A high-throughput SNP marker system for parental polymorphism screening, and diversity analysis in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
- 1.7k Downloads
Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) detection has become a marker system of choice, because of the high abundance of source polymorphisms and the ease with which allele calls are automated. Various technologies exist for the evaluation of SNP loci and previously we validated two medium throughput technologies. In this study, our goal was to utilize a 768 feature, Illumina GoldenGate assay for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) developed from conserved legume gene sequences and to use the new technology for (1) the evaluation of parental polymorphisms in a mini-core set of common bean accessions and (2) the analysis of genetic diversity in the crop. A total of 736 SNPs were scored on 236 diverse common bean genotypes with the GoldenGate array. Missing data and heterozygosity levels were low and 94 % of the SNPs were scorable. With the evaluation of the parental polymorphism genotypes, we estimated the utility of the SNP markers in mapping for inter-genepool and intra-genepool populations, the latter being of lower polymorphism than the former. When we performed the diversity analysis with the diverse genotypes, we found Illumina GoldenGate SNPs to provide equivalent evaluations as previous gene-based SNP markers, but less fine-distinctions than with previous microsatellite marker analysis. We did find, however, that the gene-based SNPs in the GoldenGate array had some utility in race structure analysis despite the low polymorphism. Furthermore the SNPs detected high heterozygosity in wild accessions which was probably a reflection of ascertainment bias. The Illumina SNPs were shown to be effective in distinguishing between the genepools, and therefore were most useful in saturation of inter-genepool genetic maps. The implications of these results for breeding in common bean are discussed as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the GoldenGate system for SNP detection.
The authors wish to thank Lucy M. Díaz and Carolina Chavarro for DNA extraction and technical work, as well as Agobardo Hoyos and Alcides Hincapie for seed multiplication and greenhouse management. This research was part of the Tropical Legume project (to MWB as PI for common beans and DRC as PI for comparative legume genomics). Additional funding was from the US National Science Foundation award DBI 0605251 (to DRC).
- Afanador LK, Hadley SD, Kelly JD (1993) Adoption of a mini-prep DNA extraction method for RAPD marker analysis in common bean. Bean Improv Coop 35:10–11Google Scholar
- Benchimol LL, de Campos T, Carbonell SAM, Colombo CA, Chioratto AF, Formighieri EF, Gouvêa LRL, de Souza AP (2007) Structure of genetic diversity among common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties of Mesoamerican and Andean origins using new develop microsatellite markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol 54:1747–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Broughton WJ, Hernández G, Blair MW, Beebe S, Gepts P, Vanderleyden J (2003) Beans (Phaseolus spp.) model food legumes. Plant Soil 55:55–128Google Scholar
- Chagné D, Batley J, Edwards D, Forster JW (2007) Single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping in plants. In: Oraguzie NC, Rikkerink EHA, Gardiner SE, Silva HNd (eds) Association mapping in plants, pp 77–94Google Scholar
- Evano G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620Google Scholar
- Gepts P, Aragao F, Barros E, Blair MW, Brondani R, Broughton W, Hernández G, Kami J, Lariguet P, McClean P, Melotto M, Miklas P, Pedrosa-Harand A, Porch T, Sánchez F (2008) Genomics of Phaseolus beans, a major source of dietary protein and micronutrients in the tropics. In: Moore PH, Ming R (eds) Genomics of tropical crops, chap 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 113–143Google Scholar
- Muchero W, Diop NN, Bhat PR, Fenton RD, Wanamaker S, Pottor M, Hearne S, Cisse N, Fatokun C, Ehlers JD, Roberts PA, Close TJ (2009) A consensus genetic map of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp.] and synteny based on EST-derived SNPs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:18159–18164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Oliphant A, Barker DL, Stuelpnagel JR, Chee MS (2002) BeadArray technology: enabling an accurate, cost-effective approach to high throughput genotyping. Biotechniques Suppl 5:6–58Google Scholar
- Perrier X, Flori A, Bonnot F (2003) Data analysis methods. In: Hamon P, Seguin M, Perrier X, Glaszmann JC (eds) Genetic diversity of cultivated tropical plants. Enfield Science Publishers, Montpellier, pp 43–76Google Scholar
- Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2):945–959Google Scholar
- Zhao K, Wright M, Kimball J, Eizenga G, McClung A, Kovach M, Tyagi W, Liakat Ali ML, Tung C-W, Reynolds A, Bustamante CD, McCouch SR (2010) Genomic diversity and introgression in O. sativa reveal the impact of domestication and breeding on the rice genome. PLoS ONE 5(5):e10780Google Scholar