Skip to main content
PMC home page
Frontiers in Plant Science logoLink to Frontiers in Plant Science
. 2018 Sep 13;9:1067. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01067

GWAS Analysis and QTL Identification of Fiber Quality Traits and Yield Components in Upland Cotton Using Enriched High-Density SNP Markers

Ruixian Liu 1,2,†, Juwu Gong 1,2,†, Xianghui Xiao 1,2,†, Zhen Zhang 2, Junwen Li 2, Aiying Liu 2, Quanwei Lu 2,3, Haihong Shang 2, Yuzhen Shi 2, Qun Ge 2, Muhammad S Iqbal 2, Xiaoying Deng 2, Shaoqi Li 2, Jingtao Pan 2, Li Duan 2, Qi Zhang 2, Xiao Jiang 2, Xianyan Zou 2, Abdul Hafeez 2, Quanjia Chen 1, Hongwei Geng 1,*, Wankui Gong 2,*, Youlu Yuan 1,2,*
PMCID: PMC6157485  PMID: 30283462

Abstract

It is of great importance to identify quantitative trait loci (QTL) controlling fiber quality traits and yield components for future marker-assisted selection (MAS) and candidate gene function identifications. In this study, two kinds of traits in 231 F6:8 recombinant inbred lines (RILs), derived from an intraspecific cross between Xinluzao24, a cultivar with elite fiber quality, and Lumianyan28, a cultivar with wide adaptability and high yield potential, were measured in nine environments. This RIL population was genotyped by 122 SSR and 4729 SNP markers, which were also used to construct the genetic map. The map covered 2477.99 cM of hirsutum genome, with an average marker interval of 0.51 cM between adjacent markers. As a result, a total of 134 QTLs for fiber quality traits and 122 QTLs for yield components were detected, with 2.18–24.45 and 1.68–28.27% proportions of the phenotypic variance explained by each QTL, respectively. Among these QTLs, 57 were detected in at least two environments, named stable QTLs. A total of 209 and 139 quantitative trait nucleotides (QTNs) were associated with fiber quality traits and yield components by four multilocus genome-wide association studies methods, respectively. Among these QTNs, 74 were detected by at least two algorithms or in two environments. The candidate genes harbored by 57 stable QTLs were compared with the ones associated with QTN, and 35 common candidate genes were found. Among these common candidate genes, four were possibly “pleiotropic.” This study provided important information for MAS and candidate gene functional studies.

Keywords: upland cotton, QTL, multilocus GWAS, QTN, candidate gene, fiber quality traits, yield components

Introduction

Cotton is an important cash crop that provides major natural fiber supply for textile industry and human daily life. Four species in Gossypium, namely G. herbaceum (A1), G. arboreum (A2), G. hirsutum (AD1), and G. barbadense (AD2), are cultivated ones. G. hirsutum (2n = 4x = 52, genome size: 2.5 Gb) (Li et al., 2014, 2015; Wendel and Grover, 2015; Zhang et al., 2015), also called upland cotton, has a high yield potential, whereas fair fiber quality attributes (Cai et al., 2014), thus making it most widely cultivated and utilized worldwide, approximately accounting for 95% of global cotton fiber production (Chen et al., 2007). Along with the progress of technologies in textile industry and improvement of human living standard, the demand for cotton fiber supply not only increases in quantity but also is required in a diverse combination of various qualities such as high strength, natural color, various lengths, and fineness. Fiber quality traits and yield components are quantitative and controlled by multiple genes (Said et al., 2013), yet most of which were negatively correlated with each other (Shen et al., 2007; Wang H. et al., 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to improve all these traits simultaneously by traditional breeding programs, even after time-consuming and laborious efforts were put (Shen et al., 2005; Lacape et al., 2009; Jamshed et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016). The rapid development of applied genome research provides an effective tool for improving plant breeding efficiency, a typical example of which is the marker-assisted selection (MAS) and genome selection through the molecular markers closely linked to target genes or quantitative trait loci (QTLs).

Currently, plenty of intraspecific segregating populations of G. hirsutum are constructed targeting various traits in upland cotton, and many QTLs are identified, including those for fiber quality traits (Shen et al., 2005; Sun F.D. et al., 2012; Fang et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2015; Wang H. et al., 2015; Jamshed et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2017; Zhang Z. et al., 2017), yield components (Xia et al., 2014; Wang H. et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2017), drought tolerances (Levi et al., 2011), disease resistances (Jiang et al., 2009; Ulloa et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2014; Palanga et al., 2017), early maturity (Stiller et al., 2004; Li et al., 2012, 2013), and plant morphological traits (Tang and Xiao, 2014; Qi et al., 2017).

A genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is also an effective approach for connecting phenotypes and genotypes in plants, and helps us to avoid the difficulty of screening large biparental mapping populations, so it is widely applied to various studies (Thornsberry et al., 2001; Flint-Garcia et al., 2005; Maccaferri et al., 2005; Eizenga et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2008; Jia et al., 2014; Nie et al., 2016) to identify quantitative trait nucleotides (QTNs) for complex traits (Zhao et al., 2011; Fernandes et al., 2012; Segura et al., 2012; Spindel et al., 2015). It has been successfully applied to Arabidopsis thaliana (Atwell et al., 2010; Horton et al., 2012), rice (Huang et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2011), corn (Kump et al., 2011; Samayoa et al., 2015), and soybean (Dhanapal et al., 2015; Zeng et al., 2017), and many QTNs and their candidate genes have been identified for various ecological and agricultural traits. More recently, it has also been used in cotton (Abdurakhmonov et al., 2008; Kantartzi and Stewart, 2008; Zeng et al., 2009; Cai et al., 2014; Mei et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2013; Su et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2017). To better understand the genetic architecture of fiber quality traits and yield components in upland cotton, we genotyped an intraspecific recombinant inbred lines (RILs) using enriched high-density markers of both single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) based on the CottonSNP80K arrays (Cai et al., 2017) and simple sequence repeats (SSRs). To obtain reliable QTLs and their candidate genes, we tried to use two strategies. One was linkage-map-based QTL mapping, in which a high coverage genetic linkage map was constructed with HighMap software and QTLs were mapped using composite interval mapping (CIM); the other was GWAS along with four multilocus GWAS methods (Wang et al., 2016; Tamba et al., 2017; Wen et al., 2017; Zhang J. et al., 2017). The results in the study could be worthy for further studies not only in molecular-assisted breeding through MAS but also in functional gene validations, which is of great significance to the improvement of cotton fiber quality and yield.

Materials and Methods

Plant Materials

An RIL population of 231 lines was developed from a cross between two homozygous upland cotton cultivars, Lumianyan28 (LMY28), a commercial transgenic cultivar with high yield potential and wide adaptability developed by the Cotton Research Center of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences as a maternal line, and Xinluzao24 (XLZ24), a high fiber quality upland cotton cultivar with long-staple developed by XinJiang KangDi company as a paternal line.

The RIL development was briefed as follows: the cross between LMY28 and XLZ24 was made in the summer growing season in 2008 in Anyang, Henan Province. F1 were planted and self-pollinated in the winter growing season in 2008 in Hainan Province. In the spring of 2009, 238 F2 plants were grown and self-pollinated, and F2:3 seeds were harvested in Anyang (Kong et al., 2011). Of the 238 F2:3 lines, 231 were self-pollinated in each generation until F2:6. Then single plant selection was made from each of the 231 F2:6 lines to form the F6:7 population. The F6:7 population was planted in plant rows and self-pollinated to construct the F6:8 RIL population. All the generations beyond F6:8 are regarded as F6:8 for convenience of analysis. The target traits of the F6:8 RIL population were evaluated in Henan (Anyang, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, designated as 13AY, 14AY, 15AY, and 16AY, respectively), Shandong (LinQing, 2013 and 2014, designated as 13LQ and 14LQ, respectively), Hebei (Quzhou 2013, designated as 13QZ), and Xinjiang (Kuerle 2014 and Alaer 2015, designated as 14KEL and 15ALE, respectively), and a randomized complete block design with two replications was adopted in all nine environmental evaluations. A single-row plot with 5-m row length, 0.8-m row spacing, and 0.25-m plant spacing was adopted in 13AY, 13LQ, 13QZ, 14AY, 14LQ, 15AY, and 16AY, whereas a two-narrow-row plot with 3-m row length, 0.66/0.10-m alternating row spacing, and 0.12-m plant spacing were adopted in 14KEL and 15ALE.

Phenotypic Detection and Data Analysis

Thirty naturally opened bolls from each plot were hand-harvested on the inner fruiting nods from middle to upper branches. Yield component traits, including boll weight (BW, g), lint percentage (LP, %), and seed index (SI, g), were evaluated. No less than 15 g fibers were sampled to evaluate the fiber quality traits, including fiber length (FL, mm), fiber strength (FS, cN tex-1), and fiber micronaire (FM). The evaluations were conducted using HFT9000 (Premier Evolvics Pvt. Ltd., India) instruments with HVICC Calibration in the Cotton Quality Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Anyang, Henan Province, China.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between parents and the descriptive statistics for the RIL population was conducted using Microsoft Excel 2016, and correlation analysis was performed using SPSS 20.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, United States). Integrated ANOVA across nine environments along with the heritability of all the traits was conducted using ANOVA function in the QTL IciMapping software.

DNA Extraction and Genotyping

Genomic DNA was extracted from fresh leaves of parents and 231 RILs with a modified cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) method (Song et al., 1998). The DNA was used both for SSR screening and CottonSNP80K array hybridization.

A total of 9668 pairs of SSR primer pool, which contained a variety of sources including NAU, BNL, DPL, CGR, PGML, SWU, and CCRI, were used to screen the polymorphisms between parents. The primer information was also available at the CottonGen Database1. PCR amplification and product detection were conducted according to the procedures described by Zhang et al. (2005). The polymorphic primers between the parents were used to genotype the population, and the SSR markers that were codominant and had a unique physical location in the reference genome were used to construct the linkage map.

The cottonSNP80K array, which contained 77,774 SNPs (Cai et al., 2017), was used to genotype the parents and the 231 RILs. The genotyping was conducted according to the Illumina suggestions (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, United States) (Cai et al., 2017). After genotyping, the raw data were filtered based on the following criteria (Zhang Z. et al., 2017): first, any or both of the SNP loci of parents were missing (69,395 SNPs were remained after filtering); second, the loci had no polymorphism between parents (15,128 loci were remained); third, the loci of any of the parent were heterozygous (7480 SNPs were remained); forth, the missing rate of SNPs in the population was more than 40% (Hulse-Kemp et al., 2015) (7479 loci were remained); and finally, the segregation distortion of SNPs reached criteria of P < 0.001 (5202 loci were remained). Subsequently, the remaining SNP markers were applied to the genetic map construction after converting into the “ABH” data format as SSR.

Genetic Map Construction

The remaining SSR and SNP markers were divided into the 26 chromosomes based on their position on the physical map of the upland cotton (TM-1) genome database (Zhang et al., 2015). Then, the genetic linkage map was constructed using the HighMap software with multiple sorting and error-correcting functions (Liu et al., 2014). Map distances were estimated using Kosambi’s mapping function (Kosambi, 1943).

The significance of segregation distortion markers (SDMs; P < 0.05) was detected using the chi-square test. The regions containing at least three consecutive SDMs were defined as segregation distortion regions (SDRs) (Zhang et al., 2016). The distribution of SDMs and SDRs, and the size of SDRs on the map were analyzed.

QTL Mapping and Genome-Wide Association Studies

The Windows QTL Cartographer 2.5 software (Wang et al., 2012) was employed using the CIM method with a mapping step of 1.0 cM and five control markers (Zeng, 1994) for QTL identification. The threshold value of the logarithm of odds (LOD) was calculated by 1000 permutations at the 0.05 significance level. QTLs, identified in different environments and had fully or partially overlapping confidence intervals, were regarded as the same QTL. The QTL detected in at least two environments was regarded as a stable one. Nomenclature of QTL was designated following Sun’s description (Sun F.D. et al., 2012). MapChart 2.3 (Voorrips, 2002) was used to graphically represent the genetic map and QTL.

Quantitative trait nucleotides for the target traits were identified by four multilocus GWAS methods. The first one is mrMLM (Wang et al., 2016), in which calculate Kinship (K) matrix model was used, with critical P-value of 0.01, search radius of the candidate gene of 20 kb, and critical LOD score for significant QTN of 3. The second one is FASTmrEMMA (Wen et al., 2017), with restricted maximum likelihood, in which calculate K matrix model was used, critical P-value of 0.005, and critical LOD score for significant QTN of 3. The third one is ISIS EM-BLASSO (Tamba et al., 2017), with critical P-value of 0.01. The fourth one is pLARmEB (Zhang J. et al., 2017); each chromosome selected 50 potential associations at a critical LOD score of 2 with variable selection through LAR.

QTL Congruency Comparison With Previous Studies

Previous QTLs for the target traits were detected and downloaded in the CottonQTLdb database2 (Said et al., 2015). The QTLs sharing similar genetic positions (spacing distance < 15 cM) were regarded as common or same QTL. The physical positions of a QTL were identified in the CottonGen database3. When a QTL in the current study shared the same physical region as the previous QTL, it was regarded as a repeated identification of the previous QTL; otherwise, the QTL in the current study was regarded as a new one.

The Candidate Genes Identification

Candidate genes harbored in the stable QTLs were searched and identified based on their confidence intervals in the following steps: The markers including the closest flanking ones in the confidence interval of a QTL were identified. The physical interval of that QTL was determined based on the physical position of its markers in the upland cotton (TM-1) genome4 (Zhang et al., 2015). All the genes in the physical interval were identified as candidate genes.

Candidate genes associated with QTNs in the multilocus GWAS analysis were confirmed based on the location of QTNs in the upland cotton (TM-1) reference genome (Zhang et al., 2015). The gene in which the QTL was located was considered as the candidate gene. But when the physical location of a QTN was between two genes, both of the genes were considered as candidate genes.

Results

Phenotypic Evaluation of the RIL Populations

The one-way ANOVA between parents in nine environments showed that a significant difference for FS at the 0.001 level and no significant differences for the other traits were observed (Table 1). The descriptive statistical analysis showed that all traits in the RIL population performed transgressive segregations, with approximately normal distribution in all the nine environments (Table 1). The integrated ANOVA of the RILs across nine environments also revealed significant variations for all traits among the RILs (Supplementary Table S1).

Table 1.

The results of the statistical analysis of the parents and the RIL population.

Traita Env.b Parents
 RIL population
XLZ24c LMY28d Range P-value Min. Max. Range Mean SD Var. Skew. Kurt.
FL 13AY 29.72 29.23 0.49 0.06 28.12 32.52 4.40 30.54 0.92 0.03 –0.13 –0.44
13LQ 30.85 29.57 1.28 27.86 33.05 5.19 30.31 1.02 0.03 0.28 –0.10
13QZ 29.04 28.28 0.75 27.29 33.61 6.32 29.60 1.16 0.04 0.52 0.72
14AY 31.43 29.44 2.00 28.85 33.65 4.80 31.26 1.00 0.03 0.11 –0.36
14KEL 29.77 29.69 0.09 28.35 34.07 5.72 31.14 1.04 0.03 0.35 0.23
14LQ 30.80 30.40 0.40 28.90 34.05 5.15 31.27 1.04 0.03 0.15 –0.30
15AY 29.95 26.85 3.10 26.15 31.60 5.45 29.06 1.06 0.04 –0.12 –0.35
15ALE 29.10 29.20 –0.10 26.60 31.80 5.20 29.05 1.08 0.04 0.22 –0.31
16AY 28.95 28.80 0.15 28.40 34.05 5.65 30.55 0.99 0.03 0.61 1.02
FS 13AY 33.95 30.45 3.50 <0.001*** 29.15 39.30 10.15 33.39 1.90 0.06 0.44 –0.03
13LQ 30.15 27.55 2.60 27.20 36.25 9.05 32.14 1.82 0.06 0.01 –0.26
13QZ 31.65 29.20 2.45 28.10 39.10 11.00 32.69 2.05 0.06 0.43 –0.16
14AY 31.95 29.45 2.50 28.55 36.85 8.30 32.42 1.55 0.05 0.18 0.01
14KEL 31.55 29.15 2.40 27.65 37.70 10.05 32.02 1.75 0.05 0.46 0.49
14LQ 30.40 29.10 1.30 28.80 37.50 8.70 32.77 1.60 0.05 0.36 0.23
15AY 33.75 28.60 5.15 27.85 39.65 11.80 33.48 2.10 0.06 0.09 0.21
15ALE 31.25 27.90 3.35 26.90 35.15 8.25 30.92 1.64 0.05 0.07 –0.14
16AY 32.80 27.85 4.95 28.75 38.05 9.30 32.98 1.67 0.05 0.21 0.08
FM 13AY 4.49 4.48 0.00 0.46 2.96 5.42 2.46 4.26 0.50 0.12 –0.08 –0.42
13LQ 3.91 4.41 –0.50 2.25 5.32 3.07 3.91 0.59 0.15 –0.31 –0.15
13QZ 5.09 4.70 0.40 2.74 5.58 2.84 4.29 0.61 0.14 –0.43 –0.36
14AY 4.79 4.65 0.14 3.50 5.62 2.12 4.59 0.40 0.09 –0.12 –0.21
14KEL 4.58 4.56 0.02 3.56 5.28 1.72 4.43 0.34 0.08 0.04 –0.17
14LQ 5.30 4.85 0.45 3.60 5.50 1.90 4.74 0.38 0.08 –0.36 –0.11
15AY 4.65 4.95 –0.30 3.50 5.60 2.10 4.55 0.39 0.09 –0.12 –0.20
15ALE 4.60 4.30 0.30 4.00 5.55 1.55 4.86 0.32 0.07 –0.20 –0.60
16AY 5.30 4.70 0.60 3.65 5.80 2.15 4.77 0.41 0.09 –0.22 –0.06
BW 13AY 5.47 5.79 –0.32 0.16 4.40 7.20 2.80 5.93 0.50 0.08 –0.29 0.34
13LQ 5.26 5.58 –0.33 3.76 7.07 3.31 5.55 0.69 0.12 –0.27 –0.57
13QZ 5.03 5.61 –0.58 3.12 6.87 3.75 5.11 0.77 0.15 –0.24 –0.40
14AY 5.68 6.13 –0.46 5.24 7.88 2.64 6.39 0.50 0.08 0.16 0.00
14KEL 6.04 6.16 –0.12 4.65 7.41 2.76 6.23 0.53 0.09 –0.21 0.19
14LQ 6.23 6.42 –0.19 4.80 8.12 3.32 6.80 0.62 0.09 –0.49 0.32
15AY 5.44 5.65 –0.21 4.21 6.69 2.48 5.41 0.42 0.08 0.05 0.65
15ALE 4.91 5.00 –0.08 4.97 7.22 2.25 5.99 0.43 0.07 0.20 –0.21
16AY 5.47 5.81 –0.34 4.62 7.81 3.19 6.27 0.54 0.09 –0.08 0.28
LP 13AY 41.87 39.01 2.86 0.15 29.56 43.56 14.00 37.82 2.33 0.06 –0.45 0.88
13LQ 38.53 36.95 1.59 29.02 42.59 13.57 36.36 2.38 0.07 –0.02 0.13
13QZ 37.93 36.52 1.41 27.09 42.97 15.88 35.61 3.06 0.09 –0.22 0.09
14AY 44.48 42.13 2.35 35.70 46.73 11.03 41.16 1.99 0.05 –0.15 0.00
14KEL 43.07 39.10 3.97 33.34 46.03 12.69 39.62 2.21 0.06 –0.10 0.08
14LQ 42.74 42.42 0.32 33.96 48.51 14.55 41.14 2.39 0.06 –0.14 0.34
15AY 47.08 44.53 2.55 31.56 47.15 15.59 40.80 2.42 0.06 –0.58 1.69
15ALE 43.42 41.96 1.46 38.10 48.66 10.56 44.33 1.92 0.04 –0.49 0.53
16AY 41.59 40.24 1.36 34.09 46.83 12.74 39.49 2.30 0.06 0.29 0.04
SI 13AY 10.60 11.00 –0.40 0.68 9.39 14.44 5.05 11.80 1.03 0.09 0.11 –0.31
13LQ 10.66 11.63 –0.97 9.23 14.18 4.95 11.84 1.05 0.09 0.22 –0.43
13QZ 12.2 11.48 0.76 9.31 15.20 5.89 12.21 1.17 0.10 0.11 –0.05
14AY – – – – – – – – – – –
14KEL 11.53 11.97 –0.45 10.09 14.80 4.71 12.28 1.08 0.09 0.21 –0.76
14LQ – – – – – – – – – – –
15AY 9.55 9.85 –0.30 8.25 12.55 4.30 10.26 0.84 0.08 0.19 –0.24
15ALE 9.92 9.77 0.15 8.73 13.40 4.67 10.47 0.89 0.09 0.45 0.06
16AY 12.55 12.13 0.43 10.13 15.35 5.22 12.55 1.01 0.08 0.24 0.03
Open in a new tab

