| Literature DB >> 35812943 |
Jie Li1,2,3,4, Xiaohua Yao2,3,4, Youhua Yao2,3,4, Likun An2,3,4, Zongyun Feng1,5, Kunlun Wu2,3,4.
Abstract
Drought stress is one of the main factors restricting hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare L. var. nudum Hook. f.) yield. Genome-wide association study was performed using 269 lines of hulless barley to identify single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers associated with drought-resistance traits. The plants were cultured under either normal or drought conditions, and various quantitative traits including shoot fresh weight, shoot dry weight, root fresh weight, root dry weight, leaf fresh weight, leaf saturated fresh weight, leaf dry weight, ratio of root and shoot fresh weight, ratio of root and shoot dry weight, shoot water loss rate, root water loss rate, leaf water content and leaf relative water content, and field phenotypes including main spike length, grain number per plant, grain weight per plant, thousand grain weight (TGW), main spike number, plant height, and effective spike number of plants were collected. After genotyping the plants, a total of 8,936,130 highly consistent population SNP markers were obtained with integrity > 0.5 and minor allele frequency > 0.05. Eight candidate genes potentially contributed to the hulless barley drought resistance were obtained at loci near significant SNPs. For example, EMB506, DCR, and APD2 genes for effective spike number of plants, ABCG11 gene for main spike number (MEN), CLPR2 gene for main spike length, YIP4B gene for root and shoot dry weight (RSWD), and GLYK and BTS genes for TGW. The SNPs and candidate genes identified in this study will be useful in hulless barley breeding under drought resistance.Entities:
Keywords: GWAS; SNP; drought resistance; high throughput sequencing; hulless barley; quantitative traits
Year: 2022 PMID: 35812943 PMCID: PMC9260272 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.924892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
Distribution of SLAF markers on chromosomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| chr1H | 558,535,432 | 914,610 | 103,229 | 55,541 |
| chr2H | 768,075,024 | 1,289,234 | 139,589 | 77,829 |
| chr3H | 699,711,114 | 1,532,190 | 130,401 | 75,513 |
| chr4H | 647,060,158 | 1,186,220 | 122,917 | 67,774 |
| chr5H | 670,030,160 | 1,451,138 | 117,223 | 66,198 |
| chr6H | 583,380,513 | 1,216,744 | 108,416 | 63,442 |
| chr7H | 657,224,000 | 1,345,994 | 118,728 | 68,117 |
| chrUn | 249,774,706 | 123,320 | 22,256 | 6,334 |
Figure 1Distribution of SNPs on chromosomes.
Figure 2Genetic relatedness among the 269 hulless barley lines estimated by neighbor-joining method and represented as a polar tree diagram. The estimated genetic relatedness is based on 5,949,446 SNPs identified by genotyping-by-sequencing and filtered for MAF of 0.05.
Figure 3The scatter plots of the first two principal components (PCs) showing the distribution of the 269 hulless barley lines in PC1 vs. PC2.
Figure 4Linkage disequilibrium decay based on six groups.
SNP markers for each phenotype based on different GWAS analysis models.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| ESN | 2019 | Menyuan | Field | 18 | 6 | 10 | 6 |
| 2019 | Xining | Field | 84 | 22 | 54 | 21 | |
| 2019 | Xining | Greenhouse | 10 | 3 | 7 | 3 | |
| 2020 | Menyuan | Field | 44 | 10 | 18 | 10 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Field | 117 | 6 | 74 | 6 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Greenhouse | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| GW | 2019 | Menyuan | Field | 10 | 3 | 11 | 3 |
| 2019 | Xining | Field | 11 | 0 | 14 | 0 | |
| 2019 | Xining | Greenhouse | 6 | 1 | 6 | 1 | |
| 2020 | Menyuan | Field | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Field | 11 | 1 | 6 | 1 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Greenhouse | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| MSL | 2019 | Menyuan | Field | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 2019 | Xining | Field | 7 | 2 | 5 | 2 | |
| 2019 | Xining | Greenhouse | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 2020 | Menyuan | Field | 191 | 1 | 41 | 1 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Field | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Greenhouse | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| PH | 2019 | Menyuan | Field | 10 | 2 | 39 | 2 |
| 2019 | Xining | Field | 7 | 1 | 6 | 1 | |
| 2019 | Xining | Greenhouse | 28 | 10 | 23 | 8 | |
| 2020 | Menyuan | Field | 14 | 2 | 6 | 2 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Field | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Greenhouse | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| SN | 2019 | Menyuan | Field | 37 | 2 | 108 | 1 |
| 2019 | Xining | Field | 32 | 26 | 34 | 23 | |
| 2019 | Xining | Greenhouse | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| 2020 | Menyuan | Field | 24 | 6 | 79 | 6 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Field | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Greenhouse | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| SPP | 2019 | Menyuan | Field | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | Xining | Field | 28 | 0 | 13 | 0 | |
| 2019 | Xining | Greenhouse | 12 | 1 | 7 | 1 | |
| 2020 | Menyuan | Field | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Field | 7 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Greenhouse | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| TGW | 2019 | Menyuan | Field | 16 | 17 | 24 | 16 |
| 2019 | Xining | Field | 14 | 2 | 8 | 2 | |
| 2019 | Xining | Greenhouse | 15 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| 2020 | Menyuan | Field | 47 | 33 | 55 | 31 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Field | 25 | 1 | 19 | 1 | |
| 2020 | Xining | Greenhouse | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |
|
| |||||||
| SFW | Control | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||
| PEG | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| LDMC | Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| LDW | Control | 4 | 0 | 5 | 0 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| LFW | Control | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||
| RDW | Control | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| RFW | Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 13 | 3 | 10 | 3 | |||
| RSDW | Control | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | |||
| RSFW | Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| RWC | Control | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 23 | 1 | 48 | 1 | |||
| RWLR | Control | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| SDW | Control | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| SWLR | Control | 1,148 | 0 | 696 | 0 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| WC | Control | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| PEG-6000 | 10 | 11 | 14 | 7 | |||
Figure 5Manhattan maps and Q–Q plots representing the SNP markers associated with drought resistant in multiple trials of GWAS associated with spike development. (A,B) ESNP, (C) MEN, (D) MSL, (E) RSWD, and (F) TGW.