12 muranty
TRANSCRIPT
Genome Wide Association Study of two phenology traits in apple
Hélène Muranty, INRA-Angers, France
Acknowledgements Conference organizers
Co-authors• C. Denancé, D. Leforestier, E. Ravon, A. Guyader, R. Guisnel, L. Feugey, F.
Laurens, C.-E. Durel• J. Urrestarazu, S. Tartarini, L. Dondini, R. Gregori• M. Lateur, P. Houben• J. Sedlak, F. Paprstein • M. Ordidge • H. Nybom, L. Garkava-Gustavsson• M. Troggio, L. Bianco, R. Velasco• M.C.A.M. Bink, W. Kruijer
INRA-Clermont-Fd, Gentyane platform: C. Poncet, …
Why GWAS ?
• Discover and quantify effects of genomic regions associated to complex traitssubstantially increase resolution by using collections
of unrelated individuals
candidate genesmarkers for selectionorigin of favorable alleles Yu and Buckler (2006)
many generations
Individual M1 M2 M3 M4 Phenotype
1 2 2 2 1 202 1 0 0 0 83 2 2 0 0 244 1 1 2 1 45 1 0 0 0 146 1 1 2 1 12
-log p
Chromosomal location
GWAS components
Scoring Detection
Mackay et al (2009)
Very high density genotypingAffymetrix Axiom_Apple480k array
Why phenology traits ?
• target cultivar development / growing season length in production areas
• develop cultivars able to face climate change challenges
Data available - MaterialCountry SizeF – INRA (CC) 278B – CRA-W 229UK – U. Reading (CC) 294CZ - RBIPH 178I – UNIBO (CC) 179SW – SLU 162
1168
6 collectionsold and local dessert apple cvrs
Phenotypes
trait scale note
flowering period
1 (Extremely early) -> 9 (Extremely late)
comparison to reference cultivars
picking date days from 1st January
picking period 1 (Extremely early) -> 9 (Extremely late)
comparison to reference cultivars
Phenotypic analysis
site Flowering period Picking Date Picking period
# data/gt h² # data/gt h² # data/gt h²
F - INRA 3.0 0.88 3.9 0.96 1.8 0.86
B - CRA-W 4.9 0.88 1 - 4.3 0.87
UK - U. Reading ? - 2.0 0.88 1? -
CZ - RPIPH 5.0 0.85 5.1 0.92
I - UNIBO 7.6 0.84 2.1 0.96 6.6 0.94
SW- SLU 3.0 0.81 2.9 0.98 2.9 0.98
all sites 0.82 0.94 0.89
Heritability of the means
genotypic means adjusted for • year effects: collection per collection analysis• (site x year) effects: all collections together
= =
NMHom: No Minor Homozygous
2.4%
Genotypes: quality control and filtering
275K
Additional filtering pipeline
technical replicates (GoldenDel)biological replicatesMendelian consistency
mapping progeniesparent-offspring pairs
NMHom: No Minor Homozygous 12K
correct Poly High Resolution 360KUnexpectedHeterozygosity 11K
criteria from SNP Polisher visual scoring ~1600 SNP good/poorlogistic regression -> quality prediction
Affymetrix Axiom_Apple480k array
487K
SNP Polisher
Samples: DQC > 0.82 and CallRate > 97%
Unexpected Heterozygosity
2.8%
correct PHR73.8%
Physical map: present drawbacks• Scaffold orientation on LG undetermined• arbitrary 1000bp between scaffolds on LG• some scaffolds attributed to LG without position•many SNP (~25%) on scaffolds not attributed to any
LG LG0 (LG18)
• some SNP from previous arrays not located on the present physical map LG20
GWAS: Model choice to avoid false positives
Y = µ + SNP + e Y = µ + Q + SNP + e Y = µ + K + SNP + e Y = µ + Q + K + SNP + e
Population structure in apple
(3.9 %)
(2.9
%)
Flowering periodCRA-W INRA NFC
RBIPH SLU UNIBO
SNP + Q + K model
Flowering period: advanced model
INRA NFC RBIPH
SNP + Q + K model + SNP cofactorsExtended BIC model selection criteriaMLMM Ségura et al (2012)
LG9
LG9 x 2LG12
LG11LG9
Flowering period: all collections
SNP + Q + K model
SNP + Q + K model + SNP cofactorsExt BIC best modelMLMM Ségura et al (2012)
Flowering period:Affx-113839215 : LG9 @ 1293620
Picking dateINRA NFC
SLU UNIBO
SNP + Q + K model
Picking date: INRA+NFC+SLU+UNIBO
Comparison to previously detected regionstrait Chr regions in GWAS
(Mb)region in QTL analysis
(cM (Mb))comment reference
Flowering period
9 1.3 -1.6 0.4 (0.6) Belrène, 2 years Celton et al (2011)2.5
Allard et al Eucarpia Fruit 201516.9
Picking date 3 28.6 – 30.3 53.2 (26.0) Braeburn, 3 site-year comb
Chagné et al (2014)
44.3 75 Discovery Liebhard et al (2003)
QTL position IC length ~10 cM
74kb
676kb
18kb222kb
127kb
Conclusions & Perspectives
• GWAS can detect already known QTL = proof of concept• Variation explained by kinship (+ structure) =
small effect QTLs undetectable genomic prediction• Look for candidate genes• markers for selection• origin of favorable alleles
Welcome in Angers, June 22-24 2016Rosaceae Genomics Conference 8
Thank you for listening