Genetic Variation, Population Structure and the Possibility of Association Mapping of Biochemical and Agronomic Traits Using Dominant Molecular Markers in Iranian Tea Accessions

  • Mehdi RahimiEmail author
  • Mojtaba Kordrostami
  • Sanam SafaeiChaeikar
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biology


One of the important methods for the study of quantitative traits is the association mapping through the use of phenotypic information and molecular markers. This study was carried out to examine the contrastive relationship between the biochemical and agronomic traits in tea accessions at the molecular level via association mapping and genetic diversity. In this study, 22 tea accessions were studied in an RCBD with two replications in 2017. Analysis of variance showed a significant difference between the accessions for the studied traits. Cluster analysis classified tea accessions into three groups based on the quantitative traits as well as DNA markers (SCoT and ISSR). Based on the Bayesian model, the tea accessions were classified into four subpopulations. In order to identify the molecular markers associated with the genes controlling traits variation, association mapping was carried out via two mixed linear models (MLM). Based on (G + P+K) and (G + P+Q + K) MLM models, 47 and 71 QTLs were identified for the studied traits, respectively. The SCoT4-1 locus was common between the four traits of chlorophyll a (CA), chlorophyll b (CB), total chlorophyll (CT) and leaf yield (LY) in both models. Also, the results showed that the development of STS and CAPS markers based on the identified markers can be used in breeding programs.


Association analysis Chlorophyll Cluster ISSR and SCoT markers Mixed linear model 



We gratefully acknowledge the research funding provided for this project (No. 94802705) by Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) and Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Iran.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abdel-Mawgood AL (2012) DNA based techniques for studying genetic diversity. In: Genetic diversity in microorganisms. InTechGoogle Scholar
  2. Andargie M, Pasquet RS, Gowda BS, Muluvi GM, Timko MP (2011) Construction of a SSR-based genetic map and identification of QTL for domestication traits using recombinant inbred lines from a cross between wild and cultivated cowpea (V. unguiculata (L.) Walp.). Mol Breed 28:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JA, Churchill G, Autrique J, Tanksley S, Sorrells M (1993) Optimizing parental selection for genetic linkage maps. Genome 36:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balasaravanan T, Pius P, Kumar RR, Muraleedharan N, Shasany A (2003) Genetic diversity among south Indian tea germplasm (Camellia sinensis, C. assamica and C. assamica spp. lasiocalyx) using AFLP markers. Plant Sci 165:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandyopadhyay T (2011) Molecular marker technology in genetic improvement of tea. Int J Plant Breed Genet 5:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates L, Waldren R, Teare I (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39:205–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beris FS, Pehlivan N, Kac M, Haznedar A, Coşkun F, Sandalli C (2016) Evaluation of genetic diversity of cultivated tea clones (Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze) in the eastern black sea coast by inter-simple sequence repeats (ISSRS). Genetika 48:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradbury PJ, Zhang Z, Kroon DE, Casstevens TM, Ramdoss Y, Buckler ES (2007) TASSEL: software for association mapping of complex traits in diverse samples. Bioinformatics 23:2633–2635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breseghello F, Sorrells ME (2006) Association mapping of kernel size and milling quality in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars. Genetics 172:1165–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collard BC, Mackill DJ (2009) Start codon targeted (SCoT) polymorphism: a simple, novel DNA marker technique for generating gene-targeted markers in plants. Plant Mol Biol Rep 27:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Costa W, Mohotti AJ, Wijeratne MA (2007) Ecophysiology of tea. Braz J Plant Physiol 19:299–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dellaporta SL, Wood J, Hicks JB (1983) A plant DNA minipreparation: version II. Plant Mol Biol Rep 1:19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Earl DA, vonHoldt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Govindaraj M, Vetriventhan M, Srinivasan M (2015) Importance of genetic diversity assessment in crop plants and its recent advances: an overview of its analytical perspectives. Genet Res Int 2015: Article ID 431487, 14 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Gower JC, Legendre P (1986) Metric and Euclidean properties of dissimilarity coefficients. J Classif 3:5–48MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunasekare M, Peiris T (2006) Phenotypic variation in germplasm accessions of tea (Camellia sinensis L.) in Sri Lanka. Plant Genet Res News 146:39–42Google Scholar
  18. Hammer Ø, Harper D, Ryan P (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:1–9Google Scholar
  19. Henareh M, Mandoulakani BA, Dursun A (2018) Association analysis of morphological traits in tomato using ISSR markers. Iran J Hortic Sci 49:171–181Google Scholar
  20. Hu C-Y, Tsai Y-Z, Lin S-F (2014) Development of STS and CAPS markers for variety identification and genetic diversity analysis of tea germplasm in Taiwan. Bot Stud 55: Article ID 12, 15 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Hui-Bing J, Yi-ping T, Lin-bo C, Ming-zhi L (2013) Diversity of tea landraces based on agronomic and quality traits in yunnan province. J Plant Genet Resour 14:634–640Google Scholar
  22. Jha UC, Jha R, Bohra A, Parida SK, Kole PC, Thakro V, Singh D, Singh NP (2018) Population structure and association analysis of heat stress relevant traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). 3 Biotech 8: Article 43, 14 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Jin J-Q, Yao M-Z, Ma C-L, Ma J-Q, Chen L (2016) Association mapping of caffeine content with TCS1 in tea plant and its related species. Plant Physiol Biochem 105:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katuuramu DN, Hart JP, Porch TG, Grusak MA, Glahn RP, Cichy KA (2018) Genome-wide association analysis of nutritional composition-related traits and iron bioavailability in cooked dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Mol Breed 38: Article: 44, 18 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim YD, Jeong MJ, Song HJ, Kim JC, Choi MS (2012) Morphological characters and genetic relationship between catechins-rich and-poor tea tree (Camellia sinensis L.) lines. For Sci Technol 8:28–33Google Scholar
  26. Kimura M, Crow JF (1964) The number of alleles that can be maintained in a finite population. Genetics 49:725–738Google Scholar
  27. Ma J-Q, Yao M-Z, Ma C-L, Wang X-C, Jin J-Q, Wang X-M, Chen L (2014) Construction of a SSR-based genetic map and identification of QTLs for catechins content in tea plant (Camellia sinensis). PLoS ONE 9:e93131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matsumoto S, Kiriiwa Y, Yamaguchi S (2004) The Korean tea plant (Camellia sinensis): RFLP analysis of genetic diversity and relationship to Japanese tea. Breed Sci 54:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mondal TK (2002) Assessment of genetic diversity of tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) by inter-simple sequence repeat polymerase chain reaction. Euphytica 128:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mondal TK (2014) Breeding and biotechnology of tea and its wild species. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nei M (1972) Genetic distance between populations. Am Nat 106:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nybom H, Weising K, Rotter B (2014) DNA fingerprinting in botany: past, present, future. Invest Genet 5: Article ID 1, 35 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Panda H (2011) The complete book on cultivation and manufacture of tea. Asia Pacific Business Press IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  34. Perez-de-Castro AM, Vilanova S, Cañizares J, Pascual L, Blanca JM, Diez M, Prohens J, Picó BJ (2012) Application of genomic tools in plant breeding. Curr Genomics 13:179–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phong NH, Pongnak W, Soytong K, Poeaim S, Poeaim A (2016) Diversity of Tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) Grown in Vietnam based on morphological characteristics and inter primer binding sites (iPBS) marker. Int J Agric Biol 18:385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959Google Scholar
  37. Rahimi M, Nazari L, Kordrostami M, Safari P (2018) SCoT marker diversity among Iranian Plantago ecotypes and their possible association with agronomic traits. Sci Hortic 233:302–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rajpal VR, Rao SR, Raina S (2016) Molecular breeding for sustainable crop improvement, vol 2. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ravelombola W, Shi A, Weng Y, Mou B, Motes D, Clark J, Chen P, Srivastava V, Qin J, Dong L (2018) Association analysis of salt tolerance in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) at germination and seedling stages. Theor Appl Genet 131:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richards EJ (2011) Natural epigenetic variation in plant species: a view from the field. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:204–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SAS-Institute-Inc (2014) Base SAS 9.4 procedures guide: statistical procedures, 3rd edn. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  42. Semagn K, Bjørnstad Å, Ndjiondjop M (2006) An overview of molecular marker methods for plants. Afr J Biotechnol 5:2540–2568Google Scholar
  43. Shannon CE (2001) A mathematical theory of communication. SIGMOBILE Mob Comput Commun Rev 5:3–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Somogyi M (1952) Notes on sugar determination. J Biol Chem 195:19–23Google Scholar
  45. Sudhakar P, Latha P, Reddy P (2016) Phenotyping crop plants for physiological and biochemical traits. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Tondelli A, Pagani D, Ghafoori IN, Rahimi M, Ataei R, Rizza F, Flavell AJ, Cattivelli L (2014) Allelic variation at Fr-H1/Vrn-H1 and Fr-H2 loci is the main determinant of frost tolerance in spring barley. Environ Exper Bot 106:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Upadhyaya H, Gowda C, Sastry D Management of germplasm collections and enhancing their use by mini core and molecular approaches. In: Capacity Building for Development and Implementation of Risk Management Systems on Genetic Resources: proceedings of the APEC-ATCWG Workshop, Taichung, Chinese Taipei; 14–17 October 2008, pp 35–70Google Scholar
  48. van Bueren EL, Jones SS, Tamm L, Murphy KM, Myers JR, Leifert C, Messmer M (2011) The need to breed crop varieties suitable for organic farming, using wheat, tomato and broccoli as examples: a review. NJAS-Wagen J Life Sci 58:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Hintum TJ, Brown AHD, Spillane C, Hodkin T (2000) Core collections of plant genetic resources, vol 3. Bioversity International, IPGRI, RomeGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu Y, Li P, Zou C, Lu Y, Xie C, Zhang X, Prasanna BM, Olsen MS (2017) Enhancing genetic gain in the era of molecular breeding. J Exp Bot 68:2641–2666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xu X, Sharma R, Tondelli A, Russell J, Comadran J, Schnaithmann F, Pillen K, Kilian B, Cattivelli L, Thomas WT (2018) Genome-wide association analysis of grain yield-associated traits in a pan-European barley cultivar collection. Plant Genome 11: Article 170073, 11 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yan H, Zhang Y, Zeng B, Yin G, Zhang X, Ji Y, Huang L, Jiang X, Liu X, Peng Y (2016) Genetic diversity and association of EST-SSR and SCoT markers with rust traits in Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.). Molecules 21:66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yu J, Pressoir G, Briggs WH, Bi IV, Yamasaki M, Doebley JF, McMullen MD, Gaut BS, Nielsen DM, Holland JB (2006) A unified mixed-model method for association mapping that accounts for multiple levels of relatedness. Nat Genet 38:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biotechnology, Institute of Science and High Technology and Environmental SciencesGraduate University of Advanced TechnologyKermanIran
  2. 2.Department of Plant Biotechnology, Faculty of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of GuilanRashtIran
  3. 3.Tea Research Center, Horticultural Sciences Research InstituteAgricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO)LahijanIran

Personalised recommendations