Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jun 22;21(6):e0351845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351845

High-density single nucleotide polymorphism markers analysis reveals the genetic diversity and population structure in tropical highland maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines

Worknesh Terefe Gebre 1,*, Demissew Abakemal Ababulgu 2, Tilahun Mekonnen Negassa 3, Tileye Feyissa Senbeta 3
Editor: Dragan Perovic4
PMCID: PMC13286140  PMID: 42329987

Abstract

Genetic diversity is critical for crop improvement, germplasm conservation, and sustainable agriculture. It enables breeders to assess genetic relationships among germplasm, select suitable parents, and develop resilient varieties. In this study, a total of 11,203 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers were used to evaluate the genetic diversity of 93 maize inbred lines adapted to the East African tropical highlands. The results revealed moderate genetic diversity across the panel. Gene diversity, polymorphic information content (PIC), and genetic distance ranged from 0.10 to 0.67, 0.10 to 0.59, and 0.03 to 0.52, with mean values of 0.46, 0.40, and 0.44, respectively. Linkage disequilibrium (LD) analysis identified 36,904 SNP pairs (7.5% of 487,225 comparisons) showing relatively strong LD (r2 ≥ 0.20), with an overall mean r2 of 0.067. Genome-wide LD decayed to r2 = 0.2 at approximately 93.82 kb, suggesting rapid decay and substantial historical recombination. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) revealed that 95% of the total variation resided within germplasm source groups, whereas 5% was attributed to differences among groups, indicating low to moderate genetic differentiation. Multivariate analyses, including neighbor-joining, principal component analysis, and population structure analysis, consistently grouped the lines into three clusters, which largely corresponded with pedigree information. The observed diversity highlights the presence of valuable alleles that can be harnessed in maize breeding to enhance productivity and resilience in highland environments. Furthermore, the identified SNP markers in this study provide a useful genomic resource for future studies, including marker-trait association studies aimed at identifying genomic regions underlying key agronomic traits and accelerate genetic improvement in challenging environments.

Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) ranks as the third most important cereal crop globally, following wheat and rice, and is extensively cultivated for human consumption, livestock feed, and industrial purposes [1–3]. Global maize production increased from 313 million metric tons in 1971–1,162 million metric tons in 2020, reflecting its expanding role in global food systems. Currently, the leading producers include the United States, China, Brazil, the European Union, and Argentina [4].

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), maize is the predominant cereal crop and serves as a primary caloric source for more than 300 million people, in addition to its use in livestock feed and as an industrial raw material [5–6]. Despite its significance, maize productivity in Ethiopia (4 t ha ⁻ ¹) remains considerably lower than the global average yield of 5.88 t ha ⁻ ¹ [7]. This low productivity is partly attributed to the narrow genetic base resulting from prolonged selection within locally adapted germplasm [8–9]. Limited genetic diversity restricts breeding progress and reduces the potential for developing high-yielding, climate-resilient cultivars. Rapid population growth and increasing food demand further emphasize the need to exploit existing genetic variation for maize improvement.

Maize germplasm is broadly classified into temperate, subtropical, and tropical groups based on latitudinal and environmental adaptation [10]. Tropical maize generally exhibits higher allelic diversity than temperate germplasm [11–12], making it a valuable source of genetic resources for developing climate-resilient cultivars [13]. Within the tropical group, maize is further categorized into lowland, mid-altitude, and highland types. Highland maize is particularly notable for its superior performance under low-temperature conditions where other adaptation groups perform poorly [14]. Tropical germplasm constitutes a major reservoir of genetic diversity [15–16], and exploiting this diversity is essential for breeding programs targeting productivity, stress tolerance, and climate change adaptation.

Understanding genetic diversity and population structure is fundamental for effective crop improvement. Knowledge of genetic diversity enables breeders to identify divergent parental lines, maximize heterosis, and develop hybrids with enhanced resilience to environmental stresses [17–18]. Analysis of population structure further enables the differentiation of breeding populations, the introgression of favorable alleles, and classification of inbred lines into heterotic groups, which is an essential step in hybrid maize development [19–21]. Collectively, these insights support effective parent selection and long-term genetic gain in maize breeding programs.

Molecular markers, particularly single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), are indispensable for assessing genetic diversity because of their abundance, genome-wide distribution, reproducibility, and suitability for high-throughput genotyping [22–23]. Advances in genotyping platforms, especially genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), have greatly enhanced the capacity for genome-wide SNP discovery and enabled detailed evaluation of genetic relationships, population structure, and linkage disequilibrium [24–25]. These high-resolution tools provide a robust framework for characterizing germplasm diversity and accelerating maize improvement.

In East Africa, recent breeding efforts have focused on developing highland-adapted maize inbred lines with improved productivity and resilience to cold stress, drought, and emerging diseases. Although Ethiopia possesses diverse maize germplasm, including unique highland-adapted types, few studies have employed high-density SNP markers to assess the genetic diversity of locally adapted inbred lines [26–27]. Earlier studies that relied on phenotypic traits or low-density markers provided limited resolution, leaving the genetic structure, subgroup classifications, and potential heterotic patterns largely unresolved.

Addressing this knowledge gap is crucial for strengthening national breeding programs. Detailed characterization of genetic diversity enables the identification of complementary parents for hybrid development, minimizes redundancy in breeding materials, and improves selection efficiency. Insights into population structure also inform association mapping and genomic-assisted breeding strategies. In highland environments, where low temperatures and multiple stresses limit maize performance, well-characterized and genetically diverse inbred lines are essential for accelerating hybrid development. We hypothesize that tropical highland-adapted maize inbred lines developed for East Africa possess substantial genetic diversity and exhibit a structured population pattern reflecting their diverse origins and breeding histories. Furthermore, we hypothesize that linkage disequilibrium decays relatively rapidly across the genome, indicating that these lines are suitable for high-resolution genomic analyses.

This study evaluated the genetic diversity and population structure of tropical highland-adapted maize inbred lines developed for East Africa using genome-wide SNP markers. Specifically, the study aimed to estimate key diversity parameters, examine population structure and subgroup formation, and elucidate genetic relationships among lines to support parent selection and genomic-assisted breeding in highland maize improvement.

Materials and methods

Plant materials

A total of 93 maize inbred lines with diverse genetic backgrounds were evaluated in this study. These lines were developed through hybridization followed by successive selfing using a pedigree breeding approach at the Ambo Agricultural Research Center (AARC) of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (S1 Table). Among them, 28 lines were derived from Ethiopian highland accessions, 26 from early-generation lines introduced from CIMMYT Mexico, and 33 from CIMMYT Zimbabwe germplasm. The lines were advanced through repeated selfing to achieve homozygosity, reaching approximately S4 to S5 generations. In addition, six inbred lines representing parental lines of released varieties were obtained from AARC as locally adapted breeding materials. The four germplasm source groups were predefined based on origin and breeding history.

All lines were evaluated under optimum growing conditions, and selection was conducted across generations to retain genotypes with high grain yield, desirable agronomic performance, and early- to intermediate maturity. The inbred lines were also screened under field conditions for resistance to major diseases prevalent in tropical highland environments, including turcicum leaf blight, common rust, and gray leaf spot, and selected tolerant genotypes were advanced to subsequent generations.

DNA extraction and SNP genotyping

Genomic DNA was extracted from fresh leaf tissues of three-week-old seedlings grown under greenhouse conditions at Melkasa Agricultural Research Center. Samples were collected in 96-deep-well plates, freeze-dried, and extracted using the NucleoMag Plant Genomic DNA Extraction Kit (Macherey-Nagel GmbH & Co. KG, Düren, Germany) following the DArT protocol [28]. DNA quality and concentration were assessed using a NanoDropTM 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo ScientificTM, USA) and 0.8% agarose gel electrophoresis.

Genotyping was performed using the genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) method as described by Elshire, Glaubitz [29]. Genomic DNA was digested with ApeKI, barcoded adapters were ligated, and fragments were PCR-amplified. The libraries were sequenced as 77-bp single-end reads on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA).

SNP data filtering and genetic analysis

Raw SNP data were filtered to exclude markers with minor allele frequency (MAF) < 0.05, heterozygosity > 0.02 [30], and missing data > 30% [6]. These thresholds ensured the retention of informative, high-quality markers by removing loci with low allelic variation, excess heterozygosity indicative of genotyping errors in inbred lines, and excessive missing data that could bias downstream analyses [6]. A moderate missing data threshold was used to balance marker retention and genome coverage, as stricter filtering substantially reduced SNP density in the GBS dataset. SNPs lacking chromosomal position information (13% of the total markers) were excluded from linkage disequilibrium (LD) analysis because physical position information is required for LD estimation. All relevant data are publicly available in the Figshare Repository at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32396424. Genetic diversity parameters, including MAF, gene diversity(GD) expected heterozygosity (He), and polymorphic information content (PIC) were calculated using PowerMarker v3.2.5 [31]. Genetic distances were estimated using Nei’s method [32], and a neighbor-joining (NJ) phylogenetic tree was constructed and visualized in MEGA v11 [33].

