Skip to main content
Applications in Plant Sciences logoLink to Applications in Plant Sciences
. 2013 Jan 2;1(1):apps.1200249. doi: 10.3732/apps.1200249

Development and characterization of 37 novel EST-SSR markers in Pisum sativum (Fabaceae)1

Xiaofeng Zhuang 2, Kevin E McPhee 3, Tristan E Coram 4, Tobin L Peever 5, Martin I Chilvers 2,6
PMCID: PMC4105355  PMID: 25202482

Abstract

Premise of the study: Simple sequence repeat markers were developed based on expressed sequence tags (EST-SSR) and screened for polymorphism among 23 Pisum sativum individuals to assist development and refinement of pea linkage maps. In particular, the SSR markers were developed to assist in mapping of white mold disease resistance quantitative trait loci.

Methods and Results: Primer pairs were designed for 46 SSRs identified in EST contiguous sequences assembled from a 454 pyrosequenced transcriptome of the pea cultivar, ‘LIFTER’. Thirty-seven SSR markers amplified PCR products, of which 11 (30%) SSR markers produced polymorphism in 23 individuals, including parents of recombinant inbred lines, with two to four alleles. The observed and expected heterozygosities ranged from 0 to 0.43 and from 0.31 to 0.83, respectively.

Conclusions: These EST-SSR markers for pea will be useful for refinement of pea linkage maps, and will likely be useful for comparative mapping of pea and as tools for marker-based pea breeding.

Keywords: EST-SSR, Fabaceae, microsatellite, Pisum sativum, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, transcriptome


Pea (Pisum sativum L.) is one of the most important legumes grown and consumed worldwide. White mold caused by the fungal pathogen Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary is a significant yield-limiting disease of pea in most areas that pea is cultivated. Despite the agricultural importance of pea, pea breeding is constrained by a large genome size (∼4300 Mb), lack of genomic resources, and rich repetitive DNA (estimated at 75–97% of the pea genome) (Macas et al., 2007). Molecular markers have great potential to speed up the process of developing improved cultivars. Although several hundred simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers have been identified (Burstin et al., 2001; Loridon et al., 2005; Gong et al., 2010), additional SSR markers with polymorphism are needed, particularly for the development of linkage maps for use in white mold–resistance mapping studies.

With the development of next-generation sequencing technologies, large amounts of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) have been generated for model species as well as economically important nonmodel plants. These ESTs offer an opportunity to discover novel genes and have also provided a resource to develop markers (Davey et al., 2011). Recently, we sequenced the transcriptome of pea infected by S. sclerotiorum using next-generation sequencing to understand this host–pathogen interaction. The transcriptome sequences from pea contain abundant SSRs, which we have used in this study to develop SSR markers. The SSR markers were screened against 23 pea cultivars and plant introductions (PIs), including parents of four recombinant inbred line (RIL) populations (Lifter and PI240515; Medora and PI169603; Bohatyr and Shawnee; Melrose and Radley) for white mold–resistance mapping studies. These new markers will be very useful for linkage mapping studies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

LIFTER, a cultivar susceptible to S. sclerotiorum (McPhee and Muehlbauer, 2002), was inoculated with S. sclerotiorum isolate WMA-1 (≡ATCC MYA-4521) on the stem between the fourth and fifth detectable nodes. Seventy-two hours after inoculation, total RNA was extracted from 18 infected plants by cutting a 1 cm piece of pea stem containing the advancing lesion front toward the base of the plant using the TRIzol Plus RNA Purification Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, California, USA). Messenger RNA was purified from the total RNA with the Oligotex mRNA Mini Kit using the mRNA Spin-Column Protocol (QIAGEN, Valencia, California, USA) and converted into a normalized cDNA pool with the services of Evrogen (http://www.evrogen.com). Transcriptome sequencing of pea infected by S. sclerotiorum was conducted on a full plate of the Roche 454 GS FLX sequencer (454 Life Sciences, Branford, Connecticut, USA) at Washington State University. In total, 128 720 high-quality reads with an average length of 215 nucleotides were obtained and assembled into 10 158 contiguous sequences (contigs) with the program ABySS (Simpson et al., 2009). Pea and S. sclerotiorum contigs were parsed with a tBLASTx method (Zhuang et al., 2012) against publicly available, closely related plant and fungal genome databases. The fungal genome database consisted of S. sclerotiorum (strain1980) and six closely related fungal (Ascomycete) species (Botrytis cinerea Pers., Chaetomium globosum Kunze, Fusarium graminearum Schwabe, Magnaporthe grisea (T. T. Hebert) M. E. Barr, Neurospora crassa Shear & B. O. Dodge, and Verticillium dahlia Kleb.), and the plant genome database consisted of three sequenced legume (Fabaceae) genomes (Glycine max (L.) Merr., Lotus japonicus (Regel) K. Larsen, and Medicago truncatula Gaertn.). After parsing, 10 158 contigs were separated into 6299 pea ESTs, 2780 S. sclerotiorum ESTs, and 1079 unassigned ESTs. Among the pea ESTs, 118 potential SSRs, with more than five repeat units or a minimum repeat size of 20 nucleotides, were identified in 112 contigs of pea with the program SSRIT (Temnykh et al., 2001; Appendix S1 (23.7KB, fasta) ). Of these 118 SSRs, trinucleotide repeats represented the largest fraction (50%) followed by dinucleotide (39.8%) SSRs. Two tetranucleotide, three pentanucleotide, and seven hexanucleotide SSRs were also identified in this pool. It was possible to design primers to the SSR flanking regions of 46 of the 118 SSRs using Primer3 (Rozen and Skaletsky, 2000; Table 1) with default parameters.

Table 1.

Characteristics of 11 polymorphic and 26 monomorphic Pisum sativum EST-SSR markers.

Locus Primer sequences (5′–3′) Repeat motif Size (bp) Ta (°C) GenBank accession no. Putative function [organism] E-value
Psat61* F: CCGGTTCGGTTTCCGGTTGAGG (GGGTTC)4 81 60 JR344273 unknown
R: ACGGACTCCAGCCAGCACCA
Psat900* F: GCTGATCCCATTCCAACCACAGGC (TTG)5 135 58 JR344282 chalcone reductase [Medicago sativa] 7.44E-12
R: ACAACCTTACCTTAAACCTTCTCAACC
Psat921* F: TCAACTCTCAACAGGCGCTGC (GCT)6 248 58 JR344284 unknown
R: TGTCACAACGACCCTGCAAGC
Psat5404* F: ACTTCACATTGCACTCTTTCTTCAC (CT)5 103 56 JR344267 unknown
R: TGAATCTCCCATATCTCAACTCAAGTG
Psat5545* F: TCCCATGGAACAAGCTCATCATCC (TCA)7 123 58 JR344268 predicted protein [Medicago truncatula] 3.98E-05
R: TGGGTTCAGTGAGGAACAGGT
Psat5571* F: AGGAGCGGCTGAAGAAAGAGT (AG)6 135 58 JR344269 predicted protein [Glycine max] 5.32E-26
R: CACCGCTGTAGAGGGCGTGA
Psat7112* F: TGATGATGTGCTGATTATTGTTCTGGT (TTA)5 170 58 JR344274 unknown
R: ACAGTCACAGAAAGTGTCTACAGCA
Psat7598* F: ACTACAGGAGTTGAATTTGCGGA (GAT)6 209 54 JR344275 basic helix-loop-helix protein bhlh5 [Lotus japonicus] 3.43E-04
R: CAACATCAACAAGAACAAGAACACG
Psat7818* F: TTGAGGTTGTTGTTGTTGTTGCTGT (GTT)5 80 58 JR344277 predicted protein [Ricinus communis] 1.82E-05
R: AAACAAAGGAAGTTTGGGCAGC
Psat9662* F: AGTGAAGCGAGTGGAAGATACGA (GAAATC)5 171 58 JR344287 fiber protein fb11 [Camellia sinensis] 5.59E-15
R: GGCCAAAGCCGGCGATGAGA
Psat10014* F: ATATCGCCACGACGCAAAGC (GT)6 124 58 JR344254 unknown
R: TCTTACATGACAAAGCCAACACAAG
Psat368 F: ACATTCCTCCGGCGTAGCTGA (AATCGG)4 81 58 JR344261 DNA repair protein Rad23-1 [Ricinus communis] 1.28E-27
R: ACAGTGAGCTTCATGACTACTCGGC
Psat373 F: CCTGGTGATGCTCCTCAGGCA (GAA)5 155 58 JR344262 transcription elongation factor family protein [Arabidopsis thaliana] 3.31E-39
R: TCAGCTGTAATCTCAAGCTCAGCCA
Psat589 F: TGTGTAGCATCATCAGCGGAGC (GA)5 162 58 JR344271 chitinase [Cicer arietinum] 1.54E-96
R: CCCGCAACTAAACCTTGCTGGC
Psat1176 F: GCCTATTTGTACTATTCCACCACCTG (TA)5 179 56 JR344256 unknown
R: ACGGATGAATAAGTGACATTACAGTGA
Psat1764 F: TCAGGGTCGGTGAGGCTTCGT (GA)6 152 58 JR344257 predicted protein [Medicago truncatula] 6.40E-11
R: TCAGTGAAGAACATGGCACCAA
Psat2045 F: GAAGCGGCGACGATGGCGTA (TTG)5 224 58 JR344258 mannose-P-dolichol utilization defect 1 protein [Arabidopsis thaliana] 5.18E-21
R: AGTTCAGTTTGAGTAAACATTGACGG
Psat2885 F: AGACGGAGGAGACGTGGAGGA (GA)5 139 58 JR344259 unknown
R: CACCACCACCAACGCCGTCA
Psat3352 F: TGATTGGGATCGACTTCGACGG (GA)5 100 58 JR344260 40S ribosomal protein S5 [Cicer arietinum] 2.99E-08
R: AGAGCATTTGAAGTGTTTACGGCTGC
Psat4097 F: GCCAAACATGCCAACAACAATCCT (TTA)6 152 58 JR344263 unknown
R: TCACTGAGCCACCGCCAACG
Psat4741 F: CCACCACTTCAACCCTCTCAACGA (GTG)5 123 56 JR344264 Phloem-specific protein [Pisum sativum] 1.34E-24
R: TCGACCGCTACCCAAACGCTG
Psat4773 F: ACAGCTCCTGGCACAGCTCTT (TA)5 178 58 JR344265 predicted protein [Glycine max] 1.57E-25
R: CCCAATTGCTTATGTCTGCTGCCT
Psat5398 F: TCACCAATTCGCCCTCTCTCCA (CT)5 131 58 JR344266 unknown
R: CGCAAGGTTCCAGATTCTTCGAGGT
Psat5852 F: TGCCAACCAGGTAGAGTCTCA (CTT)5 151 56 JR344270 predicted protein [Medicago truncatula] 8.04E-30
R: AGTCGAATCTTGTTCCTTCTTCTTTGA
Psat6026 F: TGTGCTTCTTGTGGCTGGTGA (GA)5 134 58 JR344272 predicted protein [Glycine max] 1.40E-34
R: GTCCCTCGCGACGACACCAA
Psat7675 F: TCACGTCGCTTCGTTTCATCCC (TGA)6 183 56 JR344276 small heat shock protein 1 [Prunus salicina] 2.94E-08
R: ACCACCCATCACACCAAACCCA
Psat7820 F: CCGGAGCGGAGGCGAAGAGA (TTC)5 159 56 JR344278 predicted protein [Medicago truncatula] 6.37E-35
R: GGGACGCAGTAATCAACCAGA
Psat7825 F: CCAGACACAGATCCTCAACAACTCCG (CT)5 94 60 JR344279 intracellular chloride channel [Medicago truncatula] 5.76E-28
R: GCGGCGCACTTTCGTAGCAG
Psat8001 F: TCTCCTCACAACTCAACTGTTACC (TTC)7 141 58 JR344280 unknown
R: TGGTGGTGAGACCGAGTGAGA
Psat8487 F: TGTTTCCAGAAGGTTATGGCCC (GA)5 155 54 JR344281 HXXXD-type acyl-transferase-like protein [Glycine max] 8.16E-22
R: AGATTCTTCGTTAGCCTTTGCTTTGA
Psat9191 F: TGCAAACTTCAATGAGAGATCTGAAAG (TA)5 158 56 JR344283 predicted protein [Medicago truncatula] 2.03E-04
R: TGCATTGGAGATGCCAAATCTGACT
Psat9319 F: GCAGCACCACCACTCGCAGG (CCA)5 105 56 JR344285 unknown
R: AGCTGAGGTGATTGCTTCTGGT
Psat9501 F: GCTTGCCTTTTGATTTTCCACGTCA (CTT)5 196 56 JR344286 proteinase inhibitor I4, serpin [Medicago truncatula] 1.77E-70
R: TCATCGTGCGGTTGCACTTGT
Psat9677 F: TGCAACAACTACGGATCACCAGC (TTGTA)4 189 58 JR344288 unknown
R: GCTGAACCAGATACACAAAGTTGAGC
Psat9736 F: GGTCCTCCTCCAGGTTATGACCCTC (GAAA)4 108 56 JR344289 ensangp00000004563 related [Medicago truncatula] 6.40E-19
R: AGTTTCCTTTACCTGAAGTCGTTTCT
Psat9907 F: GACGGAACCGCCGTCCAACA (GAC)5 162 58 JR344290 predicted protein [Glycine max] 3.99E-05
R: ACCACCTTGAGCGGCGTCAT
Psat10084 F: TGCGGAGAAAGCGCTGCTGG (AAG)5 110 56 JR344255 unknown
R: ACGCAACCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTTCT

Note: Ta = annealing temperature.

*

Polymorphic EST-SSR markers.

The SSR markers were tested against 23 individual pea cultivars (Appendix 1), including parents of four pea RIL mapping populations (Lifter and PI240515; Medora and PI169603; Bohatyr and Shawnee; Melrose and Radley), which are being used to map quantitative trait loci for resistance to white mold. Genomic DNA from each individual was extracted from leaves using the DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (QIAGEN). PCR contained 4 μL of 5× GoTaq PCR Buffer (Promega Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin, USA), 200 μM each dNTP, 2.5 μM each primer, 0.4 U of GoTaq polymerase, and ∼50 ng of DNA template in a final volume of 20 μL. PCR were held at 94°C for 2 min; followed by 35 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 55–60°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 1 min; with a final extension at 72°C for 10 min. The PCR products were separated in 10% polyacrylamide gels run in a Mega-Gel high-throughput electrophoresis system for 2.5 h at 300 V (C.B.S. Scientific, San Diego, California, USA). SSR bands were visualized with ethidium bromide, which was added to the running buffer. SSR band size was calculated by comparison with a 25-bp DNA ladder (Invitrogen). PCR products with expected sizes were successfully amplified for 37 primer sets, among which 11 showed clear polymorphisms with two to four alleles (Table 2). Observed heterozygosity and expected heterozygosity were calculated using POPGENE (version 1.32; Yeh and Boyle, 1997), and ranged from 0 to 0.43 and from 0.31 to 0.83, respectively. Ten of 11 markers (except Psat7598) were polymorphic in parents of at least one RIL population for white mold–resistance mapping studies. To determine if there was any redundancy between the SSRs described in this study and those previously published, all 37 ESTs were executed with BLASTn against P. sativum EST databases in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (taxid: 3888) with a cutoff parameter of 1e−20. BLASTn results show that only one EST (Psat4741) matched to a previously described but unpublished SSR marker, all other 36 ESTs including all 11 polymorphic SSRs were found to be unique to this study.

Table 2.

Results of initial primer screening in 23 Pisum sativum individuals.

Locus A Ho He
Psat61 3 0.0000 0.6367
Psat900 2 0.4348 0.513
Psat921 2 0.0000 0.513
Psat5404 2 0.0000 0.5362
Psat5545 2 0.0000 0.7063
Psat5571 4 0.3043 0.3092
Psat7112 3 0.0000 0.6947
Psat7598 2 0.0909 0.8309
Psat7818 2 0.0000 0.6
Psat9662 3 0.1739 0.487
Psat10014 2 0.1304 0.7362

Note: A = number of alleles; He = expected heterozygosity; Ho = observed heterozygosity.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we demonstrate that next-generation sequencing is an effective tool to rapidly develop EST-derived SSR markers. We identified 37 P. sativum EST-SSRs, with 11 being polymorphic in 23 P. sativum individuals. These novel EST-SSR markers will be valuable tools for marker-assisted breeding, development of pea linkage maps, and comparative mapping of pea.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Appendix 1.

Information on 23 Pisum sativum germplasm lines used in this study; germplasm lines were obtained from the collection of Dr. Kevin McPhee’s pea breeding program.a Information presented: country of origin, name, registration number.

USA: LIFTER, PI 628276*. MEDORA, N/A. MELROSE, PI 618628*. NDP080111, N/A. PI160936, N/A. PI240515, N/A. PS03101269, N/A. PS05ND0327, N/A. PS05ND0330, N/A. PS05ND0434, N/A. PS07ND0190, N/A. SHAWNEE, PI 619079*. SPECTER, PI 641005. STIRLING, PI 634571. WINDHAM, PI 647868.
Canada: AGASSIZ, 6093. CDC GOLDEN, 5602. CDC STRIKER, 5550. DS ADMIRAL, 5166. MAJORET, N/A.
Europe: BOHATYR, N/A. COOPER, N/A.

Notes: N/A = not available.

a

Pea cultivars, Plant Introductions (PIs), or breeding material not located in the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) are available from Dr. Kevin McPhee upon request. Voucher specimens have not been deposited due to their availability either within GRIN or the pea breeding community; additionally, some germplasm lines are the property of Dr. McPhee and North Dakota State University.

*

Pea cultivars available from GRIN (http://www.ars-grin.gov/).

LITERATURE CITED

  1. Burstin J., Deniot G., Potier J., Weinachter C., Aubert G., Barranger A. 2001. Microsatellite polymorphism in Pisum sativum. Plant Breeding 120: 311–317 [Google Scholar]
  2. Davey J. W., Hohenlohe P. A., Etter P. D., Boone J. Q., Catchen J. M., Blaxter M. L. 2011. Genome-wide genetic marker discovery and genotyping using next-generation sequencing. Nature Reviews. Genetics 12: 499–510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gong Y. M., Xu S. C., Mao W. H., Hu Q. Z., Zhang G. W., Ding J., Li Y. D. 2010. Developing new SSR markers from ESTs of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Journal of Zhejiang University, Science B 11: 702–707 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Loridon K., McPhee K., Morin J., Dubreuil P., Pilet-Nayel M., Aubert G., Rameau C., et al. 2005. Microsatellite marker polymorphism and mapping in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 111: 1022–1031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Macas J., Neumann P., Navrátilová A. 2007. Repetitive DNA in the pea (Pisum sativum L.) genome: Comprehensive characterization using 454 sequencing and comparison to soybean and Medicago truncatula. BMC Genomics 8: 427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. McPhee K. E., Muehlbauer F. J. 2002. Registration of ‘LIFTER’ green dry pea. Crop Science 42: 1377–1378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rozen S., Skaletsky H. 2000. Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. In S. Misener and S. A. Krawetz [eds.], Methods in molecular biology, vol. 132: Bioinformatics methods and protocols, 365–386. Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey, USA: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Simpson J. T., Wong K., Jackman S. D., Schein J. E., Jones S. J., Birol I. 2009. ABySS: A parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Research 19: 1117–1123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Temnykh S., DeClerck G., Lukashova A., Lipovich L., Cartinhour S., McCouch S. 2001. Computational and experimental analysis of microsatellites in rice (Oryza sativa L.): Frequency, length variation, transposon associations, and genetic marker potential. Genome Research 11: 1441–1452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Yeh F. C., Boyle T. J. 1997. Population genetic analysis of co-dominant and dominant markers and quantitative traits. Belgian Journal of Botany 129: 157 [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhuang X., McPhee K. E., Coram T. E., Peever T. L., Chilvers M. I. 2012. Rapid transcriptome characterization and parsing of sequences in a non-model host-pathogen interaction; pea-Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. BMC Genomics 13: 668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material

Articles from Applications in Plant Sciences are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES