Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2018 Nov 6;8:16397. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34811-y

DArTseq-based analysis of genomic relationships among species of tribe Triticeae

Offiong U Edet 1,2, Yasir S A Gorafi 1,3, Shuhei Nasuda 4, Hisashi Tsujimoto 1,✉
PMCID: PMC6219600  PMID: 30401925

Abstract

Precise utilization of wild genetic resources to improve the resistance of their cultivated relatives to environmental growth limiting factors, such as salinity stress and diseases, requires a clear understanding of their genomic relationships. Although seriously criticized, analyzing these relationships in tribe Triticeae has largely been based on meiotic chromosome pairing in hybrids of wide crosses, a specialized and labourious strategy. In this study, DArTseq, an efficient genotyping-by-sequencing platform, was applied to analyze the genomes of 34 Triticeae species. We reconstructed the phylogenetic relationships among diploid and polyploid Aegilops and Triticum species, including hexaploid wheat. Tentatively, we have identified the diploid genomes that are likely to have been involved in the evolution of five polyploid species of Aegilops, which have remained unresolved for decades. Explanations which cast light on the progenitor of the A genomes and the complex genomic status of the B/G genomes of polyploid Triticum species in the Emmer and Timopheevi lineages of wheat have also been provided. This study has, therefore, demonstrated that DArTseq genotyping can be effectively applied to analyze the genomes of plants, especially where their genome sequence information are not available.

Introduction

Triticeae is one of the most economically important tribes of the grass family, Poaceae, and includes such globally significant species as bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), and rye (Secale cereale L.). Efforts to analyze the genomes of species constituting this tribe to uncover the evolutionary relationships among them have been on for decades1–5. These research efforts, beyond attempting to clarify the taxonomy of Triticeae, are largely propelled by the overwhelming role of wild species of this tribe as potential sources of essential alleles for the improvement of their cultivated relatives, especially bread wheat5–8.

Analysis of genome differences and phylogenetic relationships in Triticeae has mostly been conducted using cytogenetic approaches that rely on meiotic chromosome pairing in hybrids of wide crosses. However, chromosome pairing is affected by diverse factors, and the reliability of failed chromosome pairing as an indicator of genome dissimilarity has been questioned9–11. Molecular cytogenetic methods such as C-banding, fluorescence in situ hybridization and genomic in situ hybridization have also helped to generate useful information on genome differences and phylogenetic relationships in the Triticeae1–3,12,13. Other molecular approaches, including isozyme analysis, variations in low-molecular-weight glutenin subunit and DNA marker systems have provided some explanations on Aegilops-Triticum relationships, the origin and differentiation of Aegilops species, and intra- and inter-specific variations in the D and U genome clusters of Aegilops species14–17. Also, a combination of morphology, organelle and nuclear genes reportedly gave insights into the phylogenetic relationships among diploid taxa in Triticeae18. Nevertheless, diploid progenitors of Ae. crassa, Ae. vavilovii, Ae. juvenalis, Ae. columnaris and Ae. triaristata, and the exact progenitor of the B genome of hexaploid wheat and other polyploid Triticum species are still in dispute2,16,19–22. Also, there are opposing opinions regarding the donors of A genomes of polyploid species in the Emmer (AB group) and Timopheevi (AG group) lineages of wheat23–29. In the classification of Aegilops species, the justification for including Ae. speltoides in section Sitopsis is still under discussion29–32. To validate the results so far obtained and fill remaining gaps, more molecular data, especially those with a wide genomic coverage, are needed31.

DArTseq is one of the cheap and easy but efficient genotyping-by-sequencing platforms which allow genome-wide marker discovery through restriction enzyme-mediated genome complexity reduction and sequencing of the restriction fragments33–35. In this study, we applied DArTseq genotyping to analyze the genomes of 34 species in the tribe Triticeae. DArTseq generates two types of data: SNP and SilicoDArT (http://www.diversityarrays.com/). The former is the nucleotide polymorphisms found in the tag sequences and the latter is the presence/absence variation (PAV) of the tag sequences. The choice of which data to use depends on the research objective. Using both types of data, we clarified the extent of genomic similarity among Aegilops species in different sections and clusters and the evolutionary relationships between diploid and polyploid species in Aegilops and Triticum species. We confirmed the already known genomic constitutions of some polyploid species of Aegilops and Triticum species, and provided evidence-based explanation for the origin of the unidentified (X) genomes2,16,19–21 in Ae. crassa, Ae. columnaris, Ae. vavilovii, Ae. triaristata, and Ae. juvenalis. The consistency of the outcomes of this study with previous reports and the flexibility of DArTseq genotyping make this marker system suitable for routine applications to analyze plant genomes.

Results

Diploid analyzers of polyploid Aegilops and Triticum species

To determine the putative progenitors of each of the polyploid species of Aegilops, SilicoDArT markers in the diploid genomes of all the Aegilops species were used as genome analyzers (Table 1). For each of the diploid species, species-specific markers were selected by filtering markers present in one species but absent in all the others. This made dominant SilicoDArT markers preferred in this analysis, as codominant SNP markers do not give information on PAVs. The progenitors of the polyploid species were estimated based on the proportions of diploid markers that are retained in each polyploid genome (diploid-polyploid monomorphism). Because the number of the species-specific markers is affected by genetic similarity among the diploid species, especially the Sitopsis species, the genomes of the polyploid species of Aegilops were first analyzed with all the markers in each diploid genome of Aegilops species (Fig. 1a) before being analyzed with diploid species-specific markers (Fig. 1b). This allowed us to determine the suitability of the species-specific markers in estimating the progenitors of the polyploid species. The use of species-specific markers as analyzers reduced the background noise produced by monomorphic markers among the diploid species (Fig. 1b).

Table 1.

SilicoDArT markers of diploid analyzers of polyploid Aegilops species.

Species Total No. of markers Species-specific markers (%)
Ae. mutica 12238 837 (6.84)
Ae. speltoides 9330 699 (7.49)
Ae. longissima 18321 761 (4.15)
Ae. sharonensis 18205 723 (3.97)
Ae. bicornis 16465 598 (3.63)
Ae. searsii 15402 1633 (10.60)
Ae. tauschii 20288 7420 (36.57)
Ae. caudata 19086 6514 (34.13)
Ae. comosa 17377 3941 (22.68)
Ae. uniaristata 16719 4003 (23.94)
Ae. umbellulata 19523 6627 (33.94)
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Estimation of the putative diploid progenitors of 12 polyploid Aegilops species based on the proportions of diploid species’ SilicoDArT markers retained in the genomes of the polyploid species. (a) Analysis based on all the markers of the diploid species. (b) Analysis based on the species-specific markers of the diploid species.

Having confirmed the adequacy of the species-specific markers of the analyzers, polyploid genomes of Triticum species were analyzed with only species-specific diploid analyzers (Table 2). Therefore, the conclusions made regarding the progenitors of the polyploid species (Aegilops and Triticum) are based on the species-specific markers of the analyzers. To select analyzers for the polyploid genomes of Triticum species, the genomes of 16 bread wheat-related diploid species were screened on the basis of the proportions of homoeology of their SilicoDArT markers to the total SilicoDArT markers in each of the three genomes of bread wheat. The homoeology of the diploid genomes to each of the genomes of bread wheat was estimated based on the number of markers of the diploid species assigned to each genome of bread wheat (Table 2). This estimation was possible because, in this study, we used DArTseq platform optimized for bread wheat. A diploid species with at least 10% homoeology to any of the three genomes of hexaploid wheat was selected as an analyzer for the corresponding genomes of each of the six polyploid Triticum species. With this criterion, a total of 13 analyzers were selected. Species-specific markers of the 13 selected diploid analyzers were then filtered for the analysis of the putative progenitors of the genomes of the polyploid species (Table 2).

Table 2.

Selection of diploid analyzers of polyploid Triticum species with respect to homoeology of their SilicoDArT markers to those of A, B and D genomes of bread wheat.

Species No. of markers
A genome B genome D genome
Shared Specific Total (%) Shared Specific Total (%) Shared Specific Total (%)
Reference genome (bread wheat) 16901 4688 21,589 (100) 13415 7227 20642 (100) 30187 5167 35354 (100)
T. urartu 6114 3672 9786 (45.3) 1249 95 1344 (6.5) 2763 93 2856 (8.1)
T. boeoticum 5492 753 6245 (28.9) 1369 71 1436 (7.0) 2870 59 2929 (8.3)
Ae. mutica 1824 1348 3172 (14.7) 2331 1966 4297 (20.8) 4690 2284 6974 (19.7)
Ae. speltoides 1139 1129 2268 (10.5) 2507 4405 6912 (33.5) 3335 1883 5218 (14.8)
Ae. longissima 2301 392 2693 (12.5) 3513 755 4268 (20.7) 6831 594 7425 (21.0)
Ae. sharonensis 2294 336 2630 (12.2) 3487 769 4256 (20.6) 6799 632 7431 (21.0)
Ae. bicornis 2018 379 2397 (11.1) 3026 756 3782 (18.3) 6258 638 6896 (19.5)
Ae. searsii 1915 156 2071 (9.6) 3610 495 3105 (15.0) 5558 265 5823 (16.5)
Ae. tauschii 817 99 916 (4.2) 934 174 1108 (5.4) 8988 7568 16556 (46.8)
Ae. caudata 1849 1120 2969 (13.8) 1955 1013 2968 (14.4) 5321 1848 7169 (20.3)
Ae. comosa 1959 1022 2981 (13.8) 2126 1102 3228 (15.6) 5545 1904 7449 (21.1)
Ae. uniaristata 1805 672 2477 (11.5) 2049 724 2773 (13.4) 5155 1254 6409 (18.1)
Ae. umbellulata 2014 928 2942 (13.6) 2055 1017 3072 (14.9) 5174 1653 6827 (19.3)
S. cereale 699 23 722 (3.3) 959 64 1023 (5.0) 1840 30 1870 (5.3)
D. villosum 566 20 586 (2.7) 793 44 837 (4.1) 1538 16 1554 (4.4)
H. vulgare 291 8 299 (1.4) 431 19 450 (2.2) 824 9 833 (2.4)
Open in a new tab

A species whose proportion of markers assigned to any of the bread wheat’s reference genomes (A,B or D) is not less than 10% was selected (emboldened) for the analysis of the corresponding genomes of the polyploid species.

Genomic differentiation and evolutionary relationships among polyploid and diploid species of Aegilops

Before applying the genome analyzers to determine the progenitors of the polyploid species, we used a total of 28,264 polyploid species-specific SilicoDArT markers, ranging from 187 in Ae. juvenalis to 4,759 in Ae. cylindrica (Table 3), to confirm genomic difference among the 12 polyploid species of Aegilops. The polyploid species-species markers were selected in the same manner as the diploid species-specific markers. The relatively low numbers of specific markers in the genomes of Ae. crassa and Ae. juvenalis is obviously because large proportions of their genomes (D and U genomes) are shared by the other species (Table 3). With the possibility of genomic adjustments during polyploidization22,36 and the assumption that the original progenitors of the polyploid species may be different from the accessions of the diploid species used in this study, only diploid analyzers with considerably higher proportions of monomorphism with the polyploid species were taken as the putative progenitors of the polyploid species. Our analysis confirmed the putative diploid progenitors of Ae. ventricosa (DvNv), Ae. cylindrica (CcDc), Ae. kotschyi (SkUk), Ae. biuncialis (UbMb), Ae. triuncialis (UtCt), Ae. ovata (UgMg), and Ae. variabilis (SpUp)30 (Fig. 1). Noteworthy is that the proportions of the markers of three Sitopsis species (Ae. bicornis, Ae. longissima, and Ae. sharonensis) retained in the genomes of the two polyploid species with S-related genomes (Ae. kotschyi and Ae. variabilis) were not reasonably different. This made it difficult to decide which of the Sitopsis species donated the S-related genomes to Ae. kotschyi and Ae. variabilis, although Ae. bicornis and Ae. longissima, respectively, seem to be the most likely candidates. This observation confirms the likelihood of a common ancestry of the Sitopsis species31. Therefore, the original progenitor of the S-related genomes of the polyploid species may have been an ancient relative of the Sitopsis species, which is probably extinct. Although we adopted the polyploid species-specific markers (Table 3) to differentiate Ae. kotschyi (SkUk) from Ae. variabilis (SpUp) and Ae. biuncialis (UbMb) from Ae. ovata (UgMg), these pairs of species have identical genomic constitutions (same progenitors; Fig. 1), and therefore may be considered to be variants/subspecies of the same species in each case.

Table 3.

Species-specific SilicoDArT markers of 12 polyploid species of Aegilops.

Species Ploidy Genome2,3,16,19–21,31 No. of markers
Ae. crassa 6x Dcr1Dcr2Xcr 684
Ae. vavilovii 6x DvaXvaSva 2153
Ae. ventricosa 4x DvNv 3027
Ae. cylindrica 4x CD 4759
Ae. juvenalis 6x XjDjUj 187
Ae. kotschyi 4x SkUk 2271
Ae. biuncialis 4x UbMb 2601
Ae. triuncialis 4x CtUt 2051
Ae. ovata L. 4x UgMg 3163
Ae. triaristata 6x UnXnNn 2215
Ae. columnaris 4x UcXc 2470
Ae. variabilis 4x SpUp 2683
Total — — 28264
Open in a new tab

The unidentified diploid progenitors of five polyploid Aegilops species (Ae. triaristata [UnXn, UnXnNn], Ae. crassa [DcrXcr, Dcr1Dcr2Xcr], Ae. juvenalis [XjDjUj], Ae. vavilovii [XvaDvaSva], and Ae. columnaris [UcXc])2,16,19–21 are most likely to be traced to Ae. speltoides or Ae. mutica. The competing proportions of monomorphic markers between each of the two diploid species (Ae. speltoides and Ae. mutica) and the genomes of the five polyploid species (Fig. 1) strongly suggest that the unidentified genomes may have been donated by an ancient species closely related to these two diploid species or their direct ancestor(s). Based on these results, we have proposed modifications in the genomic representations of Ae. crassa, Ae. juvenalis, Ae. vavilovii, Ae. columnaris, and Ae. triaristata (Table 4), in which the genomes of Ae. speltoides and Ae. mutica are jointly represented as Ts. This does not suggest that the two diploid species are genomically the same, but shows that we could not, in this study, clearly determine which of the two species may have donated the controversial genome to the five polyploid species. In this proposal, the genome of tetraploid Ae. crassa is considered to be constituted of Ae. tauschii and Ts genomes, while the genome of hexaploid Ae. crassa is designated as D1D2Ts (tetraploid Ae. crassa x Ae. tauschii). Aegilops vavilovii is considered to have evolved from the hybridization of tetraploid Ae. crassa and Ae. searsii, granted that Ae. crassa and Ae. vavilovii have similar morphological traits and are reported to be sympatric37. Furthermore, our analysis shows that Ae. juvenalis has Ts, D and U genomes; hexaploid Ae. triaristata, clearly lacks Ae. comosa genome but has the genomes of Ae. umbellulata, Ae. uniaristata and Ts, and Ae. columnaris is composed of Ae. umbellulata and Ts genomes.

Table 4.

Proposed modifications in the genomic representations of five polyploid Aegilops species.

Species Ploidy Reported genomic formula2,3,16,19–21 Proposed genomic formula
Ae. crassa 4x, 6x DcrXcr, Dcr1Dcr2Xcr DTS, D1D2TS
Ae. vavilovii 6x DvaXvaSva DTSSS
Ae. juvenalis 6x XjDjUj UDTS
Ae. triaristata 4x, 6x UnXn, UnXnNn UN, UNTS
Ae. columnaris 4x UcXc UTS
Open in a new tab

TS: joint representation of Ae. speltoides and Ae. mutica.

Cluster analysis of diploid and polyploid Aegilops species

A phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2a) constructed with 15,512 frequently called SNP markers separated the diploid Aegilops species into the already reported sections30, except that Ae. speltoides did not cluster with other species in the section Sitopsis, which has been reported by other researchers18,29,32 (see online Supplementary Table S1 for information of the markers). Aegilops umbellulata (section Aegilops) seemed more distant from the others, whereas Ae. speltoides (section Sitopsis) appeared closer to Ae. mutica (section Amblyopyrum), and relatively distant from other species of section Sitopsis. Among Sitopsis species, Ae. longissima and Ae. sharonensis appeared genomically more proximal to each other than to others. The polyploid species of Aegilops formed two clusters clearly based on the putative common diploid progenitors, Ae. tauschii (D cluster) and Ae. umbellulata (U cluster) (Fig. 2b). Aegilops juvenalis, bearing both D and U genomes, clustered closely with Ae. crassa and Ae. vavilovii in the D cluster, indicating a possible evolutionary link between its (Ae. juvenalis) genome and the two species in the D cluster. This again suggests the likelihood of the presence of a diploid genome, perhaps Ts, common to Ae. juvenalis, Ae. crassa and Ae. vavilovii (Fig. 1).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Reconstruction of the evolutionary relationships among Aegilops species on the basis of 15,512 SNP markers. (a) 11 diploid species. (b) 12 polyploid species. The sections of the diploids and two main clusters of the polyploids are labelled in brown1,16,31.

Genomic and evolutionary relationships in the Aegilops-Triticum species

We used species-specific SilicoDArT markers of 13 bread wheat-related diploid species (Table 2) to determine the elementary donors of the A, B and D genomes in six polyploid Triticum species. As described for the estimation of the progenitors of the polyploid species of Aegilops, the proportions of species-specific markers of the diploid species shared with the genomes of the polyploid species enabled the determination of the progenitors of the genomes of the polyploid Triticum species (Figs 3–6).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Determination of the donor of the A genomes of six polyploid Triticum species using 11 diploid species-specific SilicoDArT markers assigned to the A genome of bread wheat.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Determination of the donor of the D genomes of two hexaploid Triticum species using 11 diploid species-specific SilicoDArT markers assigned to the D genome of bread wheat.

