山桃杂交群体抗蚜优系的背景选择与标记优劣比较

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.15.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】筛选‘橡皮油桃'（果实大、感蚜）×‘帚形山桃'（果实小、抗蚜）F₂代杂交群体中，‘橡皮油桃'遗传背景回复率高且表现抗蚜的优系，探讨桃背景选择技术体系的建立方法。【方法】首先，利用3种方法选择背景标记，分别为前期研究得到的高多态性SNP（Pre-work SNP）、全基因组范围内随机挑选的SNP（Random SNP）、以及对SNP进行功能注释后，选择突变位点影响起始密码子与终止密码子的功能性SNP（Functional SNP），3种方法最终筛选的SNP个数统一设定为775个。然后，利用这775个SNP分别计算3种不同背景标记在F₂代杂交群体中121个单株的双亲回复率。通过比较3种背景标记中‘橡皮油桃'背景回复率较高的前10个单株在两两之间的重复情况，比较不同背景标记的重复性。在完成F₂群体单株的抗蚜性、单果重与可溶性固形物含量评价后，分别选择单果重与可溶性固形物含量2种性状的极端表型单株各10株，通过比较两类表型单株‘橡皮油桃'回复率的差异显著性，衡量不同选择方法的优劣。最后，以抗蚜定位区间内的SNP为抗蚜前景标记，筛选F₂群体内‘橡皮油桃'遗传背景回复率高且表现抗蚜的优系。【结果】 Pre-work SNP、Random SNP、Functional SNP 3种背景标记的F₂代单株‘橡皮油桃'背景回复率分别在36.34%—71.99%、31.75%—74.92%、4.51%—66.53%。3种背景标记筛选的‘橡皮油桃'回复率较高的前10株中，Pre-work SNP与Random SNP和Functional SNP的重复单株分别均有2个，Random SNP与Functional SNP的重复单株有6个，即Random SNP和Functional SNP两种选择方法的重复率更高。Pre-work SNP、Random SNP、Functional SNP 3种背景标记在以单果重为选择目标时，极端表型单株间‘橡皮油桃'背景回复率显著性分别为0.069、0.26和0.092，即Pre-work SNP筛选的后代‘橡皮油桃'背景回复率与单果重表型相关性最高，Functional SNP次之，Random SNP差异不显著。在以可溶性固形物含量为选择目标时，极端表型单株间‘橡皮油桃'背景回复率显著性分别为0.77、0.65和0.31，3种背景标记差异均不显著。基于Pre-work SNP和Functional SNP的计算结果，本研究筛选出2个‘橡皮油桃'回复率高的单株，分别为N20和N36，其中N20携带抗蚜标记，单株表现抗蚜，平均单果重为34.42 g，可溶性固形物含量为16.1%，为山桃F₂群体的优异单株。【结论】在本研究群体内，Pre-work SNP相较于Functional SNP与Random SNP，在单果重这一表型上与‘橡皮油桃'回复率的相关性较强，印证该背景标记选择方式的优异性，以这种背景标记挑选出的单株N20在目标性状的优异表现也支持这一结果。本研究提供一种背景选择的思路以及判断不同背景标记在研究群体内优劣性的方法，可为有效提高抗性育种效率提供参考。

关键词: 桃, 抗蚜性, SNP, 前景选择, 背景选择

Abstract:

