Abstract
The garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) is a significant cool-season legume, serving as crucial food sources, animal feed, and industrial raw materials. The advancement of functional genomics over the past two decades has provided substantial theoretical foundations and progress to pea breeding. Notably, the release of the pea reference genome has enhanced our understanding of plant architecture, symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF), flowering time, floral organ development, seed development, and stress resistance. However, a considerable gap remains between pea functional genomics and molecular breeding. This review summarizes the current advancements in pea functional genomics and breeding while highlighting the future challenges in pea molecular breeding.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The garden pea (Pisum sativum L., 2n = 14) is a cold-season, annual climbing legume, ranking as one of the eight foundational crops and originally domesticated in the Near East and the Mediterranean Basin (Singh et al. 2019). Noted for its rich content of protein, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, peas are acclaimed for their exceptional nutritional composition (Singh et al. 2019; Paul and Southgate 1978). Beyond human consumption, peas have been utilized in animal feed, green manure, and various industrial applications (Piotrowska-Długosz and Wilczewski 2020; Bastianelli et al. 1998). Ranked as the fourth-largest leguminous crop after soybeans (Glycine max), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), and common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), the planting area for dry peas reached 7.04 million hectares (Mha), and for fresh peas, 2.59 Mha in 2021. However, with a yield of only 1700 kg/ha, peas lag significantly behind other leguminous crops (http://www.fao.org/faostat/). Given the increase in world population and reduction in arable land, enhancing pea yield has become a crucial goal in breeding. In addition, the climbing nature of peas necessitates manual trellising, resulting in higher labor costs. Therefore, current breeding goals include not only increasing yield but also modifying the plant structure to simplify cultivation. Over the past decade, the development of functional genomics in peas, especially with the public release of the pea reference genome and the integration of multi-omics technologies, has deepened our understanding of the growth and developmental processes in peas. Here, we rereview the evolution of pea functional genomics, with a focus on loci and genes favorable for breeding, and discuss the future genes and challenges in molecular breeding of peas.
The progress of pea genome studies
With the advent of the genomics era in plant science, the pea plant, possessing a sizeable genome of 4.45 GB, has trailed significantly in genomic research compared to other leguminous plants (Doležel and Greilhuber 2010; Smýkal et al. 2012). As reference genomes for legumes such as Lotus japonicus (Sato et al. 2008), soybean (Schmutz et al. 2010), and Medicago truncatula (Young et al. 2011) became available, the pea has gradually lost its stature as a premier model organism in the legume family. This extensive genome of the pea is attributed to its content, which consists of 75–95% repetitive sequences (Flavell et al. 1974; Murray et al. 1981). More recent studies have confirmed that these sequences, representing about 76% of pea nuclear DNA, belong to highly diverse families of sequences with high to moderate repetition (Macas et al. 2015). These intricate repetitive sequences undeniably posed significant challenges to the early genome assembly reliant on Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology.
Although the limitations of second-generation sequencing make it challenging to assemble the entire genome of the pea plant, the advent of transcriptome sequencing has enabled researchers to attempt de novo assembly at the transcript level of pea genes (Table 1) (Sudheesh et al. 2015; Alves‐Carvalho et al. 2015). Alves‐Carvalho et al. utilized 20 cDNA libraries from ‘Caméor’, comprising a variety of subterranean and aerial plant tissues, diverse developmental stages, and nutritional conditions, to generate a comprehensive set of Unigene expressed sequences (Alves‐Carvalho et al. 2015). Concurrently, Sudheesh et al. leveraged two commonly cultivated Australian field pea cultivars, ‘Kaspa’ and ‘Parafield’, to generate a comprehensive assembled and annotated transcriptome set for field pea (Sudheesh et al. 2015). With the rise of third-generation sequencing and the gradual reduction in the cost of second-generation sequencing, the first chromosome-level reference genome of pea was published in 2019 (Kreplak et al. 2019). Subsequently, for the study of the yellow pod trait in Mendel’s seven traits, Shirasawa et al. assembled the reference genome of the yellow pod material JI128 (Shirasawa et al. 2021). Following this, with the advancement of Hi-C technology, Yang et al. used a combination of third-generation sequencing and Hi-C mounting to assemble the reference genome of China’s main cultivated variety ‘ZW6’ (Yang et al. 2022a). This resulted in a significant improvement in both completeness and accuracy compared to previous reference genomes.
Germplasm resources and databases
Peas possess a rich germplasm resource characterized by a vast array of variations. The Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research Station in the United States has amassed 5400 pea germplasm resources, complete with phenotypic and genotypic data. Similarly, the Australian Temperate Field Crop Collection in Australia has gathered 6567 accessions, and the John Innes Centre in the United Kingdom has collected 3557 accessions, both replete with phenotypic and genotypic data (Smýkal et al. 2012). In addition, the Institute of Crop Sciences, CAAS, in China has acquired 3837 pea germplasm resources. Studies on the structure and genetic diversity of core germplasm populations have illuminated the process of pea domestication (Yang et al. 2022a; Weeden 2018).
Peas, being difficult to genetically transform, necessitate the use of mutant populations to facilitate gene cloning, functional analysis, and mutation breeding. Extensive exploration of different mutagenic conditions has led to the development of various mutation methods, resulting in the creation of numerous mutants. Principal collections of pea mutants encompass. The primary collections of pea mutants include: (1) The John Innes Collection in Norwich, UK, with 575 accessions; (2) The IPGR collection in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, with 122 accessions; (3) A population with TILLING-induced localized lesions, consisting of 4817 lines; and (4) A set of 93 symbiotic mutants (Sagan and Duc 1996; Sagan et al. 1994). Researchers have conducted comprehensive investigations into various traits of peas by utilizing mutants derived from different mutagenic conditions. examples include the cloning of the Tendril-less (Tl) locus from fast neutron mutants (Hofer et al. 2009), the cloning of the Elephant-ear-like leaf1 (ELE1) locus from ethylmethane sulphonate (EMS) mutants (Li et al. 2019), and the cloning of the Keeled Wings (K) locus from x-ray mutagenesis (Wang et al. 2008). In addition, the Mendelian flower color gene was successfully cloned using mutants (Hellens et al. 2010). Moreover, pea mutation breeding, initiated in the early 1940s, has proven highly successful. A prime example of this is the development of a semi-leafless pea variety, named ‘Wasata’ by Poland in 1979, utilizing gamma-ray mutagenesis. This advancement markedly increased the pea’s resistance to lodging, without compromising its yield (Solanki et al. 2011).
Several databases pertinent to pea genomics, genetic markers, and germplasm have been established. Notably, these freely accessible databases encompass UTILLdb, a repository for pea EMS mutants (Dalmais et al. 2008); PMD, dedicated to pea genetic markers (Kulaeva et al. 2017); and the Pea Genome Database, which includes the pea ‘ZW6’ reference genome (Yang et al. 2022a). In addition, comprehensive sites such as the Pulse Crop Database and the Pulse Crop Breeding and Genetics cater to cool-season legume research (Sanderson et al. 2019; Humann et al. 2019). The SeedStor allows for the search and ordering of pea germplasm resources, and also enables the querying of photos and phenotypic information for different germplasm resources (Horler et al. 2018). These databases collectively offer invaluable resources for advanced pea research (Table 2).
Plant architecture
The architecture of a plant primarily encompasses leaf morphology, stem growth habits, and branching ability among other aspects. Peas, being annual climbing plants, require a trellis for cultivation. Therefore, modulating plant architecture is a pivotal direction in breeding towards simplified cultivation, which on one hand, conserves resources and labor during field management, and on the other hand, enhances pea population yield through the development of a more rational plant structure. In this section, we provide an overview of the functional genes associated with pea plant structure to assist breeders in augmenting pea yield (Table 3, Fig. 1).
Leaf morphology
The mature wild-type pea leaf exhibits a compound pinnate structure, comprising a basal pair of foliaceous stipules, a pair of proximal leaflets, two pairs of distal tendrils, and a terminal tendril (Gourlay et al. 2000). The pulvinus, a pivotal juncture between the compound leaf and petiole, regulates diurnal leaf movement. The Apulvinic (Apu) locus is a critical region governing pulvinus formation, encoding a gene orthologous to MtELP1, which conservatively regulates pulvinus development in leguminous crops (Chen et al. 2012). Compound leaves contain veins that deliver water and inorganic salts while also facilitating the export of photosynthetic products. The Crispoid (Crd) locus encodes a YUCCA protein responsible for regulating vein distribution in compound leaves, subsequently influencing photosynthetic efficiency (McAdam et al. 2017b). The CRISPA (CRI) locus encodes an MYB transcription factor that governs multiple characteristics of pea leaves, encompassing lamina shape, length, position and polarity (Tattersall et al. 2005). The LATHYROIDES (LATH) locus encodes a WUSCHEL-related homeobox1 (WOX1) transcription factor with a conserved role in dictating organ lateral growth. In Lath mutant, both the compound leaves and the stipules are narrowed, and narrower leaflets are observed instead of tendrils (Zhuang et al. 2012). The UNIFOLIATA (UNI) mutant exhibits rachis or tendrils replaced by a short petiole and pulvinus bearing a single leaflet. Hofer et al. identified this locus as encoding a LFY/FLO homologue protein through forward genetics (Hofer et al. 1997). In stipule development, the COCHLEATA (COCH) and Stipules reduced (St) loci play critical roles. They respectively encode a BOP-like protein and a C2H2 zinc finger transcription factor, both of which interact to cooperatively regulate stipule size (Couzigou et al. 2012; Moreau et al. 2018). The Tl locus controls pea tendril development by encoding an HD-ZIP transcription factor. In Tl mutants, tendrils are replaced by compound leaves (Hofer et al. 2009) (Fig. 1).
Plant height
An ideal pea plant phenotype should have a shorter stature, promoting upright growth and reducing susceptibility to lodging (Tar’an et al. 2003). Many factors control plant height, with most research focusing on hormonal influences. Several hormones, including gibberellins, auxins (IAA), cytokinins (CTK), brassinosteroids, and ethylene, directly influence plant height. Among these, gibberellins, specifically related to synthesis, degradation, and signal transduction, are the most extensively researched in peas (Kuraishi and Muir 1964). GA1, a primary active form of gibberellin in peas, has a synthesis and degradation process heavily influencing plant height (Grindal et al. 1998). Gibberellin metabolism is categorized into three stages (Hedden and Phillips 2000). The initial phase takes place in plastids, where ent-kaurene is derived from trans-geranyl geranyl diphosphate. In this phase, the Ls locus encodes Copalyl diphosphate synthase, playing a pivotal role (Ait‐Ali et al. 1997). The subsequent stage reactions transpire outside the plastids, transforming ent-kaurene into GA53. In this phase, the Lh and Na loci encode ent-kaurene oxidase and Ent-kaurenoic acid oxidase, respectively, catalyzing multiple reactions (Davidson et al. 2003, 2004). The final stage of GA1 synthesis occurs in the cytoplasm, with GA53 being converted to GA intermediates and bioactive GA1 by oxidation steps catalyzed by dioxygenases. The Ps27-12 and the Le locus encode GA 20-oxidases and GA 3-oxidases, respectively, culminating in the synthesis of GA1 (Lester et al. 1997; García-Martínez et al. 1997). Conversely, the SLENDER(SLN) locus encodes GA 2-oxidases that deactivate GAs. In the process of GA signal transduction, the CRY and LA loci each encode DELLA proteins, which act as negative regulators of GA signaling (Weston et al. 2008).