The genome of T. urartu was the closest to the A genomes of all the polyploid species analyzed (Fig. 3), suggesting that T. urartu is the most likely donor of the A genome in each of them. The considerable similarity between the A genome of each of the polyploids and T. boeoticum –another A genome species –suggests a common ancestry of T. boeoticum and T. urartu. Similarly, Ae. searsii seems to be the most closely related to the B/G genomes of the polyploid species (Fig. 4). However, the proportion of Ae. speltoides markers assigned to the reference B genome is higher than those of every other diploid species analyzed (Table 2). This strongly suggests an evolutionary link between the genome of Ae. speltoides and the B/G genomes of the polyploids. This link is further supported by an almost equal similarity of the genomes of the two diploid species to the G genome of T. araraticum (Fig. 4). Using the species-specific markers of Ae. speltoides and Ae. searsii as analyzers, we found that chromosome 4 S of each of the diploid species are almost equally similar to chromosome 4B/G of each of the polyploids (Fig. 5). But chromosomes 2 S, 3 S and 7 S of Ae. speltoides appeared to be more similar to the corresponding chromosomes of T. araraticum than those of Ae. searsii are. These observations give the impression that the B/G genomes of polyploid Triticum species are likely to be recombinant genomes with varying contributions from Ae. speltoides and Ae. searsii. Analysis of the D genomes of the three hexaploid species unambiguously traced them to Ae. tauschii as the sole donor (Fig. 6).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Determination of the donor of the B/G genomes of six polyploid Triticum species using 10 diploid species-specific SilicoDArT markers assigned to the B genome of bread wheat.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Comparison of the B/G genome chromosomes of polyploid Triticum species and the chromosomes of Ae. speltoides and Ae. searsii. The B/G chromosomes are numbered 1B–7B for convenience. This does not change the genomic representation of T. araraticum: AAGG.

A further analysis using 66, 434 SNP markers consistently called in the six polyploid genomes (see online Supplementary Table S2 for information of the markers) indicated 72% similarity (monomorphism) across their A genomes, B/G genomes and the combined AB/AG genomes. However, higher similarity was observed among the AB genomes: hexaploids, 94%; tetraploids, 90%; hexaploid and tetraploid genomes combined, 84%. The slight differences in the proportions of monomorphic markers in the different groups of the AB genomes suggest that the AB genomes of the hexaploid species originated from the same tetraploid species, whereas those of the tetraploid species may have evolved from different accessions of the elementary A and B genome progenitors (T. urartu and Ae. speltoides/Ae. searsii, respectively). The lower similarity (84% as compared to 94%) across the hexaploid and tetraploid AB genomes may reflect further modification of AB genomes in hexaploid species resulting from their interaction with the D genome.

Discussion

The clustering patterns of Aegilops species were largely consistent with the established classifications25,38,39. Diploid species separated on the basis of their known sections in the genus; polyploid species were delineated following the presence of common diploid progenitor genomes (D and U genomes) among them1,16,30. However, as reported previously18,29,32, Ae. speltoides appeared distant from other species in the section Sitopsis; hence, its inclusion in the section needs to be reconsidered.

Markers specific to each of the 12 polyploid species clearly showed considerable polymorphisms among these genomes, including the genomes of species which arose from the same diploid progenitors. This suggests that genetic modifications, such as chromosomal alterations2, may have occurred during independent evolutionary events of those species with identical progenitors. Therefore, without these specific markers, it would be difficult to genomically differentiate Ae. kotschyi (SkUk) from Ae. variabilis (SpUp) and Ae. biuncialis (UbMb) from Ae. ovata (UgMg) because, from the stand point of our result (Fig. 1) and previous studies30,31, the species in each pair evolved from the same progenitors. Although each of the species in these two sets are recognized as independent, on the basis of differences in cytoplasm progenitors and/or nuclear genome variation31,40, this classification does not seem to be clearly justified. Therefore, in our opinion, each pair should be regarded as variants/subspecies of the same species.

The reported unknown diploid genomes, initially represented as modified M genome and later changed to X, in the genomes of Ae. triaristata, Ae. crassa, Ae. juvenalis, Ae. vavilovii, and Ae. columnaris2,16,19–21,30 is traceable to Ae. mutica or Ae. speltoides. The small proportions (<10%) of Ae. comosa-specific markers shared with the five polyploid species (Fig. 1b) is insufficient to infer the existence of remnants of Ae. comosa genome in the polyploid genomes. Assuming Ae. comosa was originally involved in the evolution of the polyploids, species-specific elements from other progenitors may have spread and eventually masked Ae. comosa-specific elements41. Our data suggest that ancient or ancestral forms of Ae. speltoides or Ae. mutica, which are probably extinct, donated the unidentified genomes to the five polyploid species. From our analysis, it appears that all the polyploid species originally had a genome of such an ancient species (Fig. 1). This observation agrees with the hypothesis that Ae. mutica (syn. Amblyopyrum muticum) and Ae. speltoides, both allogamous species with ancestral traits, diverged earlier than other Aegilops species and may therefore be the ancestors of the other Aegilops species22. Therefore, each diploid Aegilops species may have retained a substantial portion of the common ancestral genome (Ae. speltoides/Ae. mutica or their ancestor). The difference in the representation of the common progenitor in each of the polyploid species can result from the peculiar evolutionary event(s) of each species. Polyploids that arose from the hybridization of the common diploid ancestor with other diploid species should have larger portions of the genome of the common ancestor than those that did not directly evolve from the common ancestor.

We validated the putative diploid progenitors of the A and D genomes of polyploid Triticum species to be T. urartu and Ae. tauschii, respectively42–46. We have also provided information that may help to explain the complex nature of the B/G genomes. The genomes of both Ae. speltoides and Ae. searsii are similar to the B/G genomes, especially to that of T. araraticum (Fig. 4), a relatively less advanced tetraploid genome47,48; thus, the B/G genomes of polyploid Triticum species may have evolved from an ancestral genome that later differentiated into those of Ae. speltoides and Ae. searsii. Alternatively, the B/G genome may have arisen from the hybridization of Ae. speltoides and Ae. searsii before the emergence of the AB/AG genome at different times. The above considerations support earlier postulations that the B genome is the most modified of the three genomes of hexaploid wheat, whereas the A and D genomes are substantially similar to those of T. urartu and Ae. tauschii, respectively22. The previously suggested origin of the A genome of T. araraticum from T. boeoticum23,24 is probably invalid (Fig. 3). Our results agree with the hypothesis that both Emmer and Timopheevi lineages of polyploid wheats have the same sources of elementary A and B/G genomes25–29. However, a common ancestry of the A-genome species cannot be ruled out and the A genomes of polyploid Triticum species may have evolved from a common ancestor of T. urartu and T. boeoticum before the differentiation of the two species. Although no karyotypic differences have been detected between these diploid A-genome species25,49, low fertility of interspecific F1 hybrid plants of these two species has been reported50. The latter study, consistent with our result, confirms that the two species are genomically different. As previously documented47,48, our study suggests that the A and G genomes in T. araraticum are less modified than the A and B genomes in the Emmer lineage.

This study has demonstrated that DArTseq genotyping can be applied to conduct a large scale analysis of plant genomes, mostly because it allocates markers to individual chromosomes, which can be easily extracted and analyzed. This genomic sequence-based platform ensures a wide genomic coverage and is not subject to criticism associated with the factors that affect meiotic chromosome pairing in hybrids of distant crosses, which forms the main anchor of cytogenetic systems of genome analysis9–11,51–54. Also, the number of informative markers generated by DArTseq outstrips what is possible with conventional DNA marker procedures14–17, making it more robust and reliable. Genotyping of all the available accessions of species in tribe Triticeae using this platform would clarify the genomic relationships between the cultivated and wild species. This information would make the use of the available gene pools for breeding much more precise and would also help to clarify Triticeae taxonomy. As polyploidy and interspecific hybridization are key events in the evolution of higher plants55, this genome analysis approach would be useful in other groups of plant species, especially polyploids with unclear phylogeny.

Methods

Plant materials

All 23 Aegilops species, eight Triticum species, and three distant relatives of wheat were analyzed. Except bread wheat, represented by two cultivars ‘Chinese Spring’ (CS) and ‘Norin 61’ (N61), each species was represented by one accession (Table 5). Seedlings were raised in Greenhouses of the Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University and Laboratory of Plant Genetics, Kyoto University, Japan. Depending on growth rate and plant size, fresh leaves were harvested from each 2–4-week-old seedlings and genomic DNA samples were isolated and purified using the cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide method. Quality check, quantification and concentration adjustment for sequencing and genotyping were accomplished with NanoDrop2000C Spectrophotometer (ThermoScientific). The concentration of each sample was adjusted to 50 ng/μL.

Table 5.

List of plant materials.

ID Species Subspecies/cultivar Ploidy Genome Source
KU–12007 Ae. mutica Boiss. — 2x T NBRP
KU–2–5 Ae. speltoides Tausch typica 2x S NBRP
KU–4–1 Ae. longissima Schweinf. et Muschl typica 2x Sl NBRP
KU–5–3 Ae. sharonensis Eig typica 2x Ssh NBRP
KU–4–6 Ae. searsii Feldman et Kilev ex Hammer — 2x Ss NBRP
KU–3–1 Ae. bicornis (Forssk.) Jaub. et Sp. typica 2x Sb NBRP
KU–2159 Ae. tauschii Coss. typica 2x D NBRP
KU–5860 Ae. caudata L. polyathera 2x C NBRP
KU–17–1 Ae. comosa Sibth. et Sm. comosa 2x M NBRP
KU–19–3 Ae. uniaristata Vis. typica 2x N NBRP
KU–8–2 Ae. umbellulata Zhuk. typica 2x U NBRP
KU–7–1 Ae. cylindrica Host. typica 4x CD NBRP
KU–22–1 Ae. ventricosa Tausch comosa 4x DvNv NBRP
KU–9–1 Ae. ovata L. vulgaris 4x UgMg NBRP
KU–11–1 Ae. columnaris Zhuk. typica 4x UcMc NBRP
KU–13–6 Ae. kotschyi Boiss. leptostachya 4x SkUk NBRP
KU–15–1 Ae. triuncialis L. typica 4x CtUt NBRP
KU–13–1 Ae. variabilis Eig intermedia 4x SpUp NBRP
KU–12–1 Ae. biuncialis Vis. typica 4x UbMb NBRP
KU–10–1 Ae. triaristata Willd. vulgaris 6x UnMnNn NBRP
KU–21–1 Ae. crassa Boiss. typica 6x DcMc, DcDcMc NBRP
KU–21–7 Ae. vavilovii (Zhuk.) Chennav. palaestina 6x DvMvSv NBRP
KU–23–3 Ae. juvenalis (Thell.) Eig typica 6x DjMjUj NBRP
KU–199–11 T. urartu Thum. Ex. Gandil. nigrum 2x Au NBRP
KT001–001 T. boeoticum Boiss. boeoticum 2x Ab NBRP
KT009-17 T. durum Desf. Langdon KU 4x AB NBRP
KU–491 T. dicoccum (Schrank) Schuebl. — 4x AB NBRP
KU–108–1 T. dicoccoides (Koern. Ex Aschers & Graebn.) Schweif kotschyanum 4x AB NBRP
KU–196–1 T. araraticum Jakubz. tumaniani 4x AG NBRP
KT020-003 T. aestivum L. Chinese Spring 6x ABD NBRP
KU-260 T. aestivum L. Norin 61 6x ABD NBRP
KT018–002 T. macha Dekapr. & Menabde palaeoimereticum 6x ABD NBRP
TACBOW0071 S. cereale Pektas 2x R NBRP
TACBOW0119 D. villosum — 2x V NBRP
TACBOW0116 H. vulgare Betzes 2x H NBRP
Open in a new tab

Names and genome symbols of Aegilops and Triticum species are as in Kilian et al.31, Bernhardt58, and Zhang et al.59. TACBOW: Tottori Alien Chromosome Bank of Wheat. NBRP: National BioResource Project-Wheat (https://shigen.nig.ac.jp/wheat/komugi/). Additional information on the distant relatives of wheat can be found in Hagras et al.60.

Genotyping-by-sequencing and data analysis

Purified DNA samples (1 μg for each sample) were sent to Diversity Arrays Technology Pty Ltd (http://www.diversityarrays.com/) for sequencing and marker identification. Sequences of the genomic representations were aligned to the wheat_ChineseSpring10 reference genome and wheat_ConsensusMap_version_4. This is because our analysis is based on DArTseq platform optimized for hexaploid wheat. DArTseq is a genotyping-by-sequencing system which utilizes Next-Generation-Sequencing platforms (HiSeq. 2500 in our case) to sequence the most informative representations of genomic DNA samples to aid marker discovery. In comparison to the array version of DArT, DArTseq results in higher marker densities56. The high marker number generated by this system gives it an edge over previous molecular marker procedures applied for genomic analysis of Triticeae species14–17. It, therefore, serves as a cheap alternative to genome analysis by whole genome sequencing, where the sequence information of genomes intended to be analyzed are not available. Two types of data are generated by DArTseq: SNP and SilicoDArT. SNP markers are nucleotide polymorphisms present in the restriction fragments, while SilicoDArT markers represent PAV of the restriction fragments. Therefore, codominant SNP markers are scored “0” (reference allele homozygote), “1” (SNP allele homozygote) and “2” (heterozygote: presence of both reference and SNP alleles), while dominant SilicoDArT markers are scored in a binary fashion, with “1” representing presence of the restriction fragment with the marker sequence and “0” designating its absence.

Frequently called SNP markers (>0.9 call rate) were used for phylogenetic tree constructions and differentiation of the genomes of polyploid species of Aegilops, whereas SilicoDArT markers (>0.7 call rate) were used for the determination of putative progenitors of the polyploid Aegilops and Triticum species. This reduction in call rate was made to accommodate more markers, ensure wider genomic coverage and reduce bias. To estimate the phylogenetic relationships among the 11 diploid and 12 polyploid Aegilops species, the raw genotypic data of the two sets (diploid and polyploid) were subjected to cluster analysis. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used as similarity index, and the genetic distances among the species were estimated by transforming the r values to distance values, using d = 100(1 – r) (http://genomes.urv.cat/UPGMA/)57. Species-specific SilicoDArT markers of the polyploid species of Aegilops were used to differentiate their genomes, while species-specific SilicoDArT markers of diploid species of Aegilops were used to estimate the diploid-polyploid evolutionary relationships among all the Aegilops species. Diploid Triticum and Aegilops species whose total SilicoDArT markers showed at least 10% homoeology to the total SilicoDArT markers in any of the three genomes of hexaploid wheat were selected as analyzers to determine the putative progenitors of the corresponding genomes of each polyploid Triticum species. Species-specific SilicoDArT markers of these selected diploid species were used as analyzers to determine the putative progenitors of each polyploid Triticum species. In determining the progenitors of all the polyploid species (Aegilops and Triticum), the proportions of the species-specific markers of the diploid analyzers retained in the genomes of the polyploid species were used as a basis to draw conclusions on genomic proximity and evolutionary relationships among the species. Species-specific markers of Ae. speltoides and Ae. searsii were further used to examine the relationship between the seven B/G-genome chromosomes of each of the polyploid Triticum species and those of the two diploid species. The two diploid species were chosen based on the close proximity of their genomes to the B/G genomes of the polyploid species.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplemental information (25.9MB, pdf)

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Marginal Region Agriculture Project of Tottori University, Japan (No. 29D2001) for funding this study. We thank Dr. Miyuki Nitta of NBRP-Wheat, and Laboratory of Plant Genetics, Kyoto University, Japan for her excellent technical assistance.

Author Contributions

All the authors conceived and designed the study. S.N. grew all the Aegilops and 7 Triticum species and isolated DNA, OUE managed and extracted DNA samples from Hordeum vulgare, Secale cereale, Elymus ciliaris and the two cultivars of T. aestivum, genotyped and analyzed all the genomes using markers generated by Diversity Arrays Technology Pty Ltd, and interpreted the data. H.T. supervised the study. All the authors wrote different parts of the manuscript, and jointly read and approved the final version.

Availability of Materials and Data

The data on which are conclusions are based are included within the article and supplementary files and plant materials can be sourced from KOMUGI database maintained by the National BioResource Project – Wheat, Japan (https://shigen.nig.ac.jp/wheat/komugi/).

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1038/s41598-018-34811-y.

References

  • 1.Badaeva ED. Evaluation of phylogenetic relationships between five polyploid Aegilops L. species of the U-genome cluster by means of chromosomal analysis. Genetika. 2002;38:799–811. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Badaeva ED, et al. Genome differentiation in Aegilops. 4. Evolution of the U-genome cluster. Plant Syst Evol. 2004;246:45–76. doi: 10.1007/s00606-003-0072-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Badaeva ED, et al. Genetic classification of Aegilops columnaris Zhuk. (2n = 4x = 28, U(c)U(c)X(c)X(c)) chromosomes based on FISH analysis and substitution patterns in common wheat×Ae. columnaris introgressive lines. Genome. 2018;61:131–143. doi: 10.1139/gen-2017-0186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Friebe B, Badaeva ED, Kammer K, Gill BS. Standard karyotypes of Aegilops uniaristata, Ae-mutica, Ae-comosa subspecies comosa and heldreichii (Poaceae) Plant Syst Evol. 1996;202:199–210. doi: 10.1007/Bf00983382. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Molnár-Láng, M., Ceoloni, C. & Dolezel, J. Alien introgression in wheat: cytogenetics, molecular biology, and genomics. 385 (Springer, Switzerland, 2015).
  • 6.Zhang, R. Q. et al. Development of V chromosome alterations and physical mapping of molecular markers specific to Dasypyrum villosum. Mol Breeding37, 10.1007/s11032-017-0671-3 (2017).
  • 7.Riar AK, Kaur S, Dhaliwal HS, Singh K, Chhuneja P. Introgression of a leaf rust resistance gene from Aegilops caudata to bread wheat. J Genet. 2012;91:155–161. doi: 10.1007/s12041-012-0161-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ali N, et al. Introgression of chromosome segments from multiple alien species in wheat breeding lines with wheat streak mosaic virus resistance. Heredity (Edinb) 2016;117:114–123. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2016.36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Baum B, Estes J, Gupta P. Assessment of the genomic system of classification in Triticeae. Am J Bot. 1987;74:1388–1395. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1987.tb08753.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Farooq S, Iqbal N, Shah TM. Promotion of homoeologous chromosome-pairing in hybrids of Triticum-aestivum×Aegilops-variabilis. Genome. 1990;33:825–828. doi: 10.1139/g90-124. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Seberg O, Petersen G. A critical review of concepts and methods used in classical genome analysis. Bot Rev. 1998;64:372–417. doi: 10.1007/BF02857624. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Molnar I, et al. Flow sorting of C-genome chromosomes from wild relatives of wheat Aegilops markgrafii, Ae. triuncialis and Ae. cylindrica, and their molecular organization. Ann Bot. 2015;116:189–200. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcv073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Coriton O, et al. Assignment of Aegilops variabilis Eig chromosomes and translocations carrying resistance to nematodes in wheat. Genome. 2009;52:338–346. doi: 10.1139/G09-011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang S, et al. Phylogenetic analysis of C, M, N, and U genomes and their relationships with Triticum and other related genomes as revealed by LMW-GS genes at Glu-3 loci. Genome. 2011;54:273–284. doi: 10.1139/g10-119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Goryunova SV, Chikida NN, Kochieva EZ. RAPD analysis of the intraspecific and interspecific variation and phylogenetic relationships of Aegilops L. species with the U genome. Genetika. 2010;46:945–959. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Goryunova SV, Kochieva EZ, Chikida NN, Pukhal’skii VA. Phylogenetic relationships and intraspecific variation of D-genome Aegilops L. as revealed by RAPD analysis. Genetika. 2004;40:642–651. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mizuno N, Yamasaki M, Matsuoka Y, Kawahara T, Takumi S. Population structure of wild wheat D-genome progenitor Aegilops tauschii Coss.: implications for intraspecific lineage diversification and evolution of common wheat. Mol Ecol. 2010;19:999–1013. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04537.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Seberg O, Petersen G. Phylogeny of Triticeae (Poaceae) based on three organelle genes, two single-copy nuclear genes, and morphology. Aliso: A J Syst Evol Bot. 2007;23:362–371. doi: 10.5642/aliso.20072301.29. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dvorak, J. Genome analysis in the Triticum-Aegilops alliance. In: Proc 9th Intl Wheat Genet Symp. (ed A. E. Slinkard) 8–11 (University Extension Press: University of Saskatchewan, 1998).
  • 20.Resta P, Zhang HB, Dubcovsky J, Dvorak J. The origins of the genomes of Triticum biunciale, T.-ovatum, T.-neglectum, T.-columnare, and T.-rectum (Poaceae) based on variation in repeated nucleotide sequences. American Journal of Botany. 1996;83:1556–1565. doi: 10.2307/2445829. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Badaeva ED, Friebe B, Zoshchuk SA, Zelenin AV, Gill BS. Molecular cytogenetic analysis of tetraploid and hexaploid Aegilops crassa. Chromosome Res. 1998;6:629–637. doi: 10.1023/A:1009257527391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Feldman, M. & Levy, A. Origin and evolution of wheat and related Triticeae species. In: Alien introgression in wheat: cytogenetics, molecular biology, and genomics (eds M. Molnár-Láng, C Ceoloni, & J. Doležel) 21–76(Springer, 2015).
  • 23.Dorofeev, V., Filatenko, A. & Migushova, E. Wheat. In: Flora of cultivated plantsVol. 1(eds VF. Dorofeev & ON. Korovina) (1979).
  • 24.Migushova EF, Konarev AV. Genetic heterogenity of wild Triticum dicoccoides fromIraq. J Agricult. Sc. 1975;9:18–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Golovnina KA, Kondratenko EY, Blinov AG, Goncharov NP. Phylogeny of the A genomes of wild and cultivated wheat species. Russ J Genet. 2009;45:1360–1367. doi: 10.1134/S1022795409110106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gornicki P, et al. The chloroplast view of the evolution of polyploid wheat. New Phytol. 2014;204:704–714. doi: 10.1111/nph.12931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chantret N, et al. Molecular basis of evolutionary events that shaped the hardness locus in diploid and polyploid wheat species (Triticum and Aegilops) . Plant Cell. 2005;17:1033–1045. doi: 10.1105/tpc.104.029181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kilian B, et al. Independent wheat B and G genome origins in outcrossing Aegilops progenitor haplotypes. Mol Biol Evol. 2007;24:217–227. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Giorgi D, D’Ovidio R, Tanzarella OA, Ceoloni C, Porceddu E. Isolation and characterization of S genome specific sequences from Aegilops sect. sitopsis species. Genome. 2003;46:478–489. doi: 10.1139/G02-022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.van Slageren, M. Wild wheats: a monograph of Aegilops L. and Amblyopyrum (Jaub.&Spach) Eig., 512 (Wageningen Agric. Univ. and ICARDA, 1994).
  • 31.Kilian, B. et al. Aegilops. In: Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources - Cereals (ed C Kole) 1–76 (Springer, 2011).
  • 32.Goryunova SV, Chikida NN, Kochieva EZ. Molecular analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among the diploid Aegilops species of the section Sitopsis. Russ J Genet. 2008;44:115–118. doi: 10.1134/S1022795408010146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Andrews KR, Good JM, Miller MR, Luikart G, Hohenlohe PA. Harnessing the power of RADseq for ecological and evolutionary genomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17:81–92. doi: 10.1038/nrg.2015.28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Davey JW, et al. Genome-wide genetic marker discovery and genotyping using next-generation sequencing. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12:499–510. doi: 10.1038/nrg3012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Melville Jane, Haines Margaret L., Boysen Katja, Hodkinson Luke, Kilian Andrzej, Smith Date Katie L., Potvin Dominique A., Parris Kirsten M. Identifying hybridization and admixture using SNPs: application of the DArTseq platform in phylogeographic research on vertebrates. Royal Society Open Science. 2017;4(7):161061. doi: 10.1098/rsos.161061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Feldman M, Levy AA. Genome evolution due to allopolyploidization in wheat. Genetics. 2012;192:763–774. doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.146316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cabi E, Dogan M, Ozler H, Akaydin G, Karagoz A. Taxonomy, morphology and palynology of Aegilops vavilovii (Zhuk.) Chennav. (Poaceae: Triticeae) Afr J Agr Res. 2010;5:2841–2849. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dvorak J, Zhang HB. Reconstruction of the Phylogeny of the Genus Triticum from variation in repeated nucleotide-sequences. Theor Appl Genet. 1992;84:419–429. doi: 10.1007/Bf00229502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Golovnina KA, et al. Molecular phylogeny of the genus Triticum L. Plant Syst Evol. 2007;264:195–216. doi: 10.1007/s00606-006-0478-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Goryunova SV, Chikida NN, Kochieva EZ. AFLP, RAPD, and ISSR analysis of intraspecific polymorphism and interspecific differences of allotetraploid species Aegilops kotschyi Boiss. and Aegilops variabilis Eig. Russ J Genet. 2017;53:568–575. doi: 10.1134/S1022795417050040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Anamthawat-Jonsson K. Molecular cytogenetics of Leymus: Mapping the Ns genome-specific repetitive sequences. J Syst Evol. 2014;52:716–721. doi: 10.1111/jse.12106. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ling HQ, et al. Draft genome of the wheat A-genome progenitor Triticum urartu. Nature. 2013;496:87–90. doi: 10.1038/nature11997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Daud HM, Gustafson JP. Molecular evidence for Triticum speltoides as a B-genome progenitor of wheat (Triticum aestivum) Genome. 1996;39:543–548. doi: 10.1139/g96-069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lelley T, Stachel M, Grausgruber H, Vollmann J. Analysis of relationships between Aegilops tauschii and the D genome of wheat utilizing microsatellites. Genome. 2000;43:661–668. doi: 10.1139/gen-43-4-661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Luo MC, et al. Genome sequence of the progenitor of the wheat D genome Aegilops tauschii. Nature. 2017;551:498. doi: 10.1038/nature24486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Odintsova TI, et al. Analysis of Triticum boeoticum and Triticum urartu seed defensins: To the problem of the origin of polyploid wheat genomes. Biochimie. 2008;90:939–946. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2008.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Miyashita NT, Mori N, Tsunewaki K. Molecular variation in chloroplast DNA regions in ancestral species of wheat. Genetics. 1994;137:883–889. doi: 10.1093/genetics/137.3.883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Tsunewaki, K., et al. Use of RFLP analysis for wheat gerplasm evaluation. In: Biodiversity and wheat improvement (ed A. B Damania) 17–31 (John Wiley & Sons, 1993).
  • 49.Giorgi B, Bozzini A. Karyotype Analysis in Triticum: IV. Analysis of (Ae. speltoides×T. boeoticum) amphiploid and a hypothesis on the evolution of tetraploid wheats. Caryologia. 1969;22:289–306. doi: 10.1080/00087114.1969.10796348. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Fricano A, et al. Crossability of Triticum urartu and Triticum monococcum wheats, homoeologous recombination, and description of a panel of interspecific introgression lines. G3-Genes Genom Genet. 2014;4:1931–1941. doi: 10.1534/g3.114.013623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kihara H. Genomanalyse bei Triticum and Aegilops. Cytologia. 1930;1:263–284. doi: 10.1508/cytologia.1.263. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Dewey, D. R. The genomic system of classification as a guide intergeneric hybridization with the perennial Triticeae. In: Gene manipulation in plant improvement (ed JP Gustafson) 209–279 (Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1984).
  • 53.Love A. Conspectus of the Triticeae. Feddes Repert. 1984;95:425–521. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Moore, G. Early stages of meiosis in wheat and the role of Ph1. In: Genetics and genomes of Triticeae (eds GJ Muehibauer & C Feuillet) 237–252 (Springer, 2009).
  • 55.Alix K, Gerard PR, Schwarzacher T, Heslop-Harrison JS. Polyploidy and interspecific hybridization: partners for adaptation, speciation and evolution in plants. Ann Bot. 2017;120:184–194. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcx079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kilian A, et al. Diversity arrays technology: a generic genome profiling technology on open platforms. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;888:67–89. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-870-2_5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Garcia-Vallve S, Palau J, Romeu A. Horizontal gene transfer in glycosyl hydrolases inferred from codon usage in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. Mol Biol Evol. 1999;16:1125–1134. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bernhardt, N. Taxonomic treatments of Triticeae and wheat genus Triticum. In: Alien introgression in wheat: cytigenetics, molecular biology, and genomics (ed M Molnár-Láng, Ceoloni, C, Doležel, J) 1–20 (Springer, Switzerland, 2015).
  • 59.Zhang, P. et al. Wheat-Aegilops introgressions. In Alien introgression in wheat: cytigenetics, molecular biology, and genomics (eds M. Molnár-Láng, C. Ceoloni, & J. Doležel) 221–244 (Springer, Switzerland, 2015).
  • 60.Hagras AAA, Kishii M, Sato K, Tanaka H, Tsujimoto H. Extended application of barley EST markers for the analysis of alien chromosomes added to wheat genetic background. Breeding Sci. 2005;55:335–341. doi: 10.1270/jsbbs.55.335. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental information (25.9MB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

The data on which are conclusions are based are included within the article and supplementary files and plant materials can be sourced from KOMUGI database maintained by the National BioResource Project – Wheat, Japan (https://shigen.nig.ac.jp/wheat/komugi/).

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES