) | Panan, Zhejiang Province (PA) | 28°57′05″ N, 120°28′05″ E | 24 | |
| Cultivated | 2,019,722-GY(1 ~ 24) | Guangyuan, Sichuan Province (GY) | 31°56′38″ N, 105°38′39″ E | 24 | |
| Cultivated | 2,019,720-SN(1 ~ 24) | Suining,Sichuan Province (SN) | 30°34′09″ N, 105°34′49″ E | 24 | |
| Cultivated | 2,018,808-YZ(1 ~ 24) | Yuzhou, Henan Province (YZ) | 34°12′01″ N, 113°34′32″ E | 24 | |
| Cultivated | 2,018,808-CG(1 ~ 21) | Changge, Henan Province (CG) | 34°11′30″ N, 113°53′45″ E | 21 | |
| Cultivated | 2,018,814-AG(1 ~ 24) | Anguo, Hebei (AG) | 38°25′11″ N, 115°19′37″ E | 24 | |
| Cultivated | 2,018,810-JN(1 ~ 24) | Jining, Shandong Province (JN) | 35°23′11″ N, 116°40′31″ E | 24 | |
| Cultivated | 2,018,811-ZC(1 ~ 24) | Jining, Shandong Province (ZC) | 35°24′36″ N, 116°53′47″ E | 24 | |
| Total | 336 |
Attributes of 12 microsatellite loci used for genotyping of Angelica dahurica and its cultivars
| Locus | Forward and reverse primer sequences | Motifs | Product size range (bp) | GenBank Accession No. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AD1 | F (FAM):TCCTCCAGCTGGCATAATAATAA R:ATTAAAAAGAACAAGGGGCTCAA | (TGC)6 | 111–123 | 55 | MH220032 |
| AD7 | F (FAM):GCTCTCTTAAATTTCACCCCAAC | (ATTACC)4 | 131–155 | 55 | MH220035 |
| R:TACTAGATTCTTCCAGAGCGACG | |||||
| AD8 | F (TAMRA):TTCAACATGGTCATGTGAGTGAT | (GGAGTG)4 | 140–164 | 53 | MH220036 |
| R:CCGTTGGAGGTCTTCTTGTAAAT | |||||
| AD9 | F (TAMRA):CAACACACATGATCCAGAAGAAA R:GAGCTGGAGATAGTCTGTTGCAT | (TCTGCA)10 | 99–159 | 50 | MH220037 |
| AD10 | F (FAM):AGACTGCACCTGTCTCATTTTTC | (GT)9 | 116–140 | 50 | MH220038 |
| R:GGCTTGTAATTAATCTTTGCACC | |||||
| AD11 | F (TAMRA):TTCGTCATTTAGAAACGATAGCA | (TCT)7 | 127–142 | 50 | MH220039 |
| R:TCAATGGATACCACCACATCATA | |||||
| AD14 | F (FAM):TGTACTCCATGGACTGGAGTCTT | (TCA)7 | 108–123 | 50 | MH220041 |
| R:TTTGTTTTCTGACAAAGCCAAAT | |||||
| AD17 | F (TAMRA):GGATCATGTTGATGATGGAAAAT | (AGA)7 | 145–163 | 50 | MH220042 |
| R:TTCGATTACTACAGCAGATGAGC | |||||
| AD19 | F (TAMRA):CCCCATTTCTCCCATAGATAGAT | (GCA)6 | 125–140 | 53 | MH220043 |
| R:CCATTAATTGTTCTGCATTTTCC | |||||
| AD22 | F (FAM): AAACAATATCAAATCAAATGGCG | (TTC)6 | 84–99 | 50 | MH844986 |
| R: GTGGTGATGATGAATCTTGTGAA | |||||
| AD23 | F (FAM): GCTTGACATATATCATCGCCTTT | (CTT)6 | 130–142 | 50 | MH844987 |
| R:TAGACCAAGAGCCAAATAAACCA | |||||
| AD24 | F (TAMRA):GCGAGATGGAAATGACAAATTCT | (GCA)6 | 108–117 | 50 | MH844988 |
| R: ATCCCACCATTTCCTCATTAAGT |
Note: Each forward (5′ end) primer was labeled with TAMRA or FAM fluorescent dyes