Construction of a genetic linkage map in Pyropia yezoensis (Bangiales, Rhodophyta) and QTL analysis of several economic traits of blades

PLoS One. 2019 Mar 8;14(3):e0209128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209128. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Pyropia yezoensis is an economically important seaweed but its molecular genetics is poorly understood. In the present study, we used a doubled haploid (DH) population that was established in our previous work to construct a genetic linkage map of P. yezoensis and analyze the quantitative trait loci (QTLs) of blades. The DH population was genotyped with fluorescent sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) markers. A chi-square test identified 301 loci with normal segregation (P ≥ 0.01) and 96 loci (24.18%) with low-level skewed segregation (0.001 ≤ P < 0.01). The genetic map was constructed after a total of 92 loci were assembled into three linkage groups (LGs). The map spanned 557.36 cM covering 93.71% of the estimated genome, with a mean interlocus space of 6.23 cM. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (α = 5%) showed a uniform distribution of the markers along each LG. On the genetic map, 10 QTLs associated with five economic traits of blades were detected. One QTL was for length, one for width, two for fresh weight, two for specific growth rate of length and four for specific growth rate of fresh weight. These QTLs could explain 2.29-7.87% of the trait variations, indicating that their effects were all minor. The results may serve as a framework for future marker-assisted breeding in P. yezoensis.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Chromosome Mapping / methods*
  • Genotyping Techniques
  • Plant Proteins / genetics
  • Quantitative Trait Loci*
  • Rhodophyta / genetics*

Substances

  • Plant Proteins

Grants and funding

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Young Scientists Fund) (Grant No. 31302185), the National High Technology Research & Development Program of China (‘863’ Program) (Grant No. 2012AA10A411). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.