Genome-wide association mapping of aluminum toxicity tolerance and fine mapping of a candidate gene for Nrat1 in rice

Yonghong Tao; Yanan Niu; Yun Wang; Tianxiao Chen; Shahzad Amir Naveed; Jian Zhang; Jianlong Xu; Zhikang Li

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198589

Abstract

Aluminum (Al) stress is becoming the major limiting factor in crop production in acidic soils. Rice has been reported as the most Al-tolerant crop and the capacity of Al toxicity tolerance is generally evaluated by comparing root growth under Al stress. Here, we performed an association mapping of Al toxicity tolerance using a core collection of 211 indica rice accessions with 700 K high quality SNP data. A total of 21 putative QTL affecting shoot height (SH), root length (RL), shoot fresh weight (SFW), shoot dry weight (SDW), root dry weight (RDW) and shoot water content (SWC) were identified at seedling stage, including three QTL detected only under control condition, eight detected only under Al stress condition, ten simultaneously detected in both control and Al stress conditions, and seven were identified by stress tolerance index of their corresponding traits. Total of 21 candidate genes for 7 important QTL regions associated with Al toxicity tolerance were identified based on combined haplotype analysis and functional annotation, and the most likely candidate gene(s) for each important QTL were also discussed. Also a candidate gene Nrat1 on chromosome 2 was further fine-mapped using BSA-seq and linkage analysis in the F₂ population derived from the cross of Al tolerant accession CC105 and super susceptible accession CC180. A new non-synonymous SNP variation was observed at Nrat1 between CC105 and CC180, which resulted in an amino-acid substitution from Ala (A) in CC105 to Asp (D) in CC180. Haplotype analysis of Nrat1 using 327 3K RGP accessions indicated that minor allele variations in aus and indica subpopulations decreased Al toxicity tolerance in rice. The candidate genes identified in this study provide valuable information for improvement of Al toxicity tolerance in rice. Our research indicated that minor alleles are important for QTL mapping and its application in rice breeding when natural gene resources are used.

Citation: Tao Y, Niu Y, Wang Y, Chen T, Naveed SA, Zhang J, et al. (2018) Genome-wide association mapping of aluminum toxicity tolerance and fine mapping of a candidate gene for Nrat1 in rice. PLoS ONE 13(6): e0198589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589

Editor: Qian Qian, China National Rice Research Institute, CHINA

Received: April 17, 2018; Accepted: May 22, 2018; Published: June 12, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Tao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was financially supported by the 863 Key Project to JX (2014AA10A601) from the Chinese Ministry of Science & Technology (http://www.863.gov.cn/), the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program Cooperation and Innovation Mission (CAAS-ZDXT201800), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to ZK Li (OPP1130530), and the Shenzhen Peacock Plan (20130415095710361) to ZL (http://www.szsti.gov.cn/), the 948 Project to JX (2016-X16) from the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture (http://www.moa.gov.cn/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Aluminum (Al) is the most abundant metal in the Earth’s crust. Under acidic condition (pH<5.0), Al is in the soluble form of trivalent Al³⁺ ion, which is highly toxic to plant growth. Al toxicity is becoming the major limiting factor in crop production, as approximately 30–40% of the world’s arable land is acidic [1]. The root apex is the most sensitive part of the plant to Al and one notable symptom of Al toxicity is the inhibition of root elongation, as the root apex is the site for cell division and expansion [1,2]). Hence, the capacity of Al toxicity tolerance is generally assessed by comparing root growth under Al stress. Several researches have been done on the genetic mechanism of Al toxicity tolerance in rice [3–8], maize [9,10], wheat [11,12], sorghum [13,14] and barley [15,16]. Rice is reported as the most Al-resistant crops under both hydroponic and field conditions. Generally, rice is nearly two to five times more Al toxicity tolerance than other cereals [17]. Due to its relative Al toxicity tolerance, numerous genomic resources and easily growing in hydroponic solution, rice becomes a very good model for investigating the genetics of Al toxicity tolerance.

QTL mapping is a powerful tool in understanding the genetic basis of quantitative phenotypic variation and providing linkage markers in marker-assisted selection (MAS) breeding. Currently, several QTL has been identified [3,4,6,18,19], and four mutant genes that lead to Al sensitivity have been cloned in rice, such as Nrat1, STAR2, ART1 and STAR1 [20]. However, conventional QTL analysis has been time-consuming and labor-intensive mainly because it requires development of polymorphic markers and mapping population. To overcome these limitations, genome wide association study (GWAS) was introduced as a new approach in gene identification and QTL mapping in plants, which widely used for natural resources. Depending on large amount of SNP markers, GWAS was faster and more accurate in determination of recombination breakpoints.

Bulked segregant analysis (BSA) is another simple and rapid method to identify molecular markers tightly linked to the causal gene for a given trait [21]. It was based on the co-segregation between the markers and targeted genes in two groups of individuals with extreme phenotypes. This method was appropriate to the qualitative traits controlled by one gene or quantitative traits controlled by major QTL. With the development of high-throughput sequencing in recent years, whole genome sequencing with high-efficient and low-cost is available. Moreover, the combination of whole genome sequencing with BSA method was named as BSA-seq by Takagi et al. [22], which can accurately identify the location of QTL and major genes associated with objective trait by large amount of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) after whole genome sequencing of bulked samples. Nowadays, BSA-seq as a rapid approach for identifying QTL has been used in rice [22,23], cotton [24], cucumber [25–27] and maize [28].

Although rice is known as the most tolerant species to Al toxicity among cereal crops, there is widely genotypic variation in its tolerance to Al stress [29]. High Al concentration and long time of Al stress are needed to observe significant differences between Al resistant and susceptible varieties. To the best of our knowledge, QTL analysis of Al toxicity tolerance associated with up ground traits at seedling stage are poorly understand in rice. In the present study, we evaluated Al toxicity tolerance using its related traits in both natural germplasm resources and a F₂ population derived from the cross of two extreme accessions, to elucidate the genetic basis and identify the candidate genes of Al toxicity tolerance by both GWAS and BSA-seq analysis methods.

Materials and methods

Plant materials

A total 222 indica rice accessions which were a subset introduced from a core collection established at International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). As our previous research [30], the genetic distance of 11 accessions were different from others by principal component analysis (PCA) analysis. Hereinto, 211 accessions were used to evaluate the Al toxicity tolerance under high concentration of Al for a long time. CC105 (PR) and CC180 (PS), of which the first was identified as Al tolerant accession with the tolerant allele at the major QTL in the range of 4.61–4.86 Mb on chromosome 2 based on GWAS analysis while the latter as Al super susceptible accession, were used to develop F₂ population for BSA-seq and linkage analyses. Moreover, 327 rice accessions consisted of many ecotypes were selected from 3K RGP [31] and used for haplotype analysis of candidate gene Nrat1.

Evaluation for Al toxicity tolerance and phenotypic data collection

All experiments in this study were conducted in a greenhouse at of Institute of Crop Sciences of CAAS in Beijing. Evaluation for Al toxicity tolerance in 211 indica rice accessions were performed under both control and Al stress conditions in May 2015. The first F₂ population (300 seedlings) only under Al stress condition was conducted for Al evaluation in October 2016. The second F₂ population (500 seedlings) only under Al stress and 327 3K accessions under both control and Al stress conditions for Al stress evaluations were performed in May 2017. A randomized complete block design was used with two replications for each accession. Screening for Al toxicity tolerance of all materials was conducted according to the following steps. Rice seeds were soaked in distilled water in the dark at 30°C for 48 hours after sterilized with 5% sodium hypochlorite solution for 20 minutes. Then, seeds with uniform germination were directly sown in holes of perforated styrofoam sheets (10 lines × 13 rows) with a nylon net bottom in the plastic container (45 cm × 32 cm × 17 cm) with water. Five days later, all seedlings were exposed to Yoshida solution [32] containing 0 mM L^-1 Al (AlCl₃·6H₂O) for control condition and 1 mM L^-1 Al (AlCl₃·6H₂O) for stress condition. The pH of the solution was adjusted to 4.5 at alternative day by 1 M NaOH / HCl and solution was renewed every five days. The day/night temperature in green house was around 32/24°C and the relative humidity was ~50%. The growth condition was regulated by using shade net and mechanical ventilation along with the cooling pad. After 3 weeks of Al treatment, all seedlings were harvest and shoot height (SH) and root length (RL) of each plant was measured with a ruler. For 211 indica rice accessions, we also weighed shoot fresh weight (SFW), and then the samples were kept in oven under 50°C for 72 h. Finally, root dry weight (RDW, mg) and shoot dry weight (SDW, mg) were recorded, and shoot water content (SWC, %) was calculated by (SFW– SDW) / SFW × 100. For each trait, Al stress tolerance index was determined by trait ratio of stress to control conditions. Except for the two F₂ individual populations, the extreme values for each trait which data falled outside the range of (mean of all accessions ± 3 times the standard deviation) were removed and the trait value was taken from the average of two replicates. Trait pair-wise correlation and analysis of variance was performed by SAS8.1 PROC CORR and GLM, respectively.

Association mapping of Al toxicity tolerance

We carried out GWAS to detect SNP-trait associations for all measured traits using 395, 553 SNP markers and 211 accessions. The genotyping and distribution of SNP markers used in this study were described in our previous research [30]. A mixed linear model (MLM) was applied in GAPIT [33], a package of R software incorporating kinship matrix and seven PCA axes, which would be enough to explain 90% of the variance in the natural population. Significant marker trait associations were determined based on a threshold of p-value 1.0×10⁻⁴. This threshold was justified by Quantile-Quantile plot (S1 File) and was also applied by our previous researches using the same population [30]. Adjacent significant SNP associated with same trait within a physical distance of 200 kb were regarded as a single QTL.

Candidate genes analysis for important QTL affecting Al toxicity tolerance

QTL meeting at least the following two items was considered to be important: (1) associated with different traits; (2) identified under both normal and Al stress conditions with same direction of gene effect and similar magnitude; (3) affecting the relative trait ratio of stress to control conditions; (4) neighbor to previously reported QTL. Then candidate genes analysis for important QTL was carried out by the following four steps. Firstly, for each important QTL region, the SNPs whose –log₁₀(p) located inside the interval of 1 unit of the peak SNP were regarded as significant. Secondly, all significant SNPs were used to check non-synonymous mutation in the coding sequence (CDS) region for all the genes located in the interval of each important QTL from the Rice Genome Annotation Project (RGAP). Thirdly, if more than two significant SNPs distributed in one gene, haplotype analysis was carried out for each of the candidate genes in each important QTL region using all non-synonymous SNPs located inside of the gene CDS region. Finally, candidate genes were determined by testing the significant differences among major haplotypes (containing more than 10 samples) for each important QTL through ANOVA.

BSA-seq analysis of the major QTL on chromosome 2

To validate the major QTL for Al toxicity tolerance identified on chromosome 2, we developed a F₂ population by crossing of PR with PS. Two DNA bulks, Al-resistant bulk (BR) and Al-susceptible bulk (BS) using respective 20 individuals selected from the 330 individuals in the F₂ population by mixing an equal amount of genomic DNA. The DNA of PR, PS, BR and BS were randomly sheared by ultrasonic and the resulting fragments were ligated with adapters. Each DNA library was sequenced using an Illumina Hi-seq 2000 sequencing platform. Low-quality paired reads were removed from the raw reads according to the following characters: (1) the reads with adapter; (2) single read has more than 10% of missing bases; (3) single read has more than 50% of bases with alignment Q-score lower than 5. The clean reads selected by the quality criteria were then mapped to the japonica cv. Nipponabre reference genome (RGAP 7, http://rice.plantbiology.msu.edu/) by BWA software. SNP-calling and SNP-annotation were performed by SAM tools and ANNOVAR software, respectively [34,35].

For BSA-seq analysis, SNP-index of DNA bulks were obtained by using high-quality polymorphic SNPs between PR and PS. SNP-index was the ratio of short reads harboring SNPs different from reference genome [36], and Δ(SNP-index) was the difference of SNP-index between BR and BS. Furthermore, to reduce the effect of sequencing or alignment errors, some SNP sites were filtered with the following criteria: (1) the SNP-index in two bulks < 0.3 and read coverage depth < 7X, and (2) the SNP-index was missing in one bulk. The distribution of SNP-index in the whole genome was calculated using sliding window analysis method (window size 1 Mb and step size 1 kb). We performed 1000 permutations for Δ(SNP-index) on the whole genome and selected 95% confidence intervals to identify candidate regions for Al-tolerance QTL [22].

Linkage analysis of the major QTL on chromosome 2

The major gene for Al toxicity tolerance in the region of 0.16–2.79 Mb on chromosome 2 identified by BSA-seq analysis was fine-mapped using selective genotyping method. Based on the polymorphic SNP between PR and PS, we further designed 11 KASP markers in the region of 0.16–2.79 Mb on chromosome 2 and applied to 186 extreme individuals (93 extreme tolerant individuals and 93 susceptible ones) selected from 1000 F₂ individuals for fine mapping of the major gene. Linkage mapping analysis was carried out by IciMapping V4.1 software [37]. Detailed information of all KASP markers used for linkage analysis was shown in S2 File.

Sequence and expression analysis of Nrat1 in PR and PS

A previously reported gene Nrat1 involved in Al transportation was detected by BSA-seq in this study. To examine the expression level of Nrat1 in PR and PS, total RNA was extracted using an RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen) from the roots of 5-d-old seedlings exposed to Al stress for 0, 2, 12 and 24 h. The first strand cDNA synthesis and RT-PCR examination were completed by using SYBR Green PCR Master Mix kit (Applied Biosystems, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The full-length cDNA sequence of Nrat1 in PR and PS was amplified by PCR using the gene specific primers. The 2 kb region upstream of the start codon of Nrat1 was recognized as promoter region and amplified by three paired primers from both PR and PS genomic DNA. Primer sequences of Nrat1 for RT-PCR were designed from a website Quant Prime (http://quantprime.mpimp-golm.mpg.de/). The relative transcript levels of Nrat1 and Ubi (internal control) were determined by quantitative real-time RT-PCR, which was calculated using the 2^-ΔΔCt method [38]. The differences in expression levels among PR and PS were analyzed by t-test. Each test was repeated for two times biologically and three times technically. The primer sequences mentioned above are also shown in S2 File.

Haplotype analysis of Nrat1 in 327 accessions from 3K RGP

All SNPs in the promoter region (2 kb) of Nrat1 and non-synonymous SNPs located inside of Nrat1 were selected from 32 M SNPs data from the Rice SNP-Seek Database [39]. The SNPs with missing rate over 20% and MAF less than 5% were filtered and the remaining SNPs were used for haplotype analysis of Nrat1.

Results

Phenotypic variations responsive to Al stress

In the current association panel, 211 indica rice accessions were evaluated for Al toxicity tolerance with 1 mM Al³⁺ in hydroponic nutrient solution. In comparison with control condition, the mean value of all six measured traits was significantly decreased under Al stress condition (Fig 1). ANOVA analysis indicated that significant differences were observed among the environments and genotypes for all investigated traits. Environment accounted for an average of 87.7% of phenotypic variance ranging from 75.6% in RL to 96.6% in SH (S1 Table), while genotype explained an average of 90.7% of phenotypic variance ranging from 72.9% of Al/CKRL to 99.9% of CKSWC (S2 Table). High and positive correlations were observed among SH, SFW and SDW under both control and Al stress conditions, suggesting that seedling had similar mechanism of biomass accumulation in different environments. Except for RL and SWC, significant positive correlations were found for the same traits under control and Al stress conditions, indicating that Al toxicity mainly affected the root elongation and absorbing water at seedling stage (S1 Fig).

Download:

Fig 1. Box plot of six measured traits for 211 indica accessions under normal and Al stress conditions.

CK, control condition; Al, Al stress condition; SH, shoot height; RL, root length; SFW, shoot fresh weight; SDW, shoot dry weight; RDW, root dry weight; SWC, shoot water content. *** indicated significance of ANOVA at p < 0.001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.g001

As compared with PR, PS exhibited an extremely sensitive to Al stress (Fig 2a). The SH (RL) ratio of Al stress to control conditions was 0.92 (0.97) in PR and 0.61 (0.34) in PS, respectively, indicating that RL and SH of PS were obviously decreased under Al stress, while no significant differences were found of PR between control and stress conditions. The frequency distribution of RL and SH under Al stress conditions among 330 F₂ individuals were presented in Fig 2b and 2c. The SH and RL in F₂ population showed continuous variations, suggesting that Al stress tolerance in rice is quantitatively inherited.

Download:

Fig 2. Performance of the two parents and F₂ population after treatment of Al stress.

(a) Phenotypic difference of two parents under control and Al stress conditions. (b-c) Frequency distribution of root length (RL) and shoot height (SH) in the F₂ population derived from the two parents under Al stress condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.g002

Identification of Al toxicity tolerance QTL through GWAS

In 211 indica rice accessions, a total of 21 QTL were identified for SH, RL, SFW, SDW, RDW and SWC, including three detected only under control condition, eight detected only under Al stress condition, and ten simultaneously detected in both control and Al stress conditions. Among these, seven QTL (qSh1, qRl8, qSfw3a, qSdw3a, qSwc3, qSwc6 and qSwc8) were identified by stress tolerance index of their corresponding traits (Table 1, Fig 3).

Download:

Table 1. QTL identified with significant association to Al toxicity tolerance related traits.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.t001

Download:

Fig 3. Manhattan plots of QTL for aluminum toxicity tolerance in the whole genome.

Significant SNPs from different conditions are displayed in different colors: control is green, aluminum stress is grey, the ratio of stress to control is red. The associated traits are represented by different symbols: shoot height = triangle up, root length = triangle down, shoot fresh weight = ×, shoot dry weight = square, root dry weight = circle, shoot water content = star.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.g003

Two QTL (qSh1 and qSh7) affecting SH were simultaneously identified on chromosomes 1 under both control and stress conditions, explaining phenotypic variance of 6.2% (5.7%) and 3.7% (5.3%) under control (stress) conditions, respectively. And qSh1 also affected stress tolerance index of SH with 7.8% of phenotypic variance (Table 1).

For RL, two QTL (qRl1 and qRl8) were identified on chromosomes 1 and 8. qRl1 was only identified under stress condition and account for 9.6% of phenotypic variance while qRl8 was detected under control condition with 9.0% of phenotypic variance, and it simultaneously affected stress tolerance index of RL with 11.0% of phenotypic variance (Table 1).

Four QTL governing SFW were identified on chromosomes 2, 3 and 4. qSfw2 and qSfw3a were detected under stress condition, explaining 7.6% and 5.5% of phenotypic variance, respectively. Moreover, qSfw3a also affected stress tolerance index of SFW with 10.8% of phenotypic variance. qSfw3b and qSfw4 were detected under both stress and control conditions and account for 7.0% (8.2%) and 7.6% (8.7%) of phenotypic variance in control (stress) conditions, respectively (Table 1).

Seven QTL governing SDW were identified on chromosomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. qSdw1 and qSdw7 were detected only under stress condition, explaining 8.0% and 7.4% of phenotypic variance, respectively. The other five QTL (qSdw2, qSdw3a, qSdw3b, qSdw4 and qSdw5) were identified under both control and stress conditions and accounted for phenotypic variance ranging from 6.5% to 10.3%. What’s more, qSdw3a also affected stress tolerance index of SDW with 7.7% of phenotypic variance (Table 1).

For RDW, 3 QTL were detected on chromosomes 2, 4 and 5. qRdw2 and qRdw4 were detected only under control condition and explained 8.4% and 10.0% of phenotypic variance, respectively. qRdw5 was identified under both control and stress conditions and explained 8.5% and 15.3% of phenotypic variance, respectively (Table 1).

Three QTL (qSwc3, qSwc6 and qSwc8) affecting SWC were identified under stress condition, accounting for 6.1%, 7.8% and 6.6% of phenotypic variance, respectively. These all three QTL had significant effects on Al stress tolerance index of SWC and explained 7.6%, 7.0% and 9.2% of phenotypic variance, respectively (Table 1).

Candidate genes analysis for the important QTL

A total of 21 candidate genes in 7 important QTL regions were identified, ranging from 1 to 5 candidate genes for each important QTL. Only 11 candidate genes had non-synonymous SNPs located in the CDS region and were conducted for haplotype analysis (Fig 4).

Download:

Fig 4. Manhattan plot of important QTL and haplotype analysis of candidate genes related to QTL including qSh1 (a), qSh7 (b), qSdw2 (c), qSdw3a (d), qSdw5 (e), qSwc3 (f) and qSwc8 (g).

Each point was a gene in the region of the QTL. Line and histogram in different colors indicated different conditions: green is control condition, grey is Al stress condition and red is the ratio of the stress to control conditions. Dash line showed the threshold to determine candidate genes. The ** and *** suggested significance of ANOVA at p < 0.01and p < 0.001, respectively. The letter on histogram (a and b) indicated multiple comparisons result at the significant level 0.01. The value in brackets was the number of individuals for each haplotype.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.g004

For qSh1 in the region 38.29–38.66 Mb on chromosome 1, 145 SNPs were identified in 33 genes, and 3 candidate genes (LOC_Os01g66100, LOC_Os01g66250 and LOC_Os01g66360) were associated with significant SNPs for qSh1. Significant differences for SH were found between the five haplotypes in candidate genes LOC_Os01g66250, and the haplotype CCTA significantly decrease SH than the other four haplotypes. No haplotype was found for the other two genes resulting from non-synonymous SNPs detected in the CDS regions of them (Fig 4a).

For qSh7 in the region from 6.11 to 6.42 Mb on chromosome 7, 150 SNPs were identified in 41 genes. Three candidate genes (LOC_Os07g11130, LOC_Os07g11230 and LOC_Os07g11320) were associated with significant SNPs for qSh7. Haplotype analysis revealed that minor alleles in all these three genes significantly increased SH under both control and stress conditions, which had same effect as the peak SNP (Fig 4b).

For qSdw2 located in the region 4.72–4.87 Mb on chromosome 2, 109 SNPs were detected in 27 genes. LOC_Os02g09220 and LOC_Os02g09240 were the only two candidate genes for qSdw2. No haplotype was found for these two genes (Fig 4c).

For qSdw3a in the region from 26.5 to 26.81 Mb on chromosome 3, 155 SNPs were identified in 43 genes, and 5 candidate genes (LOC_Os03g47240, LOC_Os03g47310, LOC_Os03g47330, LOC_Os03g47360 and LOC_Os03g47370) were found. Among them, no haplotype was found in LOC_Os03g47330 (Fig 4d). Significant differences for SDW were found between the haplotypes in the four candidate genes LOC_Os03g47240, LOC_Os03g47310, LOC_Os03g47360 and LOC_Os03g47370 under both control and stress conditions.

For qSdw5 in the region 6.42–6.70 Mb on chromosome 5, 124 SNPs were found in 32 genes. Four candidate genes (LOC_Os05g11460, LOC_Os05g11630, LOC_Os05g11660 and LOC_Os05g11730) were observed for qSdw5, but no haplotype was found for LOC_Os05g11660 and LOC_Os05g11730. The minor haplotype significantly increased SDW in LOC_Os05g11460 and LOC_Os05g11630 (Fig 4e).

For qSwc3 in the region of 15.62–15.74 Mb on chromosome 3, 93 SNPs were identified in 28 genes. LOC_Os03g27230 and LOC_Os03g27250 were the only two candidate genes for qSwc3. However, no haplotype was found for these two genes (Fig 4f).

For qSwc8 in the region from 1.30 to 1.58 Mb, 168 SNPs were detected in 35 genes. Two candidate genes LOC_Os08g03180 and LOC_Os08g03290 were observed for qSwc8. Four haplotypes were identified for LOC_Os08g03180 with significant differences in SWC. No haplotype was found for LOC_Os08g03290 (Fig 4g).

Detection of QTL for Al toxicity tolerance by BSA-seq and linkage analysis

For BSA-seq, two parents and two DNA pools were sequenced through Illumina high-throughput sequencing. After trimming and filtering, over 99.9% of raw reads were selected with an average of 95.8% Q20 reads. We ultimately obtained 5.15 G (~13X coverage depths) and 9.15 G (~22 X coverage depths) clean reads with 150 bp in length for two parents and two DNA pools, respectively (S3 Table). About 96.4% of these reads were mapped to the reference genome and 575, 977 SNPs were identified from the two parents (S3 Table).

Based on the chosen requirements for SNP, a total of 568, 239 (98.7%) polymorphic SNPs were used to calculate SNP index. We also compared these polymorphic SNPs with 700 K high density SNP data [40], 36, 864 SNP in total is overlapping, and about 94.6% and 98.8% SNPs have same alleles in PR and PS, respectively, indicating the high accuracy of sequencing in this study. However, the density (the number of SNP in 1 Mb) of these SNP varied greatly across the whole genome owing to that these were selected from two indica varieties. For BSA-seq, an average SNP-index was calculated for BR and BS in 1 Mb interval with a 1kb sliding window. ΔSNP-index was also computed by subtraction of SNP-index of BR from that of BS. SNP-index in BR, BS and ΔSNP-index were plotted on the whole genome (Fig 5). As described by Abe et al., the SNP-index would equal to 1 near the causal gene and 0.5 for unlinked loci [36]. Thus, the QTL for Al toxicity tolerance on the genomic region would exhibit opposite variation of SNP-index between BR and BS. Based on the trend of ΔSNP index on the whole genome, we defined 0.5 as a threshold to identify candidate region for Al toxicity tolerance. A region of 0.16–2.79 Mb on chromosome 2 was detected with the average SNP-index of BR was 0.79 while the average SNP-index of BS was 0.19 suggesting that there may be a major QTL for Al toxicity tolerance (Fig 5). In this region, a total of 6 SNP sites with ΔSNP-index equal to 1 which SNP index value in BR is 1 and that in BS is 0. The position of these 6 SNPs and near genes was listed in S3 Table. Through analyzing the position of these 6 SNPs, 4 were in the upstream (1kb) of one gene, 2 were in the intergenic region of two genes (S3 Table). In addition, a reported gene Nrat1 (Nramp aluminium transporter 1) [41], which belongs to the Nramp family and specific for trivalent Al ion transportation was exactly located in this candidate region.

Download:

Fig 5. Variation tendency of SNP index (a-b) and ΔSNP index (c) between BR and BS along the genome.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.g005

To examine whether Nrat1 is responsible for this major QTL identified by BSA-seq, we additionally evaluated 1000 F₂ seedlings under Al stress condition in May 2017. To minimize phenotypic errors of each plants, we selected only 186 extremely individuals for a linkage mapping analysis using 11 KASP SNP markers which were designed from the polymorphic SNPs in the region of 0.16–2.79 Mb on chromosome 2 between the two parents. QTL analysis detected a very high LOD (77.03) curves between SNP1466026 and SNP1661174 in the candidate region (Fig 6a). The peak SNP location was completely consistent with Nrat1 which was involved in Al toxicity tolerance in rice. In fact, there was only one SNP variation in Nrat1 between PR and PS which was located at 1661173 bp by analyzing the promoter and gene region from ~13× sequencing data. To verify that SNP1661173 was the causal SNP for Al sensitive phenotype, we examined the genotyping result of extreme seedlings by this SNP. There was no homozygous PR allele in Al susceptible bulk and no homozygous PS allele in Al resistant bulk. Total of 42 (46.7%) Al tolerant individuals had homozygous PR allele (Fig 6b) and 87 (96.7%) Al sensitive individuals carried homozygous PS allele (Fig 6c). These results indicated that PS carries a recessive gene underlying Al susceptibility in rice.

Download:

Fig 6. Validation of the major QTL for Al toxicity tolerance by linkage analysis with 11 KASP SNP markers (a), genotype of 93 extremely Al toxicity tolerance (b) and sensitive (c) individuals by SNP1661173, the last three sites were NTC, PR and PS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.g006

Sequence and expression of Nrat1 in PR and PS

BSA-seq and linkage mapping inferred that Nrat1 was the candidate gene for Al toxicity tolerance. The gene, Nrat1, was 4069 bp in length and consisted of 13 exons, with 554 amino acid residues. We amplified the full length cDNA and promoter of Nrat1 from two parents by specific primers. The sequence difference between PR and PS in Nrat1 by PCR was the same to Illumina sequencing results, which only one SNP variation was found in CDS region. This single-nucleotide transition (G in PR and T in PS) was located in the fourth exon at the position 311 bp from the ATG start codon, resulting in the 104^th amino-acid residue changing from Ala (GCC) to Asp (GAC). Compared with the previous SNP variations of Nrat1 in rice [20,29,42], complete different SNP position was detected in our research, indicating that the SNP identified in this study was a new non-synonymous mutant in Nrat1 and may play an important role in susceptibility to Al stress as a new allele.

We examined the dynamic expression of Nrat1 by RT-PCR in both PR and PS after Al treatments at 0, 2, 12 and 24 h. Two hours after treatment with 1 mM L^-1 Al of seedlings, there was no difference in the expression level of Nrat1 in root between PR and PS. However, the expression level of Nrat1 in PR was significantly higher than PS at both 12 h and 24 h, suggesting that higher expression of Nrat1 was responsible for Al tolerance (S2 Fig).

Allele variation and haplotype analysis of Nrat1

In this study, we detected a significant signal of Nrat1 by BSA-seq but cannot be identified by GWAS. To investigate the causative SNP variation in Nrat1 responsible for the phenotypic variation for tolerance, we used all available SNPs around the Nrat1 from 32 M SNPs data in the Rice SNP-Seek Database [31]. A total of 174 SNPs in the CDS region and 54 SNPs in the promoter region (2 kb) were observed in Nrat1. However, only 4 non-synonymous SNP and 9 SNP in promoter region were selected after filtering the minor allele frequency (MAF) <0.05. Using these 13 SNP data, seven distinct haplotypes were found across the 327 diversity rice accessions. The SNP variations in promoter region were in accordance with the CDS region, indicating that the Nrat1 promoter and coding regions both play important role in regulating Al toxicity tolerance in rice. Haplotypes 6 and 7 had more allele variations in Nrat1 and were unique to the aus and indica subpopulations (Fig 7a and 7b). Through ANOVA analysis, haplotypes 6 and 7 significantly decreased the ratio of RL, indicating that aus and indica had lower level of Al toxicity tolerance than the other subpopulations in rice [20].

Download:

Fig 7. Haplotype analysis in the region of Nrat1.

(a) Haplotypes of Nrat1 observed in 327 accessions using 32M SNP data. (b) The performance of root ratio between Al stress to control condition in seven haplotypes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.g007

Discussion

Identification of QTL and candidate gene for Al toxicity tolerance by GWAS

In the present study, 21 QTL affecting Al toxicity tolerance was identified by associated mapping. Seven of them were found to adjacent to the pervious reported QTL or cloned genes related to Al stress tolerance. For instance, qSh1 affecting SH detected in the region 37.93–38.73 Mb co-localized with qAlSL1.2 for shoot length, which was identified by MAGIC populations under Al stress treatment [8]. This QTL was also 300 kb away from a known gene OsMGT1, which is a functional transporter of Mg and its up-regulation leads to increase Al toxicity tolerance in rice [43]. qSdw2 and qSdw7 associated with SDW were adjacent to the two previously mapped QTL, QAlSr2.1 and QAlRr7.1 for Al toxicity tolerance related trait, root growth, respectively [19]. qSdw5 for SDW located in the region 6.46–7.54 Mb on chromosome 5 was 1Mb away from a reported QTL qAlSDW5 for shoot dry weight [8]. qSwc3 and qSwc8 affecting SWC under stress condition was located in the vicinity of PSM377 for conditional relative root length [7] and qALRR-8 for root length ratio [44] under Al stress, respectively.

Up to now, several genes involved in Al toxicity tolerance have been cloned in rice [20,41,43], while they were all detected by root growth related traits at seedling stage. Through candidate gene analysis of important QTL, we identified 21 candidate genes for 7 important QTL regions associated with up ground traits. For qSh1, LOC_Os01g66250 was the most likely candidate gene because it encodes S-locus-like receptor protein kinase, which was reportedly involved in abiotic stress in rice [45]. Of the three candidate genes for qSh7, the most like one was LOC_Os07g11320 (Alpha-amylase inhibitor/seed allergenic protein), as it was reported to enhance strong early vigor of seedlings to external environment [46]. The most likely candidate genes for qSdw2 included LOC_Os02g09220 and LOC_Os02g09240 even though no haplotype was observed in them. These two genes were all encode cytochrome P450, which was regulated by ART1 under Al treatment [47]. Of the five candidate genes for qSdw3a, LOC_Os03g47360 (encoding F-box domain containing protein) was the most likely one, which F-Box protein was reported to be expressed under abiotic stress conditions in rice [48]. Of the four candidate genes for qSdw5, LOC_Os05g11730 was most likely candidate because it encodes glycogen synthase kinase 3, which play important roles in development and stress responses in rice [49]. Similarly, LOC_Os03g27250 was the most likely candidate gene for qSwc3, which it also encode F-box protein and was found up expression in cadmium tolerance in Brassica napus. For qSwc8, the most likely candidate gene LOC_Os08g03290 encodes glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase which was involved in oxidative stress through ROS signal pathway [50].

Importance of above ground traits for evaluating Al toxicity tolerance in rice

Root growth under Al stress was typically used as an indicator to evaluate Al toxicity tolerance. Several visual measuring parameters of root growth were used for QTL mapping for Al toxicity tolerance, such as root length [6,19], root elongation [5,9], relative root length [4,20] and relative root elongation [3,11,18]. Compared with root length, measurement of root elongation is time-consuming and need to use seedlings with uniform root length before beginning of Al stress. In this study, we used 5 d-old rice seedlings exposed to high concentration (1 mM L^-1) of Al stress under Yoshida solution for 21 days and measured root length and the above ground traits such as SH, SDW and SWC. Using this relative simple method, we identified 16 QTL and 21 candidate genes associated with the above ground traits under Al stress condition. We also confirmed Nrat1 as a major QTL for Al toxicity tolerance using F₂ population combined with BSA-seq and linkage mapping methods. Therefore, we think measurement of above ground traits under Al stress is an alternative way to evaluate Al toxicity tolerance in rice, especially in rice breeding for Al toxicity tolerance.

Integration of GWAS with BSA-seq in QTL mapping and gene identification

QTL mapping is a fundamental approach for realizing the genetic variation of quantitative traits and can provide available markers for marker-assisted selection (MAS) breeding. However, traditional linkage mapping requires screening polymorphic markers based on gel electrophoresis and sometimes sufficient polymorphic markers are not easily available for fine mapping, so it is laborious and low efficient. Moreover, individuals used in traditional linkage mapping were usually derived from biparents, which have low level of genetic variations. This limiting factor for QTL mapping can be exempted by using GWAS combined with natural resources and high density SNP markers [23]. Actually, GWAS could obtain large natural variation and identify a number of significant associations, which promotes fine mapping and gene discovery. This was also illustrated by our GWAS analysis, in which 6 QTL for Al toxicity tolerance were identified to have overlap with the previous reported QTL (Table 1), and 21 candidate genes (Table 2) were inferred. However, the population used in this study was comparatively small and composed exclusively of indica accessions. Although intra-subspecific analyses decrease the incidence of false-positive associations resulting from population structure, loci with low MAF or unique to other subpopulations were not detected by GWAS such as Nrat1 as a major QTL on chromosome 2 in this study, thus some functional alleles probably escaped detection in this indica panel [51]. We selected significant SNPs in genes and performed haplotype analysis by non-synonymous SNP in CDS region for candidate genes analysis. There was uncertainty in candidate gene detection for some important QTL such as (qSdw2 and qSwc3) due to absence of haplotype, resulting from low numbers of significant non-synonymous SNPs. Therefore, high SNP density and large population size are strongly recommended for identification of candidate genes through GWAS [30].

Download:

Table 2. List of 21 candidate genes for 7 important QTL associated with Al toxicity tolerance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.t002

Alternatively, BSA-seq is another quick and efficient method for QTL mapping, which is a combination of bulked-segregant analysis (BSA) and whole genome re-sequencing by NGS technologies. Based on association mapping results in the present study, we sequenced two extremely DNA pools each composed of 20 F₂ individuals derived from the two accessions with opposite phenotype under Al stress and identified the major gene Nrat1 for Al toxicity tolerance by linkage analysis of extremely selective F₂ individuals using 11 KASP markers developed from the region of 0.16–2.79 Mb on chromosome 2. The region of 0.16–2.79 Mb harboring Nrat1 identified by BSA-seq and linkage analysis is different from that of 4.61–4.86 Mb harboring the major QTL identified by GWAS, probably resulting from the fact that the accession CC105 (PR) has two favorable alleles for improving Al toxicity tolerance at the above two loci on chromosome 2, and the locus of Nrat1 has much larger phenotypic effect than that of the major QTL due to the super susceptible allele from the CC180 (PS), which resulted in masking effect of the major QTL when BSA-seq was applied.

Comparing with screening conventional markers in candidate QTL region, KASP markers have many advantages, such as simple, efficient and accuracy as demonstrated in QTL mapping and MAS-based pyramiding of drought and low nitrogen tolerances in rice [52]. Taken together, GWAS can efficiently screen important materials with targeted traits and identify significant QTL regions or candidate genes. Then discover the candidate genes responsible for the targeted traits by BAS-seq analysis and linkage analysis as shown in this study. Our results showed that integration of GWAS and BSA-seq greatly improved the efficiency in identifying favorable genes contained in germplasms.

SNP variation in Nrat1 affected Al toxicity tolerance in rice

Rice cultivation has been sustainable for thousands of years in Asia, so few allele variations affecting Al toxicity tolerance can be found in different varieties because of the domestication and natural selection. Nrat1 play an important role in basal Al toxicity tolerance mechanisms in rice and was identified by different populations [20,41,53]. Each of the mutant amino acids in Nrat1 is of equal importance for full Nrat1 Al transport function [42]. Xia et al. compared nine rice varieties, no consistent trend between promoter sequence and Nrat1 expression, and no trend was found between amino acid sequence and Al toxicity tolerance [29]. In another research, three non-synonymous SNPs were found among the nine highly susceptible rice accessions, but none SNP alone was predictive of Al toxicity tolerance [20], indicating that the functional site in Nrat1 was depended on specific genetic background. Unlike previous studies on the analysis of Nrat1, CC180 (PS), a super sensitive accession, had a new natural variation in the coding region of Nrat1, which caused big difference in Al toxicity tolerance between CC105 (PR) and PS and explained 88.7% phenotypic variation, suggesting the novel allele is important in genetic study or rice breeding for Al toxicity tolerance. This SNP was further confirmed by amplifying the sequence of coding region and promoter region in the two parents using PCR. However, there was no SNP variation in this site found in 3K-Rice Genome Project, suggesting it was a minor allele in Nrat1. Thus, it is also important to examine minor alleles in rice breeding when using natural gene resources.

Conclusion

A total of 21 QTL for Al toxicity tolerance at seedling stage were detected through GWAS and 8 most like candidate genes for 7 important QTL were identified according to haplotype analysis and gene functional annotation. Nrat1 (LOC_Os02g03900) is responsible for Al toxicity tolerance located in the region of 0.16–2.79 Mb on chromosome 2 detected by BSA-seq and linkage analyses. Comparison of cDNA sequence in Nrat1 between PR and PS, a new non-synonymous SNP variation was observed, which resulted in an amino-acid substitution from Ala (A) in PR to Asp (D) in PS. Haplotype analysis of Nrat1 indicated that minor allele variations in aus and indica subpopulation decreased Al toxicity tolerance in rice. Our results indicated that minor alleles are important for QTL mapping and application in rice breeding when natural gene resources are used.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Correlations of all measured traits under control (upper triangular) and Al stress (lower triangular) conditions.

The values on the principal diagonal were correlation coefficients of the same trait between control and stress conditions. Ellipses obliquing to right indicated positive correlations. The values without glyphs indicated insignificant at 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.s001

(JPG)

S2 Fig. Expression pattern of Nrat1 in PR and PS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.s002

(JPG)

S1 File. Quantile-Quantile plot comparing p-values for the mixed model.

Colored solid lines of the observed ordered -log10 (p-value) on the Y-axis vs expected -log10 (p-value) on the X-axis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.s003

(PPTX)

S2 File. All primers sequence used in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.s004

(XLSX)

S1 Table. ANOVA results of the measured traits under Al toxicity for 211 indica accessions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.s005

(DOCX)

S2 Table. ANOVA results of all measured traits under control and Al toxicity conditions for 211 indica accessions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.s006

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Statistic of sequencing results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.s007

(DOCX)

S4 Table. List of 6 SNP with ΔSNP index equal to 1 and neared genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198589.s008

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. Changlong Wen from Beijing Vegetable Research Center (BVRC) for KASP primer designing and SNP genotyping during the experiment.

References

1. Emanuel BQ, Camilo EM, Ileana EM, Manuel ME. Aluminum, a Friend or Foe of Higher Plants in Acid Soils. Front Plant Science. 2017; Oct 12: 1767.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01767 pmid:29075280
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Ryan PR, Shaff JE, Kochian LV. Aluminum Toxicity in Roots Correlation among Ionic Currents, Ion Fluxes, and Root Elongation in Aluminum-Sensitive and Aluminum-Tolerant Wheat Cultivars. Plant Physiology. 1992; 99: 1193–1200.https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.99.3.1193 pmid:16668988
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Xue Y, Wan J, Jiang L, Wang C, Liu L, Zhang YM, et al. Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci Associated with Aluminum Tolerance in Rice (Oryza Sativa L.). Euphytica. 2006; 150: 37–45.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-9089-4
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Wu P, Zhao B, Yan J, Luo A, Wu Y, Senadihra D. Genetic control of seedling tolerance to aluminum toxicity in rice. Euphytica. 1997; 97: 289–293
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Wang CY, Shen RF, Wang C, Wang W. Root protein profile changes induced by Al exposure in two rice cultivars differing in Al tolerance. Journal of Proteomics. 2013; 78: 281–293.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2012.09.035 pmid:23059537
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Nguyen VT, Burow MD, Nguyen HT, Le BT, Le TD, Paterson AH. Molecular mapping of genes conferring aluminum tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2001; 102: 1002–1010.https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/s001220000472
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Zhang P, Zhong K, Tong H, Shahid MQ, Li J. Association Mapping for Aluminum Tolerance in a Core Collection of Rice Landraces. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016; 7: 1415.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01415 pmid:27757115
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Meng L, Wang B, Zhao X, Ponce K, Qian Q, Ye G. Association Mapping of Ferrous, Zinc, and Aluminum Tolerance at the Seedling Stage in Indica Rice using MAGIC Populations. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017; 8: 1822.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01822 pmid:29123537
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Krill AM, Kirst M, Kochian LV, Buckler ES, Hoekenga OA. Association and Linkage Analysis of Aluminum Tolerance Genes in Maize. Plos One. 2010; 5: e9958.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009958 pmid:20376361
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Ninamangocardenas FE, Guimaraes CT, Martins PR, Parentoni SN, Carneiro NP, Lopes MA, et al. Mapping QTLs for aluminum tolerance in maize. Euphytica. 2003; 130: 223–232.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022867416513
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Zhou LL, Bai GH, Ma HX, Brettf C. Quantitative trait loci for aluminum resistance in wheat. Plant & Soil. 2006; 283: 239–249.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-006-9054-x
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Navakode S, Neumann K, Kobiljski B, Lohwasser U, Börner A. Genome wide association mapping to identify aluminium tolerance loci in bread wheat. Euphytica. 2014; 198: 401–411.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-014-1114-4
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Magalhaes JV, Garvin DF, Wang Y, Sorrells ME, Klein PE, Schaffert RE, et al. Comparative Mapping of a Major Aluminum Tolerance Gene in Sorghum and Other Species in the Poaceae. Genetics. 2004; 167: 1905–1914.https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.103.023580 pmid:15342528
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Caniato FF, Guimarães CT, Schaffert RE, Alves VM, Kochian LV, Borém A, et al. Genetic diversity for aluminum tolerance in sorghum. Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2007; 114: 863–876.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-006-0485-x pmid:17252254
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Wang J, Raman H, Zhou M, Ryan PR, Delhaize E, Hebb DM, et al. High-resolution mapping of the Alp locus and identification of a candidate gene HvMATE controlling aluminium tolerance in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2007; 115: 265–276.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-007-0562-9
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Navakode S, Weidner A, Varshney RK, Lohwasser U, Scholz U, Börner A. A QTL analysis of aluminium tolerance in barley, using gene-based markers. Cereal Research Communications. 2009; 37: 531–540.https://doi.org/10.1556/crc.37.2009.4.6
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Famoso AN, Clark RT, Shaff JE, Craft E, Mccouch SR, Kochian LV. Development of a Novel Aluminum Tolerance Phenotyping Platform Used for Comparisons of Cereal Aluminum Tolerance and Investigations into Rice Aluminum Tolerance Mechanisms. Plant Physiology. 2010; 153: 1678–1691 pmid:20538888
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Ma JF, Shen R, Zhao Z, Wissuwa M, Takeuchi Y, Ebitani T, et al. Response of rice to Al stress and identification of quantitative trait loci for Al tolerance. Plant & Cell Physiology. 2002; 43: 652–659.https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcf081 pmid:12091719
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Nguyen BD, Brar DS, Bui BC, Tao VN, Pham LN, Nguyen HT. Identification and mapping of the QTL for aluminum tolerance introgressed from the new source, ORYZA RUFIPOGON Griff., into indica rice (Oryza sativa L.). Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2003; 106: 583–593.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-002-1072-4 pmid:12595985
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Famoso AN, Zhao K, Clark RT, Tung CW, Wright MH, Bustamante C, et al. Genetic architecture of aluminum tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa) determined through genome-wide association analysis and QTL mapping. Plos Genetics. 2011; 7: 747–757.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002221 pmid:21829395
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Giovannoni JJ, Wing RA, Ganal MW, Tanksley SD. Isolation of molecular markers from specific chromosomal intervals using DNA pools from existing mapping populations. Nucleic Acids Research. 1991; 19: 6553.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/19.23.6553 pmid:1684420
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Takagi H, Abe A, Yoshida K, Kosugi S, Natsume S, Mitsuoka C, et al. QTL-seq: rapid mapping of quantitative trait loci in rice by whole genome resequencing of DNA from two bulked populations. Plant Journal. 2013; 74: 174.https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12105 pmid:23289725
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Yang Z, Huang D, Tang W, Zheng Y, Liang K, Cutler AJ, et al. Mapping of quantitative trait loci underlying cold tolerance in rice seedlings via high-throughput sequencing of pooled extremes. Plos One. 2013; 8: e68433.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068433 pmid:23935868
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Rodriguez-Uribe L, Higbie SM, Stewart JM, Wilkins T, Lindemann W, Sengupta-Gopalan C, et al. Identification of salt responsive genes using comparative microarray analysis in Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Science An International Journal of Experimental Plant Biology. 2011; 180: 461–469.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.10.009 pmid:21421393
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Chen F, Fu B, Pan Y, Zhang C, Wen H, Weng Y, et al. Fine mapping identifies CsGCN5 encoding a histone acetyltransferase as putative candidate gene for tendril-less1 mutation (td-1) in cucumber. Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2017: 1–10.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-017-2909-1 pmid:28466109
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Wang H, Li W, Qin Y, Pan Y, Wang X, Weng Y, et al. The Cytochrome P450 Gene CsCYP85A1 Is a Putative Candidate for Super Compact-1 (Scp-1) Plant Architecture Mutation in Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017; 8: 266.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00266 pmid:28303144
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Lu H, Lin T, Klein J, Wang S, Qi J, Zhou Q, et al. QTL-seq identifies an early flowering QTL located near Flowering Locus T in cucumber. Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2014; 127: 1491–1499.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-014-2313-z pmid:24845123
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Cheng Z, Wang P, Xu Y. Bulked sample analysis in genetics, genomics and crop improvement. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2016; 14: 1941–1955.https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12559 pmid:26990124
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Xia J, Yamaji N, Che J, Shen RF, Ma JF. Differential expression of Nrat1 is responsible for Al-tolerance QTL on chromosome 2 in rice. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2014; 65: 4297.https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru201 pmid:24821956
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Zhang J, Chen K, Pang Y, Naveed SA, Zhao X, Wang X, et al. QTL mapping and candidate gene analysis of ferrous iron and zinc toxicity tolerance at seedling stage in rice by genome-wide association study. BMC Genomics. 2017; 18: 828.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-4221-5 pmid:29078746
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. 3K RGP. The 3,000 rice genomes project. GigaScience. 2014; 3.https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-217x-3-7
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Yoshida S, Forno DA, Cock JH, Gomez KA. Routine procedure for growing rice plants in culture solution. Laboratory manual for physiological studies of rice. 1976: 61–66
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Lipka AE, Tian F, Wang Q, Peiffer J, Li M, Bradbury PJ, et al. GAPIT: genome association and prediction integrated tool. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28: 2397.https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts444 pmid:22796960
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25: 1754–1760.https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 pmid:19451168
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Wang K, Li M, Hakonarson H. ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Research. 2010; 38: e164.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq603 pmid:20601685
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Abe A, Kosugi S, Yoshida K, Natsume S, Takagi H, Kanzaki H, et al. Genome sequencing reveals agronomically important loci in rice using MutMap. Nature Biotechnology. 2012; 30: 174.https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2095 pmid:22267009
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Wang J, Li H., Zhang L., and Meng L. QTL IciMapping: Integrated software for genetic linkage map construction and quantitative trait locus mapping in biparental populations. The Crop Journal. 2015; 3.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2015.01.001
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods. 2001; 25: 402–408.https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262 pmid:11846609
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Alexandrov N, Tai S, Wang W, Mansueto L, Palis K, Fuentes RR, et al. SNP-Seek database of SNPs derived from 3000 rice genomes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2015; 43: D1023–D1027.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1039 pmid:25429973
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Mccouch SR, Wright MH, Tung CW, Maron LG, Mcnally KL, Fitzgerald M, et al. Open access resources for genome-wide association mapping in rice. Nature Communications. 2016; 7: 10532.https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10532 pmid:26842267
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Xia JX, Yamaji N, Kasai T, Ma JF. Plasma membrane-localized transporter for aluminum in rice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010; 107: 18381–18385.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004949107 pmid:20937890
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Li JY, Liu J, Dong D, Jia X, Mccouch SR, Kochian LV. Natural variation underlies alterations in Nramp aluminum transporter (NRAT1) expression and function that play a key role in rice aluminum tolerance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2014; 111: 6503–6508.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318975111 pmid:24728832
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Zhi CC, Jian FM. Up-regulation of a magnesium transporter gene OsMGT1 is required for conferring aluminum tolerance in rice. Plant Physiology. 2012; 159: 1624–1633.https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.199778 pmid:22732245
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Nguyen VT, Nguyen BD, Sarkarung S, Martinez C, Paterson AH, Nguyen HT. Mapping of genes controlling aluminum tolerance in rice: comparison of different genetic backgrounds. Molecular Genetics & Genomics. 2002; 267: 772–780.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00438-002-0686-1 pmid:12207224
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Chen LJ, Wuriyanghan H, Zhang YQ, Duan KX, Chen HW, Li QT, et al. An S-domain receptor-like kinase, OsSIK2, confers abiotic stress tolerance and delays dark-induced leaf senescence in rice. Plant Physiology. 2013; 163: 1752–1765.https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.224881 pmid:24143807
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Singh UM, Yadav S, Dixit S, Ramayya PJ, Devi MN, Raman KA, et al. QTL Hotspots for Early Vigor and Related Traits under Dry Direct-Seeded System in Rice (Oryza sativaL.). Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017; 8.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00286 pmid:28303149
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Yamaji N, Huang CF, Nagao S, Yano M, Sato Y, Nagamura Y, et al. A zinc finger transcription factor ART1 regulates multiple genes implicated in aluminum tolerance in rice. Plant Cell. 2009; 21: 3339.https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.109.070771 pmid:19880795
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Jain M, Nijhawan A, Arora R, Agarwal P, Ray S, Sharma P, et al. F-Box Proteins in Rice. Genome-Wide Analysis, Classification, Temporal and Spatial Gene Expression during Panicle and Seed Development, and Regulation by Light and Abiotic Stress. Plant Physiology. 2007; 143: 1467–1483.https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.106.091900 pmid:17293439
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Zhang C, Zhao H, Liu Y, Li Q, Liu X, Tan H, et al. Isolation and characterization of a novel glycogen synthase kinase-3 gene, GmGSK, in Glycine max L. that enhances abiotic stress tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnology Letters. 2010; 32: 861–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-010-0220-1 pmid:20155384
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Nakajima H, Amano W, Kubo T, Fukuhara A, Ihara H, Azuma YT, et al. Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase aggregate formation participates in oxidative stress-induced cell death. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2009; 284: 34331.https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m109.027698 pmid:19837666
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Atwell S, Huang YS, Vilhjálmsson BJ, Willems G, Horton M, Li Y, et al. Genome-wide association study of 107 phenotypes in Arabidopsis thaliana inbred lines. Nature. 2010; 465: 627.https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08800 pmid:20336072
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Feng B, Chen K, Cui Y, Wu Z, Zheng T, Zhu Y, et al. Genetic Dissection and Simultaneous Improvement of Drought and Low Nitrogen Tolerances by Designed QTL Pyramiding in Rice. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018; 9.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00306 pmid:29593764
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Munde NA, Jadhao KR, Samal KC, Pradhan SK, Rout GR. Allele mining in Indica rice (Oryza sativa L.) for ATP binding cassette (ABC) transporter gene family for aluminum tolerance. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2016; 21: 161–170.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40502-016-0217-4
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Emanuel BQ, Camilo EM, Ileana EM, Manuel ME. Aluminum, a Friend or Foe of Higher Plants in Acid Soils. Front Plant Science. 2017; Oct 12: 1767.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01767 pmid:29075280
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Ryan PR, Shaff JE, Kochian LV. Aluminum Toxicity in Roots Correlation among Ionic Currents, Ion Fluxes, and Root Elongation in Aluminum-Sensitive and Aluminum-Tolerant Wheat Cultivars. Plant Physiology. 1992; 99: 1193–1200.https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.99.3.1193 pmid:16668988
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Xue Y, Wan J, Jiang L, Wang C, Liu L, Zhang YM, et al. Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci Associated with Aluminum Tolerance in Rice (Oryza Sativa L.). Euphytica. 2006; 150: 37–45.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-9089-4
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Wu P, Zhao B, Yan J, Luo A, Wu Y, Senadihra D. Genetic control of seedling tolerance to aluminum toxicity in rice. Euphytica. 1997; 97: 289–293
View Article
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Wang CY, Shen RF, Wang C, Wang W. Root protein profile changes induced by Al exposure in two rice cultivars differing in Al tolerance. Journal of Proteomics. 2013; 78: 281–293.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2012.09.035 pmid:23059537
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[16] View Article

[17] PubMed/NCBI

[18] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Nguyen VT, Burow MD, Nguyen HT, Le BT, Le TD, Paterson AH. Molecular mapping of genes conferring aluminum tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2001; 102: 1002–1010.https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/s001220000472
View Article
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Zhang P, Zhong K, Tong H, Shahid MQ, Li J. Association Mapping for Aluminum Tolerance in a Core Collection of Rice Landraces. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016; 7: 1415.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01415 pmid:27757115
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Meng L, Wang B, Zhao X, Ponce K, Qian Q, Ye G. Association Mapping of Ferrous, Zinc, and Aluminum Tolerance at the Seedling Stage in Indica Rice using MAGIC Populations. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017; 8: 1822.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01822 pmid:29123537
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Krill AM, Kirst M, Kochian LV, Buckler ES, Hoekenga OA. Association and Linkage Analysis of Aluminum Tolerance Genes in Maize. Plos One. 2010; 5: e9958.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009958 pmid:20376361
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] PubMed/NCBI

[33] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Ninamangocardenas FE, Guimaraes CT, Martins PR, Parentoni SN, Carneiro NP, Lopes MA, et al. Mapping QTLs for aluminum tolerance in maize. Euphytica. 2003; 130: 223–232.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022867416513
View Article
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Zhou LL, Bai GH, Ma HX, Brettf C. Quantitative trait loci for aluminum resistance in wheat. Plant & Soil. 2006; 283: 239–249.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-006-9054-x
View Article
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Navakode S, Neumann K, Kobiljski B, Lohwasser U, Börner A. Genome wide association mapping to identify aluminium tolerance loci in bread wheat. Euphytica. 2014; 198: 401–411.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-014-1114-4
View Article
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Magalhaes JV, Garvin DF, Wang Y, Sorrells ME, Klein PE, Schaffert RE, et al. Comparative Mapping of a Major Aluminum Tolerance Gene in Sorghum and Other Species in the Poaceae. Genetics. 2004; 167: 1905–1914.https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.103.023580 pmid:15342528
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] PubMed/NCBI

[46] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Caniato FF, Guimarães CT, Schaffert RE, Alves VM, Kochian LV, Borém A, et al. Genetic diversity for aluminum tolerance in sorghum. Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2007; 114: 863–876.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-006-0485-x pmid:17252254
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[48] View Article

[49] PubMed/NCBI

[50] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Wang J, Raman H, Zhou M, Ryan PR, Delhaize E, Hebb DM, et al. High-resolution mapping of the Alp locus and identification of a candidate gene HvMATE controlling aluminium tolerance in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2007; 115: 265–276.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-007-0562-9
View Article
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Navakode S, Weidner A, Varshney RK, Lohwasser U, Scholz U, Börner A. A QTL analysis of aluminium tolerance in barley, using gene-based markers. Cereal Research Communications. 2009; 37: 531–540.https://doi.org/10.1556/crc.37.2009.4.6
View Article
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Famoso AN, Clark RT, Shaff JE, Craft E, Mccouch SR, Kochian LV. Development of a Novel Aluminum Tolerance Phenotyping Platform Used for Comparisons of Cereal Aluminum Tolerance and Investigations into Rice Aluminum Tolerance Mechanisms. Plant Physiology. 2010; 153: 1678–1691 pmid:20538888
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Ma JF, Shen R, Zhao Z, Wissuwa M, Takeuchi Y, Ebitani T, et al. Response of rice to Al stress and identification of quantitative trait loci for Al tolerance. Plant & Cell Physiology. 2002; 43: 652–659.https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcf081 pmid:12091719
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Nguyen BD, Brar DS, Bui BC, Tao VN, Pham LN, Nguyen HT. Identification and mapping of the QTL for aluminum tolerance introgressed from the new source, ORYZA RUFIPOGON Griff., into indica rice (Oryza sativa L.). Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2003; 106: 583–593.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-002-1072-4 pmid:12595985
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Famoso AN, Zhao K, Clark RT, Tung CW, Wright MH, Bustamante C, et al. Genetic architecture of aluminum tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa) determined through genome-wide association analysis and QTL mapping. Plos Genetics. 2011; 7: 747–757.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002221 pmid:21829395
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Giovannoni JJ, Wing RA, Ganal MW, Tanksley SD. Isolation of molecular markers from specific chromosomal intervals using DNA pools from existing mapping populations. Nucleic Acids Research. 1991; 19: 6553.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/19.23.6553 pmid:1684420
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Takagi H, Abe A, Yoshida K, Kosugi S, Natsume S, Mitsuoka C, et al. QTL-seq: rapid mapping of quantitative trait loci in rice by whole genome resequencing of DNA from two bulked populations. Plant Journal. 2013; 74: 174.https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12105 pmid:23289725
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Yang Z, Huang D, Tang W, Zheng Y, Liang K, Cutler AJ, et al. Mapping of quantitative trait loci underlying cold tolerance in rice seedlings via high-throughput sequencing of pooled extremes. Plos One. 2013; 8: e68433.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068433 pmid:23935868
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Rodriguez-Uribe L, Higbie SM, Stewart JM, Wilkins T, Lindemann W, Sengupta-Gopalan C, et al. Identification of salt responsive genes using comparative microarray analysis in Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Science An International Journal of Experimental Plant Biology. 2011; 180: 461–469.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.10.009 pmid:21421393
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Chen F, Fu B, Pan Y, Zhang C, Wen H, Weng Y, et al. Fine mapping identifies CsGCN5 encoding a histone acetyltransferase as putative candidate gene for tendril-less1 mutation (td-1) in cucumber. Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2017: 1–10.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-017-2909-1 pmid:28466109
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Wang H, Li W, Qin Y, Pan Y, Wang X, Weng Y, et al. The Cytochrome P450 Gene CsCYP85A1 Is a Putative Candidate for Super Compact-1 (Scp-1) Plant Architecture Mutation in Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017; 8: 266.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00266 pmid:28303144
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] PubMed/NCBI

[96] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Lu H, Lin T, Klein J, Wang S, Qi J, Zhou Q, et al. QTL-seq identifies an early flowering QTL located near Flowering Locus T in cucumber. Theoretical & Applied Genetics. 2014; 127: 1491–1499.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-014-2313-z pmid:24845123
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] PubMed/NCBI

[100] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Cheng Z, Wang P, Xu Y. Bulked sample analysis in genetics, genomics and crop improvement. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2016; 14: 1941–1955.https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12559 pmid:26990124
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] PubMed/NCBI

[104] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Xia J, Yamaji N, Che J, Shen RF, Ma JF. Differential expression of Nrat1 is responsible for Al-tolerance QTL on chromosome 2 in rice. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2014; 65: 4297.https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru201 pmid:24821956
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Zhang J, Chen K, Pang Y, Naveed SA, Zhao X, Wang X, et al. QTL mapping and candidate gene analysis of ferrous iron and zinc toxicity tolerance at seedling stage in rice by genome-wide association study. BMC Genomics. 2017; 18: 828.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-4221-5 pmid:29078746
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. 3K RGP. The 3,000 rice genomes project. GigaScience. 2014; 3.https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-217x-3-7
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Yoshida S, Forno DA, Cock JH, Gomez KA. Routine procedure for growing rice plants in culture solution. Laboratory manual for physiological studies of rice. 1976: 61–66
View Article
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Lipka AE, Tian F, Wang Q, Peiffer J, Li M, Bradbury PJ, et al. GAPIT: genome association and prediction integrated tool. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28: 2397.https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts444 pmid:22796960
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25: 1754–1760.https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 pmid:19451168
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Wang K, Li M, Hakonarson H. ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Research. 2010; 38: e164.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq603 pmid:20601685
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] PubMed/NCBI

[130] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Abe A, Kosugi S, Yoshida K, Natsume S, Takagi H, Kanzaki H, et al. Genome sequencing reveals agronomically important loci in rice using MutMap. Nature Biotechnology. 2012; 30: 174.https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2095 pmid:22267009
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Wang J, Li H., Zhang L., and Meng L. QTL IciMapping: Integrated software for genetic linkage map construction and quantitative trait locus mapping in biparental populations. The Crop Journal. 2015; 3.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2015.01.001
View Article
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods. 2001; 25: 402–408.https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262 pmid:11846609
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Alexandrov N, Tai S, Wang W, Mansueto L, Palis K, Fuentes RR, et al. SNP-Seek database of SNPs derived from 3000 rice genomes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2015; 43: D1023–D1027.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1039 pmid:25429973
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] PubMed/NCBI

[145] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Mccouch SR, Wright MH, Tung CW, Maron LG, Mcnally KL, Fitzgerald M, et al. Open access resources for genome-wide association mapping in rice. Nature Communications. 2016; 7: 10532.https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10532 pmid:26842267
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] PubMed/NCBI

[149] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Xia JX, Yamaji N, Kasai T, Ma JF. Plasma membrane-localized transporter for aluminum in rice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010; 107: 18381–18385.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004949107 pmid:20937890
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] PubMed/NCBI

[153] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Li JY, Liu J, Dong D, Jia X, Mccouch SR, Kochian LV. Natural variation underlies alterations in Nramp aluminum transporter (NRAT1) expression and function that play a key role in rice aluminum tolerance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2014; 111: 6503–6508.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318975111 pmid:24728832
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] PubMed/NCBI

[157] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Zhi CC, Jian FM. Up-regulation of a magnesium transporter gene OsMGT1 is required for conferring aluminum tolerance in rice. Plant Physiology. 2012; 159: 1624–1633.https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.199778 pmid:22732245
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] PubMed/NCBI

[161] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Nguyen VT, Nguyen BD, Sarkarung S, Martinez C, Paterson AH, Nguyen HT. Mapping of genes controlling aluminum tolerance in rice: comparison of different genetic backgrounds. Molecular Genetics & Genomics. 2002; 267: 772–780.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00438-002-0686-1 pmid:12207224
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] PubMed/NCBI

[165] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Chen LJ, Wuriyanghan H, Zhang YQ, Duan KX, Chen HW, Li QT, et al. An S-domain receptor-like kinase, OsSIK2, confers abiotic stress tolerance and delays dark-induced leaf senescence in rice. Plant Physiology. 2013; 163: 1752–1765.https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.224881 pmid:24143807
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] PubMed/NCBI

[169] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Singh UM, Yadav S, Dixit S, Ramayya PJ, Devi MN, Raman KA, et al. QTL Hotspots for Early Vigor and Related Traits under Dry Direct-Seeded System in Rice (Oryza sativaL.). Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017; 8.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00286 pmid:28303149
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[171] View Article

[172] PubMed/NCBI

[173] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Yamaji N, Huang CF, Nagao S, Yano M, Sato Y, Nagamura Y, et al. A zinc finger transcription factor ART1 regulates multiple genes implicated in aluminum tolerance in rice. Plant Cell. 2009; 21: 3339.https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.109.070771 pmid:19880795
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] PubMed/NCBI

[177] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Jain M, Nijhawan A, Arora R, Agarwal P, Ray S, Sharma P, et al. F-Box Proteins in Rice. Genome-Wide Analysis, Classification, Temporal and Spatial Gene Expression during Panicle and Seed Development, and Regulation by Light and Abiotic Stress. Plant Physiology. 2007; 143: 1467–1483.https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.106.091900 pmid:17293439
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] PubMed/NCBI

[181] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Zhang C, Zhao H, Liu Y, Li Q, Liu X, Tan H, et al. Isolation and characterization of a novel glycogen synthase kinase-3 gene, GmGSK, in Glycine max L. that enhances abiotic stress tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnology Letters. 2010; 32: 861–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-010-0220-1 pmid:20155384
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[183] View Article

[184] PubMed/NCBI

[185] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Nakajima H, Amano W, Kubo T, Fukuhara A, Ihara H, Azuma YT, et al. Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase aggregate formation participates in oxidative stress-induced cell death. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2009; 284: 34331.https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m109.027698 pmid:19837666
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[187] View Article

[188] PubMed/NCBI

[189] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Atwell S, Huang YS, Vilhjálmsson BJ, Willems G, Horton M, Li Y, et al. Genome-wide association study of 107 phenotypes in Arabidopsis thaliana inbred lines. Nature. 2010; 465: 627.https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08800 pmid:20336072
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[191] View Article

[192] PubMed/NCBI

[193] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Feng B, Chen K, Cui Y, Wu Z, Zheng T, Zhu Y, et al. Genetic Dissection and Simultaneous Improvement of Drought and Low Nitrogen Tolerances by Designed QTL Pyramiding in Rice. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018; 9.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00306 pmid:29593764
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] PubMed/NCBI

[197] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Munde NA, Jadhao KR, Samal KC, Pradhan SK, Rout GR. Allele mining in Indica rice (Oryza sativa L.) for ATP binding cassette (ABC) transporter gene family for aluminum tolerance. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2016; 21: 161–170.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40502-016-0217-4
View Article
Google Scholar

[199] View Article

[200] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Plant materials

Evaluation for Al toxicity tolerance and phenotypic data collection

Association mapping of Al toxicity tolerance

Candidate genes analysis for important QTL affecting Al toxicity tolerance

BSA-seq analysis of the major QTL on chromosome 2

Linkage analysis of the major QTL on chromosome 2

Sequence and expression analysis of Nrat1 in PR and PS

Haplotype analysis of Nrat1 in 327 accessions from 3K RGP

Results

Phenotypic variations responsive to Al stress

Identification of Al toxicity tolerance QTL through GWAS

Candidate genes analysis for the important QTL

Detection of QTL for Al toxicity tolerance by BSA-seq and linkage analysis

Sequence and expression of Nrat1 in PR and PS

Allele variation and haplotype analysis of Nrat1

Discussion

Identification of QTL and candidate gene for Al toxicity tolerance by GWAS

Importance of above ground traits for evaluating Al toxicity tolerance in rice

Integration of GWAS with BSA-seq in QTL mapping and gene identification

SNP variation in Nrat1 affected Al toxicity tolerance in rice

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Correlations of all measured traits under control (upper triangular) and Al stress (lower triangular) conditions.

S2 Fig. Expression pattern of Nrat1 in PR and PS.

S1 File. Quantile-Quantile plot comparing p-values for the mixed model.

S2 File. All primers sequence used in this study.

S1 Table. ANOVA results of the measured traits under Al toxicity for 211 indica accessions.

S2 Table. ANOVA results of all measured traits under control and Al toxicity conditions for 211 indica accessions.

S3 Table. Statistic of sequencing results.

S4 Table. List of 6 SNP with ΔSNP index equal to 1 and neared genes.

Acknowledgments

References