| Literature DB >> 36243755 |
Taslima Haque1,2, Sabrina M Elias1,3,4, Samsad Razzaque1,2, Sudip Biswas1,5, Sumaiya Farah Khan1,6, G M Nurnabi Azad Jewel1,7, Md Sazzadur Rahman8, Thomas E Juenger2, Zeba I Seraj9.
Abstract
Salinity has a significant negative impact on production of rice. To cope with the increased soil salinity due to climate change, we need to develop salt tolerant rice varieties that can maintain their high yield. Rice landraces indigenous to coastal Bangladesh can be a great resource to study the genetic basis of salt adaptation. In this study, we implemented a QTL analysis framework with a reciprocal mapping population developed from a salt tolerant landrace Horkuch and a high yielding rice variety IR29. Our aim was to detect genetic loci that contributes to the salt adaptive responses of the two different developmental stages of rice which are very sensitive to salinity stress. We identified 14 QTLs for 9 traits and found that most are unique to specific developmental stages. In addition, we detected a significant effect of the cytoplasmic genome on the QTL model for some traits such as leaf total potassium and filled grain weight. This underscores the importance of considering cytoplasm-nuclear interaction for breeding programs. Finally, we identified QTLs co-localization for multiple traits that highlights the possible constraint of multiple QTL selection for breeding programs due to different contributions of a donor allele for different traits.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36243755 PMCID: PMC9569374 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21737-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Frequency distribution of traits showing transgressive segregation in the F2 population and the individual subsets of cross directions. Blue and orange histograms indicate samples from Horkuch♀ and IR29♀ cytoplasm respectively. Curves in blue and orange indicate distribution plots of Horkuch♀ and IR29♀ cytoplasm respectively and dotted curve in black indicates the distribution plot of total population. Parental values are marked by a dotted vertical line where blue indicates Horkuch and orange indicates IR29.
Figure 2(A) PCA on trait correlations in the F2 mapping population. Each point represents the genetic means of each F2 family whereas the shape of point indicates the cytoplasm (cross direction). Direction of variation for axis 1 and 2 of each trait has been plotted as arrow and are color labelled depending on two different treatment stages: green indicates Seedling stage treatment and red indicates reproductive stage treatment. Labels of traits are printed close to the arrow-head. (B) Plot shows the correlations of traits where brown color shows positive correlation and light-blue indicates negative correlation. Traits labelled with green color indicates seedling stage ones and red indicates reproductive stage traits.
Estimated QTL models: effect and localization.
| Phenotypes | QTL model | Chromosome | Position | LOD | Lower CI | Upper CI | %Variance | %Variance (QTLa Cyto) | Positive allele |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SL | qSL.1@183 | 1 | 183.00 | 13.42 | 175.11 | 190.57 | 20.4 | NA | Horkuch |
| SL | qSL.3@218 | 3 | 218.00 | 4.82 | 212.12 | 236.45 | 7.3 | NA | Horkuch |
| SL | qSL.5@160 | 5 | 160.43 | 3.83 | 102.86 | 170.27 | 5.5 | NA | Horkuch |
| RL | qRL.2@167 | 2 | 167.00 | 10.67 | 161.14 | 176.67 | 20.0 | NA | Horkuch |
| TK | qTK.2@45 *Cyto | 2 | 45.00 | 6.11 | 24.05 | 66.99 | 2.42 | 2.3 | Horkucha |
| TK | qTK.3@204 *Cyto | 3 | 203.78 | 6.46 | 194.44 | 209.29 | 3.8 | 3.8 | Horkucha |
| PH | qPH.1@215 | 1 | 215.00 | 5.59 | 175.11 | 222.54 | 11.4 | NA | Horkuch |
| PH | qPH.3@211 | 3 | 211.02 | 5.15 | 203.78 | 272.38 | 7.2 | NA | Horkuch |
| PH | qPH.5@144 *Cyto | 5 | 144.00 | 6.64 | 124.73 | 170.27 | 11.0 | 2.1 | Horkucha |
| ET | qET.7@97 *Cyto | 7 | 97.00 | 5.82 | 85.83 | 104.41 | 17.7 | 5.5 | Horkuch |
| FGN | qFGN.10@58 *Cyto | 10 | 58.48 | 7.72 | 50.30 | 107.07 | 14.9 | 7.5 | IR29 |
| FGW | qFGW.10@58 *Cyto | 10 | 58.48 | 9.13 | 50.30 | 107.07 | 17.6 | 9.1 | IR29 |
| SF | qSF.10@59 *Cyto | 10 | 59.00 | 7.71 | 50.30 | 107.07 | 17.0 | 12.4 | IR29 |
| HI | qHI.10@104 + Cyto | 10 | 103.75 | 8.48 | 50.30 | 107.07 | 15.4 | 1.4 | IR29 |
Each QTL model was built by linear mixed model using kinship matrix as a covariate. Asterisk sign denotes interaction with cytoplasm whereas (+) sign denotes only additive cytoplasmic effect in the QTL model. aDenotes QTL that has both main and interaction effect since only considering direction of the main effect can be misleading.
Figure 3Illustration of QTL across chromosomes. QTL are denoted as a point and 1.5 LOD drop confidence intervals extended to a true marker is indicted by the bar for each QTL. Peaks of the QTL were marked as black line in QTL intervals. QTL from same trait are marked with same color. Line width represents the magnitude of LOD score. Genomic regions that showed significant association with cytoplasm are marked here with black line segment.
Figure 4Interaction plots of allelic effect of QTL and cytoplasm on different traits from two different treatment stages. Blue line shows plants with Horkuch cytoplasm whereas orange line indicates plants with IR29 cytoplasm. Alleles are plotted on x-axis where AA, AB and BB indicate homozygous Horkuch, heterozygous of Horkuch/IR29 and homozygous IR29 respectively. Allelic means ± SE are reported. Representative QTL effects for SL and PH are presented in the upper panel and exhibit no significant interaction with cytoplasm. The third plot from the left on upper panel demonstrates significant additive effects of the maternal cytoplasm on TK. In the bottom panel, plot two and three from the left demonstrate significant interaction of QTL alleles with cytoplasm for traits such FGW, ET.