Comprehensive meta-QTL analysis for dissecting the genetic architecture of stripe rust resistance in bread wheat.
Candidate genes
Consensus map
MQTL
Meta-analysis
Stripe rust
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 May 2023
12 May 2023
Historique:
received:
14
08
2022
accepted:
26
04
2023
medline:
15
5
2023
pubmed:
13
5
2023
entrez:
12
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Yellow or stripe rust, caused by the fungus Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici (Pst) is an important disease of wheat that threatens wheat production. Since developing resistant cultivars offers a viable solution for disease management, it is essential to understand the genetic basis of stripe rust resistance. In recent years, meta-QTL analysis of identified QTLs has gained popularity as a way to dissect the genetic architecture underpinning quantitative traits, including disease resistance. Systematic meta-QTL analysis involving 505 QTLs from 101 linkage-based interval mapping studies was conducted for stripe rust resistance in wheat. For this purpose, publicly available high-quality genetic maps were used to create a consensus linkage map involving 138,574 markers. This map was used to project the QTLs and conduct meta-QTL analysis. A total of 67 important meta-QTLs (MQTLs) were identified which were refined to 29 high-confidence MQTLs. The confidence interval (CI) of MQTLs ranged from 0 to 11.68 cM with a mean of 1.97 cM. The mean physical CI of MQTLs was 24.01 Mb, ranging from 0.0749 to 216.23 Mb per MQTL. As many as 44 MQTLs colocalized with marker-trait associations or SNP peaks associated with stripe rust resistance in wheat. Some MQTLs also included the following major genes- Yr5, Yr7, Yr16, Yr26, Yr30, Yr43, Yr44, Yr64, YrCH52, and YrH52. Candidate gene mining in high-confidence MQTLs identified 1,562 gene models. Examining these gene models for differential expressions yielded 123 differentially expressed genes, including the 59 most promising CGs. We also studied how these genes were expressed in wheat tissues at different phases of development. The most promising MQTLs identified in this study may facilitate marker-assisted breeding for stripe rust resistance in wheat. Information on markers flanking the MQTLs can be utilized in genomic selection models to increase the prediction accuracy for stripe rust resistance. The candidate genes identified can also be utilized for enhancing the wheat resistance against stripe rust after in vivo confirmation/validation using one or more of the following methods: gene cloning, reverse genetic methods, and omics approaches.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Yellow or stripe rust, caused by the fungus Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici (Pst) is an important disease of wheat that threatens wheat production. Since developing resistant cultivars offers a viable solution for disease management, it is essential to understand the genetic basis of stripe rust resistance. In recent years, meta-QTL analysis of identified QTLs has gained popularity as a way to dissect the genetic architecture underpinning quantitative traits, including disease resistance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Systematic meta-QTL analysis involving 505 QTLs from 101 linkage-based interval mapping studies was conducted for stripe rust resistance in wheat. For this purpose, publicly available high-quality genetic maps were used to create a consensus linkage map involving 138,574 markers. This map was used to project the QTLs and conduct meta-QTL analysis. A total of 67 important meta-QTLs (MQTLs) were identified which were refined to 29 high-confidence MQTLs. The confidence interval (CI) of MQTLs ranged from 0 to 11.68 cM with a mean of 1.97 cM. The mean physical CI of MQTLs was 24.01 Mb, ranging from 0.0749 to 216.23 Mb per MQTL. As many as 44 MQTLs colocalized with marker-trait associations or SNP peaks associated with stripe rust resistance in wheat. Some MQTLs also included the following major genes- Yr5, Yr7, Yr16, Yr26, Yr30, Yr43, Yr44, Yr64, YrCH52, and YrH52. Candidate gene mining in high-confidence MQTLs identified 1,562 gene models. Examining these gene models for differential expressions yielded 123 differentially expressed genes, including the 59 most promising CGs. We also studied how these genes were expressed in wheat tissues at different phases of development.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The most promising MQTLs identified in this study may facilitate marker-assisted breeding for stripe rust resistance in wheat. Information on markers flanking the MQTLs can be utilized in genomic selection models to increase the prediction accuracy for stripe rust resistance. The candidate genes identified can also be utilized for enhancing the wheat resistance against stripe rust after in vivo confirmation/validation using one or more of the following methods: gene cloning, reverse genetic methods, and omics approaches.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37173660
doi: 10.1186/s12864-023-09336-y
pii: 10.1186/s12864-023-09336-y
pmc: PMC10182688
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
259Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Nature. 2010 Jun 3;465(7298):627-31
pubmed: 20336072
Mol Plant. 2014 Dec;7(12):1740-55
pubmed: 25336565
BMC Genomics. 2014 Oct 15;15:898
pubmed: 25318379
Nat Commun. 2018 Oct 3;9(1):3735
pubmed: 30282993
Sci Rep. 2022 Aug 11;12(1):13680
pubmed: 35953529
Plant Physiol. 2011 Oct;157(2):718-29
pubmed: 21795581
Nat Commun. 2019 Sep 6;10(1):4023
pubmed: 31492844
Nature. 2004 Feb 26;427(6977):858-61
pubmed: 14985766
Theor Appl Genet. 2022 Jan;135(1):301-319
pubmed: 34837509
Nat Genet. 2015 Dec;47(12):1494-8
pubmed: 26551671
Front Genet. 2022 May 11;13:900558
pubmed: 35646084
Theor Appl Genet. 2022 Mar;135(3):1049-1081
pubmed: 34985537
Front Plant Sci. 2019 May 08;10:583
pubmed: 31134119
Theor Appl Genet. 2004 Oct;109(6):1105-14
pubmed: 15490101
Theor Appl Genet. 2005 Feb;110(3):550-60
pubmed: 15655666
Mol Breed. 2022 Feb 21;42(3):11
pubmed: 37309411
Nat Plants. 2018 Sep;4(9):662-668
pubmed: 30150615
Science. 2002 Jul 26;297(5581):537-41
pubmed: 12142520
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 12;13(10):e0204992
pubmed: 30312356
Theor Appl Genet. 2009 Dec;120(1):25-9
pubmed: 19763533
Mol Breed. 2022 Sep 16;42(10):56
pubmed: 37313017
Mol Breed. 2021 Nov 15;41(11):69
pubmed: 37309361
Front Genet. 2020 Nov 27;11:572975
pubmed: 33329711
Plant J. 2021 Dec;108(5):1241-1255
pubmed: 34583419
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Jun 13;10:727
pubmed: 31263469
Bioinformatics. 2014 Jun 1;30(11):1623-4
pubmed: 24532720
Bioinformatics. 2012 Aug 1;28(15):2082-3
pubmed: 22661647
Front Genet. 2021 Dec 21;12:807210
pubmed: 34992638
Sci Rep. 2021 Nov 25;11(1):22923
pubmed: 34824302
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 29;16(1):e0246015
pubmed: 33513167
Planta. 2022 May 5;255(6):115
pubmed: 35508739
Theor Appl Genet. 2018 Aug;131(8):1645-1658
pubmed: 29752522
Plant Biotechnol J. 2016 Jul;14(7):1551-62
pubmed: 26801971
J Exp Bot. 2019 Jan 1;70(1):255-268
pubmed: 30204899
Plants (Basel). 2020 Nov 05;9(11):
pubmed: 33167299
Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 19;7(1):3788
pubmed: 28630475
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42578
pubmed: 22916136
Plant Physiol. 2005 Dec;139(4):1890-901
pubmed: 16306146
BMC Genomics. 2016 May 20;17:380
pubmed: 27207100
Theor Appl Genet. 2022 Jul;135(7):2385-2405
pubmed: 35699741
Phytopathology. 2015 Dec;105(12):1585-93
pubmed: 26571424
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015 Apr;32:179-185
pubmed: 25614069
BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Feb 08;8:49
pubmed: 17288608
Theor Appl Genet. 2021 Sep;134(9):3083-3109
pubmed: 34142166
Mol Biol Rep. 2023 Apr;50(4):3787-3814
pubmed: 36692674
Theor Appl Genet. 2023 Mar 10;136(3):39
pubmed: 36897402
Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Jan;3(1):43-52
pubmed: 11823790
G3 (Bethesda). 2015 Jan 20;5(3):449-65
pubmed: 25609748
Front Plant Sci. 2022 Jul 06;13:932762
pubmed: 35873978
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2016 Aug 4;54:229-52
pubmed: 27296142
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012 Oct;69(19):3259-67
pubmed: 22847330
Behav Genet. 1997 Mar;27(2):125-32
pubmed: 9145551
Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2021 Oct;27(10):2245-2267
pubmed: 34744364
Bioinformatics. 2004 Sep 22;20(14):2324-6
pubmed: 15059820
BMC Genomics. 2013 Aug 19;14:562
pubmed: 23957646
Planta. 2016 Feb;243(2):459-71
pubmed: 26474992
Theor Appl Genet. 2020 Aug;133(8):2363-2375
pubmed: 32436020
Theor Appl Genet. 2014 Jul;127(7):1561-81
pubmed: 24903979
Plant Genome. 2022 Mar;15(1):e20185
pubmed: 34918873
Theor Appl Genet. 2010 Jun;121(1):195-204
pubmed: 20198466
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Jul 11;20(14):
pubmed: 31336736
Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2021 Dec;27(12):2767-2786
pubmed: 35035135
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Dec 08;12:774270
pubmed: 34956271
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2011 Dec;24(12):1492-501
pubmed: 21770767
Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Aug 26;23(17):
pubmed: 36077059
Genetics. 2000 May;155(1):463-73
pubmed: 10790417
J Genet. 2021;100:
pubmed: 34282731
Theor Appl Genet. 2009 Aug;119(3):383-95
pubmed: 19430758
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 15;11(1):12570
pubmed: 34131169
Nat Commun. 2020 Mar 13;11(1):1353
pubmed: 32170056
Mol Breed. 2021 Dec 22;42(1):1
pubmed: 37309486
Nat Plants. 2015 Sep 14;1:15132
pubmed: 27251389
Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 8;10(1):25
pubmed: 31913328
Science. 2018 Aug 17;361(6403):
pubmed: 30115782
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Aug 09;8:1389
pubmed: 28848588
Front Plant Sci. 2022 Aug 25;13:966339
pubmed: 36092444