Advertisement

Euphytica

, 215:188 | Cite as

Genome wide association studies for yield and its component traits under terminal heat stress in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.)

  • Surinder K. SandhuEmail author
  • Lalit Pal
  • Jasneet Kaur
  • Dharminder Bhatia
Article
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

Breeding for terminal heat stress (THS) in Brassica juncea L. Czern & Coss is recognized as an imperative objective for sustained productivity in contemporary climatic changes. A fixed diversity stock of 491 genotypes was documented for wide range of variations for seed yield under natural terminal heat stress. A set of top 20 genotypes comprising introgression lines from wild species Erucastrum cardaminoides and B. tournefortii; derived B. juncea lines using B. carinata and B. napus; land races;, commercial cultivars and breeding lines, having the lowest heat susceptibility index and the least yield reduction under heat stress, have been identified as potential heat tolerant donors. A panel of 96 genotypes was constituted from this stock on the basis of their differential response to heat susceptibility index and seed yield reduction under natural THS. The constituted panel was evaluated for validation under controlled conditions for ten seed yield-related traits. Moderate to low correlations between SY and its related traits were observed in NS and THS conditions. Double digest restriction site associated DNA sequencing of 71 genotypes identified 18,258 SNPs after filtration. Least square means of all the traits under NS and THS conditions and the best linear unbiased predictors along with identified SNPs were used for genome-wide association study. A total of 34 SNPs under NS, 24SNPs under THS and 30SNPs using BLUP values were found to be associated with all seed yield-related traits. Chromosome B05 harbored the maximum number of SNPs (nine) followed by chromosomes A07 and A09 (eight SNPs each). SNPs under NS conditions could not be associated with THS. This is the first report on the identification of 24 marker-traits associations detected for SY and its component traits under THS conditions. It may be possible to develop the molecular markers for significant SNPs after due validation. The constituted panel may also serve as a source of allelic diversity for genes controlling various economic traits. The derived introgression lines as potential heat tolerant donors indicated the possibility of using wild species to breed for abiotic stress tolerance in Indian mustard.

Keywords

Brassica juncea GWAS BLUP SNPs Yield Terminal heat stress 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Indian mustard germplasm, used in this study, was collected/developed and maintained by ICAR National Professor Dr. S. S. Banga. The authors duly acknowledge the receipt of germplasm and his inputs for the preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10681_2019_2489_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (88 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1. Frequency distribution of 491 genotypes: a Heat susceptibility index (HSI), b Percent yield reduction (YD%). *Number of genotypes selected from each interval (HSI) to constitute diversity panel are given in parenthesis. (TIFF 88 kb)
10681_2019_2489_MOESM2_ESM.tiff (229 kb)
Supplementary Figure 2. 2D plot of first two Principle Components (PCs). Figure in parenthesis represents the explained variation by that PC. (TIFF 229 kb)
10681_2019_2489_MOESM3_ESM.tiff (88 kb)
Supplementary Figure 3. Genome-wide linkage disequilibrium (LD) decay plot. Linkage disequilibrium, measured as r2, between pairs of polymorphic marker loci is plotted against the physical distance (Kbp). (TIFF 88 kb)
10681_2019_2489_MOESM4_ESM.tiff (639 kb)
Supplementary Figure 4. Seed yield component traits showing significant marker-trait associations for NS environment: a Plant height (PH), b Main shoot length (MSL), c Days to Maturity (DM), d Number of pods on main shoot (NPMS), e Pod length (PL), f Number of seeds per pod (NSP), g Thousand seed weight (TSW), h Seed yield (SY). *Chromosome 1 to 10 represents A genome mentioned as A01 to A10 and chromosome 11 to 18 represents B genome mentioned as B01 to B08 in manuscript. (TIFF 638 kb)
10681_2019_2489_MOESM5_ESM.tiff (2.2 mb)
Supplementary Figure 5. Seed yield component traits showing significant marker-trait associations for BLUP values: a Plant height (PH), b Main shoot length (MSL), c Days to Maturity (DM), d Number of pods on main shoot (NPMS), e Pod length (PL), f Number of seeds per pod (NSP), g Thousand seed weight (TSW), h Seed yield (SY). *Chromosome 1 to 10 represents A genome mentioned as A01 to A10 and chromosome 11 to 18 represents B genome mentioned as B01 to B08 in manuscript. (TIFF 2258 kb)
10681_2019_2489_MOESM6_ESM.tiff (298 kb)
Supplementary Figure 6. Q-Q (Quantile-Quantile) plots of GWAS for NS environment: a Plant height (PH), b Main shoot length (MSL), c Days to Maturity (DM), d Number of pods on main shoot (NPMS), e Pod length (PL), f Number of seeds per pod (NSP), g Thousand seed weight (TSW), h Seed yield (SY). (TIFF 297 kb)
10681_2019_2489_MOESM7_ESM.tiff (297 kb)
Supplementary Figure 7. Q-Q (Quantile-Quantile) plots of GWAS for BLUP values: a Plant height (PH), b Main shoot length (MSL), c Days to Maturity (DM), d Number of pods on main shoot (NPMS), e Pod length (PL), f Number of seeds per pod (NSP), g Thousand seed weight (TSW), h Seed yield (SY). (TIFF 296 kb)
10681_2019_2489_MOESM8_ESM.tiff (288 kb)
Supplementary Figure 8. Q-Q (Quantile-Quantile) plots of GWAS for THS environment: a Plant height (PH), b Main shoot length (MSL), c Days to Maturity (DM), d Number of pods on main shoot (NPMS), e Pod length (PL), f Number of seeds per pod (NSP), g Thousand seed weight (TSW), h Seed yield (SY). (TIFF 287 kb)
10681_2019_2489_MOESM9_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary file9 (DOCX 29 kb)