Pairwise linkage disequilibrium (LD) was estimated using the squared allele frequency correlation coefficient (r2) between SNP marker pairs within each chromosome in TASSEL v5.2.8 [34]. The default LD window size of 50 markers was used; therefore, LD was calculated between each SNP and its 50 adjacent markers. SNPs lacking chromosomal position information were excluded prior to analysis. Pairwise r2 values were plotted against physical distance (kb), and LD decay was assessed using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) in R [35] with 10-kb distance bins. LD decay trends were further modeled following the nonlinear expectation described by Hill and Weir (1988) [35]. The LD decay distance was defined as the physical distance at which r2 declined to 0.2. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) was conducted in GenAlEx v6.5 [36] following the methods described by Excoffier and Smouse [37]. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed using the prcomp() function in R v 4.4.1 [38], and visualized using ggplot2 [39].

Population structure was inferred using STRUCTURE v2.3.4 [40] under an admixture model with correlated allele frequencies. The analysis was performed with a burn-in period of 10,000 iterations followed by 50,000 Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) repetitions for K = 1–10. The optimum number of clusters (K) was determined using the Evanno method [41] implemented in STRUCTURE HARVESTER [42]. Inbred lines with membership probabilities (Q) ≥ 0.6 were assigned to a specific cluster, whereas those with Q < 0.6 were classified as admixed. This threshold was selected to account for residual heterogeneity and admixture commonly observed in diverse maize inbred panels.

Results

DArTseq marker characteristics and distribution

Assessing genetic diversity is a fundamental in plant breeding because it provides a basis for developing high-yielding, stable, and stress-tolerant genotypes that contribute to food and nutritional security. Genotyping of the 93 maize inbred lines using the DArTseq platform initially generated 31,316 SNP markers. After quality control (QC) filtering, 11,203 high-quality SNP markers were retained, of which 9,770 were successfully aligned to the maize reference genome, whereas 1,433 mapped to unknown positions. The SNPs were distributed across all ten chromosomes, with chromosome 1 containing the highest number (1,491) and chromosome 10 the fewest (637). On an average, 977 SNPs were identified per chromosome (Fig 1).

Fig 1. SNP distribution across the ten chromosomes of maize inbred lines.

Fig 1

SNP Polymorphism and genetic diversity

Genome-wide diversity indices revealed considerable allelic variation across the maize inbred lines. Polymorphic information content (PIC) values ranged from 0.10 to 0.59, with a mean value of 0.40, indicating that the marker set was moderately to highly informative for assessing genetic diversity. Among the SNPs, 14% exhibited low PIC (< 0.3), 50% moderate (0.3–0.4), and 36% high (> 0.5) polymorphism (Fig 2B). Allele frequencies ranged from 0.05 to 0.66 (Table 1; Fig 2A). Expected heterozygosity (He), gene diversity (GD), PIC, and minor allele frequency (MAF) showed slight variation among chromosomes (Fig 3). Heterozygosity ranged from 0.01 to 0.70, with chromosomes 9 and 10 exhibiting the lowest values. Pairwise genetic distances among the inbred lines ranged from 0.03 to 0.52, with a mean of 0.44 (Table 1). The greatest genetic distance was observed between AML70 and AML2 (Additional S1 File), which were derived from different germplasm groups, whereas the smallest occurred between closely related sister lines AML31 and AML30.

Fig 2. Frequency distribution of (A) minor allele frequency (MAF) and (B) polymorphic information content (PIC) of 11,203 DArTseq SNP markers.

Fig 2

Table 1. Level of polymorphism of 11,203 SNP markers in 93 maize inbred lines.

Statistic MAF He GD PIC GDist
Minimum 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.03
Maximum 0.66 0.70 0.67 0.59 0.52
Mean 0.34 0.04 0.46 0.40 0.44

MAF = Minor allele frequency; He = expected heterozygosity; GD = Gene diversity; PIC = Polymorphic information content; GDist = Genetic distance.

Fig 3. Distribution of summary statistics (MAF, He and GD) for the 11,203 SNPs across the ten chromosomes of all inbred lines.

Fig 3

Allelic diversity within germplasm source groups

Genetic diversity indices revealed substantial variation within germplasm source groups but limited variation among groups (Table 2). Across all groups, the mean observed number of alleles (Na = 1.502), effective number of alleles (Ne = 1.205), expected heterozygosity (He = 0.153), and Shannon’s information index (I = 0.318) indicated moderate genetic diversity within the panel. Among the four predefined germplasm source groups, Group 1 exhibited the highest diversity with Na = 1.70, Ne = 1.313, He = 0.203, I = 0.318, and 70.33% polymorphic loci, suggesting a broader genetic base and greater allelic richness. Conversely, Group 4 showed comparatively lower diversity, with Na = 1.10, He = 0.097, and 22.66% polymorphic loci.

Table 2. Summary of genetic diversity statistics across loci for the four predefined germplasm source groups.

Germplasm source group Na Ne Ho He I (%P)
Group 1 (28) 1.70 1.31 0.00 0.20 0.32 70.33
Group 2 (26) 1.62 1.26 0.00 0.18 0.28 62.96
Group 3 (33) 1.56 1.20 0.00 0.14 0.23 59.16
Group 4 (6) 1.10 1.05 0.00 0.10 0.14 22.66
Overall 1.50 1.21 0.00 0.15 0.32 53.73

Na = Number of Alleles; Ne = effective number of alleles; Ho = Observed Heterozygosity; He = Expected Heterozygosity; I = Shannon’s Index; (%P) = Polymorphic loci

Linkage disequilibrium (LD) analysis

Genome-wide linkage disequilibrium (LD) was estimated using pairwise r2 values across the ten chromosomes. A total of 487,225 marker pairs were analyzed, yielding a mean r2 value of 0.067. Among these, 36,904 pairs (7.57%) exhibited strong LD (r2 ≥ 0.2) (Table 3). Chromosome 1 contained the highest number of marker pairs (73,275), followed by chromosome 2 (61,900), whereas chromosome 10 contained the fewest (31,850). The highest chromosome-specific LD was observed on chromosome 9, with a mean r2 value of 0.075.

Table 3. Summary of linkage disequilibrium analysis among marker pairs.

Chromosome TMNP Mean r² Mean marker distance (Mb) Significant marker pairs (r² ≥ 0.2)
1 73,275 0.064 5.16 5,071 (6.92%)
2 61,900 0.074 4.92 5,668 (9.16%)
3 53,100 0.062 5.61 3,625 (6.83%)
4 49,600 0.058 6.27 2,914 (5.88%)
5 56,600 0.071 4.94 4,652 (8.23%)
6 39,150 0.068 5.47 3,027(7.73%)
7 40,150 0.06 5.61 2,513 (6.26%)
8 43,350 0.069 5.17 3,450 (7.94%)
9 38,250 0.075 5.21 3,486 (9.10%)
10 31,850 0.065 6.08 2,428 (7.60%)
Total 487,225 0.067 5.39 36,904 (7.57%)

Chromosome-wise summary of linkage disequilibrium (LD) statistics. TMNP = total marker pairs; mean r² = average LD between marker pairs; and mean marker distance (Mb) = average physical distance between SNP pairs. Significant LD was defined as r² ≥ 0.2. Genome-wide LD decay (r² = 0.2) was estimated separately from the LOESS-smoothed LD decay curve and occurred at approximately 93.82 kb.

Genome-wide LD decayed to r2 = 0.2 at approximately 93.82 kb based on the LOESS-smoothed curve (Fig 4). Average inter-marker distances ranged from 4.92 to 6.27 Mb across chromosomes, reflecting differences in marker distribution following SNP filtering.

Fig 4. Linkage disequilibrium (LD) decay in the maize inbred panel.

Fig 4

Pairwise LD (r2) is plotted against physical distance (kb). Gray points represent individual marker pairs, and black points indicate 10-kb binned averages. The red line shows the LOESS-smoothed trend, while the blue dashed line represents the nonlinear model of Hill and Weir. The horizontal dashed line marks the LD threshold (r2 = 0.2), and the vertical line indicates the estimated LD decay distance (~93.82kb).

Analysis of molecular variance and genetic differentiation

Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) results is presented in Table 4, while the corresponding pairwise FST estimates are summarized in Table 5. AMOVA revealed that 95% of the total genetic variance was partitioned within germplasm source groups, whereas only 5% was attributed to variation among groups (Table 4). The overall FST value (0.05) indicated low to moderate genetic differentiation, suggesting weak but detectable genetic structure among the germplasm source groups. This pattern is supported by the low PhiPT value (0.01, p = 0.0001), which indicates limited genetic differentiation. The relatively high gene flow estimate (Nm = 4.35; S2 Table) further indicates substantial genetic exchange among groups, contributing to the predominance of within-group variation. These findings suggest extensive allele sharing and a high degree of common ancestry among the inbred lines. They are also consistent with population structure analysis, which identified three genetic clusters that do not strictly correspond to the four predefined germplasm source groups.

Table 4. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) among the four germplasm source groups based on high-density DArTseq SNP markers.

Source DF SS MS Estimated of Variance components % of Variation
Among groups 3 56187.16 18729.05 478.44 5
Within groups 89 741400.81 8330.35 8330.35 95
Total 92 797587.97 8808.78 100

PhiPT = 0.01; p = 0.0001. The p-value is based on 9,999 permutations; DF = degree of freedom; SS = sum of squares; MS = mean squares.

Table 5. Pairwise FST values (above diagonal) and pairwise genetic distances (below diagonal) among the four germplasm source groups.

Sub-populations 1 2 3 4
1 – 0.001 0.001 0.008
2 16440 – 0.001 0.009
3 16558 17328 – 0.007
4 17602 16769 17446 –
Overall FST value 0.05
Overall Nm value 4.35

Nm = number of migrants per generation; FST = Fixation index

Pairwise FST estimates among the germplasm source groups were uniformly low, ranging from 0.001 to 0.009 (Table 5), indicating minimal differentiation between most group pairs. Groups 1, 2, and 3 exhibited the least differentiation, whereas comparisons involving Group 4 showed relatively greater divergence, although overall differentiation remained weak. Patterns of genetic differentiation were further supported by genetic distance estimates, which indicated closer relationships among Groups 1, 2, and 3 and relatively modest divergence involving Group 4.

Clustering and population structure

Neighbor-joining (NJ), population structure, and principal component analysis (PCA) consistently revealed three genetic subgroups, reflecting distinct gene pools or evolutionary backgrounds. The NJ dendrogram grouped the 93 maize inbred lines into three main clusters (CI-CIII) (Fig 5). Cluster I included 40 inbred lines (43%), predominantly of exotic origin, although it also contained a few Ethiopian highland lines (AML20, AML27, AML94). Cluster II consisted of 13 lines (14%), representing a smaller group with relatively distinct genetic backgrounds. Cluster III included 38 lines (40.9%), mainly derived from the Kitale and F7215 testers, suggesting a more defined pedigree background. Two genotypes were identified as outliers, showing clear divergence from the main clusters. The clustering pattern generally corresponded with pedigree relationships, as closely related or sister lines grouped together, reflecting shared ancestry. For instance, lines from the AMB16N37-LD group clustered together, consistent with their derivation from testers such as F7215 (Kitale origin) and 142-1-e (Ecuador origin), highlighting the diverse genetic background of the germplasm.

Fig 5. Principal component analysis based on 11,203 SNP markers grouped the four predefined germplasm source groups into three major clusters. Samples coded with the same color represent the same group.

Fig 5

Principal component analysis (PCA) also confirmed the presence of three genetic clusters (Fig 6). The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) explained 8.81% of the total variation, contributing 4.7% and 4.11%, respectively. Lines from Group 1 were exclusively grouped in Cluster 1, whereas lines from the remaining groups were distributed across the remaining clusters, suggesting derivation from diverse parental crosses.

Fig 6. Neighbor-joining dendrogram showing the genetic relationships among 93 maize inbred lines based on SNP data, grouped into three clusters (C-I, C-II, and C-III), with two outlier genotypes.

Fig 6

Population structure analysis using STRUCTURE supported the presence of three subpopulations, with a distinct peak in ΔK at K = 3 (Fig 7A, 7B). Based on a membership threshold (Q ≥ 0.60), 51 lines (54.8%) were assigned to subpopulation 1, five (5.4%) to subpopulation 2, and 15 (16.1%) to subpopulation 3 (S3 Table). The remaining 22 lines (23.7%) were classified as admixed. Clustering patterns were largely consistent across neighbor-joining, principal component analysis (PCA), and STRUCTURE analyses, although minor discrepancies in line assignment were observed, reflecting admixture and shared ancestry among groups.

Fig 7. Population structure of 93 maize inbred lines inferred using STRUCTURE (K = 3).

Fig 7

Each vertical bar represents an individual genotype, and colors indicate the proportion of membership (Q value) in each of the three inferred subpopulations. Genotypes were assigned to clusters using a threshold of Q ≥ 0.60, whereas those with lower values were considered admixed.

Discussion

Analysis of genetic diversity and population structure provides essential insights into the relationships, breeding potential, and adaptability of maize germplasm. In the present study, the observed genetic variation revealed moderate genetic diversity as indicated by gene diversity (He = 0.15) and polymorphic information content (PIC = 0.40). These findings suggest the presence of potentially valuable alleles that can be exploited in future breeding programs. In maize, such diversity is crucial for exploiting heterosis through hybrid development, which depends on crossing germplasm from genetically divergent clusters [43–45]. Therefore, identifying breeding materials carrying desirable alleles and associating these alleles with target traits is vital for efficient selection and hybrid development.

Although PIC values in this study were higher than those reported in previous studies [23,46,47], these differences are likely attributed to variation in SNP panels, allele frequency distributions, and filtering criteria. The relatively higher PIC values observed in the present study indicate a greater level of allelic diversity and marker informativeness within the evaluated germplasm. The moderate levels of gene diversity and genetic distance among lines further indicate the existence of considerable genetic variation, which is essential for achieving heterosis in hybrid combinations. Only two pairs of lines showed genetic distances below 0.05, suggesting limited redundancy among most of the inbred lines. The present findings are comparable with those reported by Ertiro [46], and Semagn [45]. Comparable levels of diversity were observed in Ethiopian highland maize accessions [27], supporting the uniqueness of the lines evaluated in this study.

Genetic diversity indices revealed pronounced variation within germplasm source groups but limited variation among groups (Table 3). The mean observed number of alleles (Na = 1.502), effective number of alleles (Ne = 1.205), expected heterozygosity (He = 0.153), and Shannon’s information index (I = 0.318) indicated moderate genetic diversity which is consistent with earlier studies in tropical maize [47–48]. Among the four germplasm source groups, Group 1, derived from Ethiopian highland accessions, exhibited relatively higher diversity, likely reflecting a broader genetic base and more balanced allele distribution. Such diversity makes this group a valuable source of alleles for breeding and hybrid development [49]. Conversely, Group 4 displayed comparatively lower diversity, possibly due to genetic bottlenecks, selection pressure, or restricted gene flow [50].

The relatively lower genetic diversity observed in Group 4 may reflect the combined effects of selection history and genetic drift. Recurrent selection during breeding can promote the fixation of favorable alleles, thereby reducing overall genetic variation, whereas genetic drift, particularly in smaller or closely related groups, can further diminish allelic diversity over successive generations. Overall, Group 1 represents a valuable source of genetic variation, while Group 4 may benefit from enrichment through introgression of diverse germplasm. These findings emphasize the importance of conserving genetically diverse germplasm source groups, particularly Group 1, to ensure sustained genetic gain and adaptability in maize improvement programs.

Linkage disequilibrium (LD) is a key determinant of mapping resolution and is influenced by recombination, selection, and population history. In this study, LD decayed to r2 = 0.2 at approximately 93.82 kb, indicating substantial historical recombination within the maize inbred panel. This estimate is consistent with previous reports in maize, where LD decay ranges from a few kilobases in highly diverse populations to several hundred kilobases in structured breeding populations depending on germplasm composition [52–53]. For example, Fan et al. [51] reported an average LD decay distance of 97.16 kb in newly released CIMMYT tropical maize inbred lines. Therefore, the decay distance observed in the present study falls within the expected range for tropical maize germplasm.

The LD pattern reflects both biological and methodological factors. As an outcrossing species with a high recombination rate, maize generally exhibits rapid LD decay, while population structure and relatedness among lines may contribute to localized LD persistence. In addition, LD estimates are influenced by marker density, allele frequency distribution, and sample size, as described by Hill and Weir [35]. The LD decay observed in this study suggests adequate mapping resolution for downstream genome-wide association studies (GWAS), consistent with previous reports [52], although higher marker density could further enhance genome coverage and improve the detection of trait-associated loci.

The analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) revealed that 95% of the total genetic variation resided within germplasm source groups, whereas only 5% was attributed to differences among groups. The overall FST value (0.05) indicates low to moderate genetic differentiation, reflecting detectable genetic structure among germplasm source groups. This level of differentiation is typical for maize breeding materials, where extensive germplasm exchange and shared ancestry limit strong genetic separation [53–54].

The predominance of within-group variation suggests substantial genetic similarity among the maize inbred lines, likely resulting from recombination, mutation, and historical gene flow. Comparable patterns have been reported in previous studies, in which 97–98% of genetic variation occurred within maize inbred line groups by Ayesiga et al. [24]. The relatively high gene flow estimate observed in this study (Nm = 4.35) further supports limited differentiation and substantial gene exchange among groups, whereas lower Nm values reported in maize landraces [55–56] indicate more restricted gene flow. Despite the overall low to moderate differentiation, the observed genetic distances among groups particularly between Groups 1 and 4 may provide useful opportunities for exploring heterosis in maize breeding programs.

The relatively low variance explained by the first two principal components (~ 8.8%) indicates a complex and multidimensional genetic structure within the maize panel, highlighting the limitations of principal component analysis (PCA) when used alone. To better resolve this structure, complementary analyses using STRUCTURE and neighbor-joining (NJ) were performed. The consistency observed among PCA, NJ, and STRUCTURE results suggests a well-defined yet interconnected genetic architecture, reflecting the diverse ancestral origins and breeding histories of the inbred lines.

Although three genetic clusters were identified, the low FST and AMOVA estimates indicated relatively weak differentiation among groups, suggesting considerable shared ancestry and gene flow among subpopulations. The inferred population structure (K = 3) likely reflects contributions from multiple gene pools resulting from the integration of Ethiopian and exotic germplasm during inbred line development. The clustering of Ethiopian lines with introduced materials highlights substantial historical introgression and selection for adaptation to diverse agroecological conditions.

Although the burn-in period (10,000) and MCMC iterations (50,000) used in the STRUCTURE analysis were relatively modest, multiple independent runs yielded stable log-likelihood values [LnP(D)] and consistent ΔK support, indicating that the chosen parameters were sufficient for this dataset. However, higher iteration values may further improve the precision and stability of population structure inference, particularly in more complex or highly admixed populations.

Based on a membership coefficient threshold of Q ≥ 0.60, most of the 93 maize inbred lines were assigned to one of the three subpopulations, whereas a subset exhibited admixed ancestry (S3 Table; Fig 7). Subpopulation I contained the majority of lines, suggesting a shared genetic background likely shaped by common pedigree sources and selection for local adaptation. Subpopulation II comprised a smaller but clearly differentiated group, indicating a distinct breeding lineage. Subpopulation III included highly divergent lines which represent genetically distinct introduced germplasm.

The presence of admixed genotypes (Q < 0.60) reflects historical recombination and exchange among breeding materials, consistent with the mixed origin of the panel, including Ethiopian highland and CIMMYT-derived lines. This admixture pattern highlights the role of recurrent crossing and selection in combining desirable traits such as adaptation, yield potential, and stress tolerance. The observed genetic differentiation among subpopulations also suggests the existence of exploitable heterotic structure. Crosses between genetically distinct clusters, particularly those involving Subpopulation III are likely to maximize heterosis and improve hybrid performance, while admixed lines may serve as valuable intermediates for gene introgression and broadening the genetic base.

The observed admixture, supported by overlapping clusters and low differentiation indices (FST and AMOVA), reflects extensive gene flow and shared ancestry expected in breeding programs utilizing CIMMYT-derived materials. This genetic blending is advantageous because it broadens the allelic base, increases recombination potential, and reduces the risk of inbreeding depression. The 23.7% admixture rate aligns with previous reports [57–58] and underscores the dynamic nature of gene exchange in maize due to open pollination and the recurrent use of common parents.

From a breeding perspective, although genetic differentiation among clusters was low, the observed grouping provides a preliminary framework for parental selection. Crosses between lines from relatively distinct clusters, particularly between Group 1 and 4, offers opportunities for heterotic hybrid formation. The diverse ancestry represented in these groups can be harnessed to combine complementary alleles for yield potential, stress tolerance, and disease resistance consistent with the earlier reports [59–60]. Overall, the structured yet interconnected diversity observed in this study confirms that the evaluated maize inbred lines constitute a rich genetic reservoir for association mapping and marker-assisted selection, thereby contributing to the development of resilient, high-yielding cultivars adapted to diverse environments.

Although the present study focused on assessing molecular genetic diversity, the high-density SNP dataset generated provides a valuable foundation for future genomic analyses. In particular, these polymorphic markers could be utilized in genome-wide association studies (GWAS), when combined with phenotypic data to detect marker-trait associations for key agronomic traits such as grain yield, stress tolerance, and disease resistance. The moderate genetic diversity, substantial allelic variation, and detectable population structure also observed in this panel further support its suitability for association mapping and parental selection in breeding programs. Therefore, this study establishes an important genomic resource that can facilitate marker-assisted selection and genomic-assisted breeding aimed at improving maize adaptation and productivity in highland environments.

Conclusion

This study revealed moderate to high genetic diversity among 93 tropical maize inbred lines based on high-density DArTseq SNP markers, as evidenced by an average PIC value of 0.40, relatively high gene diversity, and wide pairwise genetic distances among genotypes. The lines were grouped into three genetic clusters; however, genetic differentiation among predefined germplasm source groups was relatively low, as indicated by low FST values and predominance of variation within groups. Despite the low level of genetic differentiation, the observed diversity highlights the richness of the maize gene pool developed for tropical highland conditions. The observed genetic diversity highlights the potential of these inbred lines as valuable parental resources for maize improvement programs. Furthermore, the generated high-density SNP dataset also provides an important genomic resource for future applications, including GWAS, marker-assisted selection, and the efficient conservation and utilization of maize genetic resources adapted to highland agro-ecologies.

Supporting information

S1 File. Additional file: Nei’s genetic distance matrix among 93 maize inbred lines.

(XLSX)

pone.0351845.s001.xlsx (77.3KB, xlsx)
S1 Table. List of maize inbred lines and their pedigree information used for genetic diversity.

(DOCX)

pone.0351845.s002.docx (24.5KB, docx)
S2 Table. Pairwise number of migrants per generation (Nm) value among four germplasm source groups.

(DOCX)

pone.0351845.s003.docx (13.3KB, docx)
S3 Table. Membership coefficients of 93 maize inbred lines inferred from population structure analysis (K = 3).

Proportion of ancestry (Q values) of each genotype assigned to the three inferred sub-populations. Genotypes with Q ≥ 0.60 were assigned to a specific cluster, while those with Q < 0.60 were considered admixed. These data correspond to the population structure illustrated in Figure 7.

(DOCX)

pone.0351845.s004.docx (24.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), particularly to Ambo Agricultural Research Center for providing the maize inbred lines used in this study. We also sincerely thankful for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for financial support in genotyping of the inbred lines under the Modernizing Ethiopian Research on Crop Improvement (MERCI) Project.

Data Availability

All genotype datasets and supporting files were deposited in the Figshare Repository and are publicly accessible at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32396424.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Ramírez-Esparza U, Agustín-Chávez MC, Ochoa-Reyes E, Alvarado-González SM, López-Martínez LX, Ascacio-Valdés JA, et al. Recent advances in the extraction and characterization of bioactive compounds from corn by-products. Antioxidants (Basel). 2024;13(9):1142. doi: 10.3390/antiox13091142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Duo H, Hossain F, Muthusamy V, Zunjare RU, Goswami R, Chand G, et al. Development of sub-tropically adapted diverse provitamin-A rich maize inbreds through marker-assisted pedigree selection, their characterization and utilization in hybrid breeding. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0245497. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kamara MM, Rehan M, Ibrahim KM, Alsohim AS, Elsharkawy MM, Kheir AMS, et al. Genetic diversity and combining ability of white maize inbred lines under different plant densities. Plants (Basel). 2020;9(9):1140. doi: 10.3390/plants9091140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2018. https://www.fao.org/faostat/ [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mora-Poblete F, Maldonado C, Henrique L, Uhdre R, Scapim CA, Mangolim CA. Multi-trait and multi-environment genomic prediction for flowering traits in maize: a deep learning approach. Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1153040. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1153040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Badu-Apraku B, Garcia-Oliveira AL, Petroli CD, Hearne S, Adewale SA, Gedil M. Genetic diversity and population structure of early and extra-early maturing maize germplasm adapted to sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Plant Biol. 2021;21(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12870-021-02829-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Asfaw DM, Asnakew YW, Sendkie FB, Abdulkadr AA, Mekonnen BA, Tiruneh HD, et al. Analysis of constraints and opportunities in maize production and marketing in Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2024;10(20):e39606. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cairns JE, Chamberlin J, Rutsaert P, Voss RC, Ndhlela T, Magorokosho C. Challenges for sustainable maize production of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. J Cereal Sci. 2021;101:103274. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2021.103274 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang Q, Jiang Y, Liao Z, Xie W, Zhang X, Lan H, et al. Evaluation of the contribution of teosinte to the improvement of agronomic, grain quality and yield traits in maize (Zea mays). Plant Breeding. 2019;139(3):589–99. doi: 10.1111/pbr.12796 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Paliwal RL, Granados G, Lafitte HR, Violic AD. Tropical maize: improvement and production. 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Liu K, Goodman M, Muse S, Smith JS, Buckler E, Doebley J. Genetic structure and diversity among maize inbred lines as inferred from DNA microsatellites. Genetics. 2003;165(4):2117–28. doi: 10.1093/genetics/165.4.2117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Romay MC, Millard MJ, Glaubitz JC, Peiffer JA, Swarts KL, Casstevens TM, et al. Comprehensive genotyping of the USA national maize inbred seed bank. Genome Biol. 2013;14(6):R55. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-6-r55 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Choquette NE, Weldekidan T, Brewer J, Davis SB, Wisser RJ, Holland JB. Enhancing adaptation of tropical maize to temperate environments using genomic selection. G3 (Bethesda). 2023;13(9):jkad141. doi: 10.1093/g3journal/jkad141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ellis R, Summerfield R, Edmeades G, Roberts E. Photoperiod, leaf number, and interval from tassel initiation to emergence in diverse cultivars of maize. Crop science. 1992;32(2):398–403. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Amegbor IK, Darkwa K, Nelimor C, Manigben K, Adu G, Aboyadana P, et al. Yield performance and genetic analysis of drought tolerant provitamin a maize under drought and rainfed conditions. FARA Res Report. 2023;7(48):604–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Edmeades GO, Trevisan W, Prasanna BM, Campos H. Tropical maize (Zea mays L.). Genetic improvement of tropical crops. Springer International Publishing; 2017. 57–109. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-59819-2_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.de Faria SV, Zuffo LT, Rezende WM, Caixeta DG, Pereira HD, Azevedo CF, et al. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of a set of tropical maize inbred lines from a public breeding program in Brazil. BMC Genomics. 2022;23(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12864-021-08127-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Obeng-Bio E, Badu-Apraku B, Ifie BE, Danquah A, Blay ET, Dadzie MA, et al. Genetic diversity among early provitamin A quality protein maize inbred lines and the performance of derived hybrids under contrasting nitrogen environments. BMC Genet. 2020;21(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s12863-020-00887-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Barbosa PAM, Fritsche-Neto R, Andrade MC, Petroli CD, Burgueño J, Galli G, et al. Introgression of maize diversity for drought tolerance: subtropical maize landraces as source of new positive variants. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:691211. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.691211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Temesgen B. Role and economic importance of crop genetic diversity in food security. J Agric Sc Food Technol. 2021;:164–9. doi: 10.17352/2455-815x.000104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Swarup S, Cargill EJ, Crosby K, Flagel L, Kniskern J, Glenn KC. Genetic diversity is indispensable for plant breeding to improve crops. Crop Science. 2021;61(2):839–52. doi: 10.1002/csc2.20377 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gupta M, Kaur Y, Kumar H, Kumar P, Choudhary J, Kumar P, et al. Molecular Markers in Maize Improvement: A Review. Act Scie Agri. 2022;:55–70. doi: 10.31080/asag.2022.06.1180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Semagn K, Babu R, Hearne S, Olsen M. Single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping using Kompetitive Allele Specific PCR (KASP): overview of the technology and its application in crop improvement. Mol Breeding. 2013;33(1):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11032-013-9917-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ayesiga SB, Rubaihayo P, Oloka BM, Dramadri IO, Edema R, Sserumaga JP. Genetic variation among tropical maize inbred lines from NARS and CGIAR breeding programs. Plant Mol Biol Report. 2023;41(2):209–17. doi: 10.1007/s11105-022-01358-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Edet OU, Gorafi YSA, Nasuda S, Tsujimoto H. DArTseq-based analysis of genomic relationships among species of tribe Triticeae. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):16397. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34811-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wegary D, Teklewold A, Prasanna BM, Ertiro BT, Alachiotis N, Negera D, et al. Molecular diversity and selective sweeps in maize inbred lines adapted to African highlands. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):13490. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-49861-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Beyene Y, Botha A-M, Myburg AA. Genetic diversity among traditional Ethiopian highland maize accessions assessed by simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 2006;53(8):1579–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kilian A, Wenzl P, Huttner E, Carling J, Xia L, Blois H, et al. Diversity arrays technology: a generic genome profiling technology on open platforms. Data production and analysis in population genomics: methods and protocols. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2012. 67–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Elshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Sun Q, Poland JA, Kawamoto K, Buckler ES, et al. A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhang X, Zhang H, Li L, Lan H, Ren Z, Liu D, et al. Characterizing the population structure and genetic diversity of maize breeding germplasm in Southwest China using genome-wide SNP markers. BMC Genomics. 2016;17(1):697. doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-3041-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Liu K, Muse SV. PowerMarker: an integrated analysis environment for genetic marker analysis. Bioinformatics. 2005;21(9):2128–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Takezaki N, Nei M. Genetic distances and reconstruction of phylogenetic trees from microsatellite DNA. Genetics. 1996;144(1):389–99. doi: 10.1093/genetics/144.1.389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38(7):3022–7. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bradbury PJ, Zhang Z, Kroon DE, Casstevens TM, Ramdoss Y, Buckler ES. TASSEL: software for association mapping of complex traits in diverse samples. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(19):2633–5. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hill WG, Weir BS. Variances and covariances of squared linkage disequilibria in finite populations. Theor Popul Biol. 1988;33(1):54–78. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(88)90004-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Smouse PE, Whitehead MR, Peakall R. An informational diversity framework, illustrated with sexually deceptive orchids in early stages of speciation. Mol Ecol Resour. 2015;15(6):1375–84. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics. 1992;131(2):479–91. doi: 10.1093/genetics/131.2.479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wickham H. Getting Started with ggplot2. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer; 2016. 11–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics. 2000;155(2):945–59. doi: 10.1093/genetics/155.2.945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol. 2005;14(8):2611–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Earl DA, VonHoldt BM. Structure harvester: a website and program for visualizing structure output and implementing the evanno method. Conserv Genetics Res. 2012;4(2):359–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gonhi T, Odong TL, Dramadri IO, Ochwo‐Ssemakula M, Chiteka ZA, Adjei EA, et al. Assessment of genetic diversity and heterotic alignment of CIMMYT and IITA maize inbred lines adapted to sub‐Saharan Africa. Crop Science. 2024;65(1). doi: 10.1002/csc2.21401 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Boakyewaa Adu G, Badu-Apraku B, Akromah R, Garcia-Oliveira AL, Awuku FJ, Gedil M. Genetic diversity and population structure of early-maturing tropical maize inbred lines using SNP markers. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214810. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Semagn K, Magorokosho C, Vivek BS, Makumbi D, Beyene Y, Mugo S, et al. Molecular characterization of diverse CIMMYT maize inbred lines from eastern and southern Africa using single nucleotide polymorphic markers. BMC Genomics. 2012;13:113. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ertiro BT, Semagn K, Das B, Olsen M, Labuschagne M, Worku M, et al. Genetic variation and population structure of maize inbred lines adapted to the mid-altitude sub-humid maize agro-ecology of Ethiopia using single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) markers. BMC Genomics. 2017;18(1):777. doi: 10.1186/s12864-017-4173-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Oyekunle M, Abubakar AM, Zakariya S, Ado SG, Usman IS, Uwais UU. Genetic diversity and population structure assessment among 376 maize inbred lines using single nucleotide polymorphism markers. 2024. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5375124/v1 [DOI]
  • 48.Gunundu R, Shimelis H, Tesfamariam SA. Genetic diversity and population structure analyses of tropical maize inbred lines using Single Nucleotide Polymorphism markers. PLoS One. 2025;20(1):e0315463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zeffa DM, Bertagna FAB, Delfini J, Koltun A, Uhdre RS, Scapim CA, et al. Genetic diversity, population structure and linkage disequilibrium in tropical maize (Zea mays L.) germplasm adapted to South Brazil. Plant Breeding. 2025;144(4):549–58. doi: 10.1111/pbr.13273 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Nelimor C, Badu-Apraku B, Garcia-Oliveira AL, Tetteh A, Paterne A, N’guetta AS-P, et al. Genomic analysis of selected maize landraces from sahel and coastal west Africa reveals their variability and potential for genetic enhancement. Genes (Basel). 2020;11(9):1054. doi: 10.3390/genes11091054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Fan H, Wang J, Yan Y, Zhang Q, Wang L, Song L, et al. Molecular and Genetic Characterization of Newly Released CIMMYT inbred maize lines. Plants (Basel). 2025;14(24):3866. doi: 10.3390/plants14243866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Adewale SA, Badu-Apraku B, Akinwale RO, Paterne AA, Gedil M, Garcia-Oliveira AL. Genome-wide association study of Striga resistance in early maturing white tropical maize inbred lines. BMC Plant Biol. 2020;20(1):203. doi: 10.1186/s12870-020-02360-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Arbizu CI, Bazo-Soto I, Flores J, Ortiz R, Blas R, García-Mendoza PJ, et al. Genotyping by sequencing reveals the genetic diversity and population structure of Peruvian highland maize races. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1526670. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1526670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mukiti HM, Badu-Apraku B, Abe A, Adejumobi II, Derera J. Optimizing breeding strategies for early-maturing white maize through genetic diversity and population structure. PLoS One. 2025;20(2):e0316793. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dominguez PG, Gutierrez AV, Fass MI, Filippi CV, Vera P, Puebla A, et al. Genome-wide diversity in lowland and highland maize landraces from southern south america: population genetics insights to assist conservation. Evol Appl. 2024;17(12):e70047. doi: 10.1111/eva.70047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cui D, Tang C, Lu H, Li J, Ma X, A X, et al. Genetic differentiation and restricted gene flow in rice landraces from Yunnan, China: effects of isolation-by-distance and isolation-by-environment. Rice (N Y). 2021;14(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12284-021-00497-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Patel R, Memon J, Kumar S, Patel DA, Sakure AA, Patel MB, et al. Genetic diversity and population structure of maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines in association with phenotypic and grain qualitative traits using SSR genotyping. Plants (Basel). 2024;13(6):823. doi: 10.3390/plants13060823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Menkir A, Rocheford T, Maziya-Dixon B, Tanumihardjo S. Exploiting natural variation in exotic germplasm for increasing provitamin-A carotenoids in tropical maize. Euphytica. 2015;205(1):203–17. doi: 10.1007/s10681-015-1426-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sahoo S, Varalakshmi S, Singh P, Singh NK, Jaiswal JP, Pant U. Wild relatives enhance genetic resources for maize (Zea mays ssp. mays) improvement through diversity analysis. Discover Plants. 2026;3(1):11. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Badu-Apraku B, Adewale S, Paterne A, Gedil M, Asiedu R. Identification of QTLs Controlling Resistance/Tolerance to Striga hermonthica in an Extra-Early Maturing Yellow Maize Population. Agronomy. 2020;10(8):1168. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10081168 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dragan Perovic

