Genetic control of tolerance to drought stress in soybean.
Genome-wide-association (GWAS)
Glycine max
Quantitative trait locus (QTL)
Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Dec 2022
28 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
03
07
2022
accepted:
12
12
2022
entrez:
27
12
2022
pubmed:
28
12
2022
medline:
30
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Drought stress limits the production of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], which is the most grown high-value legume crop worldwide. Breeding for drought tolerance is a difficult endeavor and understanding the genetic basis of drought tolerance in soybean is therefore crucial for harnessing the genomic regions involved in the tolerance mechanisms. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis was applied in a soybean germplasm collection (the EUCLEG collection) of 359 accessions relevant for breeding in Europe, to identify genomic regions and candidate genes involved in the response to short duration and long duration drought stress (SDS and LDS respectively) in soybean. The phenotypic response to drought was stronger in the long duration drought (LDS) than in the short duration drought (SDS) experiment. Over the four traits considered (canopy wilting, leaf senescence, maximum absolute growth rate and maximum plant height) the variation was in the range of 8.4-25.2% in the SDS, and 14.7-29.7% in the LDS experiments. The GWAS analysis identified a total of 17 and 22 significant marker-trait associations for four traits in the SDS and LDS experiments, respectively. In the genomic regions delimited by these markers we identified a total of 12 and 16 genes with putative functions that are of particular relevance for drought stress responses including stomatal movement, root formation, photosynthesis, ABA signaling, cellular protection and cellular repair mechanisms. Some of these genomic regions co-localized with previously known QTLs for drought tolerance traits including water use efficiency, chlorophyll content and photosynthesis. Our results indicate that the mechanism of slow wilting in the SDS might be associated with the characteristics of the root system, whereas in the LDS, slow wilting could be due to low stomatal conductance and transpiration rates enabling a high WUE. Drought-induced leaf senescence was found to be associated to ABA and ROS responses. The QTLs related to WUE contributed to growth rate and canopy height maintenance under drought stress. Co-localization of several previously known QTLs for multiple agronomic traits with the SNPs identified in this study, highlights the importance of the identified genomic regions for the improvement of agronomic performance in addition to drought tolerance in the EUCLEG collection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Drought stress limits the production of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], which is the most grown high-value legume crop worldwide. Breeding for drought tolerance is a difficult endeavor and understanding the genetic basis of drought tolerance in soybean is therefore crucial for harnessing the genomic regions involved in the tolerance mechanisms. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis was applied in a soybean germplasm collection (the EUCLEG collection) of 359 accessions relevant for breeding in Europe, to identify genomic regions and candidate genes involved in the response to short duration and long duration drought stress (SDS and LDS respectively) in soybean.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The phenotypic response to drought was stronger in the long duration drought (LDS) than in the short duration drought (SDS) experiment. Over the four traits considered (canopy wilting, leaf senescence, maximum absolute growth rate and maximum plant height) the variation was in the range of 8.4-25.2% in the SDS, and 14.7-29.7% in the LDS experiments. The GWAS analysis identified a total of 17 and 22 significant marker-trait associations for four traits in the SDS and LDS experiments, respectively. In the genomic regions delimited by these markers we identified a total of 12 and 16 genes with putative functions that are of particular relevance for drought stress responses including stomatal movement, root formation, photosynthesis, ABA signaling, cellular protection and cellular repair mechanisms. Some of these genomic regions co-localized with previously known QTLs for drought tolerance traits including water use efficiency, chlorophyll content and photosynthesis.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that the mechanism of slow wilting in the SDS might be associated with the characteristics of the root system, whereas in the LDS, slow wilting could be due to low stomatal conductance and transpiration rates enabling a high WUE. Drought-induced leaf senescence was found to be associated to ABA and ROS responses. The QTLs related to WUE contributed to growth rate and canopy height maintenance under drought stress. Co-localization of several previously known QTLs for multiple agronomic traits with the SNPs identified in this study, highlights the importance of the identified genomic regions for the improvement of agronomic performance in addition to drought tolerance in the EUCLEG collection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36575367
doi: 10.1186/s12870-022-03996-w
pii: 10.1186/s12870-022-03996-w
pmc: PMC9795773
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
615Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Exp Bot. 2020 Jan 7;71(2):642-652
pubmed: 30980084
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 01;10(9):e0136960
pubmed: 26327625
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 2;12(2):e0171105
pubmed: 28152092
Front Physiol. 2019 Jul 03;10:786
pubmed: 31333479
Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 Jan 4;46(D1):D1190-D1196
pubmed: 29069403
Front Genet. 2021 Oct 28;12:743758
pubmed: 34777471
BMC Plant Biol. 2020 Jul 8;20(1):321
pubmed: 32640999
Theor Appl Genet. 2012 Sep;125(5):837-46
pubmed: 22566068
Plant Mol Biol. 2012 Jul;79(4-5):333-46
pubmed: 22572939
Plant Cell. 2000 Apr;12(4):599-609
pubmed: 10760247
Mol Genet Genomics. 2020 May;295(3):705-716
pubmed: 32166500
Plants (Basel). 2021 Aug 31;10(9):
pubmed: 34579348
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 19;10(1):17604
pubmed: 33077811
Plant Physiol. 2007 Nov;145(3):668-79
pubmed: 17827269
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Mar 23;107(12):5669-74
pubmed: 20212128
Front Plant Sci. 2018 Jun 20;9:855
pubmed: 29973948
Saudi J Biol Sci. 2019 Dec;26(8):2006-2017
pubmed: 31889786
Plant Cell. 2009 Nov;21(11):3623-40
pubmed: 19903870
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2018 Apr 29;69:733-759
pubmed: 29553801
J Exp Bot. 2012 Feb;63(3):1095-106
pubmed: 22143917
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2020 Oct 26;375(1810):20190505
pubmed: 32892723
J Exp Bot. 2018 Feb 23;69(5):975-981
pubmed: 29325054
Ann Bot. 2008 May;101(8):1053-63
pubmed: 18387970
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Dec 4;104(49):19631-6
pubmed: 18048328
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Jul 14;12:698116
pubmed: 34335664
Biology (Basel). 2020 Sep 03;9(9):
pubmed: 32899122
Gigascience. 2019 Feb 1;8(2):
pubmed: 30535326
Ann Bot. 2015 Nov;116(6):1001-15
pubmed: 25851134
J Exp Bot. 2018 Jun 6;69(13):3267-3277
pubmed: 29522207
Theor Appl Genet. 2009 Aug;119(4):587-94
pubmed: 19471903
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 09;6:20728
pubmed: 26856884
PLoS One. 2013 May 08;8(5):e62795
pubmed: 23667521
Front Plant Sci. 2015 Jul 20;6:544
pubmed: 26257754
Biol Open. 2018 Nov 22;7(11):
pubmed: 30127094
J Biol Chem. 2006 Apr 14;281(15):10548-54
pubmed: 16478728
FEBS Lett. 2005 Aug 29;579(21):4808-12
pubmed: 16109415
Theor Appl Genet. 2012 Feb;124(3):447-58
pubmed: 21997761
New Phytol. 2019 Jan;221(2):881-895
pubmed: 30277578
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Feb 26;12:631767
pubmed: 33732276
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2018 Mar 25;498(1):92-98
pubmed: 29196259
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jul 08;21(14):
pubmed: 32650485
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2020 Oct 26;375(1810):20190507
pubmed: 32892728
Plant Cell Environ. 2017 May;40(5):765-778
pubmed: 28042879
J Exp Bot. 2015 Feb;66(3):863-78
pubmed: 25392479
BMC Plant Biol. 2020 Nov 17;20(1):525
pubmed: 33203368
Plant Mol Biol. 2017 May;94(1-2):197-213
pubmed: 28391398
Biochem Soc Trans. 2016 Jun 15;44(3):856-62
pubmed: 27284052
Plant Mol Biol. 2008 Aug;67(6):643-58
pubmed: 18484180
J Integr Plant Biol. 2016 May;58(5):475-91
pubmed: 26172438
Science. 2020 Apr 17;368(6488):266-269
pubmed: 32299946
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 2;16(9):e0256721
pubmed: 34473798
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Sep 15;112(37):E5123-32
pubmed: 26324896
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 30;8(7):e70041
pubmed: 23936140
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Oct 18;10:1285
pubmed: 31681380
Breed Sci. 2014 Mar;63(5):441-9
pubmed: 24757383
Bioinformatics. 2012 Sep 15;28(18):2397-9
pubmed: 22796960
Plant J. 2007 Jun;50(5):810-24
pubmed: 17470058
Nature. 2016 Jan 7;529(7584):84-7
pubmed: 26738594
Plant Cell Physiol. 2008 Sep;49(9):1350-63
pubmed: 18682427
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 5;103(49):18822-7
pubmed: 17030801
Dev Cell. 2008 Dec;15(6):913-22
pubmed: 19081078
BMC Plant Biol. 2019 Apr 30;19(1):171
pubmed: 31039735
J Exp Bot. 2007;58(2):351-60
pubmed: 17158111
Plant Physiol. 2011 Apr;155(4):1629-39
pubmed: 21278308
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Oct 06;12:750664
pubmed: 34691128
Plant J. 2010 Jun 1;62(5):865-75
pubmed: 20230485
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2015 Jan;86:109-120
pubmed: 25438143
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Feb 25;7:220
pubmed: 26941772
J Exp Bot. 2018 Feb 12;69(4):845-853
pubmed: 28992323
Plant J. 2020 Jan;101(1):87-100
pubmed: 31483536
Genes Dev. 2003 Feb 1;17(3):410-8
pubmed: 12569131
Plant Cell. 2000 Apr;12(4):479-92
pubmed: 10760238
Mol Plant. 2011 Jan;4(1):180-9
pubmed: 20833734
J Exp Bot. 2011 Nov;62(15):5547-60
pubmed: 21831845
BMC Plant Biol. 2021 Nov 4;21(1):513
pubmed: 34736392
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Mar 20;10:314
pubmed: 30949189
Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2020 Apr 15;19(4):462-472
pubmed: 32154819
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2020 Oct 26;375(1810):20190747
pubmed: 32892724
G3 (Bethesda). 2015 Sep 14;5(11):2391-403
pubmed: 26374596
Curr Biol. 2014 May 5;24(9):931-40
pubmed: 24726156
Theor Appl Genet. 2017 Oct;130(10):2203-2217
pubmed: 28730464
Mol Plant. 2013 May;6(3):860-71
pubmed: 23041941
Plant Cell. 2015 May;27(5):1445-60
pubmed: 25966761
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Feb 09;7:114
pubmed: 26904076
J Biol Chem. 2004 Jun 4;279(23):24540-51
pubmed: 15037622
Front Plant Sci. 2022 Feb 17;13:818766
pubmed: 35251088
New Phytol. 2014 Mar;201(4):1086-1095
pubmed: 24261587
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2014;65:531-51
pubmed: 24274033
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 03;17(7):
pubmed: 32260284
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 17;21(2):
pubmed: 31963537
BMC Plant Biol. 2016 Aug 04;16(1):174
pubmed: 27488358