Maximizing genetic representation in seed collections from populations of self and cross-pollinated banana wild relatives.
Conservation strategy
Crop wild relatives
Genetic diversity
Sampling
Seed bank
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Sep 2021
09 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
11
03
2021
accepted:
06
07
2021
entrez:
10
9
2021
pubmed:
11
9
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Conservation of plant genetic resources, including the wild relatives of crops, plays an important and well recognised role in addressing some of the key challenges faced by humanity and the planet including ending hunger and biodiversity loss. However, the genetic diversity and representativeness of ex situ collections, especially that contained in seed collections, is often unknown. This limits meaningful assessments against conservation targets, impairs targeting of future collecting and limits their use. We assessed genetic representation of seed collections compared to source populations for three wild relatives of bananas and plantains. Focal species and sampling regions were M. acuminata subsp. banksii (Papua New Guinea), M. balbisiana (Viet Nam) and M. maclayi s.l. (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). We sequenced 445 samples using suites of 16-20 existing and newly developed taxon-specific polymorphic microsatellite markers. Samples of each species were from five populations in a region; 15 leaf samples from different individuals and 16 seed samples from one infructescence ('bunch') were analysed for each population. Allelic richness of seeds compared to populations was 51, 81 and 93% (M. acuminata, M. balbisiana and M. maclayi respectively). Seed samples represented all common alleles in populations but omitted some rarer alleles. The number of collections required to achieve the 70% target of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation was species dependent, relating to mating systems. Musa acuminata populations had low heterozygosity and diversity, indicating self-fertilization; many bunches were needed (> 15) to represent regional alleles to 70%; over 90% of the alleles from a bunch are included in only two seeds. Musa maclayi was characteristically cross-fertilizing; only three bunches were needed to represent regional alleles; within a bunch, 16 seeds represent alleles. Musa balbisiana, considered cross-fertilized, had low genetic diversity; seeds of four bunches are needed to represent regional alleles; only two seeds represent alleles in a bunch. We demonstrate empirical measurement of representation of genetic material in seeds collections in ex situ conservation towards conservation targets. Species mating systems profoundly affected genetic representation in seed collections and therefore should be a primary consideration to maximize genetic representation. Results are applicable to sampling strategies for other wild species.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Conservation of plant genetic resources, including the wild relatives of crops, plays an important and well recognised role in addressing some of the key challenges faced by humanity and the planet including ending hunger and biodiversity loss. However, the genetic diversity and representativeness of ex situ collections, especially that contained in seed collections, is often unknown. This limits meaningful assessments against conservation targets, impairs targeting of future collecting and limits their use. We assessed genetic representation of seed collections compared to source populations for three wild relatives of bananas and plantains. Focal species and sampling regions were M. acuminata subsp. banksii (Papua New Guinea), M. balbisiana (Viet Nam) and M. maclayi s.l. (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). We sequenced 445 samples using suites of 16-20 existing and newly developed taxon-specific polymorphic microsatellite markers. Samples of each species were from five populations in a region; 15 leaf samples from different individuals and 16 seed samples from one infructescence ('bunch') were analysed for each population.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Allelic richness of seeds compared to populations was 51, 81 and 93% (M. acuminata, M. balbisiana and M. maclayi respectively). Seed samples represented all common alleles in populations but omitted some rarer alleles. The number of collections required to achieve the 70% target of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation was species dependent, relating to mating systems. Musa acuminata populations had low heterozygosity and diversity, indicating self-fertilization; many bunches were needed (> 15) to represent regional alleles to 70%; over 90% of the alleles from a bunch are included in only two seeds. Musa maclayi was characteristically cross-fertilizing; only three bunches were needed to represent regional alleles; within a bunch, 16 seeds represent alleles. Musa balbisiana, considered cross-fertilized, had low genetic diversity; seeds of four bunches are needed to represent regional alleles; only two seeds represent alleles in a bunch.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrate empirical measurement of representation of genetic material in seeds collections in ex situ conservation towards conservation targets. Species mating systems profoundly affected genetic representation in seed collections and therefore should be a primary consideration to maximize genetic representation. Results are applicable to sampling strategies for other wild species.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34503446
doi: 10.1186/s12870-021-03142-y
pii: 10.1186/s12870-021-03142-y
pmc: PMC8431884
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
415Subventions
Organisme : Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF)
ID : INV-010652
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Ecol Lett. 2008 Jun;11(6):609-23
pubmed: 18400018
BMC Plant Biol. 2013 Mar 12;13:41
pubmed: 23497122
Genetics. 1978 Jul;89(3):583-90
pubmed: 17248844
PeerJ. 2014 Mar 04;2:e281
pubmed: 24688859
AoB Plants. 2012;2012:pls030
pubmed: 23240072
Biotechniques. 2009 Jun;46(7):511-7
pubmed: 19594450
Mol Ecol. 2020 Dec;29(24):4812-4822
pubmed: 33058295
Nature. 2012 Aug 9;488(7410):213-7
pubmed: 22801500
Evol Appl. 2008 Nov;1(4):587-97
pubmed: 25567799
Electrophoresis. 1998 Feb;19(2):152-7
pubmed: 9548273
Trends Plant Sci. 2009 Nov;14(11):614-21
pubmed: 19818672
BMC Plant Biol. 2010 Apr 13;10:65
pubmed: 20388207
Nat Biotechnol. 2000 Feb;18(2):233-4
pubmed: 10657137
Biometrics. 1987 Dec;43(4):783-91
pubmed: 3427163
Ecology. 1971 Jul;52(4):577-586
pubmed: 28973811
BMC Res Notes. 2010 May 27;3:148
pubmed: 20507605
Plants (Basel). 2020 Jul 30;9(8):
pubmed: 32751715
Conserv Biol. 2020 Aug 24;:
pubmed: 32840007
Proc Biol Sci. 2020 May 13;287(1926):20200102
pubmed: 32345167
Curr Biol. 2006 Sep 5;16(17):R726-35
pubmed: 16950099
Mol Ecol. 2005 Apr;14(4):933-44
pubmed: 15773926
Conserv Biol. 2021 Apr;35(2):733-744
pubmed: 32519757
New Phytol. 2016 Jun;210(4):1453-65
pubmed: 26832306
Bioinformatics. 2010 Feb 1;26(3):419-20
pubmed: 20080509
Bioinformatics. 2008 Jun 1;24(11):1403-5
pubmed: 18397895
Plants (Basel). 2020 Sep 21;9(9):
pubmed: 32967145
Ann Bot. 2012 Apr;109(5):937-51
pubmed: 22323428
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2006 Apr;9(2):196-202
pubmed: 16480915
Plant J. 2020 Jun;102(5):1008-1025
pubmed: 31930580
Ann Bot. 2019 Jan 1;123(1):19-36
pubmed: 30247503