aFL, fiber length; FS, fibers strength; FM, fiber micronaire; BW, weight; LP, lint percent; SI, seed index. b13AY, Anyang in 2013; 13LQ, Linqing in 2013; 13QZ, Quzhou in 2013; 14AY, Anyang in 2014; 14KEL, Kerle in 2014; 14LQ, Linqing in 2014; 15AY, Anyang in 2015; 15ALE, Alaer in 2015; 16AY, Anyang in 2016. cXinluzao24. dLumianyan28.

Most of the traits exhibited medium–high heritability across nine environments (Supplementary Table S2). Correlation analysis showed that significant or very significant positive correlations were observed between the trait pairs of FL–FS, FL–SI, FS–SI, FM–LP, FM–BW, and SI–BW; and significant negative correlations were observed between the pairs of FL–FM, FL–LP, FS–FM, FS–LP, BW–LP, and SI–LP. In addition, FL–BW showed a significant or very significant positive correlation in three environments, whereas no significant correlation was observed in the remaining six environments (Table 2).

Table 2.

Correlation analysis between fiber quality and yield component traits in the RIL population.

Traita Environmentb FL FS FM LP BW
FS 13AY 0.271**
13QZ 0.510**
13LQ 0.139*
14AY 0.600**
14KEL 0.642**
14LQ 0.513**
15ALE 0.660**
15AY 0.466**
16AY 0.534**
FM 13AY –0.209** –0.587**
13QZ –0.226** –0.576**
13LQ –0.051 –0.348**
14AY –0.417** –0.486**
14KEL –0.449** –0.378**
14LQ –0.413** –0.463**
15ALE –0.539** –0.353**
15AY –0.383** –0.425**
16AY –0.369** –0.566**
LP 13AY –0.285** –0.204** 0.366**
13QZ –0.225** –0.271** 0.454**
13LQ –0.169* –0.088 0.430**
14AY –0.259** –0.179** 0.220**
14KEL –0.424** –0.421** 0.351**
14LQ –0.311** –0.278** 0.360**
15ALE –0.373** –0.226** 0.352**
15AY –0.149* –0.088 0.044
16AY –0.189** –0.202** 0.336**
BW 13AY 0.178** –0.294** 0.352** –0.197**
13QZ 0.006 –0.343** 0.543** 0.123
13LQ 0.127 –0.373** 0.544** 0.052
14AY 0.122 0.085 0.240** –0.137*
14KEL 0.064 0.276** –0.089 –0.352**
14LQ 0.060 –0.046 0.300** –0.061
15ALE 0.237** 0.225** –0.078 –0.146*
15AY 0.134* –0.037 0.320** –0.259**
16AY –0.050 –0.199** 0.379** –0.142*
SI 13AY 0.284** 0.275** –0.299** –0.619** 0.324**
13QZ 0.245** 0.250** –0.159* –0.467** 0.294**
13LQ 0.187** 0.202** –0.267** –0.541** 0.094
14AY – – – – –
14KEL 0.307** 0.453** –0.102 –0.597** 0.565**
14LQ – – – – –
15ALE 0.402** 0.418** –0.179** –0.470** 0.670**
15AY 0.299** 0.363** –0.182** –0.309** 0.332**
16AY 0.158* 0.336** –0.192** –0.256** 0.107
Open in a new tab

aFL, fiber length; FS, fibers strength; FM, fiber micronaire; BW, weight; LP, lint percent; SI, seed index. b13AY, Anyang in 2013; 13LQ, Linqing in 2013; 13QZ, Quzhou in 2013; 14AY, Anyang in 2014; 14KEL, Kerle in 2014; 14LQ, Linqing in 2014; 15AY, Anyang in 2015; 15ALE, Alaer in 2015; 16AY, Anyang in 2016. ∗Indicate significance at the 0.05 level. ∗∗Indicate significance at the 0.01 level.

Genetic Map Construction

The genetic linkage map totally covered 2477.99 cM of the upland cotton genome with an average adjacent marker interval of 0.51 cM (Figure 1 and Table 3). It contained 4851 markers, including 4729 SNP and 122 SSR loci, with uneven distributions in the At and Dt subgenomes as well as on 26 chromosomes. A total of 3300 markers were mapped in the At subgenome, covering a genetic distance of 1474.63 cM with an average adjacent marker interval of 0.45 cM. On the other hand, a total of 1551 markers were mapped in the Dt subgenome, covering a genetic distance of 1003.36 cM with an average adjacent marker interval of 0.65 cM. At the chromosome level, chr08 contained the maximum number of markers (481 markers), spanning a genetic distance of 142.55 cM with an average adjacent marker interval of 0.32 cM. chr17 contained the minimum number of markers (19 markers), spanning a total genetic distance of 60.60 cM with an average adjacent marker interval of 3.56 cM. Gap analysis revealed that there were 33 gaps (≥10 cM), of which 19 were in the At subgenome with the largest of 22.68 cM on chr07, whereas 14 were in the Dt subgenome with the largest of 42.23 cM on chr17. chr11, chr16, chr19, chr20 and chr24 had no gap larger than 10 cM.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

The genetic linkage map constructed by the SNP marker and SSR marker.

Table 3.

Detailed information of the genetic map.

Chr. Number of SSRs Number of SNPs Total markers Total distance (cM) Average distance (cM) Largest gap (cM) Number of gaps (>10 cM) Number of SDMsa Percentage of SDMs (%) SDRb number χ2-value P-value
Chr01 2 234 236 112.38 0.49 15.83 2 90 38.14 3 2.17 0.46
Chr02 1 60 61 57.22 0.97 12.51 2 11 18.03 1 1.56 0.51
Chr03 6 304 310 85.26 0.28 11.59 1 3 0.97 0 0.75 0.56
Chr04 1 225 226 98.49 0.44 11.56 1 22 9.73 3 0.83 0.51
Chr05 15 279 294 163.46 0.57 10.44 1 138 46.94 10 3.93 0.22
Chr06 2 185 187 85.28 0.46 18.77 1 80 42.78 6 2.63 0.36
Chr07 11 220 231 145.52 0.66 22.68 2 44 19.05 5 2.09 0.38
Chr08 9 472 481 142.55 0.32 17.20 2 237 49.27 5 3.69 0.28
Chr09 3 222 225 107.03 0.49 15.63 2 96 42.67 8 2.83 0.25
Chr10 3 100 103 78.66 0.78 10.30 1 36 34.95 6 2.66 0.31
Chr11 2 203 205 109.13 0.57 7.68 0 97 47.32 6 3.06 0.22
Chr12 10 387 397 157.24 0.41 12.57 1 107 26.95 6 2.44 0.42
Chr13 7 337 344 132.40 0.40 11.47 3 100 29.07 7 2.70 0.45
At 72 3228 3300 1474.63 0.45 22.68 19 1061 32.15 66 – –
Chr14 4 315 319 112.26 0.36 12.16 2 161 50.47 9 3.37 0.25
Chr15 1 123 124 69.36 0.64 25.46 1 5 4.03 1 0.79 0.44
Chr16 4 51 55 53.91 0.98 8.83 0 26 47.27 2 2.70 0.26
Chr17 0 19 19 60.60 3.56 42.23 2 0 0.00 0 1.00 0.46
Chr18 1 57 58 45.05 0.79 18.45 2 9 15.52 1 1.39 0.47
Chr19 5 235 240 103.53 0.44 9.79 0 44 18.33 7 1.59 0.40
Chr20 12 133 145 84.74 0.59 6.37 0 32 22.07 4 1.70 0.36
Chr21 7 143 150 127.93 0.87 18.09 1 97 64.67 8 4.15 0.18
Chr22 1 92 93 83.17 0.92 24.89 2 32 34.41 5 2.43 0.31
Chr23 1 93 94 57.14 0.63 15.88 1 6 6.38 1 0.84 0.53
Chr24 7 106 113 57.89 0.52 9.26 0 40 35.40 3 2.46 0.28
Chr25 3 79 82 87.29 1.06 13.29 2 20 24.39 1 2.17 0.38
Chr26 4 55 59 60.49 1.06 10.09 1 30 50.85 2 3.64 0.23
Dt 50 1501 1551 1003.36 0.65 42.23 14 502 32.37 44 – –
Total 122 4729 4851 2477.99 0.51 42.23 33 1563 32.22 110 – –
Open in a new tab

aSDM, segregation distortion marker. bSDR, segregation distortion region.

