Advertisement

Molecular Genetics and Genomics

, Volume 294, Issue 2, pp 519–527 | Cite as

Analysis of European hazelnut (Corylus avellana) reveals loci for cultivar improvement and the effects of domestication and selection on nut and kernel traits

  • Amy Frary
  • Süleyman Can Ӧztürk
  • Hüseyin Irfan Balık
  • Selda Kayalak Balık
  • Gökhan Kızılcı
  • Sami Doğanlar
  • Anne FraryEmail author
Original Article
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

Turkey is a rich source of European hazelnut (Corylus avellana) germplasm with nearly 400 accessions in the national collection. This genetic material encompasses cultivars, landraces and wild genotypes which were characterized for 12 nut and 13 kernel traits over 2 years in the 1990s. Analysis of these attributes revealed both the positive and negative impacts that human selection and breeding have had on hazelnut. Thus, while selection has resulted in larger nuts and kernels, cultivars have fewer nuts per cluster and kernels with larger internal cavities. Breeding has also resulted in a propensity for cultivars to have higher proportions of double kernels and empty nuts, two traits which reduce quality and yield. In addition, it is clear that while selection has successfully increased hazelnut fat content it has not impacted overall flavor, a much more complex trait. The nut and kernel phenotypic data were combined with genotypic data from 406 simple sequence repeat marker alleles for association mapping of the quantitative trait loci (QTL) for the traits. A total of 78 loci were detected in the population with the highest proportions for nut (24%) and kernel (26%) appearance parameters followed by quality (19%), shell thickness (16%) and yield-related (15%) traits. It is hoped that some of the identified QTL will be useful for future breeding of hazelnut for improved nut and kernel yield and quality.

Keywords

Filbert Microsatellites Simple sequence repeats (SSRs) Quantitative trait locus (QTL) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Teberdar Ҫalişkan and Engin Ҫetiner for phenotypic characterization of the hazelnut material.

Author contributions

AF analyzed results and drafted manuscript; SCӦ generated genotypic data and performed mapping; HIB, SKB and GK provided plant material and phenotypic data; SD and AF devised experiments; AF obtained funding and revised draft. All authors approved of submitted manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK, project no: 212T201).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The work complies with ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.

Data availability

Data will be available at http://plantmolgen.iyte.edu.tr/data/ upon publication.

Supplementary material

438_2018_1527_MOESM1_ESM.tif (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIF 2727 KB)
438_2018_1527_MOESM2_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 11 KB)
438_2018_1527_MOESM3_ESM.docx (53 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 53 KB)

References

  1. Aarssen LW, Jordan CY (2001) Between-species patterns of covariation in plant size, seed size and fecundity in monocarpic herbs. Ecoscience 8:471–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alasalvar C, Karamac M, Kosinska A, Rybarzyk A, Shahidi F, Amarowicz R (2009) Antioxidant activity of hazelnut skin phenolics. J Agric Food Chem 57:4645–4650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacchetta L, Bernarndini C, DiStefano G, Pelliccia O (2005) Molecular characterization by RAPDs and micropropagation of Italian hazelnut cultivars. Acta Hortic 686:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacchetta L. Avanzato D, Botta R, Boccacci P, Drogoudi P, Metzidakis I, Rovira M, Silva AP, Solar A, Spera D, Aramini M, DiGiovanni B (2009) First results of “Safenut”: a European project for the preservation and utilization of hazelnut local genetic resources. Acta Hortic 845:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bassil NV, Botta R, Mehlenbacher SA (2005) Microsatellite markers in hazelnut: isolation, characterization and cross-species amplification. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 130:543–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beltramo C, Valentini N, Portis E, Torello D, Boccacci P, Angelica M, Botta R (2016) Genetic mapping and QTL analysis in European hazelnut (C. avellana L.). Mol Breed 36:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boccacci P, Akkak A, Bassil NV, Mehlenbacher SA, Botta R (2005) Characterization and evaluation of microsatellite loci in European hazelnut (C. avellana L.) and their transferability to other Corylus species. Mol Ecol Notes 5:934–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradbury PJ, Zhang Z, Kroon DE, Casstevens TM, Ramdoss Y, Buckler ES (2007) TASSEL: software for association mapping of complex traits in diverse samples. Bioinformatics 23:2633–2635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caliskan T, Cetiner E (1992) Bazi findik cesit ve tiplerinde karakterizasyon calismalari. T.C. Tarim ve Koyisleri Bakanligi, Tarimsal Arastirmalar Genel Mudurlugu, Findik Arastirma Ensitusu Mudurlugu Yayinlar no: 25Google Scholar
  10. Chen H, Mehlenbacher SA, Smith DC (2005) AFLP markers linked to eastern filbert blight resistance from OSU 408.040 hazelnut. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 130:412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cody ML (1966) A general theory of clutch size. Evolution 20:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Souza VAB, Byrne DH, Taylor JF (1998) Heritability, genetic and phenotypic correlations, and predicted selection response of quantitative traits in peach I: an analysis of several reproductive traints. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 123:598–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denison S (1995) Mesolithic food industry on Colonsay. Brit Archaeol 5Google Scholar
  14. Elzebroek ATG, Wind K (2008) Guide to cultivated plants. CABI, Wallingford, pp 117–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferran X, Tous J, Romero A, Lloveras J, Pericon JR (1997) Boron does not increase hazelnut fruit set and production. HortScience 32:1053–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrari M, Gori M, Monnanni R, Buiatti M, Scarascia Mugnozza GT, DePace C (2005) DNA fingerprinting of Corylus avellana L. accessions revealed by AFLP molecular markers. Acta Hortic 686:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fideghelli C, De Salvador FR (2009) World hazelnut situation and perspectives. Acta Hortic 845:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT (2018) http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. Accessed 10 May 2018
  19. Fulton TM, Chunwongse J, Tanksley SD (1990) Microprep protocol for extraction of DNA from tomato and other herbaceous plants. Plant Mol Biol Rep 13:207–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia JM, Agar IT, Streif J (1994) Lipid characteristics of kernels from different hazelnut varieties. Turk J Agric Forest 18:199–202Google Scholar
  21. Gokirmak T, Mehlenbacher SA, Bassil NV (2009) Characterization of European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) cultivars using SSR markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol 56:147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. GTHB (Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı) (2018) Bitkisel üretim verileri. https://www.tarim.gov.tr/sgb/Belgeler/SagMenuVeriler/BUGEM.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2018
  23. Gurcan K, Mehlenbacher SA, Botta R, Boccacci (2010) Development, characterization, segregation and mapping of microsatellite markers for European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) from enriched genomic libraries and usefulness in genetic diversity studies. Tree Genet Genomes 6:513–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henery ML, Westoby M (2001) Seed mass and seed nutrient content as predictors of seed output variation between species. Oikos 92:479–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ives C, Sathuvalli VR, Colburn BC, Mehlenbacher SA (2014) Mapping the incompatibility and style color loci in two hazelnut progenies. Hortic Sci 49:250–253Google Scholar
  26. Kafkas S, Dogan Y, Turan A, Seker H (2009) Genetic characterization of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) cultivars from Turkey using molecular markers. Hortic Sci 44:1557–1561Google Scholar
  27. Koksal AI, Artik N, Simsek A, Günes N (2006) Nutrient composition of hazelnut varieties cultivated in Turkey. Food Chem 99:509–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martins S, Simoes F, Matos J, Silva AOP, Carnide V (2014) Genetic relationship among wild, landraces and cultivars of hazelnut (Corylus avellana) from Portugal revealed through ISSR and AFLP markers. Plant Syst Evol 300:1035–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martins S, Simoes F, Mendonca D, Matos J, Silva AP, Carnide V (2015) Western European wild and landraces hazelnuts evaluated by SSR markers. Plant Mol Biol Rep 33:1712–1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mehlenbacher S (2009) Genetic resources for hazelnut: state of the art and future perspectives. Acta Hortic 845:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mehlenbacher SA, Brown RN, Davis JW, Chen H, Bassil NV, Smith DC, Kubisiak TL (2004) RAPD markers linked to eastern filbert blight resistance in Corylus avellana. Theor Appl Genet 108:651–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mehlenbacher SA, Brown RN, Nouhra ER, Gokirmak T, Bassel NV, Kubisiak TL (2006) A genetic linkage map for hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) based on RAPD and SSR markers. Genome 49:122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mohammadzedeh M, Fattahi R, Zamani Z, Khadivi-Khub A (2014) Genetic identity and relationships of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) landraces as revealed by morphological characteristics and molecular markers. Sci Hortic 167:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moles AT, Falster DS, Leishman MR, Westoby M (2004) Small-seeded species produce more seeds per square metre of canopy per year, but not per individual per lifetime. J Ecol 92:384–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Molnar TJ (2011) Corylus. In: Kole C (ed) Wild crop relatives: genomic and breeding resources. Forest trees. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norusis MJ (2010) PASW statistics 18 advanced statistical procedures. Prentice Hall Press, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  37. Ozturk SC, Ozturk SE, Celik I, Stampar F, Veberic R, Doganlar S, Solar A, Frary A (2017a) Molecular genetic diversity and association mapping of nut and kernel traits in Slovenian hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) germplasm. Tree Genet Genomes 13:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ozturk SC, Balik HI, Balik SK, Kizilci G, Duyar O, Doganlar S, Frary A (2017b) Molecular genetic diversity of the Turkish national hazelnut collection and selection of a core set. Tree Genet Genomes 13:113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ozturk SC, Goktay M, Allmer J, Doğanlar S, Frary A (2018) Development of simple sequence repeat markers in hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) by next generation sequencing and discrimination of Turkish hazelnut cultivars. Plant Mol Biol Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-018-1120-0 Google Scholar
  40. Pala M, Ackurt F, Loker M, Yildiz M, Omeroglu S (1996) Findik cesitlerinin bilesimi ve beslenme fizyolojisi bakimindan degerlendirmesi. Turk J Agric Forest 20:43–48Google Scholar
  41. Pitoni A, Torelli D, Vittori D, De Pace C, Scaglione D, Fornasiero A, Cattonaro F (2013) High-density marker genotyping in hazelnut (Corylus avellana). I. Genotyping-by-sequencing approach for efficient SNP discovery and DNA typing. In: III international symposium on molecular markers in horticulture, vol 1100, pp 63–69Google Scholar
  42. Rowley ER, Priest HD, Shen R, Wong WK, Mockler TC, Bryant DW, Fox SE (2009) Discovery of SNP markers in expressed genes of hazelnut. In: International symposium on molecular markers in horticulture, vol 859, pp 289–294Google Scholar
  43. Sathuvalli VR, Chen HL, Mehlenbacher SA, Smith DC (2011a) DNA markers linked to eastern filbert blight resistance in ‘Ratoli’ hazelnut. Tree Genet Genomes 7:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sathuvalli V, Mehlenbacher SA, Smith DC (2011b) DNA markers linked to eastern filbert blight resistance from a hazelnut selection from the Republic of Georgia. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 136:350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shrestha GK, Thompson MM, Righetti TL (1987) Floiar-applied boron increases fruit set in ‘Barcelona’ hazelnut. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 112:412–416Google Scholar
  46. Silva AP, Rosa E, Haneklaus SH (2011) Influence of foliar boron application on fruit set and yield of hazelnut. J Plant Nutr 26:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Storey JD (2002) A direct approach to false discovery rates. J R Stat Soc Ser B 64:479–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Storey JD, Tibshirani R (2003) Statistical significance for genome-wide experiments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:9440–9445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Torello Marinoni D, Valentini N, Portis E, Acquadro A, Beltramo C, Mehlenbacher SA, Mockler TC, Rowley ER, Botta R (2018) High density SNP mapping and QTL analysis for time of leaf budburst in Corylus avellana L. PloS One 13:e0195408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. UPOV [International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants] (1979) Hazelnut (Corylus avellana L. & Corylus maxima Mill.): guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability. Hazelnut/Noisetier/Haselnuss, 79-03-28. Doc. No. TG/71/3. UPOV, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  51. Yurttas HC, Schafer HW, Warthesen JJ (2000) Antioxidant activity of nontocopherol hazelnut (Corylus spp.) phenolics. J Food Sci 65:277–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zohary D (2004) Unconscious selection and the evolution of domesticated plants. Econ Bot 58:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMount Holyoke CollegeSouth HadleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular Biology and GeneticsIzmir Institute of TechnologyIzmirTurkey
  3. 3.Hazelnut Research InstituteGiresunTurkey
  4. 4.General Directorate of Agricultural Research and PoliciesAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations