Genetic and epigenetic alterations in hybrid and derived hexaploids between Brassica napus and B. oleracea revealed by SSR and MSAP analysis

  • Qinfei Li
  • Kusum Rana
  • Zhiyong Xiong
  • Xianhong Ge
  • Zaiyun Li
  • Hongyuan SongEmail author
  • Wei QianEmail author
Original Article


Polyploidization causes ‘genomic shock’ at the genetic and epigenetic levels relative to the parental species. However, few studies have compared the genetic and epigenetic alterations during the process of polyploidization by interspecific hybridization in Brassica species. In the present study, the early generations of hexaploid derived from a triploid hybrid between Brassica napus cv. ‘Zhongshuang 9’ and B. oleracea cv. ‘SWU01’ were developed, and used to detect genetic and epigenetic alterations together with triploid and two parental lines using simple sequence repeats (SSRs) and methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphisms (MSAPs). The derived hexaploids had relatively stable karyotype (69.84% euploid chromosome segregation in S0, 100% and 72.7% hexaploid karyotype in S1 and S2, respectively) and good fertility (88.75% ± 5.43% for pollen fertility, 4.68 ± 3.25 seeds/pod for self pollination and 13.55 ± 3.66 seeds/pod for open pollination), but wide morphologic characters. Compared with the parental lines, the triploid exhibited 13.08% new SSR alleles (17 of 130) and up to 26.45% new MSAP alleles (65 of 246), indicating that interspecific hybridization caused genetic and epigenetic alterations. No change in SSRs and 33.74% alterations in MSAP alleles (83/246) was observed between the triploid and hexaploid S0, suggesting chromosome doubling only caused epigenetic alteration. On average of 39.23% ± 5.78% of DNA methylation alterations and 6.35% ± 3.69% of SSR alterations occurred among the S2, S1, and S0 generations. It indicated that genetic alteration was caused by interspecific hybridization and generation descent of hexaploid, whereas epigenetic alteration resulted from interspecific hybridization, chromosome doubling and generation descent. It is interesting to find stronger epigenetic changes than genetic changes brought on during the processes of hexaploidization between B. napus and B. oleracea. It also found the average genetic distance between hexaploid S2 and hexaploid S1 (SSR 0.056 ± 0.029, MSAP 0.337 ± 0.201) was further than that between hexaploid S1 and hexaploid S0 (SSR 0.023 ± 0.009, MSAP 0.178 ± 0.126), suggesting more genetic variance in the hexaploid S2 generations than hexaploid S1.


Brassica napus B. oleracea Hexaploidization DNA methylation SSR 



This study was partly supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2016M582500), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in China (XDJK2016C080), the Chongqing Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Xm2016029), the Science and Technology Innovation Project of Chongqing (cstc2015shms-ztzx80005, cstc2015shms-ztzx80007 and cstc2015shms-ztzx80009).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplementary material

11738_2019_2850_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (17 kb)
Supplementary file1 (XLSX 17 kb)
11738_2019_2850_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Supplementary file2 (XLSX 13 kb)
11738_2019_2850_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (10 kb)
Supplementary file3 (XLSX 10 kb)


  1. Akhunov ED, Sehgal S, Liang H, Wang S, Akhunova AR, Kaur G, Li W, Forrest KL, See D, Simkova H, Ma Y, Hayden MJ, Luo M, Faris JD, Dolezel J, Gill BS (2013) Comparative analysis of syntenic genes in grass genomes reveals accelerated rates of gene structure and coding sequence evolution in polyploid wheat. Plant Physiol 161:252–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumel A, Ainouche ML, Levasseur JE (2001) Molecular investigations in populations of Spartinaanglica C.E. Hubbard (Poaceae) invading coastal Brittany (France). Mol Ecol 10(7):1689–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker H, Engqvist G, Karlsson B (1995) Comparison of rapeseed cultivars and resynthesized lines based on allozyme and RFLP markers. TheorAppl Genet 91:62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cara N, Marfil CF, Masuelli RW (2013) Epigenetic patterns newly established after interspecific hybridization in natural populations of Solanum. Ecol Evol 3:3764–3779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chalhoub B, Denoeud F, Liu S, Parkin IA, Tang H et al (2014) Early allopolyploid evolution in the post-Neolithic Brassica napus oilseed genome. Science 345:950–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen ZJ (2010) Molecular mechanisms of polyploidy and hybrid vigor. Trends Plant Sci 15:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen S, Nelson MN, Chèvre AM, Jenczewski E, Li Z, Mason AS, Meng J, Plummer JA, Pradhan A, Siddique KHM, Snowdon RJ, Yan G, Zhou W, Cowling WA (2011) Trigenomic bridges for Brassica improvement. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30:524–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Comai L (2005) The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid. Nat Rev Genet 6:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaeta RT, Pires JC, Iniguez-Luy F, Leon E, Osborn TC (2007) Genomic changes in resynthesized Brassica napus and their effect on gene expression and phenotype. Plant Cell 19:3403–3417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaeta RT, Pires JC (2010) Homoeologous recombination in allopolyploids: the polyploid ratchet. New Phytol 186:18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gautam M, Dang Y, Ge X, Shao Y, Li Z (2016) Genetic and epigenetic changes in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) extracted from intergeneric allopolyploid and additions with Orychophragmus. Front Plant Sci 7:438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geng XX, Chen S, Astarini IA, Yan GJ, Tian E, Meng JL, Li ZY, Ge XH, Nelson MN, Mason AS, Pradhan A, Zhou WJ, Cowling WA (2013) Doubled haploids of novel trigenomic Brassica derived from various interspecific crosses. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 113:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Girke A, Schierholt A, Becker HC (2012) Extending the rapeseed gene pool with resynthesized Brassica napus I: Genetic diversity. Genet Resour Crop Evol 59:1441–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grandont L, Jenczewski E, Lloyd A (2013) Meiosis and its deviations in polyploid plants. Cytogenet Genome Res 140:171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grandont L, Cuñado N, Coriton O, Huteau V, Eber F, Chèvre AM, Grelon M, Chelysheva L, Jenczewski E (2014) Homoelogous chromosome sorting and progression of meiotic recombination in Brassica napus: ploidy does matter. Plant Cell 26:1448–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hegarty M (2011) Hybridization: expressing yourself in a crowd. Curr Biol 21:254–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howell EC, Kearsey MJ, Jones GH, King GJ, Armstrong SJ (2008) A and C genome distinction and chromosome identification in Brassica napus by sequential FISH and GISH. Genetics 180:1849–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ishii T, Ueda T, Tanaka H, Tsujimoto H (2010) Chromosome elimination by wide hybridization between Triticeae or oat plant and pearl millet: pearl millet chromosome dynamics in hybrid embryo cells. Chromosome Res 18:821–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kantama L, Junbuathong S, Sakulkoo J, de Jong H, Apistiwanich S (2013) Epigenetic changes and transposon reactivation in Thai rice hybrids. Mol Breeding 31:815–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumashiro T, Oinuma T (1986) Genetic variation of colchicines induced and spontaneous double haploids obtained by anther culture of an inbred tobacco. Japa Jour Breeding 36:355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leitch IJ, Heslop-Harrison JSP (1994) Detection of digoxigenin-labeled DNA probes hybridized to plant chromosomes in situ. Methods Mol Biol 28:177–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Li Z, Liu HL, Luo P (1995) Production and cytogenetics of intergeneric hybrids between Brassica napus and Orychophragmus violaceus. Theor Appl Genet 91:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li Q, Mei J, Zhang Y, Li J, Ge X, Li Z, Qian W (2013) A large-scale introgression of genomic components of Brassica rapa into B. napus by bridge of hexaploid derived from hybridization between B. napus and B. oleracea. Theor Appl Genet 126:2073–2080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li F, Fan G, Wang K, Sun F, Yuan Y, Song G, Li Q, Ma Z, Lu C, Zou C, Chen W, Liang X, Shang H, Liu W, Shi C, Xiao G, Gou C, Ye W, Xun Xu, Zhang X, Wei H, Li Z, Zhang G, Wang J, Kun Liu et al (2014) Genome sequence of the cultivated cotton Gossypium arboretum. Nat Genet 46:567–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li Q, Zhou Q, Mei J, Zhang Y, Li J, Li Z, Ge X, Xiong Z, Huang Y, Qian W (2014) Improvement of Brassica napus via interspecific hybridization between B. napus and B. oleracea. Mol Breeding 34:1955–1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li Q, Chen Z, Liu Y, Mei J, Qian W (2017) Crossability and Sclerotinia resistance among hybrids between hexaploid (AnAnCnCnCoCo) and Brassica rapa. Sci Agricultura Sinica 50(1):123–130Google Scholar
  27. Lukens LN, Pires JC, Leon E, Vogelzang R, Oslach L, Osborn T (2006) Patterns of sequence loss and cytosine methylation within a population of newly resynthesized Brassica napus allopolyploids. Plant Physiol 140:336–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason AS, Takahira J, Atri C, Samans B, Hayward A, Cowling WA, Batley J, Nelson MN (2015) Microspore culture reveals complex meiotic behaviour in a trigenomic Brassica hybrid. BMC Plant Biol 15(1):173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McClelland M, Nelson M, Rashke E (1994) Effect of site-specific modification on restriction endonucleases and DNA modification methyltransferases. Nucleic Acid Res 22:3640–3659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McClintock B (1983) Genome shock as a means of reprogramming genomes. US national Library of Medicine, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  31. Mei J, Liu Y, Wei D, Wttkop B, Ding Y, Li Q, Li J, Wan H, Li Z, Ge X, Frauen M (2015) Transfer of sclerotinia resistance from wild relative of Brassica oleracea into Brassica napus using a hexaploidy step. Theor Appl Genet 128:639–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mochida K, Tsujimoto H, Sasakuma T (2004) Confocal analysis of chromosome behavior in wheat × maize zygotes. Genome 47:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mwathi MW, Gupta M, Atri C, Banga SS, Batley J, Mason AS (2017) Segregation for fertility and meiotic stability in novel Brassica allohexaploids. Thero Appl Genet 130(4):767–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nei M, Li WH (1979) Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endouncleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci 76:5269–5273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olsen KM, Wendel JF (2013) Crop plants as models for understanding plant adaptation and diversification. Front Plant Sci 4:290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Otto SP, Whitton J (2000) Polyploid incidence and evolution. Annu Rev Genet 34:401–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parisod C, Salmon A, Zerjal T, Tenaillon M, Grandbastien MA, Ainouche M (2009) Rapid structural and epigenetic reorganization near transposable elements in hybrid and allopolyploid genomes in Spartina. New Phytol 184:1003–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pradhan A, Plummer JA, Nelson MN, Cowling WA, Yan GJ (2010) Successful induction of trigenomic hexaploid Brassica from a triploid hybrid of B. napus L. and B. nigra L. Koch. Euphytica 176:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ramsey J, Schemske DW (1998) Pathways, mechanisms and rates of polyploid formation in flowering plants. Annu Rev of Ecol and Syst 29:467–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salmon A, Ainouche ML, Wendel JF (2005) Genetic and epigenetic consequences of recent hybridization and polyploidy in Sparina (Poaceae). Mol Ecol 14:1163–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarilar V, Palacios PM, Rousselet A, Ridel C, Falque M, Eber F, Chèvre AM, Joets J, Brabant P, Alix K (2013) Allopolyploidy has a moderate impact on restructuring at three contrasting transposable element insertion sites in resynthesized Brassica napus allotetraploids. New Phytol 198:593–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seyis F, Snowdon RJ, Lühs W, Friedt W (2003) Molecular characterization of novel resynthesized rapeseed (Brassica napus) lines and analysis of their genetic diversity in comparison with spring rapeseed cultivars. Plant Breeding 122:473–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shaked H, Kashkush K, Ozkan H, Feldman M, Levy AA (2001) Sequence elimination and cytosine methylation are rapid and reproducible responses of the genome to wide hybridization and allopolyploidy in wheat. Plant Cell 13:1749–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Song Q, Chen ZJ (2015) Epigenetic and developmental regulation in plant polyploids. Curr Opin Plant Biol 24:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Szadkowski E, Eber F, Huteau V, Lode M, Huneau C, Belcram H, Coriton O, Manzanares-Dauleux MJ, Delourme R, King GJ, Chalhoub B, Jenczewski E, Chèvre AM (2010) The first meiosis of resynthesized Brassica napus, a genome blender. New Phytol 186:102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Szadkowski E, Eber F, Huteau V, Lode M, Coriton O, Jenczewski E, Chèvre AM (2011) Polyploid formation pathways have an impact on genetic rearrangements in resynthesized Brassica napus. New Phytol 191:884–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30(12):2725–2729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tian E, Jiang Y, Chen L, Zou J, Liu F, Meng J (2010) Synthesis of a Brassica trigenomic allohexaploid (B. carinata × B. rapa) de novo and its stability in subsequent generations. Theor Appl Genet 121:1431–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. UN (1935) Genome analysis in Brassica with special reference to the experimental formation of B. napus and peculiar mode of fertilization. Jpn J Bot 7:389–452Google Scholar
  50. Wu Y, Sun Y, Shen K, Sun S, Wang J, Jiang T, Cao S, Josiah SM, Pang J, Lin X, Liu B (2015) Immediate genetic and epigenetic changes in F1 hybrids parented by species with divergent genomes in the rice genus (Oryza). PLoS ONE 10:e0132911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xiong Z, Gaeta RT, Pires JC (2011) Homoeologous shuffling and chromosome compensation maintain genome balance in resynthesized allopolyploid Brassica napus. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:7908–7913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xiong W, Li X, Fu D, Mei J, Li Q, Lu G, Qian L, Fu Y, Disi JO, Li J, Qian W (2013) DNA methylation alterations at 5'-CCGG sites in the interspecific and intraspecific hybridizations derived from Brassica napus and B. rapa. PLoS ONE 8:e65946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xu Y, Zhong L, Wu X, Fang X, Wang J (2009) Rapid alterations of gene expression and cytosine methylation in newly synthesized Brassica napus allopolyploids. Planta 229:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang X, Ge X, Shao Y, Sun G, Li Z (2013) Genomic change, retrotransposon mobilization and extensive cytosine methylation alteration in Brassica napus introgressions from two intertribal hybridizations. PLoS ONE 8:e56346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang J, Liu Y, Xia E, Yao Q, Liu X, Gao L (2015) Autotetraploid rice methylome analysis reveals methylation variation of transposable elements and their effects on gene expression. P Natl Acad Sci USA 112:7022–7029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhao N, Zhu B, Li M, Wang L, Xu L, Zhang H, Zheng S, Qi B, Han F, Liu B (2011) Extensive and heritable epigenetic remodeling and genetic stability accompany allohexaploidization of wheat. Genetics 188:499–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhou J, Tan C, Cui C, Ge X, Li Z (2016) Distinct subgenome stabilities in synthesized Brassica allohexaploids. Thero Appl Genet 129:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Agronomy and BiotechnologySouthwest UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.College of Horticulture and Landscape ArchitectureSouthwest UniversityChongqingChina
  3. 3.Inner Mongolia Potato Engineering and Technology, Research CentreInner Mongolia UniversityHohhotChina
  4. 4.National Key Laboratory of Crop Genetic ImprovementHuazhong Agriculture UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations