4.7 Article

TaGW2, a Good Reflection of Wheat Polyploidization and Evolution

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00318

Keywords

TaGW2; genetic differentiation; grain size; nucleotide polymorphism; Triticum aestivum

Categories

Funding

  1. China Natural Science Foundation [31270036, 30900898]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0100302]
  3. CAAS-Innovation Team Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hexaploid wheat consists of three subgenomes, namely, A, B, and D. These well-characterized ancestral genomes also exist at the diploid and tetraploid levels, thereby rendering wheat as a good model species for studying polyploidization. Here, we performed intra-and inter-species comparative analyses of wheat and its relatives to dissect polymorphism and differentiation of the TaGW2 genes. Our results showed that genetic diversity of TaGW2 decreased with progression from the diploids to tetraploids and hexaploids. The strongest selection occurred in the promoter regions of TaGW-2-6A and TaGW-2-6B. Phylogenetic trees clearly indicated that Triticum urartu and Ae. speltoides were the donors of the A and B genomes in tetraploid and hexaploid wheats. Haplotypes detected among hexaploid genotypes traced back to the tetraploid level. Fst and pi values revealed that the strongest selection on TaGW2 occurred at the tetraploid level rather than in hexaploid wheat. This infers that grain size enlargement, especially increased kernel width, mainly occurred in tetraploid genotypes. In addition, relative expression levels of TaGW2s significantly declined from the diploid level to tetraploids and hexaploids, further indicating that these genes negatively regulate kernel size. Our results also revealed that the polyploidization events possibly caused much stronger differentiation than domestication and breeding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available