【Objective】 To establish a background selection system in peach, the seedlings contained aphid-resistance locus and high female parent recovery rate were screened from an F₂ population crossed by Xiang Pi You Tao peach (big fruit and susceptible to aphid) and Zhou Xing Shan Tao peach (small fruit and resistant to aphid). 【Method】 Firstly, three methods were used to select background markers, including the high polymorphic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) obtained from the previous study (Pre-work SNP), SNP randomly selected in the whole genome (Random SNP), and functional SNP affecting the start and stop codon (Functional SNP). The number of final SNP selected by the above methods were 775. Then, using these SNPs, the parents recovery rate for all 121 individuals of the F₂ population were calculated, respectively. The repeatability of the selection methods was evaluated by comparing whether the top 10 seedlings with different selection markers were coincident or not. After completing the evaluation of aphid resistance, single fruit weight, and soluble solids content of F₂ population, 10 seedlings with extreme phenotypes for the single fruit weight and soluble solids content were selected, respectively. And the superiority and inferiority of different selection methods were estimated by comparing the significance of the differences in Xiang Pi You Tao recovery rates between the two types of phenotypes. Finally, the SNPs in the aphid-resistant location area were used as the foreground markers to screen the elite seedlings with high maternal genetic background and aphid resistance. 【Result】 The background recovery rates of the F₂ seedlings which calculated by the three methods were 36.34%-71.99%, 31.75%-74.92%, and 4.51%-66.53%, respectively. Among the top 10 seedlings with high Xiang Pi You Tao recovery rates screened by the three background markers, Pre-work SNP and Random SNP had two duplicate single plants, and so do Pre-work SNP and Functional SNP, and there were 6 repetitive single plants in Random SNP and Functional SNP. This result indicated that the repeatability between the Random SNP and Functional SNP was the highest among all comparisons. When single fruit weight was selected as the breeding target, among the extreme phenotypic monocots, the three background markers, such as Pre-work SNP, Random SNP, and Functional SNP, had a significant Xiang Pi You Tao background recovery rate of 0.069, 0.26, and 0.092, respectively, which meant high relativity was found between the background recovery rate calculated by Pre-work SNP and their fruit weight, followed by Functional SNP, and Random SNP difference was not significant. When soluble solids content was selected as the target, the Xiang Pi You Tao background recovery rates among extreme phenotypic monocots were significant at 0.77, 0.65 and 0.31, respectively, and the differences among the three background markers were not significant. Finally, two individuals with high recovery rate of Xiang Pi You Tao peach were screened, including N20 and N36. Among them, N20 comprised the aphid-resistant markers, and this individual showed aphid resistance with an average fruit weight of 34.42 g and soluble solids content of 16.1%, which was considered to be the superior single strain of this population. 【Conclusion】 In this study population, Pre-work SNP showed a stronger correlation between single fruit weight and Xiang Pi You Tao background recovery rates than Functional SNP and Random SNP, confirming the superiority of this background marker selection method, and the superior performance of N20 plants, which selected with this background marker in the target traits also supported this result. This study provided an idea of background selection and a method to judge the superiority and inferiority of different background markers in the study population, which could effectively improve the efficiency of resistance breeding in fruit crops.

Key words: peach, aphid-resistant, SNP, foreground selection, background selection

刘苏宁, 别航灵, 王君秀, 陈雪嘉, 王新卫, 王力荣, 曹珂. 山桃杂交群体抗蚜优系的背景选择与标记优劣比较[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(15): 2995-3005.

LIU SuNing, BIE HangLing, WANG JunXiu, CHEN XueJia, WANG XinWei, WANG LiRong, CAO Ke. Background Selection and Comparison of Marker Superiority and Inferiority of Aphid-Resistant Seedlings in an Interspecific Cross Peach Population[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(15): 2995-3005.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.15.013

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2023/V56/I15/2995

图/表 6

图1

表1

F2单株在8条染色体上对双亲的回复率"

背景标记类型 Background marker type	染色体 Chr	橡皮油桃 Xiang Pi You Tao				帚形山桃 Zhou Xing Shan Tao
背景标记类型 Background marker type	染色体 Chr	平均回复率 Average response rate (%)	变异系数 CV (%)	变异幅度 Variation amplitude (%)	超中亲率 HM (%)	平均回复率 Average response rate (%)	变异系数 CV (%)	变异幅度 Variation amplitude (%)	超中亲率 HM (%)
多态性SNP Pre-work SNP	1	57.19	24.84	15.49-78.87	81.82	34.34	36.40	14.08-71.83	14.88
	2	63.66	27.50	3.39-83.05	79.34	28.79	60.34	10.17-86.44	15.70
	3	50.41	42.20	3.45-79.31	71.90	39.18	53.71	15.52-91.38	34.71
	4	55.15	45.24	2.08-81.25	67.77	38.41	70.36	14.58-97.92	29.75
	5	62.24	33.83	2.63-89.47	78.51	26.56	86.93	0.00-84.21	22.31
	6	72.41	13.46	36.99-87.67	94.21	21.69	47.83	6.85-61.64	4.96
	7	38.87	40.02	2.94-67.65	38.84	53.72	34.37	20.59-94.12	59.50
	8	45.05	34.07	3.03-63.64	66.12	45.60	35.94	27.27-87.88	37.19
随机SNP Random SNP	1	49.50	34.93	17.01-87.76	70.25	21.11	47.53	7.48-60.54	9.92
	2	52.12	34.71	21.18-88.24	81.82	19.42	61.99	3.53-62.35	12.40
	3	41.69	47.67	12.50-82.95	55.37	27.17	69.89	5.68-71.59	28.10
	4	38.66	50.94	6.85-80.82	47.93	31.50	58.93	4.11-76.71	31.40
	5	40.93	63.28	7.27-98.18	56.20	23.73	93.49	0.00-78.18	25.62
	6	60.06	41.10	17.89-95.79	78.51	13.47	78.92	1.05-52.6	4.96
	7	27.63	46.68	8.70-92.75	60.33	40.03	62.40	2.90-71.01	28.93
	8	32.21	43.62	19.18-89.04	58.68	29.91	63.16	2.74-63.01	23.97
功能SNP Functional SNP	1	44.63	52.50	2.61-96.08	67.77	21.95	57.48	1.96-54.90	21.49
	2	38.20	58.04	3.57-85.71	52.07	29.47	53.94	1.79-77.68	35.54
	3	37.26	72.27	0.00-96.00	46.28	32.01	63.16	1.11-77.00	38.02
	4	35.26	76.38	1.04-93.75	42.98	35.12	56.58	2.08-75.00	46.28
	5	31.51	92.74	0.00-97.44	39.67	29.40	71.29	0.00-76.92	36.36
	6	40.31	37.85	0.00-77.78	58.68	28.37	47.14	11.11-77.78	16.53
	7	34.14	72.87	2.30-89.66	44.63	31.45	62.23	2.30-79.31	38.84
	8	39.58	62.46	3.41-90.91	57.85	29.09	67.21	2.27-79.55	39.67

表1

图2

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 33

[1]	潘磊, 牛良, 鲁振华, 曾文芳, 崔国朝, 王志强. 桃树蚜虫的危害及其药剂防控. 果农之友, 2021(3): 37.
	PAN L, NIU L, LU Z H, ZENG W F, CUI G C, WANG Z Q. Harm of peach aphid and its chemical control. Fruit Growers' Friend, 2021(3): 37. (in Chinese)
[2]	柳强, 刘翠美, 王春燕. 果树农药污染的危害与解决措施. 农业工程技术, 2019, 39(20): 36.
	LIU Q, LIU C M, WANG C Y. Harm of pesticide pollution in fruit trees and its solutions. Applied Engineering Technology, 2019, 39(20): 36. (in Chinese)
[3]	EL-GENDY I, EL-BANOBI M I, VILLANUEVA-JIMÉNEZ J A. Bio-pesticides alternative diazinon to control peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control, 2021, 31: 1-8. doi: 10.1186/s41938-020-00345-7
[4]	CRISAN L, BOROTA A, SUZUKI T, FUNAR-TIMOFEI S. An approach to identify new insecticides against Myzus persicae. in silico study based on linear and non-linear regression techniques. Molecular Informatics, 2019, 38(8/9): 1800119. doi: 10.1002/minf.v38.8-9
[5]	牛良. 寿星桃抗蚜性鉴定及分子机制解析[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2019.
	NIU L. Identification and molecular mechanism analysis of aphid resistance of Shouxing peach[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2019. (in Chinese)
[6]	周洪昌. 玉米丝黑穗病分子标记辅助选择育种研究[D]. 长春: 吉林农业大学, 2011.
	ZHOU H C. Study on molecular marker-assisted selection breeding of maize head smut[D]. Changchun: Jilin Agricultural University, 2011. (in Chinese)
[7]	冯艳霞. 果树育种中的新技术应用. 河北农业, 2022(7): 49-50.
	FENG Y X. Application of new techniques in fruit tree breeding. Hebei Agriculture, 2022(7): 49-50. (in Chinese)
[8]	邓世峰, 王先如, 张安存, 陈次娥, 吴明. 分子标记辅助选择在我国水稻抗病育种中的研究进展. 江西农业, 2019(22): 40, 46.
	DENG S F, WANG X R, ZHANG A C, CHEN C E, WU M. Research progress of molecular marker-assisted selection in rice disease resistance breeding in China. Jiangxi Nongye, 2019(22): 40, 46. (in Chinese)
[9]	杨大兵. 全基因背景分子选择改良水稻光温敏核不育系丰39S的病虫抗性[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2021.
	YANG D B. Improvement of disease and pest resistance of photo- thermo sensitive genic male sterile line Feng 39S by whole gene background molecular selection[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2021. (in Chinese)
[10]	RAI A, MAHENDRU-SINGH A, RAGHUNANDAN K, KUMAR T P J, SHARMA P, AHLAWAT A K, SINGH S K, GANJEWALA D, SHUKLA R B, SIVASAMY M. Marker-assisted transfer of PinaD1a gene to develop soft grain wheat cultivars. 3 Biotech, 2019, 9(5): 183-190. doi: 10.1007/s13205-019-1717-5
[11]	赵雅楠. 无核抗寒葡萄胚挽救育种与分子标记辅助选择应用[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2018.
	ZHAO Y N. Embryo rescue breeding and molecular marker-assisted selection of seedless and cold-resistant grapes[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2018. (in Chinese)
[12]	GUAN L P, XU Q, CAO K, LI Y, ZHU G R, FANG W C, WANG X W, CHEN C W, GUO J, WANG Q, ZHAO Y L, WANG L R. Development of a 775 SNP array for peach based on whole-genome resequencing data, and assessment of the potential of its application. Scientia Horticulturae, 2021, 276: 109760. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109760
[13]	王力荣, 王君秀, 李勇, 王新卫, 朱更瑞, 曹珂. 一组用于鉴定山桃杂交群体抗/感桃蚜性状的InDel标记及其应用. CN113186339A, 2021.
	WANG L R, WANG J X, LI Y, WANG X W, ZHU G R, CAO K. A set of InDel markers for identification of peach aphid resistance/ susceptibility traits in a peach hybrid population and their applications, CN113186339A, 2021. (in Chinese)
[14]	王力荣, 朱更瑞, 方伟超, 左覃元, 韩立新. 桃种质资源对桃蚜的抗性评价. 果树学报, 2001, 18(3): 145-147.
	WANG L R, ZHU G R, FANG W C, ZUO Q Y, HAN L X. Study on the resistance to peach aphid (Myzus persicae Sulzer) of peach germplasm. Journal of Fruit Science, 2001, 18(3): 145-147. (in Chinese)
[15]	王力荣, 朱更瑞. 桃种质资源描述规范和数据标准. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005.
	WANG L R, ZHU G R. Descriptors and Data Standard for Peach (Prunus persica L.). Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2005. (in Chinese)
[16]	LI H, DURBIN R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics, 2009, 25(14): 1754-1760. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 pmid: 19451168
[17]	陈凤珍, 李玲, 操利超, 严志祥. 四种常用的生物序列比对软件比较. 生物信息学, 2016, 14(1): 56-60.
	CHEN F Z, LI L, CAO L C, YAN Z X. Comparison of four common biological sequence alignment tools. Chinese Journal of Bioinformatics, 2016, 14(1): 56-60. (in Chinese)
[18]	VERDE I, JENKINS J, DONDINI L, MICALI S, PAGLIARANI G, VENDRAMIN E, PARIS R, ARAMINI V, GAZZA L, ROSSINI L, BASSI D, TROGGIO M, SHU S Q, GRIMWOOD J, TARTARINI S, DETTORI M T, SCHMUTZ J. The Peach v2.0 release: High- resolution linkage mapping and deep resequencing improve chromosome- scale assembly and contiguity. BMC Genomics, 2017, 18: 225. doi: 10.1186/s12864-017-3606-9
[19]	LI H. A statistical framework for SNP calling, mutation discovery, association mapping and population genetical parameter estimation from sequencing data. Bioinformatics, 2011, 27(21): 2987-2993. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr509 pmid: 21903627
[20]	MCKENNA A, HANNA M, BANKS E, SIVACHENKO A, CIBULSKIS K, KERNYTSKY A, GARIMELLA K, ALTSHULER D, GABRIEL S, DALY M, DEPRISTO M A. The genome analysis toolkit: A MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Research, 2010, 20(9): 1297-1303. doi: 10.1101/gr.107524.110 pmid: 20644199
[21]	WANG K, LI M Y, HAKONARSON H. ANNOVAR: Functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Research, 2010, 38(16): e164. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq603
[22]	DANECEK P, AUTON A, ABECASIS G, ALBERS C A, BANKS E, DEPRISTO M A, HANDSAKER B, LUNTER G, MARTH G, SHERRY S, MCVEAN G, DURBIN R. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics, 2011, 27(15): 2156-2158. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr330 pmid: 21653522
[23]	王力荣, 朱更瑞, 方伟超. 中国桃遗传资源. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2012.
	WANG L R, ZHU G R, FANG W C. Peach Genetic Resource in China. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2012. (in Chinese)
[24]	曾梅, 韩立新, 高九思. 桃品种(系)抗桃蚜研究初报//华中三省(河南、湖北、湖南)昆虫学会2006年学术年会论文集, 2006: 116-118.
	ZENG M, HAN L X, GAO J S. Preliminary report on peach aphid resistance in peach varieties (lines)//2006 Annual Academic Conference of the Entomological Society of Three Provinces in Central China, 2006: 116-118. (in Chinese)
[25]	张南南, 鲁振华, 崔国朝, 潘磊, 曾文芳, 牛良, 王志强. 基于SNP标记桃抗蚜性状的基因定位. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(23): 4613-4621. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.23.014. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.23.014
	ZHANG N N, LU Z H, CUI G C, PAN L, ZENG W F, NIU L, WANG Z Q. Gene mapping of aphid-resistant for peach using SNP markers. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(23): 4613-4621. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.23.014. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.23.014
[26]	瞿贵军, 林毅. 桃蚜关键抗性基因挖掘及抗蚜Cry蛋白预测. 华侨大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 44(1): 94-103.
	QU G J, LIN Y. Discovery of key resistance genes of Myzus persicae and prediction of anti-aphid cry proteins. Journal of Huaqiao University (Natural Science), 2023, 44(1): 94-103. (in Chinese)
[27]	HASAN M M, RAFII M Y, ISMAIL M R, MAHMOOD M, RAHIM H A, ALAM M A, ASHKANI S, MALEK M A, LATIF M A. Marker-assisted backcrossing: A useful method for rice improvement. Biotechnology, Biotechnological Equipment, 2015, 29(2): 237-254. doi: 10.1080/13102818.2014.995920
[28]	WING R A, PURUGGANAN M D, ZHANG Q F. The rice genome revolution: from an ancient grain to Green Super Rice. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2018, 19(8): 505-517. doi: 10.1038/s41576-018-0024-z pmid: 29872215
[29]	FRISCH M. Breeding strategies: Optimum design of marker-assisted backcross programs//Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2005: 319-334.
[30]	KARUNARATHNA N L, PATIRANAGE D S R, HARLOFF H J, SASHIDHAR N, JUNG C. Genomic background selection to reduce the mutation load after random mutagenesis. Scientific Reports, 2021, 11: 19404. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98934-5 pmid: 34593904
[31]	CHANDRAN S, PUKALENTHY B, ADHIMOOLAM K, MANICKAM D, SAMPATHRAJAN V, CHOCKLINGAM V, ESWARAN K, ARUNACHALAM K, JOIKUMAR MEETEI L, RAJASEKARAN R, MUTHUSAMY V, HOSSAIN F, NATESAN S. Marker-assisted selection to pyramid the opaque-2 (O2) and β-carotene (crtRB1) genes in maize. Frontiers in Genetics, 2019, 10: 859. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00859
[32]	YU H H, XIE W B, LI J, ZHOU F S, ZHANG Q F. A whole-genome SNP array (RICE 6K) for genomic breeding in rice. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 2014, 12(1): 28-37. doi: 10.1111/pbi.2013.12.issue-1
[33]	YANG D B, TANG J H, YANG D, CHEN Y, ALI J, MOU T M. Improving rice blast resistance of Feng39S through molecular marker-assisted backcrossing. Rice, 2019, 12: 70. doi: 10.1186/s12284-019-0329-3 pmid: 31502096