Abstract
Soybean is a high oil and protein-rich legume with several production constraints. Globally, several fungi, viruses, nematodes, and bacteria cause significant yield losses in soybean. Coniothyrium glycines (CG), the causal pathogen for red leaf blotch disease, is the least researched and causes severe damage to soybean. The identification of resistant soybean genotypes and mapping of genomic regions associated with resistance to CG is critical for developing improved cultivars for sustainable soybean production. This study used single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers generated from a Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT) platform to conduct a genome-wide association (GWAS) analysis of resistance to CG using 279 soybean genotypes grown in three environments. A total of 6395 SNPs was used to perform the GWAS applying a multilocus model Fixed and random model Circulating Probability Unification (FarmCPU) with correction of the population structure and a statistical test p-value threshold of 5%. A total of 19 significant marker–trait associations for resistance to CG were identified on chromosomes 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Approximately 113 putative genes associated with significant markers for resistance to red leaf blotch disease were identified across soybean genome. Positional candidate genes associated with significant SNP loci-encoding proteins involved in plant defense responses and that could be associated with soybean defenses against CG infection were identified. The results of this study provide valuable insight for further dissection of the genetic architecture of resistance to CG in soybean. They also highlight SNP variants and genes useful for genomics-informed selection decisions in the breeding process for improving resistance traits in soybean.
Keywords: Coniothyrium glycines, red leaf blotch, soybean, GWAS, resistance
1. Introduction
Soybean is a cash crop used for animal feed, human consumption, soil fertility improvement, and industrial use for ethanol and biofuel production [1,2,3]. Soybean is a legume rich in oil and protein content [4]. Despite its importance, soybean production is challenged by several abiotic and biotic constraints [5,6]. Across the world, 26 fungi, 9 viruses, 5 nematodes, and 3 bacteria have been identified to cause diseases in soybean during production [6]. Among biotic constraints, pathogenic fungi have been reported to cause severe foliar diseases that can result in a significant reduction in soybean productivity.
In Africa, many fungal diseases have been reported to reduce soybean productivity [7]. Over the last decades, soybean rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) has been the major disease because of its economic importance and significant yield losses in soybean growing areas. Since then, red leaf blotch caused by CG [8] has expanded and infected soybean in several countries in Africa [5]. In addition to soybean, CG infects other legumes including the perennial Neonotina wightii, which grows wild in many locations in sub-Saharan Africa [9].
Red leaf blotch disease is a soybean disease native to Africa, and it was first reported in Ethiopia [10]. The disease has continued to spread in many countries in Africa including Zambia and Nigeria, where significant yield losses of over 50% have been reported because of red leaf blotch [11,12,13]. This coupled with other stress has led to many African countries importing soybean to meet the rising market demand [14]. Whereas soybean production has continued to expand [14,15], the rapid spread of red leaf blotch disease is an immense challenge to the soybean sector in Africa. Current predictions indicate that red leaf blotch is likely to cause significant damage to soybean production in many countries including the USA [16,17].
To date, no resistant sources to red leaf blotch have been reported among soybean genotypes [18,19]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to evaluate soybean germplasms for their response to CG and to identify markers associated with resistance to accelerate breeding for host resistance in soybean. In addition, soybean genotypes with genes conferring resistance to CG would be useful for understanding the mechanisms of resistance to CG and to facilitate faster integration of conventional or molecular breeding approaches in soybean breeding programs. Although conventional breeding takes time, a combination of modern breeding tools such as molecular markers with quality phenotyping shortens the breeding cycle for developing new plant varieties [20]; hence, this would allow breeding for host resistance to cope with the increasing expansion of the CG disease.
Recent advances in genomics, bioinformatics, and molecular biology techniques have made it is possible to introgress and track genes of interest including resistance to diseases such as CG more efficiently using marker-assisted selection, with great potential to increase soybean production. The introgression of genes for resistance to CG into commercial soybean varieties and elite lines will involve identifying new sources of resistance and markers linked to resistance to accelerate the selection process. This also requires good knowledge of how differences in the DNA levels relate to phenotypic differences in the soybean genotypes.
Genome-wide association Analysis (GWAS) is one of the current methods for identifying genomic regions associated with traits of interest for crop improvement [21,22]. It uses germplasm or populations with diversity richness that have been morphologically characterized and genotyped. GWAS detects genomic regions associated with key traits with higher resolution using markers that are in linkage disequilibrium consisting of association panels and or diversity populations [22]. Compared to QTL studies, GWAS has an advantage in that it can detect smaller chromosomal regions affecting a trait of interest. Furthermore, it provides accurate estimates of the size and direction of the effect of alleles in identified loci [23].
Combining phenotypic and genotypic data to identify regions and genes associated with a trait of interest is therefore more accurate compared to other mapping techniques. Hence, this study aimed to identify the genomic regions responsible for resistance to CG, the causal agent of the red leaf blotch disease in soybean. The identified genomic regions will be useful to the soybean breeding program in the marker-assisted selection for resistance to CG. This study provides information for the exploration of disease resistance-related genes and lays a foundation for genetic improvement and variety breeding for soybean resistance to CG.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Planting Materials
Two hundred seventy-nine (279) soybean genotypes were collected from the National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) at Namulonge–Uganda and Makerere University, with sources from four different countries including Uganda, China, the USA, and Zimbabwe (Table 1). Supplementary Materials, Table S1 provides details on the genetic materials used in this study.
Table 1.
Origin | Quantity | Description |
---|---|---|
Uganda | 192 | Variable in height, number of days to maturity, and pubescence colors. |
China | 38 | Variable in seed color, height, days to flowering, and seed size. |
USA | 40 | Variable in leaf size and shape, plant color, and seeds. |
Zimbabwe | 9 | Variable in lodging, height, seeds, and days to maturity. |
2.2. Experimental Design
The 279 soybean genotypes were planted in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 2 replications at the Makerere University Agricultural Research Institute Kabanyoro (MUARIK) for two seasons (2021–2022) and at the Nakabango District farm in Jinja–Uganda for the 2022 season. The experimental sites are known as hotspot areas for red leaf blotch disease in soybean in Uganda. Twenty seeds were sown in a line plot of 1 m, with a spacing from other plots of 0.6 m. Weeding was performed by hand twice at 20 and 55 days after planting.
2.3. Scoring of Soybean Red Leaf Blotch
Red leaf blotch disease was recorded seven times in a panel of varying soybean genotypes from 30 days after planting up to reproductive stage 6 (R6). The stages R4 to R6 are recognized as the best fit for disease scoring in soybean production [24,25]. The severity of the red leaf blotch disease was evaluated using a 0–5 scale, which has previously been used to score red leaf blotch disease in soybean [19,26,27]. This scale is based on the observed damage, such as the percentage of the leaf area affected, fragmentation of the leaf, presence of pycnidia on blotches, and the color and size of the blotches (Table 2).
Table 2.
Category | Description |
---|---|
0 | No visible symptoms. |
1 | Few to many tiny purple–maroon spots (up to 2 mm in diameter), covering 1 to 10% of the leaf area. |
2 | Mainly large purple–maroon spots (up to 5 mm in diameter), covering 11 to 35% of the leaf area. |
3 | Purple–maroon or brown blotches (up to 10 mm in diameter) without pycnidia, covering 36 to 65% of the leaf area. |
4 | Dark brown blotches with pale, bleached centers and pycnidia present, covering 66 to 90% of the leaf, with fragmentation of the leaf starting. |
5 | 91 to 100% of the leaf area affected, extensive blotching and fragmentation of the leaf. |
2.4. Genotyping and Quality Control
Fresh leaves were collected and kept on three 96-well plates at 15 days after germination. The three plates were expedited to the Integrated Genotyping Service and Support (IGSS) of the Biosciences in Eastern and Central Africa—ILRI Hub, Kenya, for genotyping. The DNA was extracted from the leaf tissues using the Nucleomag Plant Genomic DNA extraction kit [28], and the DNA quality check was conducted on 0.8% agarose. Genotyping was performed using Diversity Array Technology sequencing (DArTseq). Then, a genomic DNA library was constructed using genomic complexity reduction technology [29]. The library was purified and quantified for cluster generation in an automated clonal amplification system (cBOT Illumina). Thereafter, next-generation sequencing was performed using the sequencer HiSeq 2500 (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA).
3. Statistical Analysis
3.1. Phenotyping Analysis
Phenotypic data obtained from the three environments were pooled and subjected to a linear mixed model analysis using the lme4 package implemented in R. The best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) for three environments were obtained by considering the genotypes’ effects as fixed and the environment and replication effects as random in the mixed model as follows:
Yijk= μ + Bi + Gj + Ek + GEjk + εijk |
where Yijk = phenotypic observation for a trait, μ = grand mean, E = environment effect, B = replication effect, G = genotype effect, GE = genotype by environment interaction, and ε = random residual error.
3.2. GWAS Analysis, Genes Annotation, and Linkage Disequilibrium
To perform the GWAS, a multilocus model Fixed and random model Circulating Probability Unification (FarmCPU) with correction of the population structure and a statistical test p-value threshold of 5% was used [30]. The Manhattan and quantile–quantile (QQ) plots were plotted using the R package “rMVP” (a memory-efficient, visualization-enhanced, and parallel-accelerated tool for genome-wide association study) [31].
The SNP markers significantly associated with resistance to the red leaf blotch disease identified through GWAS were annotated using the Phytozome 13.0 database (https://phytozome-next.jgi.doe.gov/info/Gmax_Wm82_a4_v1, accessed on 10 December 2022) and used as the source for the candidate gene search. The linkage disequilibrium (LD) was estimated among the significant SNPs using the “LDheatmap” library [32]. The LD decay rate of 90 to 574 kb has been reported in soybean [33] and a ±574 kb region was used to identify positional candidate genes [34].
In selecting candidate genes, the following criteria [34,35] were used as (i) genes of known function in soybean related to the trait under study, (ii) genes with function-known orthologs in Arabidopsis related to the trait under study, and (iii) genes pinpointed by the peak SNPs. The public database InterPro, European Molecular Biology Laboratory–European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), was used to determine the functions of the genes associated with the different SNPs identified [36].
The SNPs’ contributions to the resistance to red leaf blotch disease based on the observed alleles were plotted using the “ggplots”, and their confidence statistics were calculated with “rstatix” in R.
4. Results
4.1. Phenotypic Variation
In this study, significant (p < 0.001) differences were observed among the soybean genotypes for their response to the red leaf blotch disease under natural infestation. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that genotypes, environments, and genotypes by environment interaction were the main sources of variation (Table 3). Out of the 279 soybean genotypes, approximately 10.75% were evaluated as resistant to red leaf blotch disease (Figure 1). Figure 1 shows the resistant genotypes, represented by the dots on the bottom. The heritability values observed from the studied traits ranged from 0.23 to 0.70, with the lowest heritability identified for R1 (Table 3).
Table 3.
Source of Variation | DF a | R1 b | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rep | 1 | 0.538 | 0.263 | 4.12 | 0.86 | 1.32 | 1.49 |
Genotypes | 278 | 0.177 | 2.453 *** | 3.67 *** | 4.92 *** | 5.8 *** | 6.56 *** |
Environment | 2 | 12.836 *** | 21.57 *** | 39.32 *** | 85.86 *** | 86.58 *** | 84.05 *** |
Geno * Enviro | 556 | 0.141 | 0.761 *** | 1.21 *** | 1.54 *** | 1.84 *** | 2 *** |
Residuals | 836 | 0.112 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.51 | 0.59 | 0.69 |
Grand Mean | 0.27 | 1.09 | 1.25 | 1.49 | 1.63 | 1.73 | |
LSD | 0.29 | 0.82 | 1.02 | 1.17 | 1.27 | 1.34 | |
CV | 142.11 | 53.12 | 46.90 | 46.43 | 45.63 | 45.95 | |
Heritability | 0.23 | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.70 |
a Degree of freedom. b Soybean reproductive stage. Significance level: * <0.05; *** <0.001.
4.2. Marker Coverage and Distribution
The number of Diversity Array Technology sequencing (DArTseq)-generated SNP markers was 14,082. A large number (7687) were discarded after the filtering and imputation of the raw data, and the remaining markers was 6395 SNPs, approximately 45.41% of the DArTseq-generated SNP markers. The 6395 SNPs markers matched the criteria of the data for use in the GWAS. The 6395 SNPs were distributed across the 20 Glycine max chromosomes. Chromosome 12 and chromosome 18 have, respectively, a small (201) and high (476) number of SNPs (Figure 2, Table 4). The MAF (minor allele frequency) and PIC (polymorphism information content) of these SNPs ranged from 0.043 to 0.5, with an average of 0.22, and 0.08 to 0.74, with an average of 0.29, respectively.
Table 4.
Chr a | FSNPs b | MAF c | GD d | PIC e |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 239 | 0.144 | 0.37 | 0.30 |
2 | 353 | 0.143 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
3 | 298 | 0.045 | 0.35 | 0.30 |
4 | 291 | 0.144 | 0.37 | 0.30 |
5 | 257 | 0.171 | 0.37 | 0.31 |
6 | 402 | 0.143 | 0.32 | 0.27 |
7 | 285 | 0.125 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
8 | 330 | 0.137 | 0.34 | 0.29 |
9 | 370 | 0.166 | 0.37 | 0.31 |
10 | 276 | 0.125 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
11 | 235 | 0.114 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
12 | 201 | 0.133 | 0.35 | 0.30 |
13 | 362 | 0.147 | 0.36 | 0.30 |
14 | 346 | 0.135 | 0.32 | 0.27 |
15 | 341 | 0.159 | 0.38 | 0.32 |
16 | 348 | 0.138 | 0.34 | 0.29 |
17 | 351 | 0.147 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
18 | 476 | 0.152 | 0.36 | 0.30 |
19 | 332 | 0.153 | 0.37 | 0.31 |
20 | 302 | 0.113 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
Total/Average | 6395 | 0.783 | 0.348 | 0.293 |
a Chromosome. b Filtered single nucleotide polymorphism. c Minor allele frequency. d Gene diversity. e Polymorphism information content.
4.3. Association Results
The FarmCPU model was used in this study to reveal the loci associated with the resistance to CG causing the red leaf blotch disease of soybean. In total, 19 significant association signals were found at various reproductive stages of the crop growth (Table 5). At R1, four signals were identified on chromosomes 1, 13, 15, and 16 (Table 5, Figure 3A). At R2, four signals were identified on chromosomes 12, 16, 17, and 19 (Table 5, Figure 3B). At R3, two signals were identified on chromosome 6 (Table 5, Figure 3C). At R4, five signals were identified on chromosomes 1, 6, 16, and 20 (Table 5, Figure 3D). At R5, four signals were identified on chromosomes 5, 6, 16, 17, and 19 (Table 5, Figure 3E). At R6, five signals were identified on chromosomes 1, 6, 9, 10m and 19 (Table 5, Figure 3F). The quantile–quantile plots (QQ plots) produced by displaying the negative logarithms (−log10) for the p-values against their p-values demonstrated that the genome-wide association study analysis model was reasonable in this research. Differences between observed and expected values of the traits studied in this research were identified, and they indicate a link between the phenotypic and SNPs, as demonstrated by the QQ plots (Figure 3).
Table 5.
RS a | SNPs ID b | CHR c | POS d | Alleles | Effect | SE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R1 | Gm01_36009335 | Gm01 | 36,009,335 | A/T | −0.017 | 0.004 |
Gm13_40079851 | Gm13 | 40,079,851 | A/T | 0.022 | 0.005 | |
Gm15_12688260 | Gm15 | 12,688,260 | T/A | 0.022 | 0.005 | |
Gm16_3302971 | Gm16 | 3,302,971 | A/G | 0.037 | 0.009 | |
R2 | Gm12_34424219 | Gm12 | 34,424,219 | G/G | −0.104 | 0.024 |
Gm16_34649045 | Gm16 | 34,649,045 | G/A | −0.213 | 0.048 | |
Gm17_8014133 | Gm17 | 8,014,133 | T/C | 0.132 | 0.026 | |
Gm19_35502386 | Gm19 | 35,502,386 | G/T | 0.148 | 0.034 | |
R3 | Gm06_20112134 | Gm06 | 20,112,134 | A/G | −0.320 | 0.034 |
Gm06_38404808 | Gm06 | 38,404,808 | A/G | −0.259 | 0.056 | |
R4 | Gm01_17813710 | Gm01 | 17,813,710 | A/G | −0.183 | 0.061 |
Gm06_20112134 | Gm06 | 20,112,134 | A/G | −0.318 | 0.045 | |
Gm16_3302971 | Gm16 | 3,302,971 | A/G | 0.472 | 0.086 | |
Gm16_34649045 | Gm16 | 34,649,045 | G/T | 0.489 | 0.122 | |
Gm20_34576213 | Gm20 | 34,576,213 | G/T | 0.209 | 0.051 | |
R5 | Gm05_30968142 | Gm05 | 30,968,142 | A/C | 0.135 | 0.034 |
Gm06_20112134 | Gm06 | 20,112,134 | A/G | −0.450 | 0.044 | |
Gm16_31759458 | Gm16 | 31,759,458 | C/T | 0.789 | 0.190 | |
Gm17_14222127 | Gm17 | 14,222,127 | T/C | 0.265 | 0.059 | |
Gm19_44916522 | Gm19 | 44,916,522 | T/C | 0.238 | 0.037 | |
R6 | Gm01_17813710 | Gm01 | 17,813,710 | A/G | −0.222 | 0.072 |
Gm06_19862041 | Gm06 | 19,862,041 | G/A | −0.620 | 0.047 | |
Gm09_4708504 | Gm09 | 4,708,504 | G/A | 0.476 | 0.104 | |
Gm10_48178692 | Gm10 | 48,178,692 | C/G | 0.150 | 0.041 | |
Gm19_44916522 | Gm19 | 44,916,522 | T/C | 0.261 | 0.040 |
a Reproductive stage for disease scoring. b Single nucleotide polymorphism. c Chromosome number. d Position.
Some SNPs were significant at more than one scoring time. This was the case for Gm01_17813710 at R4 and R6; Gm06_20112134 at R3, R4, and R5; Gm16_3302971 at R1 and R4; Gm16_34649045 at R2 and R4; and Gm19_44916522 at R5 and R6 (Table 5). The Manhattan plot reveals the results of the GWAS significance levels (−log10 of the p-value of each SNP) by chromosome position, where each chromosome has a different color. Significant SNPs in the Manhattan plot are strongly associated with resistance to red leaf blotch disease in soybean (Figure 3).
4.4. Genes Identity, Discovery, and Annotations
Positional candidate genes associated with the significant SNP markers were identified using soybean reference genome Gmax_Wm82_a4_v1 available in Phytozome 13.0 (https://phytozome-next.jgi.doe.gov/info/Gmax_Wm82_a4_v1 (accessed on 9 March 2023)). This resulted in the discovery of 113 candidate genes that encode for proteins that were characterized. Functional annotation of these proteins suggests their involvement in the plant’s growth and response to various abiotic and biotic stress. Several candidate genes associated with significant markers for resistance to red leaf blotch disease were distributed in the soybean genome on chromosomes 1 (6 genes), 5 (5 genes), 6 (19 genes), 9 (6 genes), 10 (7 genes), 12 (5 genes), 13 (7 genes), 15 (7 genes), 16 (17 genes), 17 (11 genes), 19 (14 genes), and 20 (9 genes) (Table 6).
Table 6.
SNP ID a | Chr b | Gene_ID c | Function | Pfam d | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gm01_17813710 | 1 | Glyma.01G075900 | Squamosa promoter-binding protein-like 8 | PF03110 | [37] |
Glyma.01G076100 | Plastid lipid-associated protein PAP/fibrillin family protein | PF04755 | [38] | ||
Gm01_36009335 | 1 | Glyma.01G104100 | Isochorismate synthase 2 | PF00425 | [39] |
Glyma.01G105500 | Proteasome subunit PAB1 | PF10584, PF00227 | [40] | ||
Glyma.01G105900 | RHO guanyl-nucleotide exchange factor 7 | PF03759 | [41] | ||
Glyma.01G106000 | Glutathione S-transferase TAU 8 | PF00043, PF13417 | [42] | ||
Gm05_30968142 | 5 | Glyma.05G115700 | RING domain ligase 2 | PF13920, PF07002 | [43] |
Glyma.05G117233 | Alternative oxidase 2 | PF01786 | [44] | ||
Glyma.05G117500 | K+ uptake permease 7 | PF02705 | [45] | ||
Glyma.05G118200 | Pumilio 7 | PF00806 | [46] | ||
Glyma.05G119600 | BRI1-associated receptor kinase | PF08263, PF00069 | [47] | ||
Gm06_19862041 | 6 | Glyma.06G207701 | Chaperone DnaJ-domain superfamily protein | IPR036869 | [48,49] |
Glyma.06G206800 | Transducin family protein/WD-40 repeat family protein | PF00400, PF12341 | [50] | ||
Glyma.06G208200 | Enolase 1 | PF03952 PF00113 | [51] | ||
Glyma.06G206700 | UDP-glucosyl transferase 89B1 | PF00201 | [52] | ||
Glyma.06G208800 | EF-hand calcium-binding protein family | PF13499 | [53] | ||
Glyma.06G207900 | Glycine-rich protein-containing protein-like | PF07173 | [54] | ||
Glyma.06G207800 | AP2/B3-like transcriptional factor family protein | IPR017392 | [55] | ||
Glyma.06G207751 | Tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR)-containing protein | PF13236 | [56] | ||
Gm06_20112134 | 6 | Glyma.06G207701 | Chaperone DnaJ-domain superfamily protein | IPR036869 | [48] |
Glyma.06G208200 | Enolase 1 | PF03952, PF00113 | [51] | ||
Glyma.06G206700 | UDP-glucosyl transferase 89B1 | PF00201 | [52] | ||
Glyma.06G207800 | AP2/B3-like transcriptional factor family protein | IPR017392 | [55] | ||
Glyma.06G207751 | Tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR)-containing protein | PF13236 | [56] | ||
Glyma.06G208800 | EF hand calcium-binding protein family | PF13499 | [53] | ||
Glyma.06G207900 | Glycine-rich protein | PF07173 | [54] | ||
Glyma.06G206800 | transducin family protein/WD-40 repeat family protein | PF00400, PF12341 | [50] | ||
Gm06_38404808 | 6 | Glyma.06G239026 | Disease resistance protein (TIR-NBS-LRR class) family | PF13676, PF00931 | [57] |
Glyma.06G239500 | UDP-glucosyl transferase 72E1 | PF00201 | [52] | ||
Glyma.06G238700 | Phytosylfokine- α receptor 2 | PF08263, PF00069 | [58] | ||
Gm09_4708504 | 9 | Glyma.09G051600 | Ubiquitin-protein ligase 1 | [59] | |
Glyma.09G052400 | PLATZ transcription factor family protein | PF04640 | [60] | ||
Glyma.09G052700 | K+ uptake permease 11 | PF02705 | [45] | ||
Glyma.09G056400 | Disease resistance protein (TIR-NBS-LRR class), putative | PF13676, PF00931 | [57] | ||
Glyma.09G057500 | Transducin family protein/WD-40 repeat family protein | PF00400 | [50] | ||
Glyma.09G057800 | Pumilio 5 | PF00806 | [46] | ||
Gm10_48178692 | 10 | Glyma.10G250000 | Leucine-rich repeat (LRR) family protein | PF08263, PF12819 | [61] |
Glyma.10G252200 | Chaperone DnaJ-domain superfamily protein | PF00226 | [48] | ||
Glyma.10G257600 | RING/U-box superfamily protein | PF12906 | [62] | ||
Glyma.10G257700 | Transducin/WD40 repeat-like superfamily protein | PF00400 | [50] | ||
Glyma.10G257900 | Zinc-finger protein 1 | PF13912 | [63] | ||
Glyma.10G258800 | Leucine-rich repeat (LRR) family protein | PF08263, PF13855 | [61] | ||
Glyma.10G260000 | Pumilio 9 | PF00806 | [46] | ||
Gm12_34424219 | 12 | Glyma.12G171232 | Transducin/WD40 repeat-like superfamily protein | PF00400 | [50] |
Glyma.12G173300 | RING/U-box superfamily protein | PF12906 | [62] | ||
Glyma.12G173800 | FASCICLIN-like arabinogalactan-protein 11 | PF02469 | [64] | ||
Glyma.12G175351 | Zinc finger (C3HC4-type RING finger) family protein | PF17123, PF14624 | [63] | ||
Glyma.12G172800 | PDI-like 1–4 | PF13899, PF13848 | [65] | ||
Gm13_40079851 | 13 | Glyma.13G310100 | WRKY family transcription factor | PF03106 | [66] |
Glyma.13G311000 | FASCICLIN-like arabinogalactan protein 17 precursor | PF02469 | [64] | ||
Glyma.13G311300 | Ubiquitin-specific protease 8 | PF13423 | [67] | ||
Glyma.13G312400 | Chaperone DnaJ-domain superfamily protein | PF00226 | [48] | ||
Glyma.13G313400 | CLAVATA3 | IPR039618 | [68] | ||
Glyma.13G314800 | Leucine-rich repeat (LRR) family protein | PF13855 | [61] | ||
Glyma.13G317200 | WIP domain protein 3 | PF13912 | [69] | ||
Gm15_12688260 | 15 | Glyma.15G152400 | Disease resistance protein (TIR-NBS-LRR class) family | PF13676, PF00931 | [57] |
Glyma.15G155900 | Transducin/WD40 repeat-like superfamily protein | PF00400 | [50] | ||
Glyma.15G155400 | Fasciclin-like arabinogalactan family protein | PF02469 | [64] | ||
Glyma.15G155500 | RING/U-box superfamily protein | PF13920 | [62] | ||
Glyma.15G155600 | Leucine-rich repeat transmembrane protein kinase | PF08263, PF00560, PF00069, PF13855 | [61] | ||
Glyma.15G154200 | CW-type zinc finger | PF07496 | [70] | ||
Glyma.15G154000 | Cullin 1 | PF10557, PF00888 | [71] | ||
Gm16_31759458 | 16 | Glyma.16G152400 | RING/U-box superfamily protein | PF13639 | [62] |
Glyma.16G153100 | Transducin family protein/WD-40 repeat family protein | [50] | |||
Glyma.16G156100 | Leucine-rich repeat transmembrane protein kinase family protein | PF00560, PF00069, PF13855 | [61] | ||
Glyma.16G156400 | C2H2 and C2HC zinc fingers superfamily protein | PF13912 | [63,72] | ||
Glyma.16G157200 | Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase family protein | PF11955 | [67] | ||
Glyma.16G159100 | Disease resistance protein (TIR-NBS-LRR class) family | PF13676, PF00931 | [57] | ||
Glyma.16G159500 | Disease resistance protein (TIR-NBS-LRR class), putative | PF00931 | [57] | ||
Glyma.16G155400 | Acyl-CoA N-acyltransferases (NAT) superfamily protein | PF00583 | [73] | ||
Glyma.16G031600 | NB-ARC domain-containing disease resistance protein | PF00931 | [74] | ||
Gm16_3302971 | 16 | Glyma.16G035000.1 | Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme 5 | PF00179 | [67] |
Glyma.16G033900 | Disease resistance protein (TIR-NBS-LRR class), putative | PF07725 | [57] | ||
PF13676 | |||||
PF00931 | |||||
Glyma.16G034400 | Transducin/WD40 repeat-like superfamily protein | PF04564 | [50] | ||
Glyma.16G035800 | DnaJ/Hsp40 cysteine-rich domain superfamily protein | IPR036410 | [49] | ||
Glyma.16G038500 | Cupredoxin superfamily protein | PF02298 | [75] | ||
Glyma.16G031400 | WRKY DNA-binding protein 56 | PF03106 | [66] | ||
Gm16_34649045 | 16 | Glyma.16G181700 | C2H2-like zinc finger protein | PF13912 | [72] |
Glyma.16G182900 | Disease resistance family protein/LRR family protein | PF13855, PF08263 | [76] | ||
Gm17_8014133 | 17 | Glyma.17G101800 | RING/U-box superfamily protein | PF13639 | [62] |
Glyma.17G106000 | Ubiquitin-like superfamily protein | PF00240 | [67] | ||
Glyma.17G106300 | PLATZ transcription factor family protein | PF04640 | [60] | ||
Glyma.17G107100 | Ubiquitin-associated (UBA)/TS-N domain-containing protein | PF02148 | [67] | ||
Glyma.17G107400 | Leucine-rich repeat family protein | PF13855 | [61] | ||
Glyma.17G109100 | Ubiquitin-specific protease 22 | PF02148, PF13423 | [67] | ||
Glyma.17G109200 | Avirulence-induced gene (AIG1) family protein | PF04548, PF11886 | [70] | ||
Gm17_14222127 | 17 | Glyma.17G162200 | F-box family protein | PF07734 | [77] |
Glyma.17G162100 | Myb domain protein 79 | PF00249 | [78] | ||
Glyma.17G162400 | TTF-type zinc finger protein with HAT dimerization domain | PF05699, PF14291 | [79] | ||
Glyma.17G161700 | Acyl-CoA N-acyltransferases (NAT) superfamily protein | PF00583 | [80] | ||
Gm19_35502386 | 19 | Glyma.19G102400 | CCR-like | PF07207 | [81] |
Glyma.19G102300 | Pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) superfamily protein | PF14432, PF01535, PF13041 | [82] | ||
Glyma.19G100900 | AP2/B3-like transcriptional factor family protein | PF02362 | [83] | ||
Glyma.19G102800 | UDP-Glycosyltransferase superfamily protein | PF00201 | [52] | ||
Glyma.19G103000 | RING/U-box superfamily protein | PF00097 | [62] | ||
Gm19_44916522 | 19 | Glyma.19G186200 | C2H2-type zinc finger family protein | PF13912 | [72] |
Glyma.19G191100 | Zinc finger C-x8-C-x5-C-x3-H type family protein | PF00076, PF00642 | [63] | ||
Glyma.19G180600 | Homolog of mammalian P58IPK | PF13371, PF13414, PF00226 | [84] | ||
Glyma.19G180700 | FASCICLIN-like arabinogalactan protein 11 | PF02469 | [64] | ||
Glyma.19G185100, | Transducin/WD40 repeat-like superfamily protein | PF00400 | [50] | ||
Glyma.19G182151 | NRAMP metal ion transporter family protein | PF01566 | [85] | ||
Glyma.19G184600 | Thioredoxin superfamily protein | PF00085 | [86] | ||
Glyma.19G188200 | PLATZ transcription factor family protein | PF04640 | [60] | ||
Glyma.19G189100 | Ubiquitin-protein ligase 7 | PF00632 | [87] | ||
Gm20_34576213 | 20 | Glyma.20G103300 | Prefoldin 5 | PF02996 | [88] |
Glyma.20G098700 | F-box family protein | PF00646 | [89] | ||
Glyma.20G099100 | C2H2 and C2HC zinc fingers superfamily protein | PF13912 | [72] | ||
Glyma.20G099800 | RING/U-box superfamily protein | PF13639 | [63] | ||
Glyma.20G100500 | Leucine-rich repeat (LRR) family protein | PF08263, PF00560, PF13855 | [61] | ||
Glyma.20G100800 | SNF2 domain-containing protein/helicase domain-containing protein/zinc finger protein-related | PF00097, PF00271, PF00176 | [87] | ||
Glyma.20G104000 | thioredoxin X | PF00578 | [90] | ||
Glyma.20G104200 | Tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR)-like superfamily protein | PF13812, PF01535, PF13041 | [56] | ||
Glyma.20G107900 | AP2/B3-like transcriptional factor family protein | PF02362 | [55] |
a Single nucleotide polymorphic marker identity. b Chromosome number. c Gene identity. d Protein family.
4.5. SNPs’ Contribution to the Resistance to Red Leaf Blotch Disease in Soybean
Five common significant SNPs were identified for at least two scoring times including Gm01_17813710 at R4 and R6; Gm06_20112134 at R3, R4, and R5; Gm16_3302971 at R1 and R4; Gm16_34649045 at R2 and R4; and Gm19_44916522 at R5 and R6. Further dissection of the five significant SNP loci associated with resistance to red leaf blotch showed that accessions with the homozygous allele AA and/or heterozygous allele AG on chromosome 1 possessed higher resistance than the homozygous allele GG (Figure 4A,B). On chromosome 6, resistance is associated with the homozygous allele GG (Figure 4C–E). The marker effect on chromosomes 16 and 19 revealed that, respectively, the homozygous alleles GG and TT (Figure 4F–I) and CC and TT (Figure 4J,K) are linked with resistance in the studied population, while the heterozygous allele accounted for low resistance. The SNP confidence statistics revealed an allelic significative difference (p < 0.001) at SNPs Gm01_17813710 and Gm06_20112134 (Figure 4A–E). At p < 0.001, the other SNPs did not show an allelic significative difference (Figure 4).
In general, resistance to red leaf blotch disease in soybean is characterized by homologous allele GG at positions Gm06_20112134 and Gm16_34649045. The position Gm16_3302971 is dominated by the homologous allele TT, except for two soybean genotypes (UGSOY143 and UGSOY236) that are characterized by the heterozygous allele TA. The position Gm19_44916522 is predominated by homologous alleles CC or TT, but one genotype (UGSOY195) has a heterozygous allele TC (Table 7, Figure 4)
Table 7.
Genotypes ** | Gm01_17813710 * | Gm06_20112134 * | Gm16_3302971 * | Gm16_34649045 * | Gm19_44916522 * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
UGSOY143 | GG | GG | AT | GG | CC |
UGSOY148 | AG | GG | TT | GG | CC |
UGSOY157 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY158 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY165 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY170 | AG | GG | TT | GG | CC |
UGSOY174 | GG | GG | TT | GG | CC |
UGSOY183 | AG | GG | TT | GG | CC |
UGSOY186 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY189 | AG | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY190 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY194 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY195 | AG | GG | TT | GG | TC |
UGSOY197 | AG | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY203 | AG | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY212 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY214 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY217 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY218 | AG | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY228 | AG | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY229 | AG | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY231 | AA | GG | TT | GG | CC |
UGSOY232 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY233 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY234 | AG | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY235 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY236 | AG | GG | AT | GG | TT |
UGSOY238 | AG | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY240 | AA | GG | TT | GG | TT |
UGSOY241 | AA | GG | TT | GG | CC |
* Position of the significant SNPs at chromosome 1 at R4 and R6; 8 at R3, R4, and R5; 16 (3302971) at R1 and R4; 16 (34649045) at R2 and R4; and 19 at R5 and R6 in the soybean genome. ** Codes of soybean genotypes with resistance to red leaf blotch disease.
4.6. Haplotype Analysis
Linkage disequilibrium (LD) block heatmaps based on the LD of each identified common SNP loci are shown in Figure 5. The LD analysis of the common loci (two on chromosomes 1 and 19 and three on chromosomes 6 and 16) showed that these markers had a relatively average to high LD parameter (R2 > 0.8), showing a relatively high correlation.
5. Discussion
Identifying novel sources of resistance in soybean germplasm to key biotic and abiotic stress is an essential determinant for enhancing productivity [91,92]. Extensive work on the genetic improvement of soybean to resistance to selected diseases and pests [92] and other nutritional value [93] has been conducted across the world, but limited efforts have been made in the area of red leaf blotch disease in soybean [26]. In this study, a GWAS was conducted to map genomic regions associated with CG resistance. A total of 19 significant GWAS signals were reported for resistance to red leaf blotch disease in soybean. In addition, putative candidate genes associated with resistance were also identified. The markers identified in this study provide a means to accelerate the development of soybean cultivars with resistance and with other acceptable end-user attributes.
The ability of a GWAS to dissect complex traits has been demonstrated in soybean quality improvement and breeding for seed composition [37] and for resistance to soybean rust [38]. The consumption of soybeans is increasing and, consequently, breeding programs need to be encouraged and optimized with new knowledge. The current GWAS was intended for the discovery of QTLs and potential candidate genes linked to genetic diversity for resistance to red leaf blotch disease in soybean. The knowledge of the population structure and familial relationships (i.e., kinship) in an association panel is important to prevent false associations in a GWAS [39]. Population structure and admixture for this population were reported in a previous study [40]. From our study, 113 putative candidate genes encoding for several proteins (Table 6) were discovered as major contributors to the resistance to Coniothyrium glycines, the causal agent of red leaf blotch disease in soybean production.
Squamosa promoter-binding protein-like (SPL) genes play vital regulatory roles in plant growth, development, and stress responses [41,42] and show potential application in crop improvement by genetic modification for abiotic stress in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) [43]. SPL genes are reported to play a role in toxin resistance in plants [44]. Plastid lipid-associated proteins, also termed fibrillin, are known for their role in response to biotic stress in Solanaceae plants, especially for bacterial infections [45]. Isochorismate synthase 2 contributes to the biosynthesis of salicylic acid [46], which is involved in plant defenses [47]. In soybean, the defense responses to the pathogens Pseudomonas syringae and Phytophthora sojae is conferred by the accumulation of salicylic acid [48]. Proteasome is reported to contribute to the tolerance of heat or oxidative stresses in plants [49,50]. The RING/U-box superfamily protein promotes resistance to biotic stress through ubiquitination and leaf senescence [51]. The U-box protein is known to play a major role in responses to abiotic and biotic stresses in rice [52] and regulates drought tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana [53]. The action of the RHO guanyl-nucleotide exchange factor 7 was demonstrated in the development, pathogenesis, and stress responses of Colletotrichum higginsianum, which causes anthracnose disease of crucifers [54]
The chaperone DnaJ-domain superfamily protein has been reported in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) to play a role in plant growth and development and heat stress [55]. Hence, it is called heat shock protein 40 based on molecular weight [55]. In wheat, the chaperone DnaJ-domain is reported in the regulation of resistance to yellow mosaic virus infection [56]. Earlier, in 2013, a critical role of the nuclear-localized DnaJ domain-containing GmHSP40.1 in cell death and disease resistance in soybean was demonstrated through the screening for candidate genes stimulating cell death in soybean, and silencing GmHSP40.1 enhanced the susceptibility of soybean plants to soybean mosaic virus, confirming its positive role in pathogen defense [57]. Another positive role of the DnaJ-domain is that it is involved in the alkaline-salt, salt, and drought tolerance in Arabidopsis and soybean [58]. The chaperone DnaJ-domain plays a critical function in protein folding and regulation of several physiological processes, and it participates in numerous pathological processes [59]. DnaJ-domain superfamily proteins have been recognized for their diverse functions within cells and extensively studied in many species, including humans, drosophila, Arabidopsis, mushrooms, and tomatoes [60]. Furthermore, this information on the role played by the chaperone DnaJ-domain may guide practical actions in soybean breeding for resistance to red leaf blotch disease.
Enolase is involved in the growth and development of various species [61]. In soybean, the flooding stress is controlled by enolase with the contribution of other proteins [62]. UDP-glucosyl transferase 89B1 plays a vital role in diverse plant functions, and its response to drought, salt, and heat stress in Populus trichocarpa (Black cottonwood) has been revealed [63]. The potential role of the EF-hand calcium-binding protein family in the implementation of resistance to environmental and nutritional stress in soybean was described [64]. This calcium-dependent protein has a function in the soybean–herbivore insect interaction and in drought adaptation [65]. Glycine-rich protein-containing protein-like confer tolerance to stress (e.g., some are involved in cold acclimation and may improve growth at low temperatures), and these proteins could play a promising role in agriculture [66].
AP2/B3-like transcriptional factor family proteins were analyzed for their role in stress tolerance in soybean [67], tree plants [68,69,70], and A. thaliana [71]. A member of the AP2/ERF transcription factor family, GmERF3, was isolated from soybean. There was an enhanced resistance against infection by Ralstonia solanacearum, Alternaria alternata, and tobacco mosaic virus, as well as tolerance to high salinity and dehydration stresses in transgenic tobacco plants [72]. The tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR)-containing protein has functions in plant hormone signaling, and the protein TTL1, containing TPR motifs, is required for abscisic acid responses and osmotic stress tolerance in plants [73,74].
The Transducin/WD40 repeat-like superfamily protein is a functional group that has been reported in plant cell wall formation [75]. In soybean, Transducin/WD40 repeat-like proteins were reported to putatively control the total number of flower and pods [76], while in Arabidopsis, they control seed germination, growth, and biomass accumulation [89]. A gene that encodes for Transducin/WD40 repeat-like proteins were identified in wheat and associated with plant tolerance to abiotic stresses [77]. The genes that encode for Transducin/WD40 repeat-like superfamily protein in soybean may play a role in controlling red leaf blotch by rehabilitating the cells damaged by the pathogen during the employment of the disease epidemic’s mechanism. Therefore, the soybean genotypes that present the QTLs involving Transducin/WD40 repeat-like superfamily protein production could be used as future resources for breeding efforts aimed at improving resistance to red leaf blotch disease.
The leucine-rich repeat (LRR) family protein is well-known for controlling disease resistance in crops, including soybean [78]. In soybean, LRR has been reported to regulate the immune response to Phytophthora root rot [79], coordinate the responses against root-lesion nematode [80], and mediate the response to soybean mosaic virus [81]. This study also revealed the contribution of the LRR domain in the resistance to red leaf blotch disease in soybean production. Phytochrome-associated protein 2 is crucial in photoperiod adaptability and, therefore, influences the flowering time. Liu et al., (2008) showed that phytochromes contribute to the establishment of an adaptive response of soybean to environments, and thus the role of contributing to the resistance to red leaf blotch disease in soybean was revealed. The role of malic enzymes in plant growth and response to stress is documented and mainly discovered in cytoplasmic stroma, mitochondria, and chloroplasts. Previous studies have shown that malic enzymes participate in the process of coping with drought, high salt, and high temperature by increasing water use efficiency and improving photosynthesis by plants [83]. Through the improvement of photosynthesis, malic enzymes contribute to the resistance to red leaf blotch disease.
Various studies have shown that ubiquitination plays a key role in stress response and yield constitution [87]. In the UniProtKB database, 2429 ubiquitin-related proteins are predicted in soybean [85]. Ubiquitin plays a key role in regulating the resistance of soybean to Heterodera glycines, a soybean cyst nematode causal agent [84]; P. sojae, an infection that causes stem and root rot [86]; and heat shock [87]. In soybean and other legumes, the C2H2-type zinc finger protein is reported to enhance legume–rhizobia symbiosis [88], which is a key physiological process that can limit nitrogen in plants, affecting their growth and development [90]. The accumulation of isoflavone in soybean is governed by the C2H2-type zinc finger protein [94,95], and isoflavone contributes to human health and plant stress tolerance [96]. The soybean C2H2-type zinc finger protein with a conserved QALGGH motif negatively regulates drought responses [97], but it was reported to enhance tolerance to cold [98] in transgenic Arabidopsis. Although several genes that encode for the C2H2-type zinc finger protein have been reported to play various roles in the life mechanism of soybean [95,97,98], the accumulation of unfolded proteins such as the homolog of mammalian P58IPK in the endoplasmic reticulum have built up a conserved mechanism that regulates the stress response in this cell part [99]. The endoplasmic reticulum stress response plays an important role that allows plants to sense and respond to adverse environmental conditions, such as heat stress, salt stress, and pathogen infection [99,100]. These unfolded proteins were revealed, for the first time, as factors that contribute to resistance to red leaf blotch disease in soybean. The role of FASCICLIN-like arabinogalactan-protein in the response to plant pathogens was elucidated by Wu et al., (2020). FASCICLIN-like arabinogalactan-protein controls the infection with the turnip mosaic virus and P. syringae pv tomato strain DC3000 (Pst DC3000) in Nicotiana benthamiana, which is a model plant to study plant–pathogen interactions [101]. Recently, their contribution to resistance to clubroot disease stress in Brassica napus was characterized [102]. FASCICLIN-like arabinogalactan-protein was reported to be associated with soluble sugar content in vegetable soybean [103]. The thioredoxin superfamily protein with glutoredoxin regulates the response of nodulated soybean plants to water-deficit stress [104], and it is involved in several plant life mechanisms, including adaptation to environmental stresses [105] or signaling plant immunity [106].
The NRAMP metal ion transporter family protein plays a key role in nodule iron homeostasis to support bacterial nitrogen fixation in soybean production [107] and contributes to avoiding cadmium toxicity [108]. The PLATZ transcription factor family protein increases drought tolerance in soybean hairy roots [109]. The CLAVATA3/ESR-RELATED 9 is a key component that modulates the effect of infection with plant-parasitic nematodes [110]; therefore, CLAVATA3/ESR-RELATED 9 interacts with the nematodes in the process of the establishment of feeding sites on the plant roots. WRKY DNA-binding protein 3 is well known in soybean to promote resistance to cyst nematodes [111]. Soybean WRKY-type transcription factor genes GmWRKY13, GmWRKY21, and GmWRKY54 confer differential tolerance to abiotic stresses in transgenic Arabidopsis plants [82]. Therefore, the potential role of WRKY DNA-binding protein in resistance to red leaf blotch is irrefutable. The cell wall/vacuolar inhibitor of fructosidase 1 was reported to regulate the abscisic acid response and salt tolerance in Arabidopsis [111]. The salinity symptoms in plants are characterized by leaf discoloration and damage. In fact, red leaf blotch disease affects the leaf; therefore, the cell wall/vacuolar inhibitor of fructosidase 1 may play a key role in reducing the expansion of leaves’ damage.
Regarding the analysis and functions played in plants by the proteins encoded by the 113 unrevealed genes of soybean, these genes are directly or indirectly responsible for resistance to C. glycines causing red leaf blotch disease in soybean production. These genes govern, in a mutual way, the physiological activities of the soybean plant to enhance resistance to C. glycines infection.
Information on the markers’ effects through segregation patterns are fundamental for conversion of the markers to Kompetitive Allele-Specific PCR (KASP) for genotyping of the polymorphisms at different loci and deployment in breeding programs [112,113] for resistance to red leaf blotch disease in soybean. Some of the markers, especially marker Gm02_17813710 at R4 and R6, have the GG and GA alleles, which significantly reduce disease symptoms compared to the second homozygous state. The same pattern was observed for Gm16_3302971 on R1 and R4, with homozygous state TT and heterozygous state AT, which are superior to that of the homozygous allele AA in minimizing the disease severity. These SNPs demonstrate a dominance effect, and both the favorable homozygous and heterozygous alleles can be exploited for KASP markers in breeding for resistance. Marker Gm06_20112134, on the other hand, shows no significant difference in the allelic effect between AA and GG, while both homozygous states are superior to the heterozygous alternative. This SNP allelic effect pattern may encourage use of both homozygous alleles for KASP marker development. However, its effect on disease needs to be further investigated, for example, through direct molecular analyses and intervention, to ascertain their influence on disease severity. Possible reasons for such allelic behavior could be genetic, such as genetic heterogeneity or statistical, for instance, a low sample size and statistical power in the detection of the SNP effect. SNP Gm19_44916522 shows no differences in the allelic effect among its three allelic states, which suggests that it could be a false positive or affected by allelic heterogeneity, which prompts the necessity to further investigate and validate these alleles.
6. Conclusions
This study identified 19 significant markers and genomic regions associated with red leaf blotch disease resistance in soybean. These markers tagging key genomic regions can be validated and tested in the soybean germplasm. This might be performed by transforming these significant markers to low-cost Kompetitive Allele-Specific PCR (KASPs) markers capable of being used effectively to transfer alleles into elite soybean genotypes for use in future marker-based breeding strategies. The findings of this study will contribute to the implementation of a new approach to soybean breeding for maintaining red leaf blotch disease resistance. The discovered genes from this study provide new insight into the genetic foundation of resistance to red leaf blotch disease in genetic pool of soybean.
Acknowledgments
We thank the National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCCRI) of Uganda and the Makerere University Soybean Research and Development program for providing the soybean accessions, as well as the Makerere Regional Centre for Crops Improvement (MaRCCI) for the financial and technical support.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genes14061271/s1, Table S1: Origin and characteristics of soybean genotypes.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.M.L., G.T. and I.O.D.; Germplasm assembly, M.M.L. and P.T.; Methodology, M.M.L., E.A.A. and I.O.D.; Formal analysis, M.M.L., A.B. and E.A.A.; Writing—original draft preparation, M.M.L.; Writing—review, P.A., H.W.G., P.W., H.M.M. and M.O.-S.; Editing of paper, M.M.L., I.O.D. and E.A.A.; Supervision, P.T. and G.T.; Funding acquisition, R.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are unavailable because of privacy or ethical restrictions; however, they may be available upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This project was supported by the Makerere Regional Centre for Crops Improvement (MaRCCI) under the World Bank grant no. 126974 (Africa Higher Education Centres of Excellence Project).
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.Vedovatto F., Bonatto C., Bazoti S.F., Venturin B., Alves S.L., Kunz A., Steinmetz R.L.R., Treichel H., Mazutti M.A., Zabot G.L., et al. Production of Biofuels from Soybean Straw and Hull Hydrolysates Obtained by Subcritical Water Hydrolysis. Bioresour. Technol. 2021;328:124837. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Debnath D., Babu S.C. Prospects for Sustainable Intensification of Soybean Production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2020;15:365–371. doi: 10.53936/afjare.2020.15(4).23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sekhon J.K., Maurer D., Wang T., Jung S., Rosentrater K.A. Ethanol Production by Soy Fiber Treatment and Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermentation in an Integrated Corn-Soy Biorefinery. Fermentation. 2018;4:35. doi: 10.3390/fermentation4020035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hou Z., Liu B., Kong F. Regulation of Flowering and Maturation in Soybean. Adv. Bot. Res. 2022;102:43–75. doi: 10.1016/bs.abr.2022.02.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hartman G., Murithi H.M. Soybean Diseases: Unique Situations in Africa. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2019;19:15126–15130. doi: 10.18697/ajfand.88.SILFarmDoc04. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lin F., Satish S., Caio C., Vieira C., Paulo M., Silva D., Rojas A., Lee D., Liu N., Mariano E., et al. Breeding for Disease Resistance in Soybean: A Global Perspective. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2022;38:38–41. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Murithi H., Beed F., Kijoji A. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) of Soybean. IITA; Ibadan, Nigeria: 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 8.De Gruyter H. Ph.D. Thesis. Wageningen University; Wageningen, The Netherlands: 2012. Revised Taxonomy of Phoma and Allied Genera. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lackey C.L.A. Dactuliophora, a New Genus of Mycelia Sterilia from Tropical Africa. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 1964;47:341–350. doi: 10.1016/S0007-1536(64)80006-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Stewart R.B. An Undescribed Species of Pyrenochaeta on Soybean. Mycologia. 1957;49:115. doi: 10.1080/00275514.1957.12024619. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hartman G.L., Datnoff L.E., Levy C., Sinclair J.B., Cole D.L., Javaheri F. Red Leaf Blotch of Soybeans. Plant Dis. 1987;71:113. doi: 10.1094/PD-71-0113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Datnoff L.E., Naik D.M., Sinclair J.B. Effect of Red Leaf Blotch on Soybean Yield in Zambia. Plant Dis. 1987;71:132–135. doi: 10.1094/PD-71-0132. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Adebitan S. Losses Caused by Pyrenochaeta Glycines on Soyabean in Nigeria. Trop. Sci. 1998;49:608–620. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2008.04.0192. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Khojely D.M., Ibrahim S.E., Sapey E., Han T. History, Current Status, and Prospects of Soybean Production and Research in Sub-Saharan Africa. Crop J. 2018;6:226–235. doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2018.03.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tukamuhabwa P., Obaa B., Obua T., Namara M., Okii D., Kabayi P. Status of Soybean Production and Impact Indicators of New Soybean Varieties in Uganda. 2016. [(accessed on 9 March 2023)]. Available online: https://soybeanafrica.com/docs/Soybean%20Survey%20Report.Uganda.pdf.
- 16.Hartman G.L. Recovery Plan for Red Leaf Blotch of Soybean Caused by Phoma glycinicola. United States Department of Agriculture; Washington, DC, USA: 2011. Online Publication. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Stone C.L., Frederick R.D., Tooley P.W., Luster D.G., Campos B., Winegar R.A., Melcher U., Fletcher J., Blagden T. Annotation and Analysis of the Mitochondrial Genome of Coniothyrium Glycines, Causal Agent of Red Leaf Blotch of Soybean, Reveals an Abundance of Homing Endonucleases. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0207062. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tooley P.W. Development of an Inoculation Technique and the Evaluation of Soybean Genotypes for Resistance to Coniothyrium Glycines. Plant Dis. 2017;101:1411–1416. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-09-16-1373-RE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Murithi H., Pawlowski M., Degu T., Hunde D., Malede M., Obua T., Mushoriwa H., Coyne D., Tukamuhabwa P., Hartman G.L. Evaluation of Soybean Entries in the Pan-African Trials for Response to Coniothyrium Glycines, the Cause of Red Leaf Blotch. Plant Dis. 2022;106:535–540. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-05-21-1017-RE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ahmar S., Gill R.A., Jung K.H., Faheem A., Qasim M.U., Mubeen M., Zhou W. Conventional and Molecular Techniques from Simple Breeding to Speed Breeding in Crop Plants: Recent Advances and Future Outlook. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020;21:2590. doi: 10.3390/ijms21072590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Doust A., Diao X. Genetics and Genomics of Setaria. Volume 19. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Marees A.T., de Kluiver H., Stringer S., Vorspan F., Curis E., Marie-Claire C., Derks E.M. A Tutorial on Conducting Genome-Wide Association Studies: Quality Control and Statistical Analysis. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2018;27:1–10. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1608. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Varshney R.K., Terauchi R., McCouch S.R. Harvesting the Promising Fruits of Genomics: Applying Genome Sequencing Technologies to Crop Breeding. PLoS Biol. 2014;12:e1001883. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Purcell L.C., Salmeron M., Ashlock L. Soybean Growth and Development. In: Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, editor. Arkansas Soybean Production Handbook. University of Arkansas; Fayetteville, AR, USA: 2014. [(accessed on 9 March 2023)]. pp. 2–9. Available online: https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/pdf/mp197/mp197fullpub.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Fehr W.R., Caviness C.E., Burmood D.T., Pennington J.S. Stage of Development Descriptions for Soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merill. Crop Sci. 1971;11:929. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1971.0011183X001100060051x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Nachilima C., Chigeza G., Chibanda M., Mushoriwa H., Diers B.D., Murithi H.M., Hartman G. Evaluation of Foliar Diseases for Soybean Entries in the Pan African Trials in Malawi and Zambia. Plant Dis. 2020;104:2068–2073. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-12-19-2617-SR. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Levy C., Mahuku G.S., Tattersfield J.R., Cole D.L. Method of Assessment of Red Leaf Blotch on Soybeans Used to Evaluate Cultivar Susceptibility and Chemical Control. Crop Prot. 1990;9:148–154. doi: 10.1016/0261-2194(90)90095-O. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Macherey-Nagel G.K. Genomic DNA from Plant User Manual NucleoMag® Plant. Macherey-Nagel Inc.; Bethlehem, PA, USA: 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kilian A., Wenzl P., Huttner E., Carling J., Xia L., Blois H., Caig V., Heller-Uszynska K., Jaccoud D., Hopper C., et al. Diversity Arrays Technology: A Generic Genome Profiling Technology on Open Platforms. Methods Mol. Biol. 2012;888:67–89. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-870-2_5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Liu X., Huang M., Fan B., Buckler E.S., Zhang Z. Iterative Usage of Fixed and Random Effect Models for Powerful and Efficient Genome-Wide Association Studies. PLoS Genet. 2016;12:e1005756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Yin L., Zhang H., Tang Z., Xu J., Yin D., Zhang Z., Yuan X., Zhu M., Zhao S., Li X., et al. RMVP: A Memory-Efficient, Visualization-Enhanced, and Parallel-Accelerated Tool for Genome-Wide Association Study. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 2021;19:619–628. doi: 10.1016/j.gpb.2020.10.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Shin J.H., Blay S., McNeney B., Graham J. LDheatmap: An R Function for Graphical Display of Pairwise Linkage Disequilibria between Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. J. Stat. Softw. 2006;16:1–9. doi: 10.18637/jss.v016.c03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hyten D.L., Choi I.Y., Song Q., Shoemaker R.C., Nelson R.L., Costa J.M., Specht J.E., Cregan P.B. Highly Variable Patterns of Linkage Disequilibrium in Multiple Soybean Populations. Genetics. 2007;175:1937–1944. doi: 10.1534/genetics.106.069740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Priyanatha C., Torkamaneh D., Rajcan I. Genome-Wide Association Study of Soybean Germplasm Derived from Canadian × Chinese Crosses to Mine for Novel Alleles to Improve Seed Yield and Seed Quality Traits. Front. Plant Sci. 2022;13:866300. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.866300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Zhang L., Li H., Wang J. Linkage Analysis and Map Construction in Genetic Populations of Clonal F1 and Double Cross. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 2015;5:427–439. doi: 10.1534/g3.114.016022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Hunter S., Jones P., Mitchell A., Apweiler R., Attwood T.K., Bateman A., Bernard T., Binns D., Bork P., Burge S., et al. InterPro in 2011: New Developments in the Family and Domain Prediction Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:D306–D312. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Zhang J., Wang X., Lu Y., Bhusal S.J., Song Q., Cregan P.B., Yen Y., Brown M., Jiang G.L. Genome-Wide Scan for Seed Composition Provides Insights into Soybean Quality Improvement and the Impacts of Domestication and Breeding. Mol. Plant. 2018;11:460–472. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2017.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Chanchu T., Yimram T., Chankaew S., Kaga A., Somta P. Mapping QTLs Controlling Soybean Rust Disease Resistance in Chiang Mai 5, an Induced Mutant Cultivar. Genes. 2022;14:19. doi: 10.3390/genes14010019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Yu D., Lane S.N. Urban Fluvial Flood Modelling Using a Two-Dimensional Diffusion-Wave Treatment, Part 2: Development of a Sub-Grid-Scale Treatment. Hydrol. Process. 2006;20:1567–1583. doi: 10.1002/hyp.5936. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Lukanda M.M., Dramadri I.O., Adjei E.A., Arusei P., Gitonga H.W., Wasswa P., Edema R., Ssemakula M.O., Tukamuhabwa P., Tusiime G. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Ugandan Soybean (Glycine max L.) Germplasm Based on DArTseq. Plant Mol. Biol. Report. 2023;3:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s11105-023-01375-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Li X.Y., Lin E.P., Huang H.H., Niu M.Y., Tong Z.K., Zhang J.H. Molecular Characterization of SQUAMOSA PROMOTER BINDING PROTEIN-LIKE (SPL) Gene Family in Betula luminifera . Front. Plant Sci. 2018;9:608. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00608. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Preston J.C., Hileman L.C. Functional Evolution in the Plant SQUAMOSA-PROMOTER BINDING PROTEIN-LIKE (SPL) Gene Family. Front. Plant Sci. 2013;4:80. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Ma L., Liu X., Liu W., Wen H., Zhang Y., Pang Y., Wang X. Characterization of Squamosa-Promoter Binding Protein-Box Family Genes Reveals the Critical Role of MsSPL20 in Alfalfa Flowering Time Regulation. Front. Plant Sci. 2022;12:775690. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.775690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Zhong H., Kong W., Gong Z., Fang X., Deng X., Liu C., Li Y. Evolutionary Analyses Reveal Diverged Patterns of Squamosa Promoter Binding Protein-like (Spl) Gene Family in Oryza Genus. Front. Plant Sci. 2019;10:565. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Langenkämper G., Manac’h N., Broin M., Cuiné S., Becuwe N., Kuntz M., Rey P. Accumulation of Plastid Lipid-Associated Proteins (Fibrillin/CDSP34) upon Oxidative Stress, Ageing and Biotic Stress in Solanaceae and in Response to Drought in Other Species. J. Exp. Bot. 2001;52:1545–1554. doi: 10.1093/jexbot/52.360.1545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Chen Z., Zheng Z., Huang J., Lai Z., Fan B. Biosynthesis of Salicylic Acid in Plants. Plant Signal. Behav. 2009;4:493–496. doi: 10.4161/psb.4.6.8392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Durner J., Shah J., Klessig D.F. Salicylic Acid and Disease Resistance in Plants. Trends Plant Sci. 1997;2:266–274. doi: 10.1016/S1360-1385(97)86349-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Shine M.B., Yang J.W., El-Habbak M., Nagyabhyru P., Fu D.Q., Navarre D., Ghabrial S., Kachroo P., Kachroo A. Cooperative Functioning between Phenylalanine Ammonia Lyase and Isochorismate Synthase Activities Contributes to Salicylic Acid Biosynthesis in Soybean. New Phytol. 2016;212:627–636. doi: 10.1111/nph.14078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.McLoughlin F., Kim M., Marshall R.S., Vierstra R.D., Vierling E. HSP101 Interacts with the Proteasome and Promotes the Clearance of Ubiquitylated Protein Aggregates. Plant Physiol. 2019;180:1829–1847. doi: 10.1104/pp.19.00263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Vogel C., Silva G.M., Marcotte E.M. Protein Expression Regulation under Oxidative Stress. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2011;10:1–12. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M111.009217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Zhang Z., Xu M., Guo Y. Ring/U-Box Protein AtUSR1 Functions in Promoting Leaf Senescence Through JA Signaling Pathway in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2020;11:608589. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.608589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Kim M.S., Kang K.K., Cho Y.G. Molecular and Functional Analysis of U-Box E3 Ubiquitin Ligase Gene Family in Rice (Oryza sativa) Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021;22:12088. doi: 10.3390/ijms222112088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Wang N., Liu Y., Cai Y., Tang J., Li Y., Gai J. The Soybean U-Box Gene GmPUB6 Regulates Drought Tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana . Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020;155:284–296. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Gu Q., Chen M., Huang J., Wei Y., Hsiang T., Lu Z. Multifaceted Roles of the Ras Guanine-Nucleotide Exchange Factor ChRgf in Development, Pathogenesis, and Stress Responses of Colletotrichum Higginsianum. Phytopathology. 2017;107:433–443. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-03-16-0137-R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Fan F.F., Yang X., Cheng Y., Kang Y., Chai X. The DnaJ Gene Family in Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.): Comprehensive Identification, Characterization and Expression Profiles. Front. Plant Sci. 2017;8:689. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Liu T., Xu M., Gao S., Zhang Y., Hu Y., Jin P., Cai L., Cheng Y., Chen J., Yang J., et al. Genome-Wide Identification and Analysis of the Regulation Wheat DnaJ Family Genes Following Wheat Yellow Mosaic Virus Infection. J. Integr. Agric. 2022;21:153–169. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63619-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Liu J.Z., Whitham S.A. Overexpression of a Soybean Nuclear Localized Type-III DnaJ Domain-Containing HSP40 Reveals Its Roles in Cell Death and Disease Resistance. Plant J. 2013;74:110–121. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Jin T., Shan Z., Zhou S., Yang Q., Gai J., Li Y. GmDNAJC7 from Soybean Is Involved in Plant Tolerance to Alkaline-Salt, Salt, and Drought Stresses. Agronomy. 2022;12:1419. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12061419. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Liu S.L., Cheng Y.B., Ma Q.B., Li M., Jiang Z., Xia Q.J., Nian H. Fine Mapping and Genetic Analysis of Resistance Genes, Rsc18, against Soybean Mosaic Virus. J. Integr. Agric. 2022;21:644–653. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63569-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Braun J.E.A. Extracellular Chaperone Networks and the Export of J-Domain Proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 2023;299:102840. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2022.102840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Liu K.C., Liu C., Fan M.X., Zhang C.Y., Cai F.C., Li Q.Y., Chen M.M., Jiang Y., Hu W.B., Lin F. Phylogenetic Analysis of Enolase Gene Family in Different Species. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019;17:11537–11550. doi: 10.15666/aeer/1705_1153711550. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Khan M.N., Ahmed I., Ud Din I., Noureldeen A., Darwish H., Khan M. Proteomic Insight into Soybean Response to Flooding Stress Reveals Changes in Energy Metabolism and Cell Wall Modifications. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0264453. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Rehman H.M., Khan U.M., Nawaz S., Saleem F., Ahmed N., Rana I.A., Atif R.M., Shaheen N., Seo H. Genome Wide Analysis of Family-1 UDP Glycosyltransferases in Populus Trichocarpa Specifies Abiotic Stress Responsive Glycosylation Mechanisms. Genes. 2022;13:1640. doi: 10.3390/genes13091640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Zeng H., Zhang Y., Zhang X., Pi E., Zhu Y. Analysis of EF-Hand Proteins in Soybean Genome Suggests Their Potential Roles in Environmental and Nutritional Stress Signaling. Front. Plant Sci. 2017;8:877. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00877. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Hettenhausen C., Sun G., He Y., Zhuang H., Sun T., Qi J., Wu J. Genome-Wide Identification of Calcium-Dependent Protein Kinases in Soybean and Analyses of Their Transcriptional Responses to Insect Herbivory and Drought Stress. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:18973. doi: 10.1038/srep18973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Czolpinska M., Rurek M. Plant Glycine-Rich Proteins in Stress Response: An Emerging, Still Prospective Story. Front. Plant Sci. 2018;9:302. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Chen K., Tang W., Zhou Y., Chen J., Xu Z., Ma R., Dong Y., Ma Y., Chen M. AP2/ERF Transcription Factor GmDREB1 Confers Drought Tolerance in Transgenic Soybean by Interacting with GmERFs. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2022;170:287–295. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Wu H., Lv H., Li L., Liu J., Mu S., Li X., Gao J. Genome-Wide Analysis of the AP2/ERF Transcription Factors Family and the Expression Patterns of DREB Genes in Moso Bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0126657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Han Y., Cai M., Zhang S., Chai J., Sun M., Wang Y., Xie Q., Chen Y., Wang H., Chen T. Genome-Wide Identification of AP2/ERF Transcription Factor Family and Functional Analysis of DcAP2/ERF#96 Associated with Abiotic Stress in Dendrobium Catenatum. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022;23:13603. doi: 10.3390/ijms232113603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Sun S., Liang X., Chen H., Hu L., Yang Z. Identification of AP2/ERF Transcription Factor Family Genes and Expression Patterns in Response to Drought Stress in Pinus Massoniana. Forests. 2022;13:1430. doi: 10.3390/f13091430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Xie Z., Nolan T.M., Jiang H., Yin Y. AP2/ERF Transcription Factor Regulatory Networks in Hormone and Abiotic Stress Responses in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2019;10:228. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Zhang G., Chen M., Li L., Xu Z., Chen X., Guo J., Ma Y. Overexpression of the Soybean GmERF3 Gene, an AP2/ERF Type Transcription Factor for Increased Tolerances to Salt, Drought, and Diseases in Transgenic Tobacco. J. Exp. Bot. 2009;60:3781–3796. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erp214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Schapire A.L., Valpuesta V., Botella M.A. TPR Proteins in Plant Hormone Signaling. Plant Signal. Behav. 2006;1:229–230. doi: 10.4161/psb.1.5.3491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Rosado A., Schapire A.L., Bressan R.A., Harfouche A.L., Hasegawa P.M., Valpuesta V., Botella M.A. The Arabidopsis Tetratricopeptide Repeat-Containing Protein TTL1 Is Required for Osmotic Stress Responses and Abscisic Acid Sensitivity. Plant Physiol. 2006;142:1113–1126. doi: 10.1104/pp.106.085191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Guerriero G., Hausman J.F., Ezcurra I. Wd40-Repeat Proteins in Plant Cell Wall Formation: Current Evidence and Research Prospects. Front. Plant Sci. 2015;6:1112. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.01112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Sun X., Sun X., Pan X., Zhang H., Wang Y., Ren H., Wang F. Identification and Fine Mapping of a Quantitative Trait Locus Controlling the Total Flower and Pod Numbers in Soybean. Agronomy. 2022;12:790. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12040790. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Kong D., Li M., Dong Z., Ji H., Li X. Identification of TaWD40D, a Wheat WD40 Repeat-Containing Protein That Is Associated with Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stresses. Plant Cell Rep. 2015;34:395–410. doi: 10.1007/s00299-014-1717-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Kang Y.J., Kim K.H., Shim S., Yoon M.Y., Sun S., Kim M.Y., Van K., Lee S.H. Genome-Wide Mapping of NBS-LRR Genes and Their Association with Disease Resistance in Soybean. BMC Plant Biol. 2012;12:139. doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-12-139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Zhou L., Deng S., Xuan H., Fan X., Sun R., Zhao J., Wang H., Guo N., Xing H. A Novel TIR-NBS-LRR Gene Regulates Immune Response to Phytophthora Root Rot in Soybean. Crop J. 2022;10:1644–1653. doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2022.03.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Lopes-Caitar V.S., Nomura R.B.G., Hishinuma-Silva S.M., de Carvalho M.C.d.C.G., Abdelnoor R.V., Dias W.P., Marcelino-Guimarães F.C. Time Course RNA-Seq Reveals Soybean Responses against Root-Lesion Nematode and Resistance Players. Plants. 2022;11:2983. doi: 10.3390/plants11212983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Li N., Yin J.L., Li C., Wang D.G., Yang Y.Q., Karthikeyan A., Luan H.X., Zhi H.J. NB-LRR Gene Family Required for Rsc4-Mediated Resistance to Soybean Mosaic Virus. Crop Pasture Sci. 2016;67:541–552. doi: 10.1071/CP15165. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Liu B., Kanazawa A., Matsumura H., Takahashi R., Harada K., Abe J. Genetic Redundancy in Soybean Photoresponses Associated with Duplication of the Phytochrome A Gene. Genetics. 2008;180:995–1007. doi: 10.1534/genetics.108.092742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Sun X., Han G., Meng Z., Lin L., Sui N. Roles of Malic Enzymes in Plant Development and Stress Responses. Plant Signal. Behav. 2019;14:e1644596. doi: 10.1080/15592324.2019.1644596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Qi N., Yan J., Lei P., Zhu X., Liu X., Xuan Y., Fan H., Wang Y., Chen L., Duan Y. Functional Characterization of Ubiquitination Genes in the Interaction of Soybean—Heterodera Glycines. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022;23:10771. doi: 10.3390/ijms231810771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Xiong E., Qu X., Li J., Liu H., Ma H., Zhang D., Chu S., Jiao Y. The Soybean Ubiquitin-Proteasome System: Current Knowledge and Future Perspective. Plant Genome. 2023;16:e20281. doi: 10.1002/tpg2.20281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Lin Y., Hu Q., Zhou J., Yin W., Yao D., Shao Y., Zhao Y., Guo B., Xia Y., Chen Q., et al. Phytophthora sojae Effector Avr1d Functions as an E2 Competitor and Inhibits Ubiquitination Activity of GmPUB13 to Facilitate Infection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2021;118:e2018312118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2018312118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Li S., Lin M., Wang J., Zhang L., Lin M., Hu Z., Qi Z., Jiang H., Fu Y., Xin D., et al. Regulation of Soybean SUMOylation System in Response to Phytophthora sojae Infection and Heat Shock. Plant Growth Regul. 2019;87:69–82. doi: 10.1007/s10725-018-0452-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Yuan S., Li X., Li R., Wang L., Zhang C., Chen L., Hao Q., Zhang X., Chen H., Shan Z., et al. Genome-Wide Identification and Classification of Soybean C2H2 Zinc Finger Proteins and Their Expression Analysis in Legume-Rhizobium Symbiosis. Front. Microbiol. 2018;9:126. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Gachomo E.W., Jimenez-Lopez J.C., Baptiste L.J., Kotchoni S.O. GIGANTUS1 (GTS1), a Member of Transducin/WD40 Protein Superfamily, Controls Seed Germination, Growth and Biomass Accumulation through Ribosome-Biogenesis Protein Interactions in Arabidopsis thaliana . BMC Plant Biol. 2014;14:37. doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-14-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Nakei M.D., Venkataramana P.B., Ndakidemi P.A. Soybean-Nodulating Rhizobia: Ecology, Characterization, Diversity, and Growth Promoting Functions. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022;6:824444. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.824444. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Meithasari D., Endriani, Rumbaina D. Levels of Soybean Pest Attacks on Study of Soya Plant Technology Package in Acid Dry Land Soils in South Lampung. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020;484:012112. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/484/1/012112. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Upadhyay P., Thakur S., Nagre S.P., Anand K.J., Saraswat S. Review of Soybean Breeding for Disease and Insect Resistance Review of Soybean Breeding for Disease and Insect Resistance. Front. Crop Improv. 2022;10:541–548. [Google Scholar]
- 93.Zhao Q., Qin J., Li X., Liu B., Liu Y., Yang Q., Liu S., Zhao X., Ma N., Yan L., et al. Coordinate Inheritance of Seed Isoflavone and Protein in Soybean. Agriculture. 2022;12:1178. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12081178. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Ng M.S., Ku Y.S., Yung W.S., Cheng S.S., Man C.K., Yang L., Song S., Chung G., Lam H.M. Mate-Type Proteins Are Responsible for Isoflavone Transportation and Accumulation in Soybean Seeds. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021;22:12017. doi: 10.3390/ijms222112017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Feng Y., Zhang S., Li J., Pei R., Tian L., Qi J., Azam M., Agyenim-Boateng K.G., Shaibu A.S., Liu Y., et al. Dual-function C2H2-type Zinc-finger Transcription Factor GmZFP7 Contributes to Isoflavone Accumulation in Soybean. New Phytol. 2023;237:1794–1809. doi: 10.1111/nph.18610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Křížová L., Dadáková K., Kašparovská J., Kašparovský T. Isoflavones. Molecules. 2019;24:1076. doi: 10.3390/molecules24061076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Zhang D., Tong J., Xu Z., Wei P., Xu L., Wan Q., Huang Y., He X., Yang J., Shao H., et al. Soybean C2H2-Type Zinc Finger Protein GmZFP3 with Conserved QALGGH Motif Negatively Regulates Drought Responses in Transgenic Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2016;7:325. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Yu G.H., Jiang L.L., Ma X.F., Xu Z.S., Liu M.M., Shan S.G., Cheng X.G. A Soybean C2H2-Type Zinc Finger Gene GmZF1 Enhanced Cold Tolerance in Transgenic Arabidopsis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e109399. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Urade R. Cellular Response to Unfolded Proteins in the Endoplasmic Reticulum of Plants. FEBS J. 2007;274:1152–1171. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.05664.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Deng Y., Srivastava R., Howell S.H. Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress Response and Its Physiological Roles in Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013;14:8188–8212. doi: 10.3390/ijms14048188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Wu X., Wu X., Lai Y., Lv L., Ji M., Ji M., Han K., Yan D., Lu Y., Peng J., et al. Fasciclin-like Arabinogalactan Gene Family in Nicotiana benthamiana: Genome-Wide Identification, Classification and Expression in Response to Pathogens. BMC Plant Biol. 2020;20:305. doi: 10.1186/s12870-020-02501-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Jia R., Yu L., Chen J., Hu L., Cao S., Wang Y. Characterization of the Fasciclin-like Arabinogalactan Gene Family in Brassica napus and the Negative Regulatory Role of BnFLA39 in Response to Clubroot Disease Stress. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2023;196:116400. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116400. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Lu W., Sui M., Zhao X., Jia H., Han D., Yan X., Han Y. Genome-Wide Identification of Candidate Genes Underlying Soluble Sugar Content in Vegetable Soybean (Glycine max L.) via Association and Expression Analysis. Front. Plant Sci. 2022;13:930639. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.930639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Sainz M.M., Filippi C.V., Eastman G., Sotelo-Silveira J., Borsani O., Sotelo-Silveira M. Analysis of Thioredoxins and Glutaredoxins in Soybean: Evidence of Translational Regulation under Water Restriction. Antioxidants. 2022;11:1622. doi: 10.3390/antiox11081622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Meyer Y., Siala W., Bashandy T., Riondet C., Vignols F., Reichheld J.P. Glutaredoxins and Thioredoxins in Plants. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Cell Res. 2008;1783:589–600. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2007.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Mata-Pérez C., Spoel S.H. Thioredoxin-Mediated Redox Signalling in Plant Immunity. Plant Sci. 2019;279:27–33. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Kaiser B.N., Moreau S., Castelli J., Thomson R., Lambert A., Bogliolo S., Puppo A., Day D.A. The Soybean NRAMP Homologue, GmDMT1, Is a Symbiotic Divalent Metal Transporter Capable of Ferrous Iron Transport. Plant J. 2003;35:295–304. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2003.01802.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Lu M., Yang G., Li P., Wang Z., Fu S., Zhang X., Chen X., Shi M., Ming Z., Xia J. Bioinformatic and Functional Analysis of a Key Determinant Underlying the Substrate Selectivity of the Al Transporter, Nrat1. Front. Plant Sci. 2018;9:606. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Zhao J., Zheng L., Wei J., Wang Y., Chen J., Zhou Y., Chen M., Wang F., Ma Y., Xu Z.S. The Soybean PLATZ Transcription Factor GmPLATZ17 Suppresses Drought Tolerance by Interfering with Stress-Associated Gene Regulation of GmDREB5. Crop J. 2022;10:1014–1025. doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2022.03.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Wang J., Replogle A., Hussey R., Baum T., Wang X., Davis E.L., Mitchum M.G. Identification of Potential Host Plant Mimics of CLAVATA3/ESR (CLE)-like Peptides from the Plant-Parasitic Nematode Heterodera schachtii . Mol. Plant Pathol. 2011;12:177–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2010.00660.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Yang Y., Zhou Y., Chi Y., Fan B., Chen Z. Characterization of Soybean WRKY Gene Family and Identification of Soybean WRKY Genes that Promote Resistance to Soybean Cyst Nematode. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:17804. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-18235-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Knoll J., Ejeta G. Marker-Assisted Selection for Early-Season Cold Tolerance in Sorghum: QTL Validation across Populations and Environments. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2008;116:541–553. doi: 10.1007/s00122-007-0689-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Kusza S., Cziszter L.T., Ilie D.E., Sauer M., Padeanu I., Gavojdian D. Kompetitive Allele Specific PCR (KASPTM) Genotyping of 48 Polymorphisms at Different Caprine Loci in French Alpine and Saanen Goat Breeds and Their Association with Milk Composition. PeerJ. 2018;2018:e4416. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data are unavailable because of privacy or ethical restrictions; however, they may be available upon request.