References

  1. Adak T, Narjary B, Chakravarty NVK (2011) Response of Brassica to micro environment modification under semi-arid agro ecosystem. Indian J Agric Sci 81(8):744–750Google Scholar
  2. Akhatar J, Banga SS (2015) Genome-wide association mapping for grain yield components and root traits in Brassica juncea (L.) Czern&Coss. Mol Breed 35(1): 48.Google Scholar
  3. Alam M, Begum F, Roy P (2014) Yield and yield attributes of rapeseed-mustard (Brassica) genotypes grown under late sown condition. BD J Agril Res 39:311–336Google Scholar
  4. Azharudheen TPM, Yadava DK, Singh N, Vasudev S, Prabhu KV (2013) Screening Indian mustard [Brassica juncea(L.) Czern and Coss)] germplasm for seedling thermo-tolerance using a new screening protocol. Acad J 8:4755–4760Google Scholar
  5. Baghel RS, Srivastava SBL (2010) Assessment of mustard genotypes for thermo-tolerance at seed development stage. Ind J Plant Physiol 15:36–43Google Scholar
  6. Chauhan JS, Meena ML, Saini MK, Meena DR, Singh M, Meena SS, Singh KH (2009) Heat stress effects on morpho-physiological characters of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). 16th Australian Research Assembly on Brassicas, Ballarat Victoria, 91–97.Google Scholar
  7. Davey JW, Hohenlohe PA, Etter PD, Boone JQ, Catchen JM, Blaxter ML (2011) Genome-wide genetic marker discovery and genotyping using next-generation sequencing. Nature Reviews Genet 12(7):499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhaka N, Rout K, Yadava SK, Sodhi YS, Gupta V, Pental D, Pradhan AK (2017) Genetic dissection of seed weight by QTL analysis and detection of allelic variation in Indian and east European gene pool lines of Brassica juncea. Theor Appl Genet 130(2):293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DhaliwalLK Hundal SS, Chahal SK (2007) Agroclimatic indices of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) under Punjab conditions. Indian J of Agri Sci 77:88–91Google Scholar
  10. Douglas B, Martin M, Ben B, Steve W (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL, Hortoriun LB (1990) Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 12:13–15Google Scholar
  12. Fischer RA, Maurer R (1978) Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars I grain yield responses in spring wheat. Aust J Agric Sci 29:892–912Google Scholar
  13. GOI (Government of India). 2017. In: Third advance Estimates of Production of Food grains for 2016–17. Agricultural Statistics Division, Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers welfare, GOI, New Delhi. http:/agricoop.nic.in/statistics/advance-estimate-apy-englishGoogle Scholar
  14. Hao D, Chao M, Yin Z, Yu D (2012) Genome-wide association analysis detecting significant single nucleotide polymorphisms for chlorophyll and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters in soybean (Glycine max) landraces. Euphytica 186(3):919–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson CR (1975) Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaur H, Gupta S, Kumar N, Akhatar J, Banga SS (2014) Progression of molecular and phenotypic diversification in resynthesized Brassica juncea (L) gene pool with determinate inflorescence. Euphytica 199:325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar R, Singh RP, Yeshpal (2008) Yield and quality of Brassica species as influenced by different dates of sowing and varieties. Pantnagar J Res 6(1):6–11Google Scholar
  18. Kump KL, Bradbury PJ, Wisser RJ, Buckler ES, Belcher AR, Oropeza-Rosas MA, Zwonitzer JC, Kresovich S, McMullen MD, Ware D, Balint-Kurti PJ (2011) Genome-wide association study of quantitative resistance to southern leaf blight in the maize nested association mapping population. Nat Genet 43(2):163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langmead B, Salzberg SL (2012) Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9(4):357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R (2009) The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25(16):2078–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lipka AE, Tian F, Wang Q, Peiffer J, Li M, Bradbury PJ, Gore MA, Buckler ES, Zhang Z (2012) GAPIT: genome association and prediction integrated tool. Bioinformatics 28:2397–2399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu X, Huang M, Fan B, Buckler ES, Zhang Z (2016) Iterative usage of fixed and random effect models for powerful and efficient genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genet 12(2):1005767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morrison MJ, Stewart DW (2002) Heat stress during flowering in summer Brassica. Crop Sci 42:797–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nagaharu U (1935) Genome analysis in Brassica with special reference to the experimental formation of B. napus and peculiar mode of fertilization. Japan J Bot 7:389–452Google Scholar
  25. Nanda R, Bhargava SC, Mamta G (1996) Effect of flowering time on rate of dry matter accumulation, duration of filling period and total oil content in Brassica seeds. Indian J Plant Physiol 1(2):88–92Google Scholar
  26. Nuttall WF, Moulin AP, Townley SLJ (1992) Yield responses of canola to nitrogen, phosphorous, precipitation and temperature. Agron J 84:765–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pratap A, Gupta SK (2016) Biology and ecology of wild crucifers. In Biology and breeding of crucifers (pp. 46–76). CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  28. R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
  29. Ramchiary N, Padmaja KL, Sharma S, Gupta V, Sodhi YS, Mukhopadhyay A, Arumugam N, Pental D, Pradhan AK (2007) Mapping of yield influencing QTL in Brassica juncea: implications for breeding of a major oilseed crop of dryland areas. Theor Appl Genet 115(6):807–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rivero RM, Mestre TC, Mittler RO, Rubio F, Garcia-Sanchez FR, Martinez V (2014) The combined effect of salinity and heat reveals a specific physiological, biochemical and molecular response in tomato plants. Plant, Cell Environ 37(5):1059–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robinson GK (1991) That BLUP is a good thing: the estimation of random effects. Statistical Sci 6(1):15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sanchez DL, Liu S, Ibrahim R, Blanco M, Lubberstedt T (2018) Genome-wide association studies of doubled haploid exotic introgression lines for root system architecture traits in maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Sci 268:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandhu SK, Kang MS, Akash MW, Singh P (2019) Selection indices for improving selection efficiency in Indian mustard. Journal of Crop Improvement 33(1):25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SAS Institute Inc. (2011) Base SAS® 9.3 procedure guide. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharma P (2014) Heat tolerance in Indian mustard at seedling and terminal stages. Ann Plant Soil Res 16:224–228Google Scholar
  36. Sharma P, Sardana V (2016) Screening of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) for thermo tolerance at seedling and terminal stages. J Oilseeds Brassica 1(1):61–67Google Scholar
  37. Srivastava JP, Balkrishna (2003) Environmental parameters influencing phonological development of mustard in relation to yield. Indian J of Plant Physiol 8:349–353Google Scholar
  38. Thornsberry JM, Goodman MM, Doebley J, Kresovich S, Nielsen D, Buckler ES IV (2001) Dwarf8 polymorphisms associate with variation in flowering time. Nat Genet 28(3):286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tripathi MK, Rao VUM, Singh D (2007) Effect of sowing time and in season growth manipulations on phenology of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Indian J Agric Sci 77(4):253–257Google Scholar
  40. Tuteja SS, Lakpale R, Tripathi RS (1996) Effect of date of sowing, nitrogen level and nitrogen splitting on mustard (B. juncea). Adv Plant Sci 9:167–168Google Scholar
  41. Warwick SI, Francis A, La Fleche J (2000) Guide to wild germplasm of Brassica and allied crops (tribe Brassiceae. Brassicaceae), AAFC-ECORC Contribution no, p 40Google Scholar
  42. Woods DL, Capcara JJ, Downey RK (1991) The potential of mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Coss) as an edible oil crop on the Canadian Prairies. Can J of Plant Sci 71(1):195–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yadava SK, Arumugam N, Mukhopadhyay A, Sodhi YS, Gupta V, Pental D, Pradhan AK (2012) QTL mapping of yield-associated traits in Brassica juncea: meta-analysis and epistatic interactions using two different crosses between east European and Indian gene pool lines. Theor Appl Genet 125(7):1553–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Young LW, Ron WW, Peta C (2004) High temperature stress of Brassica napus during flowering reduces micro and megagametophyte fertility, induces fruit abortion and disrupts seed production. J Exp Bot 55:485–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhu C, Gore M, Buckler ES, Yu J (2008) Status and prospects of association mapping in plants. The plant genome 1(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Surinder K. Sandhu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lalit Pal
    • 1
  • Jasneet Kaur
    • 1
  • Dharminder Bhatia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Breeding and GeneticsPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhianaIndia

Personalised recommendations