Segregation Distortion

There were a total of 1,563 SDMs (32.22%) (P < 0.05), which were unevenly distributed at both subgenome and chromosome levels (Tables 3 and Supplementary Table S3). One thousand and sixty-one SDMs were found in the At subgenome, whereas 502 in the Dt subgenome. chr08 had the maximum number of SDMs of 237 (15.16% of total SDMs). The SDMs formed 110 SDRs, of which 66 were in the At subgenome whereas 44 in the Dt subgenome. chr05 contained the maximum number of SDRs of 10. There was no SDR in chr03 and chr17.

Collinearity Analysis

The reliability of the genetic map was usually assessed by comparing it with the physical maps of the upland cotton (TM-1) reference genome (Zhang et al., 2015). The results of the collinear analysis are shown in Figure 2. The results revealed an overall good congruency between the linkage map and its physical one, while there also existed some discrepancies between the two on chr03, chr06, chr08, and chr13 in the At subgenome and on chr15, chr16, chr17, chr19, chr22, chr23, and chr26 in the Dt subgenome. The collinearity in subgenomes revealed that the At subgenome showed a better compatibility between the linkage and the physical maps than the Dt subgenome did.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Collinearity between the genetic map (left) and the physical map (right). At, collinearity of the At subgenome; Dt, collinearity of the Dt subgenome.

QTL Mapping for Fiber Quality Traits and Yield Components

A total of 256 QTLs (Supplementary Table S4), 134 for fiber quality traits, and 122 for yield components, were identified across nine environments using the CIM algorithm, with 1.68–28.27% proportions of the phenotypic variance (PV) explained by each QTL. Fifty-seven stable QTLs (Figure 3 and Supplementary Table S4) were identified in at least two environments, of which 32 were for fiber quality traits and 25 for yield components.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

The annotation of the common candidate genes in GO analysis. (A) Fiber quality traits. (B) Yield components.

Fiber Length

A total of 36 QTLs for FL were identified on 21 chromosomes except chr02, chr04, chr09, chr10, and chr25, among which 7 were stable (Figure 3 and Supplementary Table S4). In these stable QTLs, qFL-chr17-1 was identified in three environments, and could explain 3.95–5.36% proportions of the observed PV. In its marker interval of TM53503–TM53577, there harbored 88 candidate genes. The stable QTLs, qFL-chr05-1, qFL-chr06-2, qFL-chr11-1, qFL-chr16-1, qFL-chr19-1, and qFL-chr26-1, could explain 12.13–13.83, 6.35–6.62, 5.15–9.41, 5.24–6.23, 4.65–5.07, and 4.56–5.59% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively. In their marker intervals of CICR0262, TM18200–TM18321, TM39956–TM39953, TM66757–NAU3563, TM57055–TM5 7082, and TM77259–TM77261, there harbored 2, 141, 15, 309, 65, and 1 candidate genes, respectively.

Fiber Strength

Forty-six QTLs for FS were identified on 19 chromosomes except chr02, chr03, chr14, chr17, chr18, chr22, and chr23, among which 10 were stable (Figure 3 and Supplementary Table S4). In these stable QTLs, qFS-chr07-2 was identified in all nine environments, and could explain 5.81–19.47% proportions of the observed PV. In its marker interval of DPL0852–DPL0757, eight candidate genes were harbored. qFS-chr16-3 was identified in five environments, and could explain 4.28–6.45% proportions of the observed PV. In its marker interval of SWU2707–DPL0492, 342 candidate genes were harbored. qFS-chr01-2 and qFS-chr20-5 were identified in three environments, and could explain 5.32–8.86 and 4.50–5.90% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively. In their marker intervals of TM379–TM404 and NAU4989–TM73152, 20 and 7 candidate genes, respectively, were harbored. qFS-chr07-1, qFS-chr11-1, qFS-chr11-2, qFS-chr13-1, qFS-chr20-1, and qFS-chr24-1 were identified in two environments, and could explain 5.97–6.21, 4.87–5.59, 5.26–7.21, 5.74–10.69, 2.91–8.18, and 5.11–5.43% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively. In their marker intervals of TM19848–TM19875, TM37826–TM37828, TM37897–TM37935, TM43230–TM43229, TM75088–TM75100, and TM67152–TM67146, 4, 1, 29, 1, 8, and 6 candidate genes, respectively, were harbored.

Fiber Micronaire

Fifty-two QTLs for FM were identified on 21 chromosomes except chr02, chr12, chr17, chr23, and chr26, among which 15 were stable (Figure 3 and Supplementary Table S4). In these stable QTLs, qFM-chr07-1 and qFM-chr13-1 were identified in six environments, and could explain 5.51–24.45 and 4.73–8.88% proportion of the observed PV, respectively. In their marker intervals of DPL0852–DPL0757 and TM43230–TM43241, 8 and 15 candidate genes, respectively, were harbored. qFM-chr01-2 was identified in five environments, and could explain 3.94–6.17% proportions of the observed PVs. In its marker interval, one marker of TM3451 was exclusively contained and two candidate genes were harbored. qFM-chr19-1 and qFM-chr19-2 were identified in four environments, and could explain 4.57–8.54 and 5.19–8.20% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively. In their marker intervals of TM57055–TM57057 and TM56813–TM56753, 4 and 161 candidate genes, respectively, were harbored. qFM-chr14-1, qFM-chr15-1, and qFM-chr24-2 were identified in three environments, and could explain 4.18–6.53, 4.45–5.35, and 4.25–4.69% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively. In their marker intervals of TM50241–TM50231, CGR5709–TM50087, and TM67152–TM67125, 13, 1, and 18 candidate genes, respectively, were harbored. qFM-chr03-1, qFM-chr05-1, qFM-chr10-1, qFM-chr11-4, qFM-chr14-3, qFM-chr15-2, and qFM-chr20-2 were identified in two environments, and could explain 3.89–5.18, 4.13–4.42, 4.66–5.16, 4.22–4.30, 4.52–4.54, 3.75–5.95, and 4.47–5.02% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively. In their marker intervals of TM7008–TM7102, TM10798–TM10805, TM33784–TM33813, TM39510–TM39490, TM52033–TM52031, TM50087–TM50082, and TM75041–TM75030, 125, 6, 100, 8, 1, 5, and 44 candidate genes, respectively, were harbored.

Boll Weight

A total of 53 QTLs for BW were identified on 25 chromosomes except chr15, among which 7 were stable (Figure 3 and Supplementary Table S4). In these stable QTLs, qBW-chr24-1 was identified in three environments, and could explain 4.13–6.99% proportions of the observed PVs. In its marker interval of TM67152–TM67127, 18 candidate genes were harbored. qBW-chr04-2, qBW-chr05-5, qBW-chr06-3, qBW-chr07-4, qBW-chr20-1, and qBW-chr21-4 were identified in two environments, and could explain 3.77–5.74, 4.28–6.42, 3.87–4.07, 7.62–8.08, 5.56–8.12, and 6.05–7.26% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively. In their marker intervals of TM9831–TM9827, TM10953–TM10979, TM14514–TM14509, DPL0852, NAU4989–CICR0002, and TM76018–TM75887, 6, 59, 23, 2, 7, and 119 candidate genes were harbored, respectively.

Lint Percentage

A total of 39 QTLs for LP were identified on 20 chromosomes except chr02, chr12, chr15, chr17, chr23, and chr24, among which nine were stable (Figure 3 and Supplementary Table S4). In these stable QTLs, qLP-chr10-1 was identified in five environments, and could explain 4.44–8.80% proportions of the observed PVs. In its marker interval of DPL0468–CGR5624, 148 candidate genes were harbored. qLP-chr04-1 was identified in four environments, and could explain 3.81–4.50% proportions of the observed PVs. In its marker interval of TM9862–TM9831, 217 candidate genes were harbored. qLP-chr26-2 was identified in three environments, and could explain 3.98–5.34% proportions of the observed PVs. In its marker interval of TM77259–TM77267, 3 candidate genes were harbored. qLP-chr03-1, qLP-chr06-2, qLP-chr08-1, qLP-chr11-1, qLP-chr22-1, and qLP-chr25-3 were identified in two environments, and could explain 2.69–2.83, 3.76–6.32, 4.43–6.02, 3.91–4.75, 3.61–4.26, and 4.77–7.64% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively. In their marker intervals of TM6006–TM6010, TM18161–TM18322, TM29470–TM29463, TM39443–TM39427, TM55461–TM55466, and TM63143–TM63142, 1, 141, 26, 12, 16, and 1 candidate genes, respectively, were harbored.

Seed Index

A total of 30 QTLs for SI were identified on 16 chromosomes except chr01, chr14, chr15, chr18, chr21, chr22, chr23, chr24, chr25, and chr26, among which nine were stable (Figure 3 and Supplementary Table S4). In these stable QTLs, qSI-chr07-2 was identified in five environments, which could explain 4.83–28.27% of the observed PVs. In its confidence interval of DPL0852–DPL0757, there harbored 8 candidate genes. qSI-chr16-1 was identified in four environments, which could explain 4.24–6.91% of the observed PVs. In its confidence interval of TM66717–TM66737, there harbored 19 candidate genes. qSI-chr10-1, qSI-chr10-2, and qSI-chr11-2 were identified in three environments, which could explain 6.67–7.83%, 4.28–6.50%, and 4.35–6.01% of the observed PVs, respectively. In their confidence intervals of DPL0468, TM36374–TM36487, and TM37826–TM37828, there harbored 2, 87, and 1 candidate genes, respectively. qSI-chr04-2, qSI-chr07-1, qSI-chr11-3, and qSI-chr13-2 were identified in two environments, which could explain 4.57–5.23%, 5.59–8.50%, 5.52–5.66%, and 3.37–5.29% of the observed PVs, respectively. In their confidence intervals of TM9702–TM9697, TM19691–TM19898, TM37970–TM39953, and TM43247–TM43263, there harbored 8, 39, 73, and 11 candidate genes, respectively.

GWAS for Fiber Quality Traits and Yield Components

A total of 209 and 139 QTNs were identified by four multilocus GWAS methods to be associated with fiber quality and yield component traits, respectively, in the current study (Supplementary Table S6). Among these QTNs, 74 were simultaneously found by at least two algorithms or in two environments (Supplementary Table S6), each with 0.15–47.17% proportions of the observed PVs explained, and a total of 104 candidate genes were mined.

Fiber Quality Traits

A total of 68, 65, and 76 QTNs were found to be associated with FL, FS, and FM, respectively, and the corresponding 110, 99, and 126 candidate genes were identified. In these QTNs, 11 for FL, 17 for FS, and 22 for FM were simultaneously associated by at least two algorithms or in two environments, and each could explain 0.15–29.10, 1.43–47.17, and 2.54–41.39% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively.

Yield Components

A total of 51, 50, and 38 QTNs were found to be associated with BW, LP, and SI, respectively, and the corresponding 82, 83, and 65 candidate genes were identified. In these QTNs, 9 for BW, 5 for LP, and 10 for SI were simultaneously associated by at least two algorithms or in two environments, and each could explain 3.41–28.76, 3.00–22.49, and 1.21–38.73% proportions of the observed PVs, respectively.

Candidate Genes Annotation

A total of 2133 candidate genes, among which 621 were for FL, 426 for FS, 510 for FM, 234 for BW, 565 for LP, and 323 for SI, were identified from stable QTL (Supplementary Table S5), and 506 candidate genes, among which 110 for FL, 99 for FS, 126 for FM, 82 for BW, 83 for LP, and 65 for SI, were identified from GWAS (Supplementary Table S6). Annotation analysis of the 35 common genes from these two candidate gene pools revealed that 33 of them had annotation information, whereas 8 had unknown function (Supplementary Table S7). In the gene ontology (GO) analysis of the candidate gene for fiber quality (Supplementary Table S8), 24, 17, and 29 candidate genes were identified in the cellular component, molecular function, and biological process category, respectively. In the cellular component category, three main brackets of cell (six genes), cell part (six genes), and organelle (five genes) were enriched, whereas in the molecular function category, two main brackets of binding (eight genes) and catalytic activity (six genes), and in biological process category, four main brackets of metabolic process (seven genes), single-organism process (seven genes), cellular process (five genes), and response to stimulus (five genes) were, respectively, enriched (Figure 4A). In gene ontology (GO) analysis of the candidate gene for yield components (Supplementary Table S10), 19, 13, and 27 candidate genes were identified in the cellular component, molecular function, and biological process category, respectively. In the cellular component category, three main brackets of cell (five genes), organelle (five genes), and cell part (five genes) were enriched, whereas in the molecular function category, two main brackets of binding (six genes) and catalytic activity (five genes), and in the biological process category, four main brackets of single-organism process (seven genes), metabolic process (five genes), cellular process (five genes), and localization (four genes) were, respectively, enriched (Figure 4B). Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) analysis indicated that six candidate genes for fiber quality were involved in 10 pathways and two candidate genes for yield were involved in six pathways (Supplementary Tables S9, S11).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

The chromosome-wise distribution of stable QTL for fiber quality traits and yield components.

Discussion

The High-Density Genetic Map Construction and Its Reliability

The development of high-throughput sequencing technology enabled its applications in genotyping the accessions of both natural populations for GWAS and segregating ones for map construction and QTL identification to be accumulated to agricultural important crops (Huang et al., 2010; Kump et al., 2011; Dhanapal et al., 2015; Zeng et al., 2017). SNPs provided abundant genetic variation loci at the genome level and much improved the genome coverage and marker saturation when they were applied to genetic map construction (Agarwal et al., 2008; Hulse-Kemp et al., 2015; Cai et al., 2017). At present, two sets of SNP arrays were developed for Gossypium (Hulse-Kemp et al., 2015; Cai et al., 2017). Different from the first set of CottonSNP63K arrays (Hulse-Kemp et al., 2015; Zhang Z. et al., 2017), which was developed by international consortium of several different studies (Hulse-Kemp et al., 2015), the CottonSNP80K array (Cai et al., 2017) was developed from the re-sequencing of 100 upland cotton cultivars and the TM-1 genome database (Zhang et al., 2015). Even though both sets were successfully applied in upland cotton linkage map construction and QTL identifications (Hulse-Kemp et al., 2015; Cai et al., 2017; Zhang Z. et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2018), the second set could have a higher genotyping accuracy, better coverage, and representative of hirsutum genome (Cai et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2018). In the current study, a linkage map was constructed mainly using SNP markers from the CottonSNP80K array in combination with SSR ones. The map spanned a total genetic length of 2477.99 cM, containing 122 SSR and 4729 SNP markers, with an average marker interval of 0.51 cM between adjacent markers. Compared with previous SSR maps (Shappley et al., 1998; Shen et al., 2005; Sun F.D. et al., 2012; Wang X. et al., 2015), the current map contained more markers and were more effective in map construction (Liu et al., 2015; Li et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016; Zhang Z. et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2018), and exhibited a high consistency with the genomic distribution of the SNP array, which demonstrated its representativeness in map construction (Figure 2; Cai et al., 2017).

The reliability of the genetic map is also estimated by gap size, collinearity, and segregation distortion analyses (Figure 2 and Table 3). Although the development of SNP markers was based on the CottonSNP80K array, a few chromosomes still had a large gap or uneven distribution of makers (Li et al., 2016; Zhang Z. et al., 2017). Totally, there were 33 gaps larger than 10 cM, of which the largest one was of 42.23 cM on chr17 and there were only 19 markers mapped on it. The result of collinearity between the genetic map and the G. hirsutum (TM-1) reference genome indicated accuracy and quality of the map.

The segregation distortion is recognized as strong evolutionary force in the process of biological evolution (Taylor and Ingvarsson, 2003), which was also a common phenomenon in the study of genetic mapping (Shappley et al., 1998; Ulloa et al., 2002; Jamshed et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016; Tan et al., 2018). The current study observed that 32.22% of the total mapping markers were SDMs (P < 0.05). The maximum SDMs were on chr08, where there were 237 SDMs of the total 481 markers, forming five SDRs (Figure 1). This was in consistency with the SSR map constructed from the F2 population of the same parents of the current study (Kong et al., 2011). However, some studies observed an increase of the SDM ratio from F2 generation to the completion of RILs (Tan et al., 2018). This phenomenon was influenced by plenty of factors, including genetic drift (Shen et al., 2007) of mapping population, pollen tube competition, preferential fertilization of particular gametic genotypes, and others (Zhang et al., 2016; Zhang Z. et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2018). In the current study, some chromosomal uneven distribution of QTLs in SDR versus normal regions was also observed in chr01, chr06, chr07, chr10, chr16, chr19, and chr20. These facts implied an impact of the selections being imposed during the construction of the RIL population.

Linkage and Association Analyses for Fiber Quality Traits and Yield Components

The QTLs detected in this study were compared with those in previous studies. As a result, 22 QTLs for FL, 25 QTLs for FS, 31 QTLs for FM, 36 QTLs for BW, 22 QTLs for LP, and 19 QTLs for SI in this study were coincided in the same physical regions of QTLs identified in previous studies (indicated with asterisks in Supplementary Table S4). The remaining could possibly be novel QTLs, of which 21 were stable ones, namely qFL-chr11-1, qFL-chr16-1, qFL-chr19-1, qFL-chr26-1, qFS-chr01-2, qFS-chr16-3, qFS-chr20-1, qFS-chr20-5, qFM-chr01-2, qFM-chr03-1, qFM-chr10-1, qFM-chr14-1, qFM-chr19-1, qBW-chr20-1, qLP-chr03-1, qLP-chr22-1, qLP-chr25-3, qLP-chr26-2, qSI-chr07-1, qSI-chr10-1, and qSI-chr16-1. Even though in the phenotypic evaluations of the population, the phenotypic differences between the two parents did not reach the significant level except that of FS, transgressive segregation in the RILs and significant differences among RILs indicated that the parents might harbor different favorable alleles for the target traits. QTL identification results well illustrated such presuppositions as these different favorable alleles contributed greatly to the similarity or nonsignificant differences between the two parents. These alleles could be addressed through map construction and detected in QTL identification. The high heritability of the target traits also enhanced the reliability of the QTL identification.

In addition, four multilocus GWAS algorithms were applied to the association of QTNs with the target traits, and their results were compared with the previous identified QTLs (Said et al., 2015). The results confirmed that quite a ratio of QTNs were coincided in the physical regions of the confidence intervals of reported QTLs in the database, namely 43 QTNs for FL, 44 QTNs for FS, 51 QTNs for FM, 40 QTNs for BW, 34 QTNs for LP, and 25 QTNs for SI (indicated with asterisks in Supplementary Table S6). The remaining QTNs could possibly be novel QTNs, of which 27 were associated by at least two algorithms or in two environments. These loci could be of great significance for cotton molecular-assisted breeding, particularly the loci of TM9941 and TM54893, which were identified both by multiple algorithms and in multiple environments for more than one target trait.

Based on linkage disequilibrium, GWAS is an effective genetic analysis method to dissect the genetic foundation of complex traits in plants in natural populations. The four multilocus GWAS algorithms provided promising alternatives in GWAS. Usually, GWAS needed a large panel size with sufficient marker polymorphism (Bodmer and Bonilla, 2008; Manolio et al., 2009), and was effective to identify major loci while ineffective to rare or polygenes (Asimit and Zeggini, 2010; Gibson, 2012) in the population. Linkage analysis in segregating populations could effectively eliminate the false-positive results, which was a built-in defect of GWAS in natural populations. But linkage analysis usually identified large DNA fragments, which made it difficult to further study the initial identification results. In the current study, both GWAS and linkage analysis were applied in the segregating RILs to study the correlations between genotypes and phenotypes. When comparing the results of GWAS to the QTLs of both previous studies (Said et al., 2015) and current study, common loci (genes) (Supplementary Table S7) demonstrated the effectiveness and feasibility of multilocus GWAS methods to address the correlation between genotypes and phenotypes in segregating RILs. Especially under the condition of increased marker density and improved genome coverage, the accuracy of QTN identification in GWAS would also increase. The increased accuracy probably rendered the application of GWAS in segregating population to have a higher effect on the observed PVs, sometimes even higher than that of QTL on the PVs in linkage analysis, which was usually low in natural populations.

Congruency and Function Analysis of Candidate Genes

In this study, candidate genes were identified independently both from the physical region in the marker intervals of the QTLs, which were identified by CIM (Zeng, 1994) in WinQTL Cartographer 2.5 (Wang et al., 2012), and from the physical position of the QTNs, which were associated by multilocus GWAS algorithms. As the CIM algorithm gave not only the QTL position where the highest LOD value located, but also a marker interval of that QTL, the physical regions where the marker interval resided by QTL/QTN were used to search the candidate genes around the QTLs. To avoid redundant genes, the markers, which resided far away from the physical positions of the rest in the same confidence interval, were discarded for consideration of candidate gene searching. This increased the accuracy of the functional analysis of the candidate genes harbored in the confidence intervals of QTLs.

When comparing both candidate gene lists, even if they were not completely consistent, they still revealed a good congruency of candidate gene identification from both algorithms of QTL/QTN; namely, three congruent candidate genes for FL, seven for FS, nine for FM, five for BW, eight for LP, and nine for SI were identified (Supplementary Table S7). Further analysis of these candidate genes indicated that 1 for FL, 17 for FS, and 2 for FM (indicated with asterisks in Supplementary Table S6) were congruent with some previous reports (Huang et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2017). Two candidate genes, Gh_D102255 (a protein kinase superfamily gene) and Gh_A13G0187 (actin 1 gene), which were for fiber quality, were also reported to participate in fiber elongation (Li et al., 2005; Huang et al., 2008). Gh_A07G1730 and Gh_D03G0236 belonged to a WD40 protein superfamily were mainly involved in yield formation in the current study, and might be related to a series of functions (Sun Q. et al., 2012; Gachomo et al., 2014). Gh_D11G1653 (myb domain protein 6) functioned in BW formation, whereas reports indicated that several members of MYB family were involved in fiber development (Suo et al., 2003; Machado et al., 2009; Sun et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2016). Findings in the current study also indicated that some candidate genes could possibly be “pleiotropic,” namely Gh_A07G1744 for FS, FM, and SI; Gh_A07G1745 for FS and FM; Gh_A07G1743 for BW and SI; and Gh_D08G0430 for FM and BW. These candidate genes could be of great significance for further studies including functional gene cloning as well as cultivar development.

Conclusion

The enriched high-density genetic map, which contained 4729 SNP and 122 SSR markers, spanned 2477.99 cM with a marker density of 0.51 cM between adjacent markers. A total of 134 QTLs for fiber quality traits and 122 for yield components were identified by the CIM, of which 57 are stable. A total of 209 and 139 QTNs for fiber quality traits and yield components were, respectively, associated by four multilocus GWAS algorithms, of which 74 QTNs were detected by at least two algorithms or in two environments. Comparing the candidate genes harbored in 57 stable QTLs with those associated with the QTN, 35 were found to be congruent, 4 of which were possibly “pleiotropic.” Results in the study could be promising for future breeding practices through MAS and candidate gene functional studies.

Author Contributions

WG and YY initiated the research. WG, RL, and QC designed the experiments. RL, XX, and ZZ performed the molecular experiments. JG, JL, AL, HS, YS, QG, QL, MI, XD, SL, JP, LD, QZ, XJ, XZ, and AH conducted the phenotypic evaluations and collected the data from the field. RL, WG, YY, and HG performed the analysis. RL drafted the manuscript. YY and WG finalized the manuscript. All authors contributed in the interpretation of results and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Biomarker Technologies Corporation (Beijing, China) for providing the software Highmap and help in the genetic map construction with Highmap.

Funding. This work was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (2016YFD0100500), the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Research Institutes (Y2017JC48), the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFD0101600 and 2016YFD0101401), the Natural Science Foundation of China (31371668, 31471538), the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (2012AA101108), and the National Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Project for CAAS and the Henan province foundation with cutting-edge technology research projects (142300413202).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.01067/full#supplementary-material

Click here for additional data file. (755.5KB, XLS)

References

  1. Abdurakhmonov I. Y., Kohel R. J., Yu J. Z., Pepper A. E., Abdullaev A. A., Kushanov F. N., et al. (2008). Molecular diversity and association mapping of fiber quality traits in exotic G. hirsutum L. germplasm. Genomics 92 478–487. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2008.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Agarwal M., Shrivastava N., Padh H. (2008). Advances in molecular marker techniques and their applications in plant sciences. Plant Cell Rep. 27 617–631. 10.1007/s00299-008-0507-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Asimit J., Zeggini E. (2010). Rare variant association analysis methods for complex traits. Annu. Rev. Genet. 44 293–308. 10.1146/annurev-genet-102209-163421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Atwell S., Huang Y., Vilhjálmsson B., Willems G., Horton M., Li Y., et al. (2010). Genome-wide association study of 107 phenotypes in Arabidopsis thaliana inbred lines. Nature 465 627–631. 10.1038/nature08800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bodmer W., Bonilla C. (2008). Common and rare variants in multifactorial susceptibility to common diseases. Nat. Genet. 40 695–701. 10.1038/ng.f.136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cai C., Ye W., Zhang T., Guo W. (2014). Association analysis of fiber quality traits and exploration of elite alleles in upland cotton cultivars/accessions (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Integr. Plant Biol. 56 51–62. 10.1111/jipb.12124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cai C., Zhu G., Zhang T., Guo W. (2017). High-density 80K SNP array is a powerful tool for genotyping G. hirsutum, accessions and genome analysis. BMC Genomics 18:654 10.1186/s12864-017-4062-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen Z. J., Scheffler B. E., Dennis E., Triplett B. A., Zhang T., Guo W., et al. (2007). Toward sequencing cotton (Gossypium) genomes. Plant Physiol. 145 1303–1310. 10.1104/pp.107.107672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dhanapal A. P., Ray J. D., Singh S. K., Hoyos-Villegas V., Smith J. R., Purcell L. C., et al. (2015). Genome-wide association study (GWAS) of carbon isotope ratio (δ13C) in diverse soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. genotypes. Theor. Appl. Genet. 128 73–91. 10.1007/s00122-014-2413-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Eizenga G. C., Agrama H. A., Lee F. N., Yan W., Jia Y. (2006). Identifying novel resistance genes in newly introduced blast resistant rice germplasm. Crop Sci. 46 1870–1878. 10.2135/cropsci2006.0143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fang D. D., Jenkins J. N., Deng D. D., McCarty J. C., Li P., Wu J. (2014). Quantitative trait loci analysis of fiber quality traits using a random-mated recombinant inbred population in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum, L.). BMC Genomics 15:397 10.1186/14712164-15-397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fernandes E. G., Lombardi A., Solaro R., Chiellini E. (2012). Leveraging models of cell regulation and GWAS data in integrative network-based association studies. Nat. Genet. 44 841–847. 10.1038/ng.2355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Flint-Garcia S. A., Thuillet A. C., Yu J., Pressoir G., Romero S. M., Mitchell S. E., et al. (2005). Maize association population: a high-resolution platform for quantitative trait locus dissection. Plant J. 44 1054–1064. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02591.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gachomo E. W., Jimenez-Lopez J. C., Baptiste L. J., Kotchoni S. O. (2014). GIGANTUS1 (GTS1), a member of Transducin/WD40 protein superfamily, controls seed germination, growth and biomass accumulation through ribosome-biogenesis protein interactions in Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Plant Biol. 14:37 10.1186/1471-2229-14-37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibson G. (2012). Rare and common variants: twenty arguments. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13 135–145. 10.1038/nrg3118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Horton M. W., Hancock A. M., Huang Y. S., Toomajian C., Atwell S., Auton A., et al. (2012). Genome-wide patterns of genetic variation in worldwide Arabidopsis thaliana accessions from the regmap panel. Nat. Genet. 44 212–216. 10.1038/ng.1042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Huang C., Nie X., Shen C., You C., Li W., Zhao W., et al. (2017). Population structure and genetic basis of the agronomic traits of upland cotton in China revealed by a genome-wide association study using high-density SNPs. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15 1374–1386. 10.1111/pbi.12722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Huang J., Chen F., Wu S., Li J., Xu W. (2016). Cotton GhMYB7 is predominantly expressed in developing fibers and regulates secondary cell wall biosynthesis in transgenic Arabidopsis. Sci. China Life Sci. 59 194–205. 10.1007/s11427-015-4991-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang Q. S., Wang H. Y., Gao P., Wang G. Y., Xia G. X. (2008). Cloning and characterization of a calcium dependent protein kinase gene associated with cotton fiber development. Plant Cell Rep. 27 1869–1875. 10.1007/s00299-008-0603-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang X., Wei X., Sang T., Zhao Q., Feng Q., Zhao Y., et al. (2010). Genome-wide association studies of 14 agronomic traits in rice landraces. Nat. Genet. 42 961–967. 10.1038/ng.695 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hulse-Kemp A. M., Jana L., Joerg P., Ashrafi H., Buyyarapu R., Fang D. D., et al. (2015). Development of a 63K SNP array for cotton and high-density mapping of intraspecific and interspecific populations of Gossypium spp. G3 5 1187–1209. 10.1534/g3.115.018416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jamshed M., Jia F., Gong J., Palanga K. K., Shi Y., Li J., et al. (2016). Identification of stable quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for fiber quality traits across multiple environments in Gossypium hirsutum recombinant inbred line population. BMC Genomics 17:197 10.1186/s12864-016-2560-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jia Y., Sun X., Sun J., Pan Z., Wang X., He S., et al. (2014). Association mapping for epistasis and environmental interaction of yield traits in 323 cotton cultivars under 9 different environments. PLoS One 9:e95882 10.1371/journal.pone.0095882 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jiang F., Zhao J., Zhou L., Guo W. Z., Zhang T. Z. (2009). Molecular mapping of Verticillium, wilt resistance QTL clustered on chromosomes D7 and D9 in upland cotton. Sci. China 52 872–884. 10.1007/s11427-009-0110-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kantartzi S. K., Stewart J. M. (2008). Association analysis of fibre traits in Gossypium arboreum, accessions. Plant Breed. 127 173–179. 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2008.01490.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kong F., Li J., Gong J., Shi Y., Liu R., Shang H., et al. (2011). QTL mapping for lint percentage and seed index in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) of different genetic backgrounds. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 27 104–109. 10.1007/s00438-015-1027-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kosambi D. D. (1943). The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Ann. Hum. Genet. 12 172–175. 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1943.tb02321.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kump K. L., Bradbury P. J., Wisser R. J., Buckler E. S., Belcher A. R., Oropeza-Rosas M. A. (2011). Genome-wide association study of quantitative resistance to southern leaf blight in the maize nested association mapping population. Nat. Genet. 43 163–168. 10.1038/ng.747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lacape J. M., Jacobs J., Arioli T., Derijcker R., Forestier-Chiron N., Llewellyn D., et al. (2009). A new interspecific Gossypium hirsutum × G. barbadense, RIL population: towards a unified consensus linkage map of tetraploid cotton. Theor. Appl. Genet. 119 281–292. 10.1007/s00122-009-1037-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Levi A., Paterson A. H., Cakmak I., Saranga Y. (2011). Metabolite and mineral analyses of cotton near-isogenic lines introgressed with QTLs for productivity and drought-related traits. Physiol. Plant. 141 265–275. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2010.01438.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Li C., Dong Y., Zhao T., Li L., Li C., Yu E., et al. (2016). Genome-wide SNP linkage mapping and QTL analysis for fiber quality and yield traits in the upland cotton recombinant inbred lines population. Front. Plant Sci. 7:1356 10.3389/fpls.2016.01356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Li C., Wang C., Dong N., Wang X., Zhao H., Converse R., et al. (2012). QTL detection for node of first fruiting branch and its height in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Euphytica 188 441–451. 10.1007/s10681-012-0720-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Li C., Wang X., Dong N., Zhao H., Xia Z., Wang R., et al. (2013). QTL analysis for early-maturing traits in cotton using two upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) crosses. Breed. Sci. 63 154–163. 10.1270/jsbbs.63.154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Li F., Fan G., Lu C., Xiao G., Zou C., Kohel R. J., et al. (2015). Genome sequence of cultivated upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum TM-1) provides insights into genome evolution. Nat. Biotechnol. 33 524–530. 10.1038/nbt.3208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Li F., Fan G., Wang K., Sun F., Yuan Y., Song G., et al. (2014). Genome sequence of the cultivated cotton Gossypium arboreum. Nat. Genet. 46 567–572. 10.1038/ng.2987 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Li X. B., Fan X. P., Wang X. L., Cai L., Yang W. C. (2005). The cotton ACTIN1 gene is functionally expressed in fibers and participates in fiber elongation. Plant Cell 17 859–875. 10.1105/tpc.104.029629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Liu D., Liu F., Shan X., Zhang J., Tang S., Fang X., et al. (2015). Construction of a high-density genetic map and lint percentage and cottonseed nutrient trait QTL identification in Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Mol. Genet. Genomics 290 1683–1700. 10.1007/s00438-015-1027-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu D., Ma C., Hong W., Huang L., Liu M., Liu H. (2014). Construction and analysis of high-density linkage map using high-throughput sequencing data. PLoS One 9:e98855 10.1371/journal.pone.0098855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Liu X., Teng Z., Wang J., Wu T., Zhang Z., Deng X., et al. (2017). Enriching an intraspecific genetic map and identifying QTL for fiber quality and yield component traits across multiple environments in Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum, L.). Mol. Genet. Genomics 292 1281–1306. 10.1007/s00438-017-1347-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Maccaferri M., Sanguineti M. C., Noli E., Tuberosa R. (2005). Population structure and long-range linkage disequilibrium in a durum wheat elite collection. Mol. Breed. 15 271–290. 10.1007/s11032-004-7012-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Machado A., Wu Y., Yang Y., Llewellyn D. J., Dennis E. S. (2009). The MYB transcription factor GhMYB25 regulates early fiber and trichome development. Plant J. 59 52–62. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03847.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Manolio T. A., Collins F. S., Cox N. J., Goldetein D. B., Hindorff L. A., Hunter D. J., et al. (2009). Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461 747–753. 10.1038/nature08494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Mei H., Zhu X., Zhang T. (2013). Favorable QTL alleles for yield and its components identified by association mapping in Chinese upland cotton cultivars. PLoS One 8:e82193 10.1371/journal.pone.0082193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nie X., Huang C., You C., Wu L., Zhao W., Shen C., et al. (2016). Genome-wide SSR-based association mapping for fiber quality in nation-wide upland cotton inbreed cultivars in China. BMC Genomics 17:352 10.1186/s12864-016-2662-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Palanga K. K., Jamshed M., Rashid M. H., Gong J., Li J., Iqbal M. S., et al. (2017). Quantitative trait locus mapping for Verticillium wilt resistance in an upland cotton recombinant inbred line using SNP-based high density genetic map. Front. Plant Sci. 8:382 10.3389/fpls.2017.00382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Qi H., Wang N., Qiao W., Xu Q., Zhou H., Shi J., et al. (2017). Construction of a high-density genetic map using genotyping by sequencing (GBS) for quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis of three plant morphological traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum, L.). Euphytica 213:83 10.1007/s10681-017-1867-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Said J. I., Knapka J. A., Song M., Zhang J. (2015). Cotton QTLdb: a cotton QTL database for QTL analysis, visualization, and comparison between Gossypium hirsutum and G. hirsutum × G. barbadense populations. Mol. Genet. Genomics 290 1615–1625. 10.1007/s00438-015-1021-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Said J. I., Lin Z., Zhang X., Song M., Zhang J. (2013). A comprehensive meta QTL analysis for fiber quality, yield, yield related and morphological traits, drought tolerance, and disease resistance in tetraploid cotton. BMC Genomics 14:776 10.1186/1471-2164-14-776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Samayoa L., Malvar R., Olukolu B. A., Holland J. B., Butrón A. (2015). Genome-wide association study reveals a set of genes associated with resistance to the Mediterranean corn borer (Sesamia nonagrioides L.) in a maize diversity panel. BMC Plant Biol. 15:35 10.1186/s12870-014-0403-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Segura V., Vilhjalmsson B. J., Platt A., Korte A., Seren Ü, Long Q.et al. (2012). An efficient multi-locus mixed-model approach for genome-wide association studies in structured populations. Nat. Genet. 44 825–830. 10.1038/ng.2314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shappley Z. W., Jenkins J. N., Meredith W. R., McCarty J. C., Jr. (1998). An RFLP linkage map of upland cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. Theor. Appl. Genet. 97 756–761. 10.1007/s001220050952 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Shen X., Guo W., Lu Q., Zhu X., Yuan Y., Zhang T. (2007). Genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci for fiber quality and yield trait by RIL approach in upland cotton. Euphytica 155 371–380. 10.1007/s10681-006-9338-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Shen X., Guo W., Zhu X., Yuan Y., Yu J. Z., Kohel R. J., et al. (2005). Molecular mapping of QTLs for fiber qualities in three diverse lines in Upland cotton using SSR markers. Mol. Breed. 15 169–181. 10.1007/s11032-004-4731-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Song G. L., Cui R. X., Wang K. B., Guo L. P., Li S. H., Wang C. Y., et al. (1998). A rapid improved CTAB method for extraction of cotton genomic DNA. Acta Gossypii Sin. 1998 50–52. [Google Scholar]
  55. Spindel J., Begum H., Akdemir D., Virk P., Collard B., Redoña E., et al. (2015). Genomic selection and association mapping in rice (Oryza sativa): effect of trait genetic architecture, training population composition, marker number and statistical model on accuracy of rice genomic selection in elite, tropical rice breeding lines. PLoS Genet. 11:e1004982 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Stiller W. N., Reid P. E., Constable G. A. (2004). Maturity and leaf shape as traits influencing cotton cultivar adaptation to dryland conditions. Agron. J. 96 656–664. 10.2134/agronj2004.0656 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Su J., Pang C., Wei H., Li L., Liang B., Wang C., et al. (2016). Identification of favorable SNP alleles and candidate genes for traits related to early maturity via GWAS in upland cotton. BMC Genomics 17:687 10.1186/s12864-016-2875-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Sun F. D., Zhang J. H., Wang S. F., Gong W. K., Shi Y. Z., Liu A. Y., et al. (2012). QTL mapping for fiber quality traits across multiple generations and environments in upland cotton. Mol. Breed. 30 569–582. 10.1007/s11032-011-9645-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Sun Q., Cai Y., Zhu X., He X., Jiang H., He G. (2012). Molecular cloning and expression analysis of a new WD40 repeat protein gene in upland cotton. Biologia 67 1112–1118. 10.2478/s11756-012-0103-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Sun X., Gong S. Y., Nie X. Y., Li Y., Li W., Huang G. Q., et al. (2015). A R2R3-MYB transcription factor that is specifically expressed in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) fibers affects secondary cell wall biosynthesis and deposition in transgenic Arabidopsis. Physiol. Plant. 154 420–432. 10.1111/ppl.12317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Sun Z., Wang X., Liu Z., Gu Q., Zhang Y., Li Z., et al. (2017). Genome-wide association study discovered genetic variation and candidate genes of fibre quality traits in Gossypium hirsutum L. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15 982–996. 10.1111/pbi.12693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Suo J., Liang X., Pu L., Zhang Y., Xue Y. (2003). Identification of GhMYB109 encoding a R2R3 MYB transcription factor that expressed specifically in fiber initials and elongating fibers of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1630 25–34. 10.1016/j.bbaexp.2003.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Tamba C. L., Ni Y. L., Zhang Y. M. (2017). Iterative sure independence screening EM-Bayesian LASSO algorithm for multi-locus genome-wide association studies. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13:e1005357 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Tan Z., Fang X., Tang S., Zhang J., Liu D., Teng Z., et al. (2015). Genetic map and QTL controlling fiber quality traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum, L.). Euphytica 203 615–628. 10.1007/s10681-014-1288-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Tan Z., Zhang Z., Sun X., Li Q., Sun Y., Yang P., et al. (2018). Genetic map construction and fiber quality QTL mapping using the CottonSNP80K array in upland cotton. Front. Plant Sci. 9:225 10.3389/fpls.2018.00225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Tang F., Xiao W. (2014). Genetic association of within-boll yield components and boll morphological traits with fibre properties in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant. Breed. 133 521–529. 10.1111/pbr.12176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Taylor D. R., Ingvarsson P. K. (2003). Common features of segregation distortion in plants and animals. Genetica 117 27–35. 10.1023/A:1022308414864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Thornsberry J. M., Goodman M. M., Doebley J., Kresovich S., Nielsen D., Buckler E. S., IV (2001). Dwarf8 polymorphisms associate with variation in flowering time. Nat. Genet. 28 286–289. 10.1038/90135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Ulloa M., Hutmacher R. B., Roberts P. A., Wright S. D., Nichols R. L., Michael Davis R. (2013). Inheritance and QTL mapping of Fusarium wilt race 4 resistance in cotton. Theor. Appl. Genet. 126 1405–1418. 10.1007/s00122-013-2061-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Ulloa M., Meredith W. R., Jr., Shappley Z. W., Kahler A. L. (2002). RFLP genetic linkage maps from four F2:3 populations and a joinmap of Gossypium hirsutum L. Theor. Appl. Genet. 104 200–208. 10.1007/s001220100739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Voorrips R. E. (2002). MapChart: software for the graphical presentation of linkage maps and QTLs. J. Hered. 93 77–78. 10.1093/jhered/93.1.77 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Wang H., Huang C., Guo H., Li X., Zhao W., Dai B., et al. (2015). QTL mapping for fiber and yield traits in upland cotton under multiple environments. PLoS One 10:e0130742 10.1371/journal.pone.0130742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Wang S., Basten C. J., Zeng Z. B. (2012). Windows QTL Cartographer 2.5. Raleigh: Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University. Available at: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/qtlcart/WQTLCart.htm [Google Scholar]
  74. Wang S. B., Feng J. Y., Ren W. W., Huang B., Zhou L., Wen Y. J., et al. (2016). Improving power and accuracy of genome-wide association studies via a multi-locus mixed linear model methodology. Sci. Rep. 6:19444 10.1038/srep19444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Wang X., Yu K., Li H., Peng Q., Chen F., Zhang W., et al. (2015). High-density SNP map construction and QTL identification for the apetalous character in Brassica napus L. Front. Plant Sci. 6:1164 10.3389/fpls.2015.01164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Wen Y. J., Zhang H., Ni Y. L., Huang B., Zhang J., Feng J. Y., et al. (2017). Methodological implementation of mixed linear models in multi-locus genome-wide association studies. Brief. Bioinform. 10.1093/bib/bbw145 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Wendel J. F., Grover C. E. (2015). “Taxonomy and evolution of the cotton genus. Gossypium,” Cotton eds Fang D. D., Percy R. G. (Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy Inc.) 25–44. 10.2134/agronmonogr57.2013.0020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Xia Z., Zhang X., Liu Y. Y., Jia Z. F., Zhao H. H., Li C. Q., et al. (2014). Major gene identiifcation and quantitative trait locus mapping for yield-related traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Integr. Agric. 13 299–309. 10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60508-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Xu P., Cao Z., Zhang X., Gao J., Zhang X., Shen X. (2014). Identifcation of quantitative trait loci for fiber quality properties on homoeologous chromosomes 13 and 18 of Gossypium klotzschianum. Crop Sci. 54 484–491. 10.2135/cropsci2013.01.0013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Yang X., Wang Y., Zhang G., Wang X., Wu L., Ke H., et al. (2016). Detection and validation of one stable fiber strength QTL on c9 in tetraploid cotton. Mol. Genet. Genomics 291 1625–1638. 10.1007/s00438-016-1206-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Zeng A., Chen P., Korth K., Hancock F., Pereira A., Brye K., et al. (2017). Genome-wide association study (GWAS) of salt tolerance in worldwide soybean germplasm lines. Mol. Breed. 37:30 10.1007/s11032-017-0634-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Zeng L., Meredith W. R., Jr., Gutiérrez O. A., Boykin D. L. (2009). Identification of associations between SSR markers and fiber traits in an exotic germplasm derived from multiple crosses among Gossypium tetraploid species. Theor. Appl. Genet. 119 93–103. 10.1007/s00122-009-1020-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Zeng Z. B. (1994). Precision mapping of quantitative trait loci. Genetics 136 1457–1468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Zhang J., Feng J. Y., Ni Y. L., Wen Y. J., Niu Y., Tamba C. L., et al. (2017). pLARmEB: integration of least angle regression with empirical bayes for multilocus genome-wide association studies. Heredity 118 517–524. 10.1038/hdy.2017.8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Zhang T., Hu Y., Jiang W., Fang L., Guan X., Chen J., et al. (2015). Sequencing of allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. acc. TM-1) provides a resource for fiber improvement. Nat. Biotechnol. 33 531–537. 10.1038/nbt.3207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Zhang T., Qian N., Zhu X., Chen H., Wang S., Mei H., et al. (2013). Variations and transmission of QTL alleles for yield and fiber qualities in Upland cotton cultivars developed in China. PLoS One 8:e57220 10.1371/journal.pone.0057220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Zhang Z., Ge Q., Liu A., Li J., Gong J., Shang H., et al. (2017). Construction of a high-density genetic map and its application to QTL identification for fiber strength in Upland cotton. Crop Sci. 57 774–788. 10.2135/cropsci2016.06.0544 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Zhang Z., Shang H., Shi Y., Huang L., Li J., Ge Q., et al. (2016). Construction of a high-density genetic map by specific locus amplified fragment sequencing (SLAF-seq) and its application to quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis for boll weight in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). BMC Plant Biol. 16:79 10.1186/s12870-016-0741-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Zhang Z. S., Xiao Y. H., Ming L., Li X. B., Luo X. Y., Hou L., et al. (2005). Construction of a genetic linkage map and QTL analysis of fiber-related traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Euphytica 144 91–99. 10.1007/s10681-005-4629-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Zhao K., Tung C. W., Eizenga G. C., Wright M. H., Ali M. L., Price A. H., et al. (2011). Genome-wide association mapping reveals a rich genetic architecture of complex traits in Oryza sativa. Nat. Commun. 2:467 10.1038/ncomms1467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Zhao Y., Wang H., Chen W., Li Y. (2014). Genetic structure, linkage disequilibrium and association mapping of Verticillium wilt resistance in elite cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) germplasm population. PLoS One 9:e86308 10.1371/journal.pone.0086308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Zhu C., Gore M. A., Buckler E., Yu J. (2008). Status and prospects of association mapping in plants. Plant Genome 1 5–20. 10.3835/plantgenome2008.02.0089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Click here for additional data file. (755.5KB, XLS)

Articles from Frontiers in Plant Science are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES