Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22805587›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2012

Application of next-generation sequencing for rapid marker development in molecular plant breeding: a case study on anthracnose disease resistance in Lupinus angustifolius L.

Huaan Yang, Ye Tao, Zequn Zheng, Chengdao Li, Mark W Sweetingham, John G Howieson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Huaan YangDepartment of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, 3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth, 6151, Australia. huaan.yang@agric.wa.gov.au
Ye Tao
Zequn Zheng
Chengdao Li
Mark W Sweetingham
John G Howieson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the last 30 years, a number of DNA fingerprinting methods such as RFLP, RAPD, AFLP, SSR, DArT, have been extensively used in marker development for molecular plant breeding. However, it remains a daunting task to identify highly polymorphic and closely linked molecular markers for a target trait for molecular marker-assisted selection. The next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology is far more powerful than any existing generic DNA fingerprinting methods in generating DNA markers. In this study, we employed a grain legume crop Lupinus angustifolius (lupin) as a test case, and examined the utility of an NGS-based method of RAD (restriction-site associated DNA) sequencing as DNA fingerprinting for rapid, cost-effective marker development tagging a disease resistance gene for molecular breeding.

resultsTwenty informative plants from a cross of RxS (disease resistant x susceptible) in lupin were subjected to RAD single-end sequencing by multiplex identifiers. The entire RAD sequencing products were resolved in two lanes of the 16-lanes per run sequencing platform Solexa HiSeq2000. A total of 185 million raw reads, approximately 17 Gb of sequencing data, were collected. Sequence comparison among the 20 test plants discovered 8207 SNP markers. Filtration of DNA sequencing data with marker identification parameters resulted in the discovery of 38 molecular markers linked to the disease resistance gene Lanr1. Five randomly selected markers were converted into cost-effective, simple PCR-based markers. Linkage analysis using marker genotyping data and disease resistance phenotyping data on a F8 population consisting of 186 individual plants confirmed that all these five markers were linked to the R gene. Two of these newly developed sequence-specific PCR markers, AnSeq3 and AnSeq4, flanked the target R gene at a genetic distance of 0.9 centiMorgan (cM), and are now replacing the markers previously developed by a traditional DNA fingerprinting method for marker-assisted selection in the Australian national lupin breeding program.

conclusionsWe demonstrated that more than 30 molecular markers linked to a target gene of agronomic trait of interest can be identified from a small portion (1/8) of one sequencing run on HiSeq2000 by applying NGS based RAD sequencing in marker development. The markers developed by the strategy described in this study are all co-dominant SNP markers, which can readily be converted into high throughput multiplex format or low-cost, simple PCR-based markers desirable for large scale marker implementation in plant breeding programs. The high density and closely linked molecular markers associated with a target trait help to overcome a major bottleneck for implementation of molecular markers on a wide range of germplasm in breeding programs. We conclude that application of NGS based RAD sequencing as DNA fingerprinting is a very rapid and cost-effective strategy for marker development in molecular plant breeding. The strategy does not require any prior genome knowledge or molecular information for the species under investigation, and it is applicable to other plant species.

Indexed as

Base SequenceColletotrichumDisease ResistanceDNA ShufflingGenes, PlantGenetic Association StudiesGenetic LinkageGenetic MarkersInbreedingLupinusPlant DiseasesPolymerase Chain ReactionPolymorphism, Single NucleotideRecombination, GeneticReproducibility of ResultsRestriction MappingGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID22805587
PMCPMC3430595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.