Advertisement

Temporal genetic patterns of root growth in Brassica napus L. revealed by a low-cost, high-efficiency hydroponic system

  • Jie Wang
  • Lieqiong Kuang
  • Xinfa Wang
  • Guihua Liu
  • Xiaoling DunEmail author
  • Hanzhong WangEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Key message

Application of a low-cost and high-efficiency hydroponic system in a rapeseed population verified two types of genetic factors (“persistent” and “stage-specific”) that control root development.

Abstract

The root system is a vital plant component for nutrient and water acquisition and is targeted to enhance plant productivity. Genetic dissection of the root system generally focuses on a single stage, but roots grow continuously during plant development. To reveal the temporal genetic patterns of root development, we measured nine root-related traits in a rapeseed recombinant inbred line population at six continuous stages during vegetative growth, using a modified hydroponic system with low-cost and high-efficiency features that could synchronize plant growth under controlled conditions. Phenotypic correlation and growth dynamic analysis suggested the existence of two types of genetic factors (“persistent” and “stage-specific”) that control root development. Dynamic (unconditional and conditional) quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping detected 28 stage-specific and 23 persistent QTLs related to root growth. Among them, 13 early stage-specific, 19 persistent and 8 later stage-specific QTLs were detected at 7 DAS (days after sowing), 16 DAS and 5 EL (expanding leaf stage), respectively, providing efficient and adaptable stages for QTL identification. The effective prediction of biomass accumulation using root morphological traits (up to 96.6% or 92.64% at a specific stage or the final stage, respectively) verified that root growth allocation with maximum root uptake area facilitated biomass accumulation. Furthermore, marker-assistant selection, which combined the “persistent” and “stage-specific” QTLs, proved their effectiveness for root improvement with an excellent uptake area. Our results highlight the potential of high-throughput and precise phenotyping to assess the dynamic genetics of root growth and provide new insights into ideotype root system-based biomass breeding.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31501820), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFD0100200), the National Key Basic Research Program of China (2015CB150200), and the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Project (CAAS-ASTIP-2013-OCRI).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

122_2019_3356_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (55 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 55 kb)
122_2019_3356_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (259 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 259 kb)

References

  1. Adu MO, Chatot A, Wiesel L, Bennett MJ, Broadley MR, White PJ, Dupuy LX (2014) A scanner system for high-resolution quantification of variation in root growth dynamics of Brassica rapa genotypes. J Exp Bot 65:2039–2048.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcade A, Labourdette A, Falque M, Mangin B, Chardon F, Charcosset A, Joets J (2004) BioMercator: integrating genetic maps and QTL towards discovery of candidate genes. Bioinformatics 20:2324–2326.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo GC et al (2015) Multiple interval QTL mapping and searching for PSTOL1 homologs associated with root morphology, biomass accumulation and phosphorus content in maize seedlings under low-P. BMC Plant Biol 15:172.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-015-0561-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balkema-Boomstra AG (1992) The relation between grain yield and some related traits of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and their usefulness in a breeding program. Euphytica 65:99–106.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00022571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengough AG et al (2004) Gel observation chamber for rapid screening of root traits in cereal seedlings. Plant Soil 262:63–70.  https://doi.org/10.1023/BPlso.0000037029.82618.27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bian YL et al (2015) Mapping dynamic QTL of stalk sugar content at different growth stages in maize. Euphytica 205:85–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-015-1397-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonke M et al (2003) APL regulates vascular tissue identity in Arabidopsis. Nature 426:181–186.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burton AL et al (2014) QTL mapping and phenotypic variation for root architectural traits in maize (Zea mays L.). Theor Appl Genet 127:2293–2311.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-014-2353-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cai HG et al (2012) Mapping QTLs for root system architecture of maize (Zea mays L.) in the field at different developmental stages. Theor Appl Genet 125:1313–1324.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-012-1915-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chalhoub B et al (2014) Early allopolyploid evolution in the post-Neolithic Brassica napus oilseed genome. Science 345:950–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christopher J et al (2013) QTL for root angle and number in a population developed from bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) with contrasting adaptation to water-limited environments. Theor Appl Genet 126:1563–1574.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-013-2074-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Churchill GA, Doerge RW (1994) Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138:963–971.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.080101 Google Scholar
  13. Comas LH, Becker SR, Cruz VM, Byrne PF, Dierig DA (2013) Root traits contributing to plant productivity under drought. Frontiers in Plant Science 4:442.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cotsaftis O et al (2011) Root-specific transcript profiling of contrasting rice genotypes in response to salinity stress. Mol Plant 4:25–41.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/ssq056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Dorlodot S, Forster B, Pages L, Price A, Tuberosa R, Draye X (2007) Root system architecture: opportunities and constraints for genetic improvement of crops. Trends Plant Sci 12:474–481.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dun X, Tao Z, Wang J, Wang X, Liu G, Wang H (2016) Comparative transcriptome analysis of primary roots of Brassica napus seedlings with extremely different primary root lengths using RNA sequencing. Front Plant Sci 7:1238.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gu R et al (2016) Enhancing phosphorus uptake efficiency through QTL-based selection for root system architecture in maize. J Genet Genom 43:663–672.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgg.2016.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krill AM, Kirst M, Kochian LV, Buckler ES, Hoekenga OA (2010) Association and linkage analysis of aluminum tolerance genes in maize. PLoS ONE 5:e9958.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li J et al (2015a) qRT9, a quantitative trait locus controlling root thickness and root length in upland rice. J Exp Bot 66:2723–2732.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li P et al (2015b) A genetic relationship between nitrogen use efficiency and seedling root traits in maize as revealed by QTL analysis. J Exp Bot 66:3175–3188.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li P et al (2016) Use of genotype-environment interactions to elucidate the pattern of maize root plasticity to nitrogen deficiency. J Integr Plant Biol 58:242–253.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liang Q et al (2014) Dynamic QTL and epistasis analysis on seedling root traits in upland cotton. J Genet 93:63–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12041-014-0341-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu S et al (2016) A genome-wide association study reveals novel elite allelic variations in seed oil content of Brassica napus. Theor Appl Genet 129:1203–1215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-016-2697-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ludwig F, Asseng S (2010) Potential benefits of early vigor and changes in phenology in wheat to adapt to warmer and drier climates. Agric Syst 103:127–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2009.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lynch J (1995) Root architecture and plant productivity. Plant Physiol 109:7–13.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.109.1.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maccaferri M et al (2008) Quantitative trait loci for grain yield and adaptation of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) across a wide range of water availability. Genetics 178:489–511.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.077297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maccaferri M et al (2016) Prioritizing quantitative trait loci for root system architecture in tetraploid wheat. J Exp Bot 67:1161–1178.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mai CD et al (2014) Genes controlling root development in rice. Rice 7:30.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12284-014-0030-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manavalan LP et al (2015) Identification of novel QTL governing root architectural traits in an interspecific soybean population. PLoS ONE 10:e0120490.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meister R, Rajani MS, Ruzicka D, Schachtman DP (2014) Challenges of modifying root traits in crops for agriculture. Trends Plant Sci 19:779–788.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pace J, Gardner C, Romay C, Ganapathysubramanian B, Lubberstedt T (2015) Genome-wide association analysis of seedling root development in maize (Zea mays L.). BMC Genom 16:47.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1226-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paez-Garcia A, Motes CM, Scheible WR, Chen R, Blancaflor EB, Monteros MJ (2015) Root traits and phenotyping strategies for plant improvement. Plants 4:334–355.  https://doi.org/10.3390/plants4020334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Price AH (2006) Believe it or not, QTLs are accurate! Trends Plant Sci 11:213–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2006.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pulwicki J, Hobill D (2017) The dynamics of root growth: a geometric model. Bull Math Biol 79:1820–1845.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-017-0308-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reynolds M, Bonnett D, Chapman SC, Furbank RT, Manes Y, Mather DE, Parry MA (2011) Raising yield potential of wheat. I. Overview of a consortium approach and breeding strategies. J Exp Bot 62:439–452.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robbins NE, Dinneny JR (2015) The divining root: moisture-driven responses of roots at the micro- and macro-scale. J Exp Bot 66:2145–2154.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salvi S et al (2016) Two major quantitative trait loci controlling the number of seminal roots in maize co-map with the root developmental genes RTCS and RUM1. J Exp Bot 67:1149–1159.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shi J et al (2009) Unraveling the complex trait of crop yield with quantitative trait loci mapping in Brassica napus. Genetics 182:851–861.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.109.101642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shi L et al (2013) High-throughput root phenotyping screens identify genetic loci associated with root architectural traits in Brassica napus under contrasting phosphate availabilities. Ann Bot 112:381–389.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Song W, Wang B, Hauck AL, Dong X, Li J, Lai J (2016) Genetic dissection of maize seedling root system architecture traits using an ultra-high density bin-map and a recombinant inbred line population. J Integr Plant Biol 58:266–279.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Su J et al (2018) Dynamic and epistatic QTL mapping reveal the complex genetic architecture of waterlogging tolerance in chrysanthemum. Planta 247:899–924.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-017-2833-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sun HW et al (2015) Nitric oxide generated by nitrate reductase increases nitrogen uptake capacity by inducing lateral root formation and inorganic nitrogen uptake under partial nitrate nutrition in rice. J Exp Bot 66:2449–2459.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tian H, De Smet I, Ding Z (2014) Shaping a root system: regulating lateral versus primary root growth. Trends Plant Sci 19:426–431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tocquin P, Corbesier L, Havelange A, Pieltain A, Kurtem E, Bernier G, Perilleux C (2003) A novel high efficiency, low maintenance, hydroponic system for synchronous growth and flowering of Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Plant Biol 3:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Topp CN et al (2013) 3D phenotyping and quantitative trait locus mapping identify core regions of the rice genome controlling root architecture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:E1695–E1704.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1304354110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tuberosa R, Sanguineti MC, Landi P, Michela Giuliani M, Salvi S, Conti S (2002) Identification of QTLs for root characteristics in maize grown in hydroponics and analysis of their overlap with QTLs for grain yield in the field at two water regimes. Plant Mol Biol 48:697–712.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014897607670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Uga Y, Okuno K, Yano M (2011) Dro1, a major QTL involved in deep rooting of rice under upland field conditions. J Exp Bot 62:2485–2494.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Uga Y et al (2013) Control of root system architecture by DEEPER ROOTING 1 increases rice yield under drought conditions. Nat Genet 45:1097–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang J (2017) Genetic Basis of root traits in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Dissertation, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  50. Wang X et al (2015) Dynamic and comparative QTL analysis for plant height in different developmental stages of Brassica napus L. Theor Appl Genet 128:1175–1192.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2498-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang J, Dun X, Shi J, Wang X, Liu G, Wang H (2017a) Genetic dissection of root morphological traits related to nitrogen use efficiency in Brassica napus L. under two contrasting nitrogen conditions. Front Plant Sci 8:1709.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang X et al (2017b) Genetic variants associated with the root system architecture of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) under contrasting phosphate supply. DNA Res.  https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/dsx013 Google Scholar
  53. Wasson AP et al (2012) Traits and selection strategies to improve root systems and water uptake in water-limited wheat crops. J Exp Bot 63:3485–3498.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yang M, Ding G, Shi L, Feng J, Xu F, Meng J (2010) Quantitative trait loci for root morphology in response to low phosphorus stress in Brassica napus. Theor Appl Genet 121:181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-010-1301-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang Y, Shi J, Wang X, Liu G, Wang H (2016) Genetic architecture and mechanism of seed number per pod in rapeseed: elucidated through linkage and near-isogenic line analysis. Sci Rep 6:24124.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ye J et al (2017) An integrated analysis of QTL mapping and RNA sequencing provides further insights and promising candidates for pod number variation in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). BMC Genom 18:71.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-3402-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zeng ZB (1994) Precision mapping of quantitative trait loci. Genetics 136:1457–1468Google Scholar
  58. Zhang Y et al (2016) QTL meta-analysis of root traits in Brassica napus under contrasting phosphorus supply in two growth systems. Sci Rep 6:33113.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhao J et al (2004) Characterization of root architecture in an applied core collection for phosphorus efficiency of soybean germplasm. Chin Sci Bull 49:1611–1620.  https://doi.org/10.1360/04wc0142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhu J (1995) Analysis of conditional genetic effects and variance components in developmental genetics. Genetics 141:1633–1639Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oil Crops Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Biology and Genetic Improvement of Oil CropsMinistry of AgricultureWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations