Joint linkage and association mapping of complex traits in shrub willow (Salix purpurea L.).
Biomass
GWAS
QTL
bioenergy
breeding
phenology
wood composition
yield
Journal
Annals of botany
ISSN: 1095-8290
Titre abrégé: Ann Bot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372347
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 10 2019
29 10 2019
Historique:
received:
27
08
2018
accepted:
08
03
2019
pubmed:
23
4
2019
medline:
19
3
2020
entrez:
23
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Increasing energy demands and the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are key motivating factors driving the development of lignocellulosic crops as an alternative to non-renewable energy sources. The effects of global climate change will require a better understanding of the genetic basis of complex adaptive traits to breed more resilient bioenergy feedstocks, like willow (Salix spp.). Shrub willow is a sustainable and dedicated bioenergy crop, bred to be fast-growing and high-yielding on marginal land without competing with food crops. In a rapidly changing climate, genomic advances will be vital for the sustained improvement of willow and other non-model bioenergy crops. Here, joint genetic mapping was used to exploit genetic variation garnered from both recent and historical recombination events in S. purpurea. A panel of North American naturalized S. purpurea accessions and full-sib F2S. purpurea population were genotyped and phenotyped for a suite of morphological, physiological, pest and disease resistance, and wood chemical composition traits, collected from multi-environment and multi-year replicated field trials. Controlling for population stratification and kinship in the association panel and spatial variation in the F2, a comprehensive mixed model analysis was used to dissect the complex genetic architecture and plasticity of these important traits. Individually, genome-wide association (GWAS) models differed in terms of power, but the combined approach, which corrects for yearly and environmental co-factors across datasets, improved the overall detection and resolution of associated loci. Although there were few significant GWAS hits located within support intervals of QTL for corresponding traits in the F2, many large-effect QTL were identified, as well as QTL hotspots. This study provides the first comparison of linkage analysis and linkage disequilibrium mapping approaches in Salix, and highlights the complementarity and limits of these two methods for elucidating the genetic architecture of complex bioenergy-related traits of a woody perennial breeding programme.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Increasing energy demands and the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are key motivating factors driving the development of lignocellulosic crops as an alternative to non-renewable energy sources. The effects of global climate change will require a better understanding of the genetic basis of complex adaptive traits to breed more resilient bioenergy feedstocks, like willow (Salix spp.). Shrub willow is a sustainable and dedicated bioenergy crop, bred to be fast-growing and high-yielding on marginal land without competing with food crops. In a rapidly changing climate, genomic advances will be vital for the sustained improvement of willow and other non-model bioenergy crops. Here, joint genetic mapping was used to exploit genetic variation garnered from both recent and historical recombination events in S. purpurea.
METHODS
A panel of North American naturalized S. purpurea accessions and full-sib F2S. purpurea population were genotyped and phenotyped for a suite of morphological, physiological, pest and disease resistance, and wood chemical composition traits, collected from multi-environment and multi-year replicated field trials. Controlling for population stratification and kinship in the association panel and spatial variation in the F2, a comprehensive mixed model analysis was used to dissect the complex genetic architecture and plasticity of these important traits.
KEY RESULTS
Individually, genome-wide association (GWAS) models differed in terms of power, but the combined approach, which corrects for yearly and environmental co-factors across datasets, improved the overall detection and resolution of associated loci. Although there were few significant GWAS hits located within support intervals of QTL for corresponding traits in the F2, many large-effect QTL were identified, as well as QTL hotspots.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides the first comparison of linkage analysis and linkage disequilibrium mapping approaches in Salix, and highlights the complementarity and limits of these two methods for elucidating the genetic architecture of complex bioenergy-related traits of a woody perennial breeding programme.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31008500
pii: 5474945
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcz047
pmc: PMC6821232
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
701-716Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Structure. 1995 Sep 15;3(9):853-9
pubmed: 8535779
G3 (Bethesda). 2015 Sep 15;5(11):2383-90
pubmed: 26377960
Trends Plant Sci. 2012 Jan;17(1):9-15
pubmed: 22037416
Bioinformatics. 2009 Jul 15;25(14):1754-60
pubmed: 19451168
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Oct 21;105(42):16392-7
pubmed: 18849474
Plant Signal Behav. 2012 Dec;7(12):1702-4
pubmed: 23073022
Plant J. 2009 Jul;59(1):63-76
pubmed: 19309460
G3 (Bethesda). 2018 Dec 10;8(12):3961-3972
pubmed: 30373914
Planta. 2006 Sep;224(4):828-37
pubmed: 16575593
Plant Signal Behav. 2011 Aug;6(8):1223-7
pubmed: 21778824
Proc Biol Sci. 2016 Jul 27;283(1835):
pubmed: 27440663
PLoS Genet. 2008 Oct;4(10):e1000212
pubmed: 18846212
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2017 Aug;38:184-192
pubmed: 28738313
Development. 2003 Oct;130(20):4859-69
pubmed: 12917293
Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2015 Jul-Aug;51(4):282-93
pubmed: 27098510
Genetics. 2008 Sep;180(1):329-40
pubmed: 18716330
BMC Plant Biol. 2009 Feb 26;9:23
pubmed: 19245718
Genome Biol. 2002;3(3):REVIEWS3004
pubmed: 11897031
Nat Genet. 2014 Oct;46(10):1089-96
pubmed: 25151358
Theor Appl Genet. 2017 Jul;130(7):1375-1392
pubmed: 28374049
Tree Physiol. 2014 Nov;34(11):1167-80
pubmed: 24218244
Front Physiol. 2012 Jun 01;3:156
pubmed: 22675304
Bioinformatics. 2003 May 1;19(7):889-90
pubmed: 12724300
New Phytol. 2012 Nov;196(3):713-25
pubmed: 22861491
Plant Mol Biol. 2008 Apr;66(6):619-36
pubmed: 18247136
New Phytol. 2010 Apr;186(2):526-36
pubmed: 20122131
Nat Genet. 2002 Feb;30(2):190-3
pubmed: 11780140
Glob Change Biol Bioenergy. 2016 May;8(3):670-685
pubmed: 27547245
BMC Genomics. 2013 Jun 01;14:368
pubmed: 23724860
PLoS One. 2011 May 04;6(5):e19379
pubmed: 21573248
Bioinformatics. 2007 Oct 1;23(19):2633-5
pubmed: 17586829
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 01;11(2):e0147671
pubmed: 26828940
Nat Genet. 2010 Nov;42(11):961-7
pubmed: 20972439
Plant Cell. 2005 Aug;17(8):2281-95
pubmed: 15980264
Trends Plant Sci. 2016 Jan;21(1):43-54
pubmed: 26541073
J Integr Plant Biol. 2014 Jan;56(1):75-87
pubmed: 24138336
J Exp Bot. 2012 Jun;63(11):4045-60
pubmed: 22511806
Development. 2010 Mar;137(6):975-84
pubmed: 20179097
Genetics. 2019 Feb;211(2):495-502
pubmed: 30591514
Mol Ecol. 2013 Feb;22(3):699-708
pubmed: 22420446
BMC Plant Biol. 2014 Mar 24;14:74
pubmed: 24661804
J Plant Physiol. 2010 May 15;167(8):650-8
pubmed: 20056293
Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2000;35(4):291-314
pubmed: 11005203
Trends Plant Sci. 2008 Nov;13(11):567-73
pubmed: 18824398
Theor Appl Genet. 2005 Feb;110(3):537-49
pubmed: 15619077
Trends Plant Sci. 2011 Jan;16(1):47-52
pubmed: 20961800
Nat Rev Genet. 2016 May 17;17(6):333-51
pubmed: 27184599
Heredity (Edinb). 2015 Jun;114(6):575-83
pubmed: 25649501
Nat Rev Genet. 2009 Aug;10(8):565-77
pubmed: 19584810
G3 (Bethesda). 2017 Mar 10;7(3):881-893
pubmed: 28082325
Tree Physiol. 2016 Sep;36(9):1162-76
pubmed: 27259636
New Phytol. 2014 Jul;203(2):535-53
pubmed: 24750093
Plant Cell. 2003 Jul;15(7):1502-6
pubmed: 12837942
Genet Epidemiol. 2011;35 Suppl 1:S115-9
pubmed: 22128051
Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
pubmed: 11290733
Plant Cell. 2007 May;19(5):1565-79
pubmed: 17496119
Bioinformatics. 2012 Sep 15;28(18):2397-9
pubmed: 22796960
New Phytol. 2016 Feb;209(3):1067-82
pubmed: 26499329
J Biol Chem. 2007 Jun 8;282(23):17002-13
pubmed: 17426032
Mol Genet Genomics. 2018 Dec;293(6):1437-1452
pubmed: 30022352
Genetics. 2000 Nov;156(3):1349-62
pubmed: 11063707
Int J Plant Genomics. 2008;2008:524847
pubmed: 18528527
Plant Sci. 2016 Jan;242:14-22
pubmed: 26566821
Front Plant Sci. 2015 Dec 07;6:1030
pubmed: 26697024
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 07;10(4):e0122933
pubmed: 25849955
PLoS Genet. 2016 Feb 01;12(2):e1005767
pubmed: 26828793
Sci Rep. 2015 Mar 13;5:9076
pubmed: 25766834
Plant Physiol. 2017 Jun;174(2):1216-1225
pubmed: 28381501
BMC Plant Biol. 2014 Jan 17;14:31
pubmed: 24438179
New Phytol. 2017 Jan;213(2):799-811
pubmed: 27596807
Genetics. 2000 Jun;155(2):945-59
pubmed: 10835412
J Exp Bot. 2004 Mar;55(397):631-9
pubmed: 14966217
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Mar 1;108(9):3530-5
pubmed: 21245334
Plant Cell Environ. 2010 Jul;33(7):1112-23
pubmed: 20199623
J Integr Plant Biol. 2011 Feb;53(2):151-65
pubmed: 21205181
Genetics. 1994 Aug;137(4):1121-37
pubmed: 7982566
Hereditas. 2003;138(3):172-8
pubmed: 14641480
J Appl Genet. 2008;49(4):321-31
pubmed: 19029679
Ann Bot. 2017 Jul 1;120(1):87-100
pubmed: 28449073
Front Plant Sci. 2013 Apr 05;4:80
pubmed: 23577017
Mol Ecol. 2013 Mar;22(5):1214-30
pubmed: 23094714
Cell Res. 2012 Jul;22(7):1169-80
pubmed: 22508267
BMC Genomics. 2015 Jan 23;16:24
pubmed: 25613058
Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Mar 22;18(3):
pubmed: 28327519
Plant Physiol. 2007 Aug;144(4):1693-6
pubmed: 17687051
Genome Biol Evol. 2017 Sep 1;9(9):2377-2394
pubmed: 28957462