Branching
For many years, IAA and CTK were believed to be the primary hormones controlling plant branching. However, this perspective shifted when Gomez-Roldan et al. discovered the inhibitory effect of strigolactone (SL) on pea branching, paving the way for research into SL’s role in regulating plant branching (Gomez-Roldan et al. 2008). This discovery in peas was attributed to the fact that many of its branching mutants are associated with SL. The RAMOSUS 1 (RMS1) and RAMOSUS 5 (RMS5) Loci encode two members of the carotenoid cleavage dioxygenase family (PsCCD8 and PsCCD7, respectively), which play crucial roles in SL synthesis (Sorefan et al. 2003; Johnson et al. 2006). These CCDs function downstream of the DWARF27 (D27) isomerase and together catalyze the synthesis of carlactone, a pivotal intermediate in SL biosynthesis. The RAMOSUS 3 (RMS3) and RAMOSUS 4 (RMS4) genes, essential for the SL response, encode the SL receptor (homologous to AtD14 in Arabidopsis) and an F-box protein (homologous to AtMAX2 in Arabidopsis), respectively (de Saint Germain et al. 2016; Johnson et al. 2006). The RAMOSUS 2 (RMS2) locus encodes an F-box protein from a small family of auxin receptors. It acts as an intermediary in the signal transduction, allowing IAA to promote the synthesis of SL, forming a homeostatic feedback loop (Ligerot et al. 2017). The unique loci, VEGETATIVE1 (VEG1) and VEGETATIVE2 (VEG2), encode the MADS box gene FULc and the bZIP transcription factor FD, respectively (Sussmilch et al. 2015; Berbel et al. 2012). Instead of directly regulating pea branching development, they suppress the transition from vegetative to reproductive growth, thereby leading to increased branching.
Stem growth habit
The growth habit of the pea stem is a crucial agronomic trait closely linked to the duration of its growth period, yield, and plant height (Foucher et al. 2003). Depending on when apical stem growth terminates, the majority of pea cultivars can be sorted into two main stem architectural types: determinate and indeterminate (Baig et al. 2003). The DETERMINATE (DET) locus encodes a protein homologous to Terminal Flower 1 (TFL1), which functions to preserve the destiny of the inflorescence meristem in peas. In its mutant, the apical meristem is replaced by a floral structure, leading the pea to transition from unlimited growth to a limited growth form. The Sym28 locus encodes a CLAVATA2 protein. Through screening of EMS-induced mutants, it was found that when this gene is mutated, shoots in the reproductive phase produce additional flowers, the stem becomes fasciated, and the regular phyllotaxis is disrupted (Krusell et al. 2011).
Breeding applications of important loci related to plant architecture
Among the various cloned loci that control pea plant architecture, the Le locus is perhaps the most renowned for determining internode length and has the widest application in breeding (Mendel 1865). It plays a pivotal role in achieving semi-dwarf breeding in peas. The Tl locus, an intriguing one, has been instrumental in the breeding of leafy peas in China. Owing to the replacement of its tough tendrils by compound leaves, superior-tasting varieties like ‘Yunwan No.1’ have been developed. The DET locus determines the determinacy of pea stem growth (Foucher et al. 2003). Similarly, other leguminous crops, such as soybeans, have analogous loci, Dt1 and Dt2, which govern stem growth patterns, including determinate, semi-determinate, and indeterminate growth (Ping et al. 2014; Liang et al. 2022; Liu et al. 2010). These loci have been utilized to develop varieties that are dwarfed, resistant to lodging, and mature uniformly (Tian et al. 2010). However, pea varieties developed using the det allele, like ‘Determinantnyi VSKhI’, have a lower yield compared to traditional indeterminate varieties, preventing them from becoming the primary loci for breeding modifications (Kondykov et al. 2006; Sinjushin et al. 2022).
As an enhancement to the DET locus, certain Russian cultivars have identified and utilized the Deh locus, which leads to an early cessation of apical meristem growth. Although little genetic information about this locus is currently available, numerous Russian varieties, including ‘Flagman’, have started utilizing it (Sinjushin et al. 2016). There might exist five loci controlling fasciation: Fa, Fas, Fa2, Nod4, and Sym28 (Marx and Hagedorn 1962; Sidorova and Uzhintseva 1995; Święcicki and Gawlowska 2004; Gawlowska and Swiecicki 2016; Krusell et al. 2011). Early on, British breeders capitalized on these traits to cultivate the ‘Mummy pea’ variety. While such varieties offer consistent maturation and harvesting convenience, their concentrated apical inflorescences make them prone to lodging (Sinjushin 2013). Recently, efforts have been made to utilize the double mutants det fa, resulting in plants showcasing an apical raceme, often bearing more than ten flowers on abbreviated pedicels (Kondykov et al. 2006; Zelenov et al. 2012). Given its floral arrangement’s resemblance to lupins, this trait is termed the ‘lupinoid’. Regrettably, to date, there are no registered cultivars with this phenotype. The AFILA (AF) locus, regarded as a standout in pea breeding, remains uncloned (Demason et al. 2013; Mishra et al. 2009; Gourlay et al. 2000). However, A recent preprint article has offered new speculations (Tayeh et al. 2023). Using af mutants, which display a semi-leafless phenotype, the problem of pea lodging can be mitigated, greatly enhancing both yield and quality (Yang et al. 2022b). Presently, semi-leafless pea varieties account for over 95% of the total dry pea production in western Canada and more than 80% in the EU (Acikgoz et al. 2009; Tran et al. 2022). Considering the reduced number of compound leaves in af mutants, which might impact photosynthetic efficiency, researchers have innovatively combined af with uni, developing a phenotype termed ‘chameleon’ (Zadorin et al. 2014; Zelenov et al. 2013). Compared to the single af mutant, the af uni has a few tendrils replaced by leaves (Marx 1987). Currently, several registered varieties in Russia, such as ‘Spartak’ and ‘Sibirskii’, utilize this phenotype (Zelenov et al. 2013; Sinjushin et al. 2022).
Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in pea
Similar to other leguminous plants, peas possess the SNF capability. Although peas can fix nitrogen at rates up to 165 kg/ha, the typical fixation range under field conditions lies between 40 and 60 kg/ha (Bourion et al. 2007). This symbiotic relationship facilitates the fixation of atmospheric N2. On one hand, it supports the pea’s growth; on the other, it enriches the soil. Unlike industrial nitrogen fixation, SNF does not rely on fossil fuels and is less susceptible to losses through digestion, volatilization, and leaching, making it an ecologically friendly nitrogen source. Over the past two decades, since the first cloning of the SNF-related gene, NIN (Schauser et al. 1999), researchers have identified several key genes linked to pea SNF from various germplasm resources. These discoveries have been pivotal in breeding new pea varieties with enhanced nitrogen fixation properties. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the genomic research and breeding applications pertaining to pea nodulation during this period (Table 4).
Genes cloned for symbiotic nitrogen fixation in peas
The Sym29 locus was the first to be identified in relation to SNF in peas, and its mutants exhibit both supernodulation and nitrate tolerance (Krusell et al. 2002). PsSym29 encodes a CLAVATA1-like receptor kinase that is homologous to both Hypernodulation And Aberrant Root (LjHAR1) and Super Numeric Nodules (MtSUNN) (Searle et al. 2003; Krusell et al. 2002). Grafting experiments have shown that the supernodulation phenotype observed in mutant Sym29 is determined by the shoot apex, suggesting its potential involvement in the long-distance regulatory process of nodulation, known as autoregulation of nodulation (AON) (Tsyganov et al. 2013). Another gene that might play a role in the AON process is Sym28, which encodes a leucine-rich repeat receptor kinase similar to AtCLAVATA2. The sym28 mutant exhibits both supernodulation and fasciation (Krusell et al. 2011). In addition to the two genes mentioned above, many of the reported genes related to SNF in peas are receptor protein kinases, such as PsLyk9 (Leppyanen et al. 2017), PsLykX (Sulima et al. 2017), PsK1 (Kirienko et al. 2018), PsSym10 (Madsen et al. 2003), PsSym19 (Stracke et al. 2002; Endre et al. 2002), and PsSym37 (Zhukov et al. 2008). Among these, PsSYM10, PsSYM37, and PsK1 are likely involved in forming complexes for nod factor binding and play significant roles in the initiation of infection and the formation of infection threads.
Transcription factors play a pivotal role in the SNF process of leguminous plants (Griesmann et al. 2018). In the early signaling during nodulation, both PsSym7 and PsSym34 are crucial; their mutants fail to form nodules. Both genes encode a GRAS transcription regulator: PsSym7 is orthologous to Nodulation Signaling Pathway 2 (MtNSP2) (Kaló et al. 2005), while PsSym34 is orthologous to the Nodulation Signaling Pathway 1 (MtNSP1) gene (Shtark et al. 2016). PsSym33 corresponds to the M. truncatula Interacting Protein With Dmi 3 (MtIPD3) gene (Ovchinnikova et al. 2011). The sym33 mutant manifests reduced nodulation or forms non-functional nodules. This is due to the intense defensive response triggered by rhizobial inoculation after the Sym33 mutation, preventing nodule formation (Tsyganova et al. 2019). Similarly, mutations in Sym40 locus, which encodes a negative regulator of the cytokinin response transcription factor, inhibit nodule formation because of the elicited intense defensive response (Nemankin 2011; Ivanova et al. 2015). Nodulation signals subsequently target PsSym35, a nitrogen metabolism regulator analogous to Nodule Inception (LjNIN) (Borisov et al. 2003). PsSym35 enhances the transcription of genes related to nodulation, promoting nodule formation. Through reverse genetics, transcription factors PsKNOX3 and PsWOX5 were identified as pivotal to nodule formation (Osipova et al. 2012; Azarakhsh et al. 2015). Furthermore, coch is a unique mutant variant, characterized by the typical bifurcation of its nodules and the production of multiple medullary and root structures within its meristematic tissues. Research has shown that PsCoch encodes a BOP-like transcription factor, which concurrently regulates the development of multiple organs in pea plants (Ferguson and Reid 2005).
In addition to receptor protein kinases and transcription factors, several other genes play crucial roles in pea SNF. PsNod3 encodes a glycosyltransferase, mutations in this gene result in the formation of super nodules (Schnabel et al. 2011). PsSym8 and PsSym9 encode a potassium ion channel protein and calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase (CCaMK), respectively, both presumed to have a vital role in deciphering nuclear calcium spikes in the nod factor signal transduction pathway (Kaló et al. 2005; Edwards et al. 2007).
Breeding applications of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in peas
The symbiotic interactions between legume and rhizobial bacteria are estimated to contribute between 91 and 163 million tons of nitrogen annually, with agriculture utilizing 65% of this contribution (Burris and Roberts 1993). Peas primarily satisfy their nitrogen demand for growth and development through SNF, occasionally leaving excess nitrogen in the soil for subsequent crops (Wysokinski and Lozak 2021). Implementing a crop rotation system with peas and cereal or oilseed crops can enhance nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency and overall crop yield (Karkanis et al. 2016; Dowling et al. 2021). The SNF rate in peas is influenced by multiple factors including cultivar characteristics, tillage practices, rotation frequency, inoculant formulation, and soil nitrogen conditions (Dhillon et al. 2022). Among these factors, breeding pea cultivars with high SNF capabilities stands as a direct approach to alter the fixation rate. Genetic variation in the number and weight of nodules in peas has been observed, showing a positive correlation with SNF capability (Abi-Ghanem et al. 2013). Since the 1980s, researchers have identified over 40 Sym mutants, several Nod mutants, and other genes associated with SNF in peas. While many have been successfully cloned (as shown in Table 4), others have been located on genetic maps (Tsyganov and Tsyganov 2020). Utilizing these mutants, breeders have initiated breeding programs, leading to the development of pea varieties with enhanced nitrogen-fixing capabilities (Dhillon et al. 2022). Sidorova et al. cultivated the ‘Druzhnaya’ variety by amalgamating dominant and recessive alleles from two control super-nodulation loci, Nod4 and Nod5. This variety demonstrated enhanced nitrogen fixation capabilities and yield as compared to its progenitors (Sidorova 2011). Novák et al. (2009) utilized a supernodulating pea mutant RisfixC, alongside forage pea cultivars to breed supernodulating forage pea derivatives. Beyond breeding solely for SNF with rhizobia, breeders have also considered the holistic interactions of peas with nodule bacteria, Arbuscular mycorrhiza, and other plant growth-promoting bacteria (Shtark et al. 2012).The effectiveness of interactions with beneficial soil microbes (EIBSM) was assessed, culminating in the development of the inaugural pea cultivar ‘Triumph’. This cultivar, a milestone in the annals of legume breeding, is distinguished for its intentionally enhanced EIBSM (Dhillon et al. 2022).
Numerous attempts have been made in the realm of SNF breeding in peas, yet there remains a wide scope for further efforts. Initially, an abundance of super-nodulating pea mutants such as sym28, sym29, nod1, nod2, nod3, nod4, nod5, and nod6 have been identified (Tsyganov and Tsyganova 2020). However, to date, only a handful of these mutants have been employed in pea nitrogen fixation breeding, leaving many yet to be utilized. Subsequently, prior endeavors to cross super-nodulating pea mutants with conventional pea cultivars to augment nitrogen fixation did not fully succeed due to resultant lower yields, diminished biomass, or stunted growth (Dhillon et al. 2022). This may be attributed to the energy-intensive nature of SNF, which competes with the above-ground parts for carbohydrates (Voisin et al. 2007). Hence, enhancing plant photosynthetic carbon fixation capability while improving SNF becomes crucial. Lastly, since SNF is a subterranean trait, phenotypic acquisition often requires plant destruction, making direct observation challenging in conventional breeding. Therefore, developing corresponding KASP markers based on cloned pea nitrogen fixation genes is of paramount importance (Raina et al. 2023). With the aid of molecular marker-assisted selection breeding, the task of tracking high SNF capacity lines in each generation becomes simpler, significantly accelerating the pea breeding work aimed at SNF. It is anticipated that in the near future, by augmenting the nitrogen fixation capacity of peas, there will be an improvement in both the yield and protein content of the crop. In addition, this advancement is expected to contribute to soil fertility, consequently reducing the necessity for nitrogen fertilizer applications in crops rotated with peas.
Flowering time
Legumes can be classified into two distinct clades based on their flowering-time control. Warm season crops, such as soybean and common bean, require short days to flower. Conversely, temperate, cool-season crops like pea, lentil (Lens culinaris), and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) are long-day plants (Nelson et al. 2010). The ancestral wild species of legumes, due to their varied origins, necessitated strict photoperiodic induction for flowering. However, mutations in many genes controlling photoperiod have occurred over time (Xia et al. 2012; Weller et al. 2012). Through selective breeding, these mutations have enabled present-day legume crops to adapt to varying photoperiods, allowing for cultivation across diverse latitudinal conditions (Dong et al. 2022, 2021; Li et al. 2021; Lu et al. 2020, 2017; Williams et al. 2022). Among these crops, the pea exhibits the broadest distribution, possesses the most varied phenology, and is the most thoroughly understood from a genetic standpoint. As a result, it has become the pioneering model crop for studying photoperiodism in legumes (Weller et al. 1997; Berry and Aitken 1979). In this section, we present a comprehensive overview of the functional genes related to the flowering time of peas. This insight is intended to aid breeders in enhancing the adaptability of the pea crop (Table 5, Fig. 2).
Photoperiod and flowering time
Plants utilize a range of photoreceptors to sense light, among which cryptochromes and phytochromes are notable (Möglich et al. 2010; Casal 2013). Specifically, Phytochrome A (PhyA) plays an integral role in detecting red and far-red light. In the absence of light, PhyA is dispersed in the cytoplasm. However, after a brief exposure to red or far-red light for approximately five minutes, PhyA is observed to translocate to the nucleus. During this process, a portion of Pr is converted to Pfr, commencing the transmission of light signals within the plant (Casal et al. 2014). The cloning of the pea’s PhyA gene (FUN1 locus) was significantly advanced due to the identification of a dominant, gain-of-function pea phyA-3D mutant, which exhibited amplified PhyA responses (Weller et al. 2004). A mutation in its coding region impedes the light-induced degradation of PhyA, which consequently affects the internal level of active PhyA in peas. This leads mature phyA-3D mutant plants to adopt a dwarf phenotype and exhibit early flowering, regardless of the photoperiod. The Lv locus encodes Phytochrome B (PhyB) in peas. Mutation lv results in early flowering under short-day (SD) conditions (Weller et al. 2001). In other plant species, the nuclear PhyA Pfr negatively regulates several proteins via direct interactions, including the well-studied gene, Cop1 (Lau and Deng 2012; Ang et al. 1998). While this regulatory mechanism hasn’t been delineated in peas, the COP1 gene has been successfully cloned from the Light-Independent Photomorphogenesis1 (LIP1) mutant (Sullivan and Gray 2000). Interestingly, the lip1 mutant not only has a wild-type COP1 transcript but also an enhanced COP1 transcript that features an internal in-frame duplication of 894 base pairs. However, the origin of this transcript remains unclear (Sullivan and Gray 2000).
Early genetic research, utilizing controlled SD conditions to investigate the natural variation for flowering time, identified five key loci: STERILE NODES (SN) on LGVII, DIE NEUTRALIS (DNE) on LGIII, LATE FLOWERING (LF) on LGII, HIGH RESPONSE TO PHOTOPERIOD (HR) on LGIII, and PHOTOPERIOD (PPD) as well as EARLY (E) on LGVI. With the exception of the last two loci, all have been cloned (Murfet 1971, 1973; Williams et al. 2022). The sn mutations promote early flowering, reduce the reproductive phase, and suppress basal branching under SD conditions. Employing classical genetic techniques, The Sn was positioned between markers Aldo and Pip2 on LGVII and was ultimately determined to encode an ortholog of LUX (Hazen et al. 2005; Liew et al. 2014). Through phenotypic observations comparing single, double, and triple mutants of SN, HR, and DNE, it was conclusively established that the SN locus is epistatic over the HR and DNE loci (Liew et al. 2014). The HR locus encodes a direct homolog of Early Flowering 3 (ELF3). Its mutation induces early flowering under SD conditions, playing a crucial role in the pea’s spread from low to high latitude areas (Weller et al. 2012). The DNE locus encodes the ortholog of Arabidopsis Early Flowering 4 (ELF4), which has been demonstrated to restrict flowering under non-inductive SD conditions and influence a graft-transmissible flowering signal (Liew et al. 2009). The LF locus encodes Terminal Flower 1 (TFL1) homologs and plays a role in prolonging the vegetative phase by delaying floral initiation and the vegetative-to-I1 inflorescence meristem transition (Foucher et al. 2003). In Arabidopsis thaliana, the Flowering Locus T (FT) gene occupies a pivotal position in the genetic hierarchy governing flowering, integrating signals from photoperiod, temperature, vernalization, and light quality (Corbesier et al. 2007). In peas, there are five FT homolog proteins: FTa1, FTa2, FTb1, FTb2, and FTc. Specifically, FTa1 corresponds to the historical GIGAS locus in peas, exhibiting upregulated expression in sn and dne mutants and downregulated expression in late3 and late4 mutants (Hecht et al. 2011; Hasan et al. 2020). FTb2 is crucial for inducing flowering under long-day conditions, with LATE BLOOMER 1 (LATE1) and LATE BLOOMER 2 (LATE2) likely promoting its expression (Ridge et al. 2016). Both FTa1 and FTb2 interact with VEG2 to cooperatively regulate pea flowering (Sussmilch et al. 2015).
Hecht et al. conducted a screening of an ethylmethane sulfonate-mutagenized (EMS) M2 population to identify new photoperiod response loci related to late flowering in long days (LD) (Hecht et al. 2007). Their findings revealed multiple phenotypic classes of late-flowering mutants which helped define several genetic loci, Termed LATE BLOOMER (LATE) loci. Of these, the LATE1, LATE2, LATE3, and LATE4 loci have been successfully cloned (Hecht et al. 2007; Ridge et al. 2016; Hasan et al. 2020). Specifically, the LATE1 locus encodes a GIGANTEA (GI) ortholog, and its mutants flower late under long-day conditions (Hecht et al. 2007). Through crossbreeding the late1 mutant with other early-flowering mutants, researchers found that the LATE1 and DNE loci exhibit a clear interaction. Specifically, LATE1 is epistatic to DNE concerning the overall phenotype under both SD and LD (Liew et al. 2009). Furthermore, the SN locus is epistatic to Late1 in controlling flower initiation, possibly regulating photoperiod-dependent pea flowering by affecting the transcription of Late1 (Hecht et al. 2007). The LATE2 locus encodes a Cycling Dof Factor (CDF) ortholog. Functioning downstream of light signaling, LATE2 can bind and interact with the blue-light photoreceptor FKF1, regulate the main photoperiod-regulated FT gene, FTb2 (Ridge et al. 2016). LATE BLOOMER 3 (LATE3) and LATE BLOOMER 4 (LATE4), orthologs of Cyclin Dependent Kinase 8 (CDK8) and Cyclin C1 (CYCC1) respectively, are integral components of the CDK8 kinase module within the Mediator complex, playing a pivotal role in plant cell cycle regulation. Their interaction may occur at the genetic level with the SN locus, potentially modulating the expression of FTa1 (Hasan et al. 2020).
Applications of important loci related to flowering time
The domesticated pea, recognized as one of the eight foundational crops, was among the first plants to be domesticated during the Neolithic period (Lev-Yadun et al. 2000; Zohary 1999). Genetic and cytological studies suggest its probable origin from the northern variety (var. syriacum) of the wild P. sativum ssp. humile, a quantitative LD plant. Subsequently, it expanded eastward to the Indian subcontinent and the Himalayan region, and westward to Mediterranean Europe (Williams et al. 2022). The latitudinal spread of the pea was likely driven by selection for decreased photoperiod sensitivity. This allowed for a consistent completion of its life cycle during the shorter summer growing seasons in cool-temperate regions or under the shorter photoperiods of lower latitudes. The main functional variation at the HR locus is widespread in pea germplasm worldwide, distinguishing between winter and spring growth patterns (Weller et al. 2012). Natural mutations in the SN locus, including a notable 10-bp deletion, likely underlie the distinctive early flowering observed in the renowned pea cultivar ‘Alaska’. Thomas Laxton developed this variety in the United Kingdom, and it was introduced to the United States around 1880. It gained significant popularity there because of its early maturity and adaptability to a broader range of seasons and climates for cultivation (Shoemaker and Delwiche 1934). Although numerous genes related to pea flowering time have been cloned, much remains to be discovered. Historically identified loci, such as E, PPD, and AEROMACULATA (AERO1), are yet to be cloned, offering opportunities for further exploration and application (Weller and Orgeta 2015) (Table 5).
Genetic underpinnings of pea floral development
The flower, a reproductive organ in angiosperms, develops through a complex process involving the coordinated action of numerous genes. Peas, as members of the Faboideae subfamily, are characterized by their distinctive papilionaceous flowers comprised of five petals: an upward-facing standard, two lateral wings, and two keels that form a boat-like shape (Yu et al. 2022). Flower development directly impacts a plant’s pollination and fruiting capabilities, ultimately influencing yield (Dohzono and Yokoyama 2010). In this section, we present an overview of the genes associated with pea floral organ development to aid breeders in enhancing pea yield (Table 6, Fig. 3).
Floral morphology
In Papilionoideae legumes, zygomorphic flowers are characterized by a distinct corolla with three petal types, displaying both dorsoventral (DV) and internal (IN) asymmetry. As a result, the symmetry of pea flowers has become a focal point in the study of pea floral organ development (Yu et al. 2022). The K locus and LOBED STANDARD 1 (LST1) locus encode CYC-like TCP proteins, which act as DV regulators, controlling lateral and dorsal identities, respectively. They are believed to have arisen from the duplication of an ancestral TCP gene during the speciation of papilionoid legumes (Wang et al. 2008). In contrast, the SYMMETRICAL PETAL 1 (SYP1) locus encodes an ALOG Domain Protein and functions independently to regulate the IN asymmetry of the petal (He et al. 2020). The BIGGER ORGANS (BIO) locus encodes a KIX domain protein, while the ELE1 encodes a member of the TIFY family of transcription factors. These proteins can interact with each other and regulate not only the IN asymmetry of petals but also the overall size of the organ (Li et al. 2019).
The COCH locus plays multiple roles and encodes a BOP-like protein. It not only modulates the morphology of root nodules and stipules but also alters floral morphology. While normal flowers have one standard petal, the coch mutant manifests with two standard petals and chimeric stamen-wing petals (Couzigou et al. 2012). The PROLIFERATING INFLORESCENCE MERISTEM (PIM) locus encodes an AP1-like transcription factor. Mutations in pim lead to delayed floral meristem specification and abnormalities in the first and second whorl of floral organs (Taylor et al. 2002). The Stamina Pistilloida (Stp) locus, encoding a UFO-like protein, is vital for the normal development of flowers, inflorescences, and leaves (Taylor et al. 2001). The stp mutant predominantly produces flowers with sepals and carpels.
Anthocyanidin
Among the pea genes determining flower color, the most notable is the A locus, famously utilized in Mendel’s hybridization experiments (Mendel 1865). This locus encodes a bHLH transcription factor, which is extensively distributed in natural populations and plays a pivotal role in determining whether pea flowers are colored or colorless (Hellens et al. 2010). Concurrently identified with the A locus was the A2 locus, which encodes a WD40 protein (Hellens et al. 2010). Together, they are potentially integral components of the MYB–bHLH–WD40 protein (MBW) complex in peas, responsible for regulating anthocyanin-associated gene transcription (Li 2014). The B locus encodes a flavonoid 3′,5′-hydroxylase (F3′5′H). The b mutants lack glycosylated delphinidin and petunidin, which are the predominant pigments in the purple-flowered wild-type pea, resulting in pink-colored flowers (Moreau et al. 2012).
Applications of important loci related to floral development
Many of the cloned genes related to floral development exhibit detrimental effects on plant growth and development, making them more suitable for foundational research rather than practical application (Couzigou et al. 2012; Taylor et al. 2001). However, the BIO and ELE1 loci appear to be exceptions, as mutations in these loci result in enlarged organs (Li et al. 2019). Experimental techniques such as VIGS have confirmed that silencing BIO or ELE1 leads to larger pea pods. Consequently, these loci could be vital considerations for future high-yield pea breeding. Inaddition, some uncloned loci play crucial roles in breeding. Among them, FLOWER NUMBER (Fn) and FLOWER NUMBER A (Fna) are paramount (Singer et al. 1999; Sinjushin and Liberson 2016). These loci regulate the number of flowers on a single pedicel. While typical cultivars usually bear two flowers per pedicel, plants with the Fn Fna genotype often produce three or even more flowers, undoubtedly contributing to a significant increase in pea yield (Devi et al. 2021, 2018).
While the anthocyanin content in floral organs might not have significant practical implications, as crucial switches in anthocyanin synthesis, they exert dominant effects on other traits requiring anthocyanin. For instance, the Pu and Pur loci are key determinants of pea’s purple pods (Donkin et al. 1993), and the D locus regulates anthocyanin in stipules (Hagh and Azimi 2003; Ellis and Poyser 2002). The functioning of these loci is contingent upon the intact functionality of the A locus (Hellens et al. 2010). Thus, ensuring the normal function of anthocyanin synthesis-related loci is paramount when selecting genes for breeding these traits.
Seeds and pods
The seeds and pods, as the edible parts of the pea plant, play a pivotal role in determining pea yield. Extensive research has been conducted on the development of pea seeds and pods, with particular emphasis on the nutritional quality of the seeds. This section reviews the studies related to genes associated with pea seeds and pods and provides an overview of significant loci utilized in breeding (Table 7, Fig. 4).
Genes cloned for seeds in peas
More than half of the nutritional content in pea seeds comprises carbohydrates, predominantly stored as starch, which accounts for approximately 45–50% of the pea seed’s dry weight (Bhattacharyya et al. 1990). Consequently, among all nutritional components, genes associated with starch synthesis are most abundant. Historically, the most notable gene related to starch synthesis is the Rugosus (R) locus, which was utilized by Mendel during his hybridization experiments. This gene encodes a starch branching enzyme (Bhattacharyya et al. 1990). Its mutation leads to an increase in resistant starch, resulting in the wrinkled-seeded phenotype. The Rugosus b (Rb) locus encodes ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase, a crucial enzyme in the starch synthesis pathway. Mutations at this locus reduce starch content by about 50% (Hylton and Smith 1992). Mutations in other genes within the pea starch synthesis pathway also result in anomalies in starch production. For instance, the Rugosus 3 (Rug3) gene encodes plastidial phosphoglucomutase; mutations at this locus yield peas with virtually no starch (Harrison et al. 2000). Meanwhile, the Rugosus 5 (Rug5) gene encodes starch synthase II, and its mutations alter starch granule morphology and the structure of amylopectin (Craig et al. 1998). The TRYPTOPHAN AMINOTRANSFERASE RELATED 2 (TAR2) locus encodes an aminotransferase involved in the auxin biosynthesis pathway. By regulating auxin levels, it subsequently controls both pea seed size and starch content (McAdam et al. 2017a).
In leguminous crops, such as peas, one of the primary distinctions from cereals is the protein content in the seeds. Leguminous seeds contain notably higher protein levels than cereals (Maphosa and Jideani 2017). The primary storage proteins in pea seeds are the globulins, legumin and vicilin. The biosynthesis pathway for these proteins involves more than forty genes (Robinson and Domoney 2021). The previously mentioned R and Rb loci impact the content of legumin, with mutations leading to a significant reduction in legumin levels (Casey et al. 2001). The Vc-2 locus encodes a protein associated with vicilin polypeptides (Chinoy et al. 2011), and the ABA-Insensitive 5 (ABI5) locus encodes a bZIP family transcription factor, which is a component of the abscisic acid (ABA) signaling pathway in seeds (Le Signor et al. 2017). Both play crucial roles in vicilin synthesis, and mutations result in a significant reduction of vicilin in the seed. In addition, Lipoxygenases (LOX) are prevalent seed proteins that catalyze the synthesis of hydroperoxides from fatty acids. In peas, the Lipoxygenases 2 (LOX2) locus governs this trait. Through screening of plant resources, natural lox2 mutant variants were identified, with promoter mutations leading to altered expression (Forster et al. 1999).
Antinutrients are compounds, either natural or synthetic, predominantly found in foods such as grains, beans, legumes, and nuts. These compounds hinder the absorption of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (Popova and Mihaylova 2019). Among the antinutrients present in peas are seed protease inhibitors, which can diminish the nutritional quality of pea seeds, impacting various applications in the food and feed industries (Clemente et al. 2015). The TI1, TI2, and Tri locus encode three distinct trypsin inhibitors. Mutations in these loci reduce trypsin inhibitor activity in pea seeds, thereby enhancing their nutritional quality (Clemente et al. 2015; Page et al. 2002).
The I locus, responsible for seed color among Mendel’s seven major traits, was cloned early on. It encodes a Stay-Green protein that alters seed color by directing chlorophyll into the chlorophyll degradation pathway (Armstead et al. 2007; Sato et al. 2007). Hilum color, considered one of the domestication traits, is controlled by the Pl locus. This locus encodes a Polyphenol oxidase, influencing the oxidation and polymerization of gallocatechin in the seed coat, subsequently leading to hilum pigmentation (Balarynová et al. 2022) (Table 7).
Applications of important loci related to seeds and pods
Genetic mutations affecting starch synthesis typically result in reduced starch production, leading seeds to accumulate higher sugar levels. Consequently, this elevates the fresh consumption quality of the seeds. Among genes related to starch synthesis, the R locus, especially, has been recognized as pivotal in distinguishing dry (R) from vegetable cultivars of pea (r) (Sinjushin et al. 2022). Recent studies indicate that pea varieties possessing the r allele, in contrast to those with the R allele, have a lower glycemic index. This characteristic aids in preventing postprandial glucose spikes, making it a promising direction for future health-focused breeding initiatives (Petropoulou et al. 2020). While the effects of the R locus (wrinkling of seeds) are easily observable, other loci governing seed nutrition, such as the Low-phytate (Lpa) locus for phytic acid synthesis (Shunmugam et al. 2015), the VicB locus for vicilin control (Lycett et al. 1983), and the Pea Albumin 1 (PA1) and Pea Albumin 2 (PA2) loci for albumin regulation (Eyraud et al. 2013; Vigeolas et al. 2008), have received foundational research attention but prove challenging for current breeding applications. Recently, Zhou et al. utilized the recombinant inbred line population PR-25 to identify several QTLs associated with amino acid concentration and in vitro protein digestibility in peas (Zhou et al. 2023). In contrast, traits affecting the morphology of pea seeds, which are readily visible, are more easily harnessed in breeding. The Development Funiculus (Def) locus governs the formation of the boundary between the funiculus and seed hilum (Ayeh et al. 2009). Mutants at the Def locus lack this boundary, causing the pod to burst open, and their seeds remain firmly attached to the pod, significantly reducing harvest losses. Russian pea breeders identified and exploited this trait early on, and it is noted that almost half of all contemporary Russian pea cultivars possess non-abscising (def) seeds (Zelenov 2013).
Beyond the BIO and ELE1 loci, which influence pod size, most genes associated with pod development remain uncloned. Nevertheless, many of them possess significant breeding potential and some have already been utilized in breeding programs. The N locus determines pod thickness; its mutation leads to the thicker, crunchy textured pods characteristic of the sugar snap pea type (Wehner and Gritton 1981). The P and V loci regulate the development of the sclerenchyma of the inner pod, with mutations resulting in the cultivation of the more tender snow pea (Karaca 2019). The Sin and Sin-2 loci control the formation of the pod cord, located at the pod sutures (Ma et al. 2016; McGee and Baggett 1992). By combining traits from the p, v, n, and sin-2 loci, breeders have developed snap pea varieties with pods that are edible even when fully inflated (Murfet and Reit 1993). The Dpo locus influences the dehiscence of pea pods. The Dpo allele is predominantly found in wild varieties with dehiscent pods, while the dpo allele is mainly present in modern cultivars with indehiscent pods (Weeden 2007). In terms of yield, the Te, Teu, Lt, and Laf loci govern pod width, while the Cotr and Curt loci dictate pod length. These loci are prioritized in the future improvement of edible-podded peas, such as snow peas and snap peas (Ellis et al. 2021). Klein et al. conducted a meta-analysis of quantitative trait loci (QTL) to collate and analyze all yield-related QTLs identified in recent years (Klein et al. 2020). This analysis resolved these QTLs into 27 distinct metaQTLs, several of which exhibited narrow confidence intervals under 2 centiMorgans (cM), encompassing fewer than one hundred underlying candidate genes.
Resistance genes
Like many crops, peas face a range of abiotic and biotic stresses that can impede their growth, yield, and quality. Ongoing research focuses on understanding resistance to these stresses, aiming to ensure consistent pea production despite varying environmental conditions. Breeding varieties resistant to both biotic and abiotic stressors is an effective strategy for enhancing the productivity of crops, including peas. Thus, understanding the genes related to pea stress resistance and identifying key resistance loci is crucial. This section summarizes the cloned stress-resistance genes in peas and highlights important resistance loci that are yet to be cloned, serving as a reference for future stress-resistant breeding (Table 8).
Genes cloned for resistance in peas
Pea productivity is significantly affected by a range of fungal pathogens, with powdery mildew, caused by Erysiphe species, being the most detrimental. The Er1 locus plays a pivotal role in conferring resistance to powdery mildew in peas, encoding the mildew resistance locus O (MLO) protein (Humphry et al. 2011; Fondevilla et al. 2006). The er1 allele has been identified to grant resistance by obstructing the invasion of Erysiphe pisi (E. pisi) into pea epidermal cells. In the majority of pea accessions containing the er1 allele, a vast number of E. pisi conidia germinate and develop appressoria. However, these show limited pathogen growth and lack secondary hyphae formation (Iglesias-García et al. 2015). The Sbm1 locus determines pea’s resistance to the seedborne mosaic virus. The sbm1 allele represents a non-functional variant of a crucial factor for host susceptibility to the pea seed-borne mosaic virus (PSbMV). This allele inhibits the virus’s genome expression, multiplication, and intercellular movement (Gao et al. 2004).
Applications of important loci related to resistance
Among the various diseases affecting peas, powdery mildew remains the most prevalent and detrimental. To date, only three genes conferring resistance to E. pisi have been described: er1, er2, and Er3. The Er1 locus, which has been cloned, was initially identified in the local variety ‘Huancabamba’ and is now widely utilized in pea breeding (Iglesias-García et al. 2015). Resistance governed by the Er2 and Er3 loci is primarily characterized by a post-penetration hypersensitive response that halts colony growth. While these two loci have not yet been cloned, linked DNA markers are available, enabling marker-assisted breeding (Ghafoor and McPhee 2012). Beyond powdery mildew resistance loci, numerous loci governing other resistances have been discovered. For instance, the Ruf locus controls rust resistance (Vijayalakshmi et al. 2005), Rpv locus dictates resistance to Peronospora pisi (Wingerter et al. 2021), Rap-2 locus manages Ascochyta resistance (Dirlewanger et al. 1994), Mo locus determines mosaic virus resistance (Dirlewanger et al. 1994), Lr locus governs bean leaf rool virus resistance (Swiecicki and Timmerman-Vaughan 2005), Fw-1 and Fnw locus controls Fusarium oxysporum resistance, and En loci control resistances to enation mosaic virus (Mc Phee et al. 2012). Although the genes for these loci have not been cloned, their mutant variants can be employed in hybrid breeding to cultivate more resistant varieties.
Conclusion and future perspective
Meeting the demands of a growing global population by enhancing yield is a pressing challenge in pea breeding. The surge in genomic data for peas in recent years lays a robust foundation for both fundamental research and innovative breeding strategies. Despite significant efforts devoted to pea breeding over the past years, its yield remains relatively low compared to other leguminous crops. This discrepancy may primarily arise from the focus of breeding objectives in various countries being concentrated on a limited number of traits, such as tendril formation (Af locus), dwarf stature (Le locus), and powdery mildew resistance (Er1 Locus), leading to a reduced genetic base. Herein, we discuss several potential strategies for increasing yield and enhancing breeding, as well as how functional genomics can facilitate these processes.
Utilizing wild resources to enhance resistance breeding
Wild relatives of crops are considered valuable resources for genetic improvement, enabling enhanced adaptability to adverse environmental conditions. During its domestication, pea has experienced several genetic bottlenecks, notably in recent decades of breeding, which have substantially reduced its genetic diversity. However, wild pea species hold immense potential as donors for various essential agronomic traits. Pisum fulvum possesses resistance to the pea weevil (Byrne et al. 2008), rust (Barilli et al. 2010), and powdery mildew (Fondevilla et al. 2007). Pisum elatius exhibits resistance to Orobanche crenata (Valderrama et al. 2004), nematode Heterodera goettigniana (Valderrama et al. 2004), PSbMV (Konečná et al. 2014). Therefore, exploiting wild germplasm to identify resistance genes and reintroducing these genes into cultivated pea varieties is likely the most viable approach to achieve sustainable pea production. Enhancing pea’s resistance to pests and diseases can significantly reduce chemical and labor inputs, simultaneously increasing pea yield and quality while mitigating the environmental impact of pesticides.
Precise breeding through genome editing
At the current stage, pea breeding primarily relies on traditional methods. However, these methods are characterized by lengthy breeding cycles and often excessively depend on the breeders’ experience. (Rubiales et al. 2019). Gene editing technology offers precise genome modifications without the introduction of foreign DNA, holding significant potential for crop improvement. Compared to other crops, the breeding of peas through gene editing is still in its nascent stage. This is primarily due to challenges in its genetic transformation and a scarcity of suitable gene-editing tools. Public acceptance of gene-edited foods might also be a significant factor hindering its progress. However, with recent advancements in pea genetic transformation techniques and the development of appropriate gene-editing tools for peas, breakthroughs are becoming achievable (Li et al. 2023). Bhowmik et al. utilized gene editing in peas to modify lipoxygenase enzymes, swiftly enhancing the aroma and fatty acid profiles of pea seeds from an elite Canadian variety (Bhowmik et al. 2023). This research provides pivotal direction for the future development of precise breeding through genome editing in peas.
Developing a rational farming system utilizing the nitrogen-fixing ability of peas
Intercropping is a potentially effective yet underexploited strategy that can enhance soil fertility, boost crop yields, minimize environmental damage, and increase farmers’ income (Hauggaard-Nielsen et al. 2009). The combination of nitrogen-fixing legumes with cereals offers an excellent means to improve soil conditions and reduce fertilizer usage. Maize-soybean intercropping, due to its capacity to sustain maize yields while yielding an additional soybean crop within a season, has been widely adopted worldwide, serving as a model for novel pea cultivation methods (Du et al. 2023; Raza et al. 2022). Presently, researchers have embarked on new intercropping practices involving pea-spring wheat (Mamine and Fares 2020), pea-spring maize (Yang et al. 2023), pea-barley (Hauggaard-Nielsen et al. 2001), and pea-oats (Carr et al. 1998), yielding favorable results. Nonetheless, pea intercropping faces multiple challenges, such as optimal intercropped strip allocation, selection of the best intercropping species, and the development of specialized machinery for intercropping sowing and harvesting. These issues necessitate further scientific investigation.
Incorporating leguminous crops into crop rotation systems often leads to higher seed yields in subsequent cereal crops. The increase in soil nitrogen availability observed in the pea-wheat rotation, as evidenced by the A-value, accounts for 8–9% of the seed yield improvement due to rotation effects (N benefit) (Stevenson and Kessel 1996a, b). In Southwest China, autumn-sown peas harvested in spring enhance winter land utilization, increase soil nitrogen levels, and consequently boost farmers’ incomes.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Abi-Ghanem R, Bodah E, Wood M et al (2013) Potential breeding for high nitrogen fixation in Pisum sativum L.: germplasm phenotypic characterization and genetic investigation. Am J Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.48193
Acikgoz E, Ustun A, Gul I et al (2009) Genotype x environment interaction and stability analysis for dry matter and seed yield in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Span J Agric Res 7:96–106. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2009071-402
Ait-Ali T, Swain SM, Reid JB et al (1997) The LS locus of pea encodes the gibberellin biosynthesis enzyme ent-kaurene synthase A. PlJ 11:443–454. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1997.11030443.x
Alves-Carvalho S, Aubert G, Carrere S et al (2015) Full-length de novo assembly of RNA-seq data in pea (Pisum sativum L.) provides a gene expression atlas and gives insights into root nodulation in this species. PlJ 84:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12967
Ang L-H, Chattopadhyay S, Wei N et al (1998) Molecular interaction between COP1 and HY5 defines a regulatory switch for light control of Arabidopsis development. Mol Cell 1:213–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1097-2765(00)80022-2
Armstead I, Donnison I, Aubry S et al (2007) Cross-species identification of Mendel’s I locus. Sci 315:73. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132912
Ayeh KO, Lee Y, Ambrose MJ et al (2009) Characterization and structural analysis of wild type and a non-abscission mutant at the development funiculus (Def) locus in Pisum sativum L. BMC Plant Biol 9:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-9-76
Azarakhsh M, Kirienko AN, Zhukov VA et al (2015) KNOTTED1-LIKE HOMEOBOX 3: a new regulator of symbiotic nodule development. J Exp Bot 66:7181–7195. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv414
Baig MN, Darwent AL, Harker KN et al (2003) Preharvest applications of glyphosate affect emergence and seedling growth of field pea (Pisum sativum). Weed Technol 17:655–665. https://doi.org/10.1614/Wt-02-075
Balarynová J, Klčová B, Sekaninová J et al (2022) The loss of polyphenol oxidase function is associated with hilum pigmentation and has been selected during pea domestication. New Phytol 235:1807–1821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-010-0141-z
Barilli E, Satovic Z, Rubiales D et al (2010) Mapping of quantitative trait loci controlling partial resistance against rust incited by Uromyces pisi (Pers.) Wint. in a Pisum fulvum L. intraspecific cross. Euphytica 175:151–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-010-0141-z
Bastianelli D, Grosjean F, Peyronnet C et al (1998) Feeding value of pea (Pisum sativum, L.) 1. Chemical composition of different categories of pea. Anim Sci 67:609–619. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800033051
Berbel A, Ferrandiz C, Hecht V et al (2012) VEGETATIVE1 is essential for development of the compound inflorescence in pea. Nat Commun 3:797. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1801
Berry G, Aitken Y (1979) Effect of photoperiod and temperature on flowering in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Funct Plant Biol 6:573–587. https://doi.org/10.1071/PP9790573
Bhattacharyya MK, Smith AM, Ellis TH et al (1990) The wrinkled-seed character of pea described by Mendel is caused by a transposon-like insertion in a gene encoding starch-branching enzyme. Cell 60:115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(90)90721-p
Bhowmik P, Yan W, Hodgins C et al (2023) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated lipoxygenase gene-editing in yellow pea leads to major changes in fatty acid and flavor profiles. Front Plant Sci 14:1246905. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1246905
Borisov AY, Madsen LH, Tsyganov VE et al (2003) The Sym35 gene required for root nodule development in pea is an ortholog of Nin from Lotus japonicus. Plant Physiol 131:1009–1017. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.102.016071
Bourion V, Laguerre G, Depret G et al (2007) Genetic variability in nodulation and root growth affects nitrogen fixation and accumulation in pea. Ann Bot 100:589–598. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm147
Burris RH, Roberts GP (1993) Biological nitrogen fixation. Annu Rev Nutr 13:317–335. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nu.13.070193.001533
Byrne O, Hardie D, Khan T et al (2008) Genetic analysis of pod and seed resistance to pea weevil in a Pisum sativum× P. fulvum interspecific cross. Aust J Agric Res 59:854–862. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR07353
Carr PM, Martin GB, Caton JS et al (1998) Forage and nitrogen yield of barley—Pea and oat—Pea intercrops. Agron J 90:79–84. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1998.00021962009000010015x
Casal JJ (2013) Photoreceptor signaling networks in plant responses to shade. Annu Rev Plant Biol 64:403–427. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120221
Casal JJ, Candia AN, Sellaro R (2014) Light perception and signalling by phytochrome A. J Exp Bot 65:2835–2845. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert379
Casey R, Christou P, Domoney C et al (2001) Expression of legumin and vicilin genes in pea mutants and the production of legumin in transgenic plants. Nahrung 45:385–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/1521-3803(20011001)45:6%3c385::AID-FOOD385%3e3.0.CO;2-K
Chen J, Moreau C, Liu Y et al (2012) Conserved genetic determinant of motor organ identity in Medicago truncatula and related legumes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:11723–11728. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204566109
Chinoy C, Welham T, Turner L et al (2011) The genetic control of seed quality traits: effects of allelic variation at the Tri and Vc-2 genetic loci in Pisum sativum L. Euphytica 180:107–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-011-0363-8
Clemente A, Arques MC, Dalmais M et al (2015) Eliminating anti-nutritional plant food proteins: the case of seed protease inhibitors in pea. PLoS ONE 10:e0134634. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134634
Corbesier L, Vincent C, Jang S et al (2007) FT protein movement contributes to long-distance signaling in floral induction of Arabidopsis. Sci 316:1030–1033. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1141752
Couzigou JM, Zhukov V, Mondy S et al (2012) NODULE ROOT and COCHLEATA maintain nodule development and are legume orthologs of Arabidopsis BLADE-ON-PETIOLE genes. Plant Cell 24:4498–4510. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.112.103747
Craig J, Lloyd JR, Tomlinson K et al (1998) Mutations in the gene encoding starch synthase II profoundly alter amylopectin structure in pea embryos. Plant Cell 10:413–426. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.10.3.413
Dalmais M, Schmidt J, Le Signor C et al (2008) UTILLdb, a Pisum sativum in silico forward and reverse genetics tool. Genome Biol 9:R43. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2008-9-2-r43
Davidson SE, Elliott RC, Helliwell CA et al (2003) The pea gene NA encodes ent-kaurenoic acid oxidase. Plant Physiol 131:335–344. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.012963
Davidson SE, Smith JJ, Helliwell CA et al (2004) The pea gene LH encodes ent-kaurene oxidase. Plant Physiol 134:1123–1134. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.103.032706
de Saint Germain A, Clave G, Badet-Denisot MA et al (2016) An histidine covalent receptor and butenolide complex mediates strigolactone perception. Nat Chem Biol 12:787–794. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.2147
Demason DA, Chetty V, Barkawi LS et al (2013) Unifoliata-Afila interactions in pea leaf morphogenesis. Am J Bot 100:478–495. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1200611
Devi J, Mishra GP, Sanwal SK et al (2018) Development and characterization of penta-flowering and triple-flowering genotypes in garden pea (Pisum sativum L. var. hortense). PLoS ONE 13:e0201235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201235
Devi J, Dubey RK, Mishra GP et al (2021) Inheritance and stability studies of multi–flowering trait in vegetable pea (Pisum sativum L.), and its contribution in yield improvement. Sci Horticult 287:110235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110235
Dhillon LK, Lindsay D, Yang T et al (2022) Biological nitrogen fixation potential of pea lines derived from crosses with nodulation mutants. Field Crops Res 289:108731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108731
Dirlewanger E, Isaac PG, Ranade S et al (1994) Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of loci associated with disease resistance genes and developmental traits in Pisum sativum L. Theor Appl Genet 88:17–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00222388
Dohzono I, Yokoyama J (2010) Impacts of alien bees on native plant-pollinator relationships: a review with special emphasis on plant reproduction. Appl Entomol Zool 45:37–47. https://doi.org/10.1303/aez.2010.37
Doležel J, Greilhuber J (2010) Nuclear genome size: are we getting closer? Cytometry A 77:635–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.20915
Dong L, Fang C, Cheng Q et al (2021) Genetic basis and adaptation trajectory of soybean from its temperate origin to tropics. Nat Commun 12:5445. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25800-3
Dong L, Cheng Q, Fang C et al (2022) Parallel selection of distinct Tof5 alleles drove the adaptation of cultivated and wild soybean to high latitudes. Mol Plant 15:308–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2021.10.004
Donkin ME, Price DN, Watson A (1993) Optical Properties of the pod wall of the Pea (Pisum sativum L.) II. varietal differences and species comparisons. J Plant Physiol 141:347–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(11)81746-3
Dowling A, Sadras VO, Roberts P et al (2021) Legume-oilseed intercropping in mechanised broadacre agriculture—a review. Field Crops Res 260:107980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107980
Du H, Fang C, Li Y et al (2023) Understandings and future challenges in soybean functional genomics and molecular breeding. J Integr Plant Biol 65:468–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.13433
Edwards A, Heckmann AB, Yousafzai F et al (2007) Structural implications of mutations in the pea SYM8 symbiosis gene, the DMI1 ortholog, encoding a predicted ion channel. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 20:1183–1191. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-20-10-1183
Ellis THN, Poyser SJ (2002) An integrated and comparative view of pea genetic and cytogenetic maps. New Phytol 153:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00302.x
Ellis THN, Hofer JM, Vikeli E et al (2021) Diversity of pod shape in pisum. Diversity 13:203. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13050203
Endre G, Kereszt A, Kevei Z et al (2002) A receptor kinase gene regulating symbiotic nodule development. Nature 417:962–966. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00842
Eyraud V, Karaki L, Rahioui I et al (2013) Expression and biological activity of the cystine knot bioinsecticide PA1b (Pea Albumin 1 Subunit b). PLoS ONE 8:e81619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081619
Ferguson BJ, Reid JB (2005) Cochleata: getting to the root of legume nodules. Plant Cell Physiol 46:1583–1589. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pci171
Flavell RB, Bennett MD, Smith JB et al (1974) Genome size and the proportion of repeated nucleotide sequence DNA in plants. Biochem Genet 12:257–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485947
Fondevilla S, Carver T, Moreno M et al (2006) Macroscopic and histological characterisation of genes er1 and er2 for powdery mildew resistance in pea. Eur J Plant Pathol 115:309–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-006-9015-6
Fondevilla S, Torres AM, Moreno MT et al (2007) Identification of a new gene for resistance to powdery mildew in Pisum fulvum, a wild relative of pea. Breed Sci 57:181–184. https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.57.181
Forster C, North H, Afzal N et al (1999) Molecular analysis of a null mutant for pea (Pisum sativum L.) seed lipoxygenase-2. Plant Mol Biol 39:1209–1220. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006173313548
Foucher F, Morin J, Courtiade J et al (2003) DETERMINATE and LATE FLOWERING are two TERMINAL FLOWER1/CENTRORADIALIS homologs that control two distinct phases of flowering initiation and development in pea. Plant Cell 15:2742–2754. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.015701
Gao Z, Johansen E, Eyers S et al (2004) The potyvirus recessive resistance gene, sbm1, identifies a novel role for translation initiation factor eIF4E in cell-to-cell trafficking. PlJ 40:376–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2004.02215.x
García-Martínez JL, López-Diaz I, Sánchez-Beltrán MJ et al (1997) Isolation and transcript analysis of gibberellin 20-oxidase genes in pea and bean in relation to fruit development. Plant Mol Biol 33:1073–1084. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13010049
Gawlowska M, Swiecicki W (2016) The fa2 gene and molecular markers mapping in the gp segment of the Pisum linkage group V. J Appl Genet 57:317–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13353-015-0335-0
Ghafoor A, McPhee K (2012) Marker assisted selection (MAS) for developing powdery mildew resistant pea cultivars. Euphytica 186:593–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-011-0596-6
Gomez-Roldan V, Fermas S, Brewer PB et al (2008) Strigolactone inhibition of shoot branching. Nature 455:189–194. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07271
Gourlay CW, Hofer JM, Ellis TH (2000) Pea compound leaf architecture is regulated by interactions among the genes UNIFOLIATA, cochleata, afila, and tendril-lessn. Plant Cell 12:1279–1294. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.12.8.1279
Griesmann M, Chang Y, Liu X et al (2018) Phylogenomics reveals multiple losses of nitrogen-fixing root nodule symbiosis. Sci 361:eaat1743. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat1743
Grindal G, Ernstsen A, Reid JB et al (1998) Endogenous gibberellin A1 levels control thermoperiodic stem elongation in Pisum sativum. Physiol Plant 102:523–531. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3054.1998.1020406.x
Hagh NA, Azimi M (2003) Further investigation on the orange cotyledons in Pea (Pisum sativum L.) no. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(11)80646-2.
Harrison CJ, Mould RM, Leech MJ et al (2000) The rug3 locus of pea encodes plastidial phosphoglucomutase. Plant Physiol 122:1187–1192. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.122.4.1187
Hasan A, Vander Schoor JK, Hecht V et al (2020) The CYCLIN-DEPENDENT KINASE module of the mediator complex promotes flowering and reproductive development in pea. Plant Physiol 182:1375–1386. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.19.01173
Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES (2001) Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea–barley intercropping. Field Crops Res 70:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00126-5
Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Gooding M, Ambus P et al (2009) Pea–barley intercropping for efficient symbiotic N2-fixation, soil N acquisition and use of other nutrients in European organic cropping systems. Field Crops Res 113:64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.04.009
Hazen SP, Schultz TF, Pruneda-Paz JL et al (2005) LUX ARRHYTHMO encodes a Myb domain protein essential for circadian rhythms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:10387–10392. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503029102
He L, Lei Y, Li X et al (2020) SYMMETRIC PETALS 1 encodes an ALOG domain protein that controls floral organ internal asymmetry in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Int J Mol Sci 21:4060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21114060
Hecht V, Knowles CL, Vander Schoor JK et al (2007) Pea LATE BLOOMER1 is a GIGANTEA ortholog with roles in photoperiodic flowering, deetiolation, and transcriptional regulation of circadian clock gene homologs. Plant Physiol 144:648–661. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.096818
Hecht V, Laurie RE, Vander Schoor JK et al (2011) The pea GIGAS gene is a FLOWERING LOCUS T homolog necessary for graft-transmissible specification of flowering but not for responsiveness to photoperiod. Plant Cell 23:147–161. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.110.081042
Hedden P, Phillips AL (2000) Gibberellin metabolism: new insights revealed by the genes. Trends Plant Sci 5:523–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1360-1385(00)01790-8
Hellens RP, Moreau C, Lin-Wang K et al (2010) Identification of Mendel’s white flower character. PLoS ONE 5:e13230. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013230
Hofer J, Turner L, Hellens R et al (1997) UNIFOLIATA regulates leaf and flower morphogenesis in pea. Curr Biol 7:581–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(06)00257-0
Hofer J, Turner L, Moreau C et al (2009) Tendril-less regulates tendril formation in pea leaves. Plant Cell 21:420–428. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.108.064071
Horler R, Turner A, Fretter P et al (2018) SeedStor: a germplasm information management system and public database. Pcphy 59:e5–e5. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcx195
Humann JL, Jung S, Cheng C-H et al (2019) Cool season food legume genome database: a resource for pea, lentil, faba bean and chickpea genetics, genomics and breeding. In: Plant and animal genome XXVII conference (January 12–16, 2019). PAG.
Humphry M, Reinstaedler A, Ivanov S et al (2011) Durable broad-spectrum powdery mildew resistance in pea er1 plants is conferred by natural loss-of-function mutations in PsMLO1. Mol Plant Pathol 12:866–878. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2011.00718.x
Hylton C, Smith AM (1992) The rb mutation of peas causes structural and regulatory changes in ADP glucose pyrophosphorylase from developing embryos. Plant Physiol 99:1626–1634. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.99.4.1626
Iglesias-García R, Rubiales D, Fondevilla S (2015) Penetration resistance to Erysiphe pisi in pea mediated by er1 gene is associated with protein cross-linking but not with callose apposition or hypersensitive response. Euphytica 201:381–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-014-1221-2
Ivanova KA, Tsyganova AV, Brewin NJ et al (2015) Induction of host defences by Rhizobium during ineffective nodulation of pea (Pisum sativum L.) carrying symbiotically defective mutations sym40 (PsEFD), sym33 (PsIPD3/PsCYCLOPS) and sym42. Protoplasma 252:1505–1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-015-0780-y
Johnson X, Brcich T, Dun EA et al (2006) Branching genes are conserved across species. Genes controlling a novel signal in pea are coregulated by other long-distance signals. Plant Physiol 142:1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.106.087676
Kaló P, Gleason C, Edwards A et al (2005) Nodulation signaling in legumes requires NSP2, a member of the GRAS family of transcriptional regulators. Science 308:1786–1789. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110951
Karaca DE (2019) Molecular mapping of the V locus in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Washington State University, Washington
Karkanis A, Ntatsi G, Kontopoulou C-K et al (2016) Field pea in European cropping systems: adaptability, biological nitrogen fixation and cultivation practices. Notul Botan Horti Agrobotan Cluj-Napoca 44:325–336. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha44210618
Kirienko AN, Porozov YB, Malkov NV et al (2018) Role of a receptor-like kinase K1 in pea Rhizobium symbiosis development. Planta 248:1101–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-018-2944-4
Klein A, Houtin H, Rond-Coissieux C et al (2020) Meta-analysis of QTL reveals the genetic control of yield-related traits and seed protein content in pea. Sci Rep 10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72548-9
Kondykov I, Zotikov V, Zelenov A et al (2006) Biology and breeding of determinate forms of pea, Kartush: Orel, Russia no. 1–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2009.01739.x
Konečná E, Šafářová D, Navratil M et al (2014) Geographical gradient of the eIF4E alleles conferring resistance to potyviruses in pea (Pisum) germplasm. PLoS ONE 9:e90394. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090394
Kreplak J, Madoui MA, Capal P et al (2019) A reference genome for pea provides insight into legume genome evolution. Nat Genet 51:1411–1422. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0480-1
Krusell L, Madsen LH, Sato S et al (2002) Shoot control of root development and nodulation is mediated by a receptor-like kinase. Nature 420:422–426. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01207
Krusell L, Sato N, Fukuhara I et al (2011) The Clavata2 genes of pea and Lotus japonicus affect autoregulation of nodulation. Plant J 65:861–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04474.x
Kulaeva OA, Zhernakov AI, Afonin AM et al (2017) Pea Marker Database (PMD)—a new online database combining known pea (Pisum sativum L.) gene-based markers. PLoS ONE 12:e0186713. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186713
Kuraishi S, Muir RM (1964) The mechanism of gieberellin action in the dwarf pea. Plant Cell Physiol 5:259–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a079041
Lau OS, Deng XW (2012) The photomorphogenic repressors COP1 and DET1: 20 years later. Trends Plant Sci 17:584–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.05.004
Le Signor C, Aimé D, Bordat A et al (2017) Genome-wide association studies with proteomics data reveal genes important for synthesis, transport and packaging of globulins in legume seeds. New Phytol 214:1597–1613. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14500
Leppyanen IV, Shakhnazarova VY, Shtark OY et al (2017) Receptor-like kinase LYK9 in Pisum sativum L. is the CERK1-like receptor that controls both plant immunity and AM symbiosis development. Int J Mol Sci 19:8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19010008
Lester DR, Ross JJ, Davies PJ et al (1997) Mendel’s stem length gene (Le) encodes a gibberellin 3 beta-hydroxylase. Plant Cell 9:1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.9.8.1435
Lev-Yadun S, Gopher A, Abbo S (2000) Archaeology. Cradle Agric Sci 288:1602–1603. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.288.5471.1602
Li S (2014) Transcriptional control of flavonoid biosynthesis: fine-tuning of the MYB-bHLH-WD40 (MBW) complex. Plant Signal Behav 9:e27522. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.27522
Li X, Liu W, Zhuang L et al (2019) BIGGER ORGANS and ELEPHANT EAR-LIKE LEAF1 control organ size and floral organ internal asymmetry in pea. J Exp Bot 70:179–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ery352
Li X, Fang C, Yang Y et al (2021) Overcoming the genetic compensation response of soybean florigens to improve adaptation and yield at low latitudes. Curr Biol 31:3755–3767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.037
Li G, Liu R, Xu R et al (2023) Development of an Agrobacterium-mediated CRISPR/Cas9 system in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Crop J 11:132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2022.04.011
Liang Q, Chen L, Yang X et al (2022) Natural variation of Dt2 determines branching in soybean. Nat Commun 13:6429. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34153-4
Liew LC, Hecht V, Laurie RE et al (2009) DIE NEUTRALIS and LATE BLOOMER 1 contribute to regulation of the pea circadian clock. Plant Cell 21:3198–3211. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.109.067223
Liew LC, Hecht V, Sussmilch FC et al (2014) The pea photoperiod response gene STERILE NODES is an Ortholog of LUX ARRHYTHMO. Plant Physiol 165:648–657. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.114.237008
Ligerot Y, de Saint GA, Waldie T et al (2017) The pea branching RMS2 gene encodes the PsAFB4/5 auxin receptor and is involved in an auxin-strigolactone regulation loop. PLoS Genet 13:e1007089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007089
Liu B, Watanabe S, Uchiyama T et al (2010) The soybean stem growth habit gene Dt1 is an ortholog of Arabidopsis TERMINAL FLOWER1. Plant Physiol 153:198–210. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.109.150607
Lu S, Zhao X, Hu Y et al (2017) Natural variation at the soybean J locus improves adaptation to the tropics and enhances yield. Nat Genet 49:773–779. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3819
Lu S, Dong L, Fang C et al (2020) Stepwise selection on homeologous PRR genes controlling flowering and maturity during soybean domestication. Nat Genet 52:428–436. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-0604-7
Lycett GW, Delauney AJ, Gatehouse JA et al (1983) The vicilin gene family of pea (Pisum sativum L.): a complete cDNA coding sequence for preprovicilin. Nucl Acids Res 11:2367–2380. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/11.8.2367
Ma Y, Hu J, Myers JR et al (2016) Development of SCAR markers linked to sin-2, the stringless pod trait in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Mol Breed 36:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-016-0525-4
Macas J, Novak P, Pellicer J et al (2015) In depth characterization of repetitive DNA in 23 plant genomes reveals sources of genome size variation in the legume tribe fabeae. PLoS ONE 10:e0143424. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143424
Madsen EB, Madsen LH, Radutoiu S et al (2003) A receptor kinase gene of the LysM type is involved in legumeperception of rhizobial signals. Nature 425:637–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02045
Mamine F, Farès Mh (2020) Barriers and levers to developing wheat–pea intercropping in Europe: a review. Sustainability 12:6962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176962
Maphosa Y, Jideani VA (2017) The role of legumes in human nutrition, functional food-improve health through adequate food. InTechOpen 1:13. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69127
Martin DN, Proebsting WM, Hedden P (1999) The SLENDER gene of pea encodes a gibberellin 2-oxidase[J]. Plant Physiol 121(3):775–781. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.121.3.775
Marx G (1987) A suite of mutants that modify pattern formation in pea leaves. Plant Mol Biol Rep 5:1–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02668994
Marx GA, Hagedorn DJ (1962) Fasciation in Pisum. J Hered 53:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a107113
Mc Phee KE, Inglis DA, Gundersen B et al (2012) Mapping QTL for Fusarium wilt race 2 partial resistance in pea (Pisum sativum). Plant Breed 131:300–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2011.01938.x
McAdam EL, Meitzel T, Quittenden LJ et al (2017a) Evidence that auxin is required for normal seed size and starch synthesis in pea. New Phytol 216:193–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14690
McAdam SAM, Eleouet MP, Best M et al (2017b) Linking auxin with photosynthetic rate via leaf venation. Plant Physiol 175:351–360. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.00535
McGee RJ, Baggett JR (1992) Inheritance of stringless pod in Pisum sativum L. J Am Soc Hort Sci 117:628–632. https://doi.org/10.6956/BTDAIS.199609.0013
Mendel G (1865) Versuche uber pflanzen-hybriden, Vorgelegt in den Sitzungen no. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-19714-0_4
Mishra RK, Chaudhary S, Kumar A et al (2009) Effects of MULTIFOLIATE-PINNA, AFILA, TENDRIL-LESS and UNIFOLIATA genes on leafblade architecture in Pisum sativum. Planta 230:177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-009-0931-5
Mitra RM, Gleason CA, Edwards A et al (2004) A Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase required for symbiotic nodule development: gene identification by transcript-based cloning[J]. Proc Nat Acad Sci 101(13):4701–4705. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.040059510
Möglich A, Yang X, Ayers RA et al (2010) Structure and function of plant photoreceptors. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61:21–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112259
Moreau C, Ambrose MJ, Turner L et al (2012) The B gene of pea encodes a defective flavonoid 3’,5’-hydroxylase, and confers pink flower color. Plant Physiol 159:759–768. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.197517
Moreau C, Hofer JMI, Eleouet M et al (2018) Identification of Stipules reduced, a leaf morphology gene in pea (Pisum sativum). New Phytol 220:288–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15286
Murfet I (1971) Flowering in Pisum. A three-gene system. Heredity 27:93–110. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1971.74
Murfet I (1973) Flowering in Pisum Hr, a gene for high response to photoperiod. Heredity 31:157–164. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1973.72
Murfet I, Reid J (1993) Developmental mutants, Peas: genetics, molecular biology and biotechnology. J Hered 73:165–216. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a109662
Murray MG, Peters DL, Thompson WF (1981) Ancient repeated sequences in the pea and mung bean genomes and implications for genome evolution. JMolE 17:31–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01792422
Nelson MN, Berger JD, Erskine W (2010) Flowering time control in annual legumes: prospects in a changing global climate. CABI Rev. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20105017
Nemankin N (2011) Analysis of pea (Pisum sativum L.) genetic system, controlling development of arbuscular mycorrhiza and nitrogen-fixing symbiosis. Saint-Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg
Novák K, Biedermannová E, Vondrys J (2009) Symbiotic and growth performance of supernodulating forage pea lines. Crop Sci 49:1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.06.0341
Osipova MA, Mortier V, Demchenko KN et al (2012) Wuschel-related homeobox5 gene expression and interaction of CLE peptides with components of the systemic control add two pieces to the puzzle of autoregulation of nodulation. Plant Physiol 158:1329–1341. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.188078
Ovchinnikova E, Journet EP, Chabaud M et al (2011) IPD3 controls the formation of nitrogen-fixing symbiosomes in pea and Medicago Spp. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 24:1333–1344. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-01-11-0013
Page D, Aubert G, Duc G et al (2002) Combinatorial variation in coding and promoter sequences of genes at the Tri locus in Pisum sativum accounts for variation in trypsin inhibitor activity in seeds. Mol Genet Genom 267:359–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00438-002-0667-4
Paul A, Southgate DA (1978) McCance and Widdowson’s the composition of foods. HM Stationery Office, London
Petropoulou K, Salt LJ, Edwards CH et al (2020) A natural mutation in Pisum sativum L. (pea) alters starch assembly and improves glucose homeostasis in humans. Nat Food 1:693–704. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00159-8
Ping J, Liu Y, Sun L et al (2014) Dt2 is a gain-of-function MADS-domain factor gene that specifies semideterminacy in soybean. Plant Cell 26:2831–2842. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.114.126938
Piotrowska-Długosz A, Wilczewski E (2020) Influence of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) as catch crop cultivated for green manure on soil phosphorus and P-cycling enzyme activity. Arch Agron Soil Sci 66:1570–1582. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2020.1715950
Popova A, Mihaylova D (2019) Antinutrients in plant-based foods: a review. Open Biotechnol J. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874070701913010068
Raina A, Laskar RA, Khan S et al (2023) Editorial: Legume breeding in transition: innovation and outlook. Front Genet 14:1221551. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1221551
Raza MA, Yasin HS, Gul H et al (2022) Maize/soybean strip intercropping produces higher crop yields and saves water under semi-arid conditions. Front Plant Sci 13:1006720. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1006720
Ridge S, Sussmilch FC, Hecht V et al (2016) Identification of LATE BLOOMER2 as a CYCLING DOF FACTOR homolog reveals conserved and divergent features of the flowering response to photoperiod in pea. Plant Cell 28:2545–2559. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.15.01011
Robinson GHJ, Domoney C (2021) Perspectives on the genetic improvement of health- and nutrition-related traits in pea. Plant Physiol Biochem 158:353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.11.020
Rubiales D, González-Bernal MJ, Warkentin T et al (2019) Advances in pea breeding. In: Achieving sustainable cultivation of vegetables. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing
Sagan M, Duc G (1996) Sym28 and Sym29, two new genes involved in regulation of nodulation in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Symbiosis. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu03.2021.301
Sagan M, Huguet T, Duc G (1994) Phenotypic characterization and classification of nodulation mutants of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Sci 100:59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9452(94)90134-1
Sanderson LA, Caron CT, Tan R et al (2019) KnowPulse: a web-resource focused on diversity data for pulse crop improvement. Front Plant Sci 10:965. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00965
Sato Y, Morita R, Nishimura M et al (2007) Mendel’s green cotyledon gene encodes a positive regulator of the chlorophyll-degrading pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:14169–14174. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705521104
Sato S, Nakamura Y, Kaneko T et al (2008) Genome structure of the legume, Lotus japonicus. DNA Res 15:227–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/dsn008
Schauser L, Roussis A, Stiller J et al (1999) A plant regulator controlling development of symbiotic root nodules. Nature 402:191–195. https://doi.org/10.1038/46058
Schmutz J, Cannon SB, Schlueter J et al (2010) Genome sequence of the palaeopolyploid soybean. Nature 463:178–183. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08670
Schnabel EL, Kassaw TK, Smith LS et al (2011) The ROOT DETERMINED NODULATION1 gene regulates nodule number in roots of Medicago truncatula and defines a highly conserved, uncharacterized plant gene family. Plant Physiol 157:328–340. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.178756
Searle IR, Men AE, Laniya TS et al (2003) Long-distance signaling in nodulation directed by a CLAVATA1-like receptor kinase. Science 299:109–112. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1077937
Shirasawa K, Sasaki K, Hirakawa H et al (2021) Genomic region associated with pod color variation in pea (Pisum sativum). G3 (bethesda) 11:jkab081. https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkab081
Shoemaker DN, Delwiche EJ (1934) Descriptions of types of principal American varieties of garden peas (USDA)
Shtark OY, Borisov AY, Zhukov VA et al (2012) Mutually beneficial legume symbioses with soil microbes and their potential for plant production. Symbiosis 58:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13199-013-0226-2
Shtark OY, Sulima AS, Zhernakov AI et al (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhiza development in pea (Pisum sativum L.) mutants impaired in five early nodulation genes including putative orthologs of NSP1 and NSP2. Symbiosis 68:129–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13199-016-0382-2
Shunmugam A, Liu X, Stonehouse R et al (2015) Mapping seed phytic acid concentration and iron bioavailability in a pea recombinant inbred line population. Crop Sci 55:828–836. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2014.08.0544
Sidorova K (2011) Use of supernodulating mutants in pea breeding. Pisum Genet 43:17–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-018-0862-6
Sidorova K, Uzhintseva L (1995) Mapping of nod-4, a new hypernodulating mutant in pea. Pisum Genet 27:21. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcz040
Singer S, Sollinger J, Maki S et al (1999) Inflorescence architecture: a developmental genetics approach. Bot Rev 65:385–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02857756
Singh S, Singh B, Sharma VR et al (2019) Character association and path analysis in diverse genotypes of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 8:706–713. https://doi.org/10.2054/ijcmas.2019.802.082
Sinjushin A (2013) Mutation genetics of pea (Pisum sativum L.): what is done and what is left to do. Ratarstvo i Povrtarstvo 50:36–43. https://doi.org/10.5937/ratpov50-4191
Sinjushin A, Liberzon A (2016) Contribution to genetic control of flower number in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Ratarstvo i Povrtarstvo 53:116–119. https://doi.org/10.5937/ratpov50-4191
Sinjushin A, Volovikov E, Ash O et al (2016) Mutation determinate habit has a semidominant mode of inheritance in pea. Zernobobovye i Krupyanye Kul′ Tury 4:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.21.531.355
Sinjushin A, Semenova E, Vishnyakova M (2022) Usage of morphological mutations for improvement of a garden pea (Pisum sativum): the experience of breeding in Russia. Agronomy 12:544. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030544
Smýkal P, Aubert G, Burstin J et al (2012) Pea (Pisum sativum L.) in the genomic era. Agronomy 2:74–115. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy2020074
Solanki R, Gill R, Verma P et al (2011) Mutation breeding in pulses: an overview, Breeding of pulse crops. Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118229415.ch1
Sorefan K, Booker J, Haurogné K et al (2003) MAX4 and RMS1 are orthologous dioxygenase-like genes that regulate shoot branching in Arabidopsis and pea. Genes Dev 17:1469–1474. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.256603
Stevenson F, van Kessel C (1996) The nitrogen and non-nitrogen rotation benefits of pea to succeeding crops. Can J Plant Sci 76:735–745. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps96-126
Stevenson F, Van Kessel C (1996) A landscape-scale assessment of the nitrogen and non-nitrogen rotation benefits of pea. SSSAJ 60:1797–1805. https://doi.org/10.2134/1996.precisionagproc3.c6
Stracke S, Kistner C, Yoshida S et al (2002) A plant receptor-like kinase required for both bacterial and fungal symbiosis. Nature 417:959–962. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00841
Sudheesh S, Sawbridge TI, Cogan NO et al (2015) De novo assembly and characterisation of the field pea transcriptome using RNA-Seq. BMC Genom 16:611. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1815-7
Sulima AS, Zhukov VA, Afonin AA et al (2017) Selection signatures in the first exon of paralogous receptor kinase genes from the Sym2 region of the Pisum sativum L. Genome Front Plant Sci 8:1957. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01957
Sullivan JA, Gray JC (2000) The pea light-independent photomorphogenesis1 mutant results from partial duplication of COP1 generating an internal promoter and producing two distinct transcripts. Plant Cell 12:1927–1938. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.12.10.1927
Sussmilch FC, Berbel A, Hecht V et al (2015) Pea VEGETATIVE2 is an FD homolog that is essential for flowering and compound inflorescence development. Plant Cell 27:1046–1060. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.115.136150
Święcicki W, Gawłowska M (2004) Linkages for a new fasciata gene. Pisum Genet 36:23–24. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.1.1
Swiecicki W, Timmerman-Vaughan G (2005) Localization of important traits: the example pea (Pisum sativum L.). In: Molecular marker systems in plant breeding and crop improvement. Springer, Berlin
Tar’an B, Warkentin T, Somers DJ et al (2003) Quantitative trait loci for lodging resistance, plant height and partial resistance to mycosphaerella blight in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Theor Appl Genet 107:1482–1491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-003-1379-9
Tattersall AD, Turner L, Knox MR et al (2005) The mutant crispa reveals multiple roles for PHANTASTICA in pea compound leaf development. Plant Cell 17:1046–1060. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.104.029447
Tayeh N, Hofer J, Aubert G et al (2023) afila, the origin and nature of a major innovation in the history of pea breeding. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1038/103164a0
Taylor S, Hofer J, Murfet I (2001) Stamina pistilloida, the pea ortholog of Fim and UFO, is required for normal development of flowers, inflorescences, and leaves. Plant Cell 13:31–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/3871151
Taylor SA, Hofer JM, Murfet IC et al (2002) PROLIFERATING INFLORESCENCE MERISTEM, a MADS-box gene that regulates floral meristem identity in pea. Plant Physiol 129:1150–1159. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.001677
Tian Z, Wang X, Lee R et al (2010) Artificial selection for determinate growth habit in soybean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:8563–8568. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000088107
Tran CT, Becker HC, Horneburg B (2022) Agronomic performance of normal-leafed and semi-leafless pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. Crop Sci 62:1430–1442. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20746
Tsyganov VE, Tsyganova AV (2020) Symbiotic regulatory genes controlling nodule development in Pisum sativum L. Plants (basel) 9:1741. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9121741
Tsyganov V, Voroshilova V, Rozov S et al (2013) A new series of pea symbiotic mutants induced in the line SGE. Russ J Genet Appl Res 3:156–162. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079059713020093
Tsyganova AV, Ivanova KA, Tsyganov VE (2019) Histological and ultrastructural nodule organization of the pea (Pisum sativum) mutant SGEFix–-5 in the Sym33 gene encoding the transcription factor PsCYCLOPS/PsIPD3. Ecol Genet 17:65–70. https://doi.org/10.17816/ecogen17165-70
Valderrama M, Román B, Satovic Z et al (2004) Locating quantitative trait loci associated with Orobanche crenata resistance in pea. Weed Res 44:323–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2004.00406.x
Vigeolas H, Chinoy C, Zuther E et al (2008) Combined metabolomic and genetic approaches reveal a link between the polyamine pathway and albumin 2 in developing pea seeds. Plant Physiol 146:74–82. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.111369
Vijayalakshmi S, Yadav K, Kushwaha C et al (2005) Identification of RAPD markers linked to the rust (Uromyces fabae) resistance gene in pea (Pisum sativum). Euphytica 144:265–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-005-6823-2
Voisin AS, Bourion V, Duc G et al (2007) Using an ecophysiological analysis to dissect genetic variability and to propose an ideotype for nitrogen nutrition in pea. Ann Bot 100:1525–1536. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm241
Wang Z, Luo Y, Li X et al (2008) Genetic control of floral zygomorphy in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:10414–10419. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803291105
Weeden NF (2007) Genetic changes accompanying the domestication of Pisum sativum: is there a common genetic basis to the ‘domestication syndrome’for legumes? Ann Bot 100:1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm122
Weeden NF (2018) Domestication of Pea (Pisum sativum L.): the case of the Abyssinian Pea. Front Plant Sci 9:515. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00515
Wehner T, Gritton E (1981) Effect of the n gene on pea pod characteristics. J Am Soc Hort Sci 106:181–183. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.106.2.181
Weller JL, Ortega R (2015) Genetic control of flowering time in legumes. Front Plant Sci 6:207. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00207
Weller JL, Reid JB, Taylor SA et al (1997) The genetic control of flowering in pea. Trends Plant Sci 2:412–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(97)85580-X
Weller JL, Beauchamp N, Kerckhoffs LHJ et al (2001) Interaction of phytochromes A and B in the control of de-etiolation and flowering in pea. PlJ 26:283–294. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01027.x
Weller JL, Batge SL, Smith JJ et al (2004) A dominant mutation in the pea PHYA gene confers enhanced responses to light and impairs the light-dependent degradation of phytochrome A. Plant Physiol 135:2186–2195. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.103.036103
Weller JL, Liew LC, Hecht VF et al (2012) A conserved molecular basis for photoperiod adaptation in two temperate legumes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:21158–21163. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207943110
Weston DE, Elliott RC, Lester DR et al (2008) The Pea DELLA proteins LA and CRY are important regulators of gibberellin synthesis and root growth. Plant Physiol 147:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.115808
Williams O, Vander Schoor JK, Butler JB et al (2022) The genetic architecture of flowering time changes in pea from wild to crop. J Exp Bot 73:3978–3990. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erac132
Wingerter C, Eisenmann B, Weber P et al (2021) Grapevine Rpv3-, Rpv10-and Rpv12-mediated defense responses against Plasmopara viticola and the impact of their deployment on fungicide use in viticulture. BMC Plant Biol 21:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-021-03228-7
Wysokinski A, Lozak I (2021) The dynamic of nitrogen uptake from different sources by pea (Pisum sativum L.). Agriculture 11:81. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11010081
Xia Z, Watanabe S, Yamada T et al (2012) Positional cloning and characterization reveal the molecular basis for soybean maturity locus E1 that regulates photoperiodic flowering. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:E2155–E2164. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117982109
Yang T, Liu R, Luo Y et al (2022a) Improved pea reference genome and pan-genome highlight genomic features and evolutionary characteristics. Nat Genet 54:1553–1563. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-022-01172-2
Yang X, Gou Z, Zhu Z et al (2022b) Breeding and evaluation of a new-bred semi-leafless pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivar Longwan No. 6. Agronomy 12:850. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040850
Yang L, Luo Y, Lu B et al (2023) Long-term maize and pea intercropping improved subsoil carbon storage while reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 349:108444. https://doi.org/10.5772/62281
Young ND, Debellé F, Oldroyd GE et al (2011) The Medicago genome provides insight into the evolution of rhizobial symbioses. Nature 480:520–524. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10625
Yu Q, Ge L, Ahmad S et al (2022) A perspective on the molecular mechanism in the control of organ internal (IN) asymmetry during petal development. Hortic Res 9:uhac202. https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhac202
Zadorin A, Uvarov V, Zelenov A et al (2014) Promising morphotypes of peas. Agriculture 4:24–25. https://doi.org/10.31367/2079-8725-2020-70-4-36-39
Zelenov A (2013) Nonshattering attribute of peas seeds. Zernobobovye i Krupyanye Kul′ Tury 2:79–85. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.95171
Zelenov A, Kondykov I, Uvarov V (2012) Vavilov principles in pea breeding in the XXI century. Zernobobovye i Krupyanye Kul’ Tury 4:19–27. https://doi.org/10.18699/VJ21.050
Zelenov A, Zotikov V, Naumkina T et al (2013) Biologicheskii potentsial i perspektivy selektsii rassechennolistochkovogo morfotipa gorokha [Biological potential and prospects of selection of dissected leaf morphotype of peas]. Zernobobovye i Krupyanye Kul’tury. https://doi.org/10.21661/r-467219
Zhou J, Wan Z, Gali KK et al (2023) Quantitative trait loci associated with amino acid concentration and in vitro protein digestibility in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Front Plant Sci 14:1083086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1083086
Zhuang LL, Ambrose M, Rameau C et al (2012) LATHYROIDES, encoding a WUSCHEL-related Homeobox1 transcription factor, controls organ lateral growth, and regulates tendril and dorsal petal identities in garden pea (Pisum sativum L.). Mol Plant 5:1333–1345. https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/sss067
Zhukov V, Radutoiu S, Madsen LH et al (2008) The pea Sym37 receptor kinase gene controls infection-thread initiation and nodule development. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 21:1600–1608. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-21-12-1600
Zohary D (1999) Monophyletic vs. polyphyletic origin of the crops on which agriculture was founded in the Near East. Genet Resour Crop Evol 46:133–142. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813487.543
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32022006), Guangdong “ZhuJiang” Innovation Teams (2019ZT08N628), the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program (ASTIP) (CAAS-XTCX2016001) and the special funds for science technology innovation and industrial development of Shenzhen Dapeng New District (PT202101-01).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SC conceptualized the project. BC wrote the first manuscript. YS prepared the figure. YS, LL, LW and ZL revised the manuscript, which all authors edited and approved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, B., Shi, Y., Sun, Y. et al. Innovations in functional genomics and molecular breeding of pea: exploring advances and opportunities. aBIOTECH 5, 71–93 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42994-023-00129-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42994-023-00129-1