19 Mar 2026

PONE-D-25-63384 High-density Single Nucleotide Polymorphism markers analysis reveals the genetic diversity and population structure in tropical highland maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines PLOS One

Dear Dr. Gebre,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Abdul Rehman Rashid, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that the data will be available upon request from corresponding author

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author worknesh Terefe Gebre, Demissew Ababulgu, Tilahun Negassa, Tileye Senbeta.

6. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Worknesh Terefe, Demissew Abakemal, Tilahun Mekonnen, Tileye Feyissa.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

8. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <Supplementary tables.docx >. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

9. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

10. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Lines 127-129 can be elaborated for development of the inbred lines mentioning the hybridization sources and selfed generations.

Lines 131-132 needs elaboration as to what adaptation and disease resistance strategies were adopted for evaluation of inbred lines

Reviewer #2: The work is fundamental and presentation is fine. but authors should give clear high resolution figures. the abstrct shouldbe more informative.If possible the gst and rst value may be added.authors should see if the SNPS can be associated with specific trait. It may be included in discussion.

Reviewer #3: This study presents a comprehensive genetic analysis of 93 tropical highland maize inbred lines using high-density SNP markers. The authors assess genetic diversity, population structure, and linkage disequilibrium, offering valuable insights for maize breeding programs in East African highlands. The manuscript is well-structured and addresses an important topic in crop improvement. However, authors

The authors state that data will be available upon request. However there are major concerns:

1. The LD decay analysis mentions a window size of 50 bp—this seems unusually small for maize. Please confirm and clarify whether this refers to a sliding-window step or to something else.

2. The STRUCTURE analysis used K = 1–10 with 10,000 burn-in and 50,000 MCMC iterations. These are acceptable but relatively low for complex datasets. Consider justifying or noting this as a limitation.

3. The PCA explains only ~8.8% of the total variation (PC1 + PC2). While this is common in highly diverse panels, it may be worth discussing the limitations of PCA in capturing complex structure and the value of complementary methods like STRUCTURE and NJ trees.

4. Table 3 shows chromosome 6 with 0 significant LD pairs—this is unusual and may warrant a check or explanation (e.g., low marker density, filtering artifacts).

5. Please discuss why population 4 might have lower diversity. Could it be due to selection history or genetic drift? What are the practical implications of the LD decay rate for GWAS resolution in this panel? Additionally, consider more explicitly comparing your findings with those from other highland maize studies in Africa or similar environments.

6. Per journal requirement, authors must deposit the SNP data in a public repository (e.g., Figshare, Dryad, or a genomic database) and provide the accession number in the manuscript.

Additionally, some typos must be corrected: Figures are generally clear, but ensure all axes are labeled with units (e.g., Fig 4: Distance in bp). Table 3: The column header "Pr²" is unclear: should it be "Mean r²"? Table S2 (Nm values) is mentioned but not fully described in the text; ensure that all supplementary files are referenced and explained.

In Abstract: The sentence beginning "11,203 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers genotyped..." is missing a verb (e.g., "were used"). Revise for clarity.

Keywords: Consider adding "GWAS" or "Genomic selection" if relevant to future applications.

Line 185: (additional file1) must be (Additional File S1), and accordingly, the Supporting Information section must be corrected too.

Line 256: "Cluster 1 contained the largest germplasm (54 lines, 58%)" – rephrase to "largest number of lines" or "most lines".

Line 283: "The assessment of genetic diversity..." – this sentence is a general statement; consider moving to the Introduction or shortening.

Technical Corrections

Check for inconsistent spacing (e.g., "p< 0.01" should be "p < 0.01").

Use italic formatting for p-values and FST consistently.

Table 5: The diagonal values (0.001, 0.001, 0.009) are listed under "Sub-populations 1" column, this may confuse readers. Use a standard format with FST above diagonal and genetic distance below.

Reviewer #4: This manuscript presents a comprehensive SNP-based analysis of genetic diversity, population structure, and linkage disequilibrium in tropical highland maize inbred lines. The topic is scientifically relevant and important for maize breeding programs, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The dataset is substantial, and the analytical approaches are appropriate. However, the manuscript requires major revision to meet PLOS ONE publication standards, particularly in language quality, methodological clarity, data availability, and interpretation of results.

Major Strengths

Scientific relevance:

The study addresses a significant knowledge gap in the genetic characterization of tropical highland maize germplasm, which is important for breeding, conservation, and climate-resilient crop development.

High-quality dataset:

The use of over 11,000 high-quality SNP markers across 93 inbred lines provides robust genomic resolution for population genetic analysis.

Comprehensive analytical framework:

The authors employ multiple complementary analyses, including genetic diversity indices, STRUCTURE clustering, PCA, phylogenetic analysis, AMOVA, and LD decay analysis, which together strengthen the study.

Breeding implications:

The manuscript provides potentially valuable insights for heterotic grouping and parental selection in maize hybrid development.

Major Concerns and Required Revisions

1. Language and Writing Quality (Major Issue)

The manuscript contains numerous grammatical, typographical, and syntactic errors that substantially impair readability and clarity. Professional English language editing is strongly recommended. Several sentences are poorly constructed, repetitive, or ambiguous.

2. Methodological Clarity and Justification

SNP filtering thresholds:

The authors applied several filtering criteria (PIC < 0.1, MAF < 0.05, heterozygosity < 0.02, missing data > 30%), but no justification or citation is provided. These thresholds should be supported with references or methodological rationale.

LD window size:

The manuscript reports an LD window size of 50 bp, which is biologically unrealistic for maize population studies. This likely reflects either a typographical or analytical error. The authors should clarify the actual window size used and revise accordingly.

STRUCTURE parameters:

The burn-in and MCMC iterations appear relatively low for population genetic inference. Justification for these choices should be provided, or additional runs should be performed to ensure robust inference.

3. Interpretation of Linkage Disequilibrium Results

The reported LD decay (~3.33 Mb) is considerably slower than expected for maize and is inconsistent with many previous studies. This may reflect population stratification, recent selection bottlenecks, or marker filtering bias. The authors should compare their findings with published maize LD studies and provide a biological explanation for the unusually slow decay.

4. Population Structure Interpretation

Although three genetic clusters are identified, the biological and breeding significance of these clusters is not adequately discussed. The authors should strengthen interpretation by linking population structure results to pedigree background, geographic origin, adaptation patterns, and implications for heterotic grouping.

5. FST Inconsistencies

The manuscript reports contradictory FST values in different sections. While the text mentions values as high as 0.716, the tables show FST values below 0.01. This discrepancy must be corrected, and population differentiation should be interpreted accordingly.

6. Data Availability (Mandatory Revision)

The current Data Availability Statement does not comply with PLOS ONE policy. All genotype datasets and supporting data must be deposited in a publicly accessible repository, and accession numbers or DOIs must be provided.

Minor Issues:

Several figures require improved resolution and clearer legends.

Some tables contain formatting inconsistencies.

Citations should be updated and formatted consistently.

Reviewer #5: The manuscript tilted “High-density Single Nucleotide Polymorphism markers analysis reveals the genetic diversity and population structure in tropical highland maize (Zea mays L.) Inbred lines” is well written scientifically and analytically. Also, it contributes to the understanding of tropical highland maize germplasm for improvement. The manuscript could benefit more by using some of the comments in the attachment

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ibrokhim Y. Abdurakhmonov

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Idris Ishola Adejumobi (PhD)

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ManuscriptPLOSone Review.doc

pone.0351845.s005.doc (213KB, doc)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE REVIEW.docx

pone.0351845.s006.docx (15.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Jun 22;21(6):e0351845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351845.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 May 2026

Response to reviewers

We sincerely thank the Editor and Reviewers for their careful evaluation and constructive comments. Their suggestions substantially improved the clarity, methodological rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript. All revisions in the manuscript are highlighted in bold text.

We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to all comments. Major revisions include:

• Reanalysis and correction of linkage disequilibrium (LD) results and interpretation,

• Improvement of methodological descriptions and SNP filtering criteria,

• Revision of population structure and genetic diversity interpretations,

• Correction of inconsistencies in FST reporting,

• Improvement of figure quality, table formatting, and supplementary information,

• Clarification of terminology distinguishing predefined germplasm source groups from genetically inferred clusters,

• Revision of language, grammar, and scientific clarity throughout the manuscript, and

• Deposition of all datasets in the Dryad Digital Repository in accordance with PLOS ONE data availability requirements.

In addition, all statistical analyses, particularly LD estimation and population differentiation analyses, were carefully re-evaluated and verified to ensure consistency and accuracy throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #1

Comment 1. Lines 127-129 can be elaborated for development of the inbred lines

Response: Additional details were added describing the origin and development of the inbred lines.

Comment 2. Clarify adaptation and disease resistance strategies.

Response: The manuscript now clarifies that adaptation and disease resistance strategies during line development.

Reviewer #2

Comment 1. Provide high-resolution figures.

Response: All figures were replaced with high-resolution versions (≥ 300 dpi), and figure legends were revised for improved clearly and readability.

Comment 2. The abstract should be more informative.

Response: The abstract was revised to improve clarity and informativeness by correcting LD statistics, refining diversity descriptions, and revising the concluding statements.

Comment 3. If possible, the Gst and Rst value may be added.

Response: Because the present study used biallelic SNP markers, AMOVA and FST based approaches were considered more appropriate and are widely applied in SNP based population genetic studies. Therefore, the manuscript retains the AMOVA-based estimates of genetic differentiation.

Comment 4. Authors should see if the SNPs can be associated with specific traits.

Response: GWAS framework was beyond the scope of the present study. Nevertheless, the discussion now emphasizes that the SNP dataset provides a valuable resource for future marker-trait association studies and genomic-assisted breeding.

Reviewer #3

Comment 1. The LD decay analysis mentions a window size of 50 bp-this seems unusual

Response: The previously reported “50 bp” value resulted from misinterpretation of the TASSEL parameter. In TASSEL, the LD window refers to the number of adjacent markers rather than physical distance. LD was recalculated using physically mapped SNPs, LOESS smoothing, and 10 kb distance bins. The revised analysis estimated genome-wide LD decay at approximately 93.82 kb (r² = 0.2), consistent with previous maize studies. All related sections, figures, and tables were updated accordingly

Comment 2. The STRUCTURE analysis used relatively low burn-in and MCMC iterations.

Response: The STRUCTURE analysis used 10,000 burn-in iterations and 50,000 MCMC repetitions. Multiple independent runs produced stable clustering patterns consistently supported by STRUCTURE, PCA, and neighbor-joining analyses. This justification has been clarified in the manuscript.

Comment 3. The PCA explains only ~8.8% of the total variation.

Response: The Discussion section has been revised to clarify that PCA alone may have limited power to resolve complex population structure, and therefore complementary analyses including STRUCTURE and neighbor-joining clustering were used to provide a more comprehensive assessment.

Comment 4. Table 3 shows chromosome 6 with 0 significant LD pairs.

Response: This resulted from a reporting error. After correction, chromosome 6 contained 3,027 significant LD pairs (r² ≥ 0.2). Table 3 and related text were updated.

Comment 5. Discuss low diversity in population 4 and the implications of LD decay for GWAS.

Response: The Discussion was expanded to explain that the lower diversity observed in germplasm source group 4 is likely associated with selection history and genetic drift, which may have reduced allelic variation through recurrent breeding and shared ancestry. The implications of the observed LD decay (~93.82 kb) for GWAS resolution were also discussed.

Comment 6. Authors must deposit the SNP data in a public repository

Response: The Data Availability Statement does not comply with PLOS ONE policy.

Response: All genotype datasets and supporting files were deposited in the Dryad Digital Repository and are publicly accessible at: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.2547d7x6d

Minor Comments

Response: All figures have been revised to ensure clear axis labeling and inclusion of appropriate units. Table headings and supplementary materials were corrected and standardized throughout the manuscript. Formatting inconsistencies, spacing, statistical notation, and terminology were also revised for consistency.

Comment. In Abstract: The sentence missing a verb should be clarified.

Response: The sentence has been revised to include the appropriate verb for clarity.

Comment. Consider adding "GWAS" or "Genomic selection" if relevant to future applications.

Response: The keywords section has been revised to include GWAS.

Comment. Additional File S1, and the Supporting Information section must be corrected too.

Response: The formatting has been corrected to “Additional File S1,” and the Supporting Information section has been revised accordingly.

Comment. "Cluster 1 contained the largest germplasm (54 lines, 58%)" – rephrase it

Response: The sentence has been revised and improved.

Comment. The sentence is a general statement; consider moving to the Introduction

Response: The sentence has been shortened to improve conciseness while maintaining its relevance in the Discussion section.

Comment. Check for inconsistent spacing and consistent italic formatting for statistical symbols.

Response: We have corrected the spacing and standardized the formatting of statistical symbols (p, FST, and r²) throughout the manuscript.

Comment. Table 5 formatting confusion

Response: Table 5 was reformatted to improve clarity and consistency of pairwise FST presentation.

Reviewer #4

Comment. The manuscript contains numerous grammatical, typographical, and syntactic errors.

Response: The manuscript was thoroughly revised for grammar, syntax, and readability. Repetitive and ambiguous statements were corrected, and the manuscript underwent comprehensive English language editing.

Comment. SNP filtering criteria lack justification.

Response. The manuscript now provides justification and supporting references for SNP filtering criteria. Markers with low MAF, excessive missing data, and high heterozygosity (> 0.02) were removed to improve marker quality and analytical robustness.

Comment. The LD window size of 50 bp is unrealistic.

Response: This issue was addressed earlier (Reviewer #3, Comment 1). Briefly, the “50 bp” value resulted from misinterpretation of the TASSEL parameter; the analysis used a window of 50 adjacent markers rather than physical distance.

Comment. STRUCTURE iterations appear low.

Response: This issue was addressed earlier (Reviewer #3, Comment 2). The selected burn-in and MCMC values produced stable and reproducible clustering patterns across independent runs. This clarification was added to the manuscript.

Comment. The reported LD decay (~3.33 Mb) is inconsistent with maize studies.

Response: The LD analysis was re-evaluated using only physically mapped SNPs. The corrected genome-wide LD decay estimate was approximately 93.82 kb (r2 = 0.2), consistent with previous maize studies. All related analyses, figure, and interpretations were revised accordingly.

Comment. The biological and breeding significance of clusters is not adequately discussed.

Response: The Discussion was expanded to relate the identified clusters to pedigree background, germplasm origin, adaptation, and breeding history, as well as their implications for maize improvement and heterotic grouping.

Comment. The manuscript reports contradictory FST values in different sections.

Response: We carefully rechecked the analysis. Pairwise FST values ranged from 0.001 to 0.009, indicating low to moderate differentiation.

Comment. The Data Availability Statement does not comply with PLOS ONE policy.

Response: This was addressed earlier (Reviewer #3, Comment 6).

Comment. Improve figure quality legends.

Response: All figures were improved and was addressed earlier (Reviewer #2, Comment 1)

Comment. Some tables contain formatting inconsistencies.

Response: All tables were reformatted for consistency in style, spacing, alignment, and notation.

Comment. Citations should be updated and formatted consistently.

Response: All citations and references were reviewed and standardized according to journal guidelines using EndNote.

Reviewer #5

Comment 1. Clarify the mean r2 of 0.50

Response: The revised manuscript now reports a genome-wide mean r2 value of 0.067 across all pairwise SNP comparisons. This was addressed earlier (Reviewer #3, Comment 1).

Comment 2. Lines 59-62: furthermore, the identified SNP…what SNPs were identified?

Response: The statement was revised for clarify. The text now refers to the SNP markers used in this study as a genomic resource for future GWAS and genomic-assisted breeding studies.

Comment. Line 114: Add the preposition “of” “Detailed characterization of…

Response: The sentence has been revised accordingly.

Comment. The introduction needs the inclusion of study hypothesis.

Response: A clear study hypothesis was added to the Introduction.

Comment. Clarify how the 93 lines were selected

Response: The 93 inbred lines were not selected based on prior performance evaluation but represent a set of lines with diverse genetic backgrounds developed through successive selfing.

Comment. Line 146–147: Use filtered for PIC or MAF. This is redundancy.

Response: The manuscript has been revised by removing PIC from the filtering criteria and retaining MAF as the primary filtering parameter. In addition, “Row” has been corrected to “Raw.”

Comment. The rationale for filtering SNPs with heterozygosity < 0.02 is unclear…

Response: The manuscript now clearly states that markers with high heterozygosity (>0.02), not low heterozygosity, were removed.

Comment. Missing data threshold of >30% may introduce noise.

Response: The threshold was retained to balance marker density and genome coverage in the GBS dataset. This justification has been clarified in the revised manuscript.

Comment. Do LD window size of 50 bp capture meaningful LD structure?

Response: We have addressed this issue earlier (Reviewer #3, Comment 1)

Comment. p < 0.1 versus p < 0.01 inconsistency

Response: The manuscript was revised to consistently define LD using the threshold r² ≥ 0.20.

Comment. The authors did not make clear that unmapped markers involved in LD analysis?

Response: These markers were excluded from LD analysis, as estimation of LD decay requires physical distances between markers. This clarification has now been added to the Methods section.

Comment. Increase membership probability threshold and STRUCTURE iterations.

Response: This comment was addressed earlier (Reviewer #3 and Reviewer #4). A membership coefficient threshold of Q ≥ 0.6 was retained. The burn-in period of 10,000 iterations and 50,000 MCMC repetitions provided stable and reproducible clustering results across independent runs.

Comment. Font size issue in table title.

Response: The table title font size has been corrected.

Comment. Across all pairwise SNPs, a mean of 0.50 is unrealistically high in maize.

Response. After re-evaluating the LD calculations, we have corrected the manuscript to report the genome-wide mean r² (0.067), which is consistent with expected values for maize. The revised results and corresponding interpretations have been updated accordingly.

Comment. FST = 0.05 is not entirely low.

Response: The interpretation was revised to “low to moderate genetic differentiation.

Comment. “Population differentiation” heading is unnecessary

Response: We agree that AMOVA, PhiPT, and pairwise FST are derived from the same analytical framework. Accordingly, the separate “Population Differentiation” heading has been removed

Reviewer #5 Track change comments

Comment. This sentence is needs to be revised.

Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity and readability

Comment. Please provide figure for Ethiopia productivity gap.

Response: The maize productivity gap between Ethiopia and the global average has now been included in the revised manuscript

Comment. Confusion between four populations and three clusters.

Response: The manuscript now consistently distinguishes predefined germplasm source groups from genetically inferred clusters.

Comment. But you are not doing marker-trait association analysis in this study

Response: Marker–trait association analysis was not conducted in this study. The statement in the abstract has been revised to clarify that the SNP dataset represents a resource for future studies.

Comment. MAF cannot exceed 0.5.

Response: The previously reported MAF value of was a typographical error and has been corrected.

Comment. It is good to present the results of population structure before diversity

Response: Presenting population structure results earlier can improve the logical flow. However, in this study, diversity within populations refers to predefined germplasm source groups, not the clusters inferred from population structure analysis. We have clarified this distinction in the manuscript and maintained the original organization.

Comment. It is good to provide the number in each population for better interpretation of the parameters

Response; thank you for this important observation. We have provided the number in each germplasm source groups.

Comment. Why didn’t you analyze all SNP pairs?

Response: All pairwise SNP comparisons were included in the revised LD analysis. The LD calculations and corresponding interpretations have been comprehensively revised throughout the manuscript.

Comment. Please cross-check this figure. Isn't 6.6%?

Response: This error is corrected in the later LD analysis and all the points raised regarding LD is corrected throughout the manuscript.

Comment. Is this referring to the number of pairs analyzed?

Response: This issue is also corrected in the new analysis (Reviewer #3, Comment 1)

Comment. Shouldn't these be part of discussion of results?

Response; We have moved LD discussion statements from result section to discussion section.

Comment. Which populations are you referring to?

Response; We clearly defined the study material to germplasm source group. The terminology is corrected throughout the manuscript.

Comment. The populations/sub-populations need to be clearly defined

Response; We clearly defined the study material to germplasm source group. The terminology is corrected throughout the manuscript.

Comment. Does it mean Cluster 2 had only 1 genotype?

Response: Cluster sizes were corrected to 40, 13, and 38 genotypes for Clusters I–III, respectively, with two outlier genotypes.

Comment. I think this would be better suited for discussion section

Response; We have moved the section to discussion section.

Comment. “Substantial diversity” is vague.

Response: The terminology was revised to “moderate genetic diversity” and supported using quantitative diversity estimates.

Comment. Your results do not show high gene diversity.

Response: We agree that the observed gene diversity is moderate rather than high. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, and terms such as “high genetic diversity” and “broad genetic base” have been replaced with more accurate descriptio

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0351845.s008.docx (31.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Dragan Perovic, Dragan Perovic

2 Jun 2026

<p>High-density Single Nucleotide Polymorphism markers analysis reveals the genetic diversity and population structure in tropical highland maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines

PONE-D-25-63384R1

Dear Dr. Gebre,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dragan Perovic, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Dragan Perovic, Dragan Perovic

PONE-D-25-63384R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Gebre,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Dragan Perovic

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Additional file: Nei’s genetic distance matrix among 93 maize inbred lines.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0351845.s001.xlsx (77.3KB, xlsx)
    S1 Table. List of maize inbred lines and their pedigree information used for genetic diversity.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0351845.s002.docx (24.5KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Pairwise number of migrants per generation (Nm) value among four germplasm source groups.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0351845.s003.docx (13.3KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Membership coefficients of 93 maize inbred lines inferred from population structure analysis (K = 3).

    Proportion of ancestry (Q values) of each genotype assigned to the three inferred sub-populations. Genotypes with Q ≥ 0.60 were assigned to a specific cluster, while those with Q < 0.60 were considered admixed. These data correspond to the population structure illustrated in Figure 7.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0351845.s004.docx (24.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ManuscriptPLOSone Review.doc

    pone.0351845.s005.doc (213KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE REVIEW.docx

    pone.0351845.s006.docx (15.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0351845.s008.docx (31.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All genotype datasets and supporting files were deposited in the Figshare Repository and are publicly accessible at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32396424.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES