Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Nov 23;15(11):e0242882. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242882

Development of a PCR-based, genetic marker resource for the tomato-like nightshade relative, Solanum lycopersicoides using whole genome sequence analysis

Puneet Kaur Mangat 1, Ritchel B Gannaban 1, Joshua J Singleton 1, Rosalyn B Angeles-Shim 1,*
Editor: David D Fang2
PMCID: PMC7682897  PMID: 33227039

Abstract

Solanum lycopersicoides is a wild nightshade relative of tomato with known resistance to a wide range of pests and pathogens, as well as tolerance to cold, drought and salt stress. To effectively utilize S. lycopersicoides as a genetic resource in breeding for tomato improvement, the underlying basis of observable traits in the species needs to be understood. Molecular markers are important tools that can unlock the genetic underpinnings of phenotypic variation in wild crop relatives. Unfortunately, DNA markers that are specific to S. lycopersicoides are limited in number, distribution and polymorphism rate. In this study, we developed a suite of S. lycopersicoides-specific SSR and indel markers by sequencing, building and analyzing a draft assembly of the wild nightshade genome. Mapping of a total of 1.45 Gb of S. lycopersicoides contigs against the tomato reference genome assembled a moderate number of contiguous reads into longer scaffolds. Interrogation of the obtained draft yielded SSR information for more than 55,000 loci in S. lycopersicoides for which more than 35,000 primers pairs were designed. Additionally, indel markers were developed based on sequence alignments between S. lycopersicoides and tomato. Synthesis and experimental validation of 345 primer sets resulted in the amplification of single and multilocus targets in S. lycopersicoides and polymorphic loci between S. lycopersicoides and tomato. Cross-species amplification of the 345 markers in tomato, eggplant, silverleaf nightshade and pepper resulted in varying degrees of transferability that ranged from 55 to 83%. The markers reported in this study significantly expands the genetic marker resource for S. lycopersicoides, as well as for related Solanum spp. for applications in genetics and breeding studies.

Introduction

Solanum lycopersicoides (2n = 2x = 24) from the Lycopersicoides section of the genus Solanum is a wild nightshade species that is distantly related to the cultivated tomato (S. lycopersicum) [1]. It is endemic to the west Andes by the Chile-Peru border and thrives at high altitudes of up to 3800 m above sea level [2]. The species has known adaptation to cold, drought and salt stress [35], as well as resistance to phytophagous pests (i.e. leafminers) [6] and pathogenic fungi (e.g. Botrytis cinerea and Phytophthora parasitica) [7,8], bacteria (e.g. Xanthomonas campestris, Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis and Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato) [6,9] and viruses (e.g. tomato mosaic virus, tomato yellow leaf curl virus and tomato crinivirus) that commonly afflict the cultivated tomato [1012].

Early efforts to introgress desirable traits from S. lycopersicoides to tomato have led to the successful generation of diploid F1 hybrids via embryo rescue following wide hybridization. Unfortunately, the resulting F1s are functionally male-sterile and unilaterally incompatible with tomato pollen and hence cannot be used directly for backcrossing [13]. Despite the initial challenges, introgression of S. lycopersicoides chromosomes in the genetic background of tomato was achieved through various strategies developed to overcome reproductive barriers associated with the interspecific crossing. These included the combined use of male-fertile amphidiploids from the interspecific F1 hybrids and bridging lines of S. pennellii to circumvent the issue of unilateral incompatibility [14], modification of bud pollination to systematically avoid or suppress crossability barriers [8], and synthesis of a partially male-fertile F1 hybrid by pollinating tomato with pollen pooled from several S. lycopersicoides plants [6]. Adoption of these techniques led to the successful generation of S. lycopersicoides-derived monosomic alien addition lines (MAALs) and chromosome segment substitution lines (CSSLs) [6,14,15]. MAALs are plants having the full chromosome complement of the cultivated species used as the recipient parent in an interspecific cross and an extra chromosome from the wild relative donor (2n + 1) [16]. CSSLs on the other hand, comprise a set of plants in the genetic background of an elite cultivar that represent the whole genome of the wild species in small, contiguous or overlapping chromosome segments [1719]. These pre-breeding materials are unique genetic resources that capture novel genetic variations from the wild nightshade species in the tomato background. To date, these lines have been extensively evaluated for a range of agronomic characteristics [7,20] but the limited availability of DNA-based markers that can unlock the genetic basis of the observed phenotypes has restricted their efficient utilization in actual breeding programs to improve tomato.

Marker systems that have been used to characterize pre-breeding materials derived from S. lycopersicoides include morphological, biochemical and molecular markers. The DNA markers are in the form of restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and simple sequence repeats (SSRs) that are based solely on the tomato genome [6,14,15,21]. More recently, PCR-based, cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence (CAPS) markers developed based on existing RFLPs have also been used to map chromosome introgressions from S. lycopersicoides in the tomato background [22]. Despite the availability of DNA markers to characterize pre-breeding stocks developed from S. lycopersicoides, the marker resource available for the species remains limited in number, genome coverage and polymorphism rate. In case of the RFLP and CAP markers, digestion reactions that add to the cost, time and labor necessary to complete the genotyping make them less ideal for genetics and breeding studies.

Advances in molecular biology and instrumentation have facilitated the development of next generation, technological platforms for the rapid sequencing and assembly of whole genomes of several species [23,24]. With the availability of sophisticated but user-friendly computational tools, interrogation of new genome assemblies for sequence variations such as SSRs, insertions/deletions (indels) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) that can be used as targets for molecular marker development has become mainstream [2527].

SSRs are tandemly arranged, repetitive sequences that make up a significant portion of eukaryote genomes [28], whereas indels are genomic insertions and deletions resulting from replication slippage, simple sequence replications, unequal crossovers, retrotransposon insertions and segmental duplications [2931]. Markers based on SSRs and indels are co-dominant, highly polymorphic and abundant in the genome. They are easily assayed by PCR and the amplicons directly resolved by agarose gel electrophoresis without any additional steps, making them more economical [3234]. The robustness and technical simplicity of these markers for routine genotyping make them the marker of choice for genetics and breeding applications in many laboratories.

In this study, we aim to expand the limited genetic marker resource for S. lycopersicoides by developing SSR and indel markers based on whole genome sequence analysis. The molecular markers generated in this study are expected to accelerate basic research on the discovery and functional validation of genes/quantitative trait loci (QTL) conditioning traits of agronomic value in S. lycopersicoides towards their utilization in breeding for trait improvement in tomato.

Materials and methods

Plant materials, DNA extraction and whole genome sequencing

Seeds of the wild nightshade species, S. lycopersicoides (Acc LA1964) were provided by the Tomato Genetics Resource Center of the University of California, Davis (http://tgrc.ucdavis.edu). Seeds were surface-sterilized with 1% hypochlorite solution, plated in petri dishes lined with moist, sterile paper towels and germinated at an ambient temperature of 25°C in the laboratory. The germinated seeds were transferred individually in 1-litre pots containing conventional potting media (composed of 45–50% composted pine bark, vermiculite, Canadian sphagnum, peat moss, perlite and dolomitic limestone) supplemented with slow-release NPK fertilizers and maintained in the greenhouse of the Horticultural Gardens of the Department of Plant and Soil Science (PSS) at Texas Tech University. Total genomic DNA was isolated from young leaves of S. lycopersicoides following a modified CTAB method [35]. The quality and quantity of purified genomic DNA were estimated using the NanoDrop™ One Microvolume UV-Vis Spectrophotometer (ThermoFisher, USA). Library preparation and whole genome sequencing using the Illumina HiSeq 3000 PE150 platform was outsourced to the Clinical Genomics Center of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation.

Whole genome analysis for repetitive sequence detection and primer design

Raw sequence data composed of 151-bp paired end reads were filtered using the Trimmomatic tool [36] to remove the Illumina adapter sequences and reads with poor quality. The trimmed reads were then assessed for quality using FastQC [37] before de novo assembling them into contigs using the short-read assembler, ABySS 2.0 [38]. Guided by the Build 3.0 of the reference genome for tomato (cv. Heinz), the contigs were used to generate longer scaffolds using the post-assembly genome improvement toolkit or PAGIT [39]. The quality of the newly built, draft assembly in comparison to the tomato reference genome was assessed using the quality assessment tool for genome assemblies or QUAST [40].

Genomic features in the draft assembly that can be used as basis for primer design were identified using various computational tools. Families of repetitive sequences were determined de novo based on existing Repbase libraries and collated into a species-specific database using RepeatModeler [41]. Repbase is maintained by the Genetic Information Resource Institute (GIRI) and is used as a reference for the annotation of eukaryotic repetitive DNA [42]. Repbase has libraries that are specifically available for the RepeatMasker software. The identified repeats were classified and annotated as retrotransposons, DNA transposons, small RNAs, satellites, simple repeats or low complexity DNA sequences using the RepeatMasker program [43]. Mining the assembly for SSRs was carried out using the GMATA software [44]. SNPs and indels were identified based on sequence alignment between the S. lycopersicoides assembly and the tomato reference genome using the NUCmer (nucleotide MUMmer) package of the MUMmer program [45]. All programs used in the study ran on default settings.

The Primer3 program integrated into the GMATA software was used to generate primers for the SSRs that were identified in the draft assembly. To design the indel markers, comparative sequence alignment between the draft S. lycopersicoides and reference tomato genomes was generated using the Burrows-Wheeler aligner (BWA) [46]. The output file was then converted into a binary file that can be viewed using the Integrative Genomics Viewer [47]. Primers targeting the indels were manually designed using open source software and following specifications for standard primer design (i.e. 40–60% GC content, 20–25 bp in length). The GC content of the primer sequences were validated using the EndMemo-DNA/RNA GC content calculator [48]. The reverse primers were generated by reverse complementing DNA sequences through http://arep.med.harvard.edu/labgc/adnan/projects/Utilities/revcomp.html [49].

All SSRs and indel primers were designed at an average chromosome interval of 2–2.6 Mb. The specificity of the designed primers was validated in silico by BLAST searches [50] against the available tomato sequences curated at the NCBI database. Synthesis of all SSR and indel primers was outsourced to Sigma, USA.

Target amplification and cross-species transferability of S. lycopersicoides DNA markers

The ability of the newly designed markers to amplify targets in S. lycopersicoides was validated following a standard PCR protocol [51]. Adjustments in annealing temperature from 53˚C to 55˚C were carried out to optimize target amplification in S. lycopersicoides. PCR amplicons were resolved in 3% agarose gel in 1X Tris-Borate-EDTA buffer [51].

Additionally, the transferability of the S. lycopersicoides-specific markers to two other S. lycopersicoides accessions (LA2951 and LA2387) and other Solanaceous plants including tomato (Acc LA3122), eggplant (S. melongena) cv. Black Beauty, pepper (Capsicum annuum) cv. California Wonder and silverleaf nightshade (S. elaeagnifolium) was also determined. Young leaves from tomato, eggplant and pepper were sampled from seedlings germinated in the greenhouse as previously described. Leaf tissues of silverleaf nightshade were randomly sampled from populations growing at the Horticultural Gardens of PSS. Total genomic DNA for PCR was extracted from the young leaves of each of the Solanaceous species following a modified CTAB method [35].

Results and discussion

Whole-genome assembly and sequence repeats analysis

Illumina sequencing generated a total of 15.8 Gb of raw data containing 88,457,926 paired end reads that are 151 bp long (SRA accession SRX9292807). After trimming the adapters and removal of the poor-quality reads, the calculated average genome coverage [52] based on the tomato reference genome was 25X. De novo assembly generated a total of 6,874,225 contigs spanning a total length of 1,452,602,585 bp (Table 1).

Table 1. General statistics obtained for S. lycopersicoides genome assembly using ABySS.

Descriptive statistics Value (bp)
Number of contigs 6,874,225
Total length 1,452,602,585
Largest contig size 46755
Number of contigs that are ≥500bp 394658
Reference lengtha 828,076,956
Total length of contigs aligned to the reference 589,717,391
N50b 2141

alength of the Build 3.0 of tomato cv. Heinz reference genome.

bN50 is the length for which the collection of all contigs of that length or longer covers at least 50% of the assembly.

Reference-guided assembly of the contigs into longer scaffolds mapped 589,717,391 bp (40.59%) of the S. lycopersicoides sequence data against the tomato genome. S. lycopersicoides and tomato are distant relatives that belong to different sections under the genus Solanum. The former belongs to the section Lycopersicoides which also includes one other species, S. sitiens, whereas the latter belongs to the section Lycopersicon which includes twelve other wild relatives [53]. Throughout the course of evolution, the genomes of these plants have been subjected to mutations, chromosomal rearrangements, transposon amplifications, gene duplications and extensive genome expansion/contraction. The genetic differentiation of each species that resulted from such genomic events may explain the moderate alignment of the S. lycopersicoides contigs against the tomato reference genome. This observation is consistent with the high proportion (17–25%) of paired sequence reads generated for S. arcanum, S. pennellii and S. habrochaites that also did not map against Build 2.40 of the tomato cv. Heinz reference genome, despite the three species belonging to the same section as tomato [54]. Given the 1.45 Gb total contig length obtained for S. lycopersicoides in this study, assembly of a draft that is guided by a genome of a closer relative other than tomato has the potential to generate a longer consensus sequence for the species. Alternatively, the draft assembly can be improved by refining, gap filling and expanding the initial assembly with long reads generated by third-generation sequencing technology such as the PacBio SMRT.

Interrogation of the draft assembly for repetitive sequences using the RepeatModeler in conjunction with the RepeatMasker detected a total of 712,011 repeats, covering 164,390,084 bp (18.83%) of the draft. The interspersed repeats consisted of short interspersed nuclear elements (0.06%), short interspersed nuclear elements (0.85%), long terminal repeats (6.63%), DNA elements (1.24%) and unclassified repeats (9.63%). The proliferation and deletion of transposable elements (TEs) are key determinants of genome size variation in eukaryotes [55]. The loss of TEs in tomato during domestication may be one of the primary reasons behind the genome size difference between S. lycopersicoides and tomato. RepeatMasker also classified the repeats into small RNAs (0.05%), satellites (0.01%), simple repeats (0.39%) and low complexity repeats (0.08%) (Fig 1). With the draft assembly capturing less than 50% of the S. lycopersicoides genome, analysis of an improved assembly is expected to increase the proportion of these repeats in the genome.

Fig 1. Circular view of the S. lycopersicoides genome assembly used for sequence variation mining.

Fig 1

The outermost to the innermost rings represent the 12 representative pseudomolecules, contigs (≥500 bp), transposable elements, SSRs, and indels and SNPs. Color keys for the transposable elements and SSRs indicate the density of the repeats. The more intense the color, the more repetitive sequences in the pseudomolecule position. The indel and SNP density was determined based on sequence alignments between S. lycopersicoides and tomato. All tracks show binned data with a window size of 1 Mb.

SSR mining identified 56,901 SSRs with motifs ranging from 2 to 9 bp (Table 2). SSRs with di-nucleotide motifs were the most abundant (74.05%), whereas those having penta-, hexa-, hepta-, octo- and nona-nucleotide repeats comprise only approximately 1.26% of the total SSRs identified in the assembly. Among the di-nucleotide motifs, AT and TA make up more than 50% of the total SSRs with 2-bp repeats (Fig 2A). In terms of length, 10-bp SSRs were the most predominant (37.9%), whereas those that are 34-bp long were the scarcest (0.5%) (Fig 2B).

Table 2. SSRs mined from assembled Solanum lycopersicoides genome using GMATA software.

Motif(-mer) a Total Percentage (%)
2 42,135 74.05
3 12,691 22.30
4 1,353 2.38
6 350 0.62
5 303 0.53
7 64 0.11
9 3 0.01
8 2 0.00

arange of motif length was chosen while running the software.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Distribution of the different (A) SSR motifs and (B) SSR lengths throughout the draft assembly of S. lycopersicoides based on GMATA data.

Primer design and target DNA amplification

The built-in Primer3 software in the GMATA tool was used to design primer pairs for 35,801 SSR loci with 34,198 unique markers (Table 3). To validate the ability of primer pairs to amplify targets in S. lycopersicoides, primers targeting 196 SSRs with di-nucleotide to hexa-nucleotide repeat motifs were selected (S1 Table). All primer pairs were 20–25 bp long and have an estimated amplicon size of 150–350 bp. Of the 196 SSRs, 182 successfully amplified targets in S. lycopersicoides Acc LA1964, with 148 annealing at 55°C and two at 53°C (Tables 4 and S2). Fifty-nine of the SSRs were multilocus, with 33 amplifying two bands and 26 amplifying more than two bands.

Table 3. Summary of primer pairs designed by Primer3 of GMATA based on the SSRs mined.

Total Percentage (%)
total no. of loci detected 56,901 -
no. of SSR loci with designed primer pairs 35,801 62.90
no. of SSR loci without designed primer pairs 21,100 37.00
no. of unique markers 34,198 -

Table 4. Target amplification and cross-species transferability of S. lycopersicoides-specific SSR and indel markers.

Plant species No. of markers tested No. of markers that amplified Transferability rate (%)
SSR indel SSR indels
S. lycopersicoides (Acc LA1964) 196 149 182 143 94.20
S. lycopersicoides (Acc LA2951) 196 149 123 114 68.69
S. lycopersicoides (Acc LA2387) 196 149 124 119 70.43
S. lycopersicum 196 149 148 138 82.90
S. melongena 196 149 111 90 58.26
S. elaeagnifolium 196 149 148 115 76.23
C. annum 196 149 105 83 54.49

In addition, 149 indel markers (Tables 4 and S1) were also manually designed based on the alignment between the S. lycopersicoides draft assembly and the available reference genome for tomato. Of the 149 primer pairs, 143 successfully amplified targets in S. lycopersicoides genome, with 127 annealing at 55°C and 16 annealing at 53°C (S2 Table). Ten primer pairs amplified two bands, whereas two amplified more than two bands, indicating multilocus targets for the designed primers.

In summary, a total of 345 markers composed of 196 SSRs and 149 indels that are distributed across the 12 draft pseudomolecules of S. lycopersicoides were designed at an average map interval of 2.6 bp (Fig 3). Of these, 326 (94.50%) amplified targets in S. lycopersicoides Acc 1964. A slightly lower transferability of the markers was observed for S. lycopersicoides accessions LA2951 (68.00%) and LA2387 (70.00%), although multilocus amplifications were also observed. Of the total number of indels and SSRs tested, 11 and 24% amplified multiple targets in LA2951, and 27 and 49% in LA2387, respectively.

Fig 3. Chromosome distribution of S. lycopersicoides-specific SSR and indel markers.

Fig 3

Map position of all the markers is based on their position in tomato chromosomes. Red markers are SSRs and blue markers are indels. Red triangle = centromere.

Previous studies on S. lycopersicoides have relied heavily on the use of RFLPs, SSRs and CAPS designed based on the tomato genome [15,21,56,57]. While these markers have been useful for genetic diversity studies and for monitoring wild chromosome introgressions, their distribution and number are not sufficient for mapping and cloning useful genes/QTLs in S. lycopersicoides. The newly designed markers in this study, 94% of which amplified their target loci, offers a much broader marker resource that can be used in genetics and breeding studies on S. lycopersicoides.

Cross-species transferability of S. lycopersicoides-specific markers

Cross-species amplification of all 345 S. lycopersicoides-specific markers in tomato, eggplant, silverleaf nightshade and pepper resulted in varying degrees of transferability ranging from 55% to 83% (Table 4 and Fig 4). In tomato, 148 SSRs and 138 indels amplified, with 20 markers showing multilocus targets. A total of 206 (59.71%) SSRs and indels amplified polymorphic targets between S. lycopersicoides and tomato, indicating the potential of these markers in mapping genes/QTLs in pre-breeding materials derived from crosses between the two species.

Fig 4. Cross-species amplification of S. lycopersicoides-specific markers in other members of Solanaceae.

Fig 4

One SSR and one indel marker for each chromosome were used to amplify targets in tomato, silverleaf nightshade, eggplant and pepper. SLM = SSR marker, SLYD = indel marker, 1 = S. lycopersicoides, 2 = tomato, 3 = silverleaf nightshade, 4 = eggplant, 5 = pepper, L = 100 bp-ladder.

After tomato, silverleaf nightshade recorded the most number of target loci for the markers followed by eggplant and pepper. Section Lycopersicoides to which S. lycopersicoides belongs is an immediate outgroup of the tomato clade [53], making S. lycopersicoides closest to tomato. In contrast, pepper, which belongs to a separate genus, is the most distant to S. lycopersicoides. The degree of the genetic relatedness of S. lycopersicoides to either species is consistent with the highest and lowest rate of marker cross-transferability recorded for tomato and pepper, respectively. In a similar manner, the phylogenetic relationship of S. lycopersicoides to eggplant and silverleaf nightshade reflects the observed rate of marker transferability to the latter two species. Silverleaf nightshade and eggplant belong to the subgenus Leptostemonum of the genus Solanum. Compared to tomato, silverleaf nightshade and eggplant are more distantly related to S. lycopersicoides [58] hence the lower rate of marker transferability in these two species compared to tomato. Comparative genomic studies in eggplant, potato, pepper and tomato indicate the highly conserved linkage order for markers despite the occurrence of major inversion events that drove the evolution of these related genomes [5961]. This further support the relatively high transferability of S. lycopersicoides markers in the closely related species.

The generally high rates of cross-species amplification of S. lycopersicoides markers indicate their potential use in genetics and breeding applications in related Solanaceous plants. In fact, a subset of 54 S. lycopersicoides-specific, indel markers have been successfully used to assess the genetic diversity in silverleaf nightshade populations from different localities in Texas, USA. Genetic profiling using the indels, along with other DNA markers from related species, established the genetic differentiation of silverleaf nightshade populations in response to variations in selection pressures that are unique to the ecological habitats selected in the study [62].

Conclusions

Tomato production amidst worsening agro-environments can be sustained by harnessing natural genetic variation from wild tomato relatives that can provide durable forms of adaptation to the crop against both biotic and abiotic stresses. S. lycopersicoides is a distant tomato relative with known adaptation to marginal environments. Exploiting the genetic potential of S. lycopersicoides for tomato breeding will require understanding of the genetic basis of the adaptability of this wild species.

We designed and validated a total of 345 SSR and indel markers that are specific to S. lycopersicoides using whole genome sequence analysis. These markers, together with the more than 30,000 SSRs that are available for validation significantly expands the genetic marker resource that can be used for QTL analysis, mapping and positional cloning of genes in S. lycopersicoides that can be utilized towards value-added trait improvements in tomato. The transferability of the S. lycopersicoides markers to tomato, eggplant, pepper and silverleaf nightshade indicate their applicability in similar genetics and breeding studies in these Solanaceous species.

Supporting information

S1 Table. S. lycopersicoides-specific DNA markers developed using whole genome sequence analysis.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Forward and reverse primer sequences of S. lycopersicoides-specific markers.

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images. Amplification of S. lycopersicoides-specific markers in other Solanaceous species.

One SSR and one indel marker for each chromosome were used to amplify targets in tomato, silverleaf nightshade, eggplant and pepper. SLM = SSR marker, SLYD = indel marker, 1 = S. lycopersicoides, 2 = tomato, 3 = silverleaf nightshade, 4 = eggplant, 5 = pepper, L = 100 bp-ladder. Lanes marked in X were not used to generate Fig 4.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Tomato Genetics Resource Center (TGRC) of the University of California, Davis for generously providing us with the seeds of tomato Acc LA3122, and S. lycopersicoides accessions LA1964, LA2951 and LA2387.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Bai Y, Lindhout P. Domestication and breeding of tomatoes: what have we gained and what can we gain in the future? Ann Bot. 2007. November; 100(5):1085–94. 10.1093/aob/mcm150 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rick CM. Tomato-like nightshades: affinities, autoecology, and breeders’ opportunities. Econ Bot. 1988. April; 42(2):145–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Li J, Liu L, Bai Y, Zhang P, Finkers R, Du Y, et al. Seedling salt tolerance in tomato. Euphytica. 2011; 178(3):403–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wolf S, Yakir D, Stevens MA, Rudich J. 1986. Cold temperature tolerance of wild tomato species. J Amer Soc Hort Sci. 1986; 111:960–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhang L, Li Z, Li J, Wang A. Ectopic overexpression of SsCBF1, a CRT/DRE-binding factor from the nightshade plant Solanum lycopersicoides, confers freezing and salt tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. PLoS One. 2013. June 3;8(6):e61810 10.1371/journal.pone.0061810 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chetelat RT, Cisneros P, Stamova L, Rick CM. A male-fertile Lycopersicon esculentum x Solanum lycopersicoides hybrid enables direct backcrossing to tomato at the diploid level. Euphytica. 1997; 95(1): 99–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Davis J, Yu D, Evans W, Gokirmak T, Chetelat RT, Stotz HU. Mapping of loci from Solanum lycopersicoides conferring resistance or susceptibility to Botrytis cinerea in tomato. Theor Appl Genet. 2009; 119(2):305–14. 10.1007/s00122-009-1039-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gradziel TM, Robinson RW. Solanum lycopersicoides gene introgression to tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum, through the systematic avoidance and suppression of breeding barriers. Sex Plant Reprod. 1989. March; 2:43–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mazo-Molina C, Mainiero S, Hind SR, Kraus CM, Vachev M, Maviane-Macia F, et al. The Ptr1 locus of Solanum lycopersicoides confers resistance to race 1 strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and to Ralstonia pseudosolanacearum by recognizing the type III effectors AvrRpt2 and RipBN. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2019. August;32(8), 949–60. 10.1094/MPMI-01-19-0018-R . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pérez de Castro A, Díez MJ, Nuez F. Evaluation of a subset of Solanum lycopersicoides introgression lines for resistance to Tomato yellow leaf curl disease. In: Proceedings of the XVII Eucarpia Meeting Group—Tomato. Málaga, Spain, 2011, p. 17.
  • 11.Zong YY, Liu L, Li T, Sayed-Rashid AS, Zhou LX, Sun YY, et al. Mapping of QTLs conferring the resistance to Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) in Solanum lycopersicoides. Acta Hortic Sin. 2012; 39(5):915–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Soler S, Belmonte I, Aramburu J, Galipienso L, López C, Sifres A, et al. Identificación de una fuente de tolerancia al ToMV en una colección de líneas de introgresión derivada de Solanum lycopersicoides LA2951. In: Proceedings of the XVI Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Fitopatología, Málaga, Spain, 2012, p. 221.
  • 13.Rick CM. Hybrids between Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. and Solanum lycopersicoides Dun. Proct Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1951. November;37(11):741–4. 10.1073/pnas.37.11.741 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chetelat RT, Rick CM, DeVerna JW. Isozyme analysis, chromosome pairing, and fertility of Lycopersicon esculentum × Solanum lycopersicoides diploid backcross hybrids. Genome. 1989; 32(5):783–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Canady MA, Meglic V, Chetelat RT, Belzile F. A library of Solanum lycopersicoides introgression lines in cultivated tomato. Genome. 2005. August; 48(4):685–97. 10.1139/g05-032 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brar DS, Khush GS. Alien introgression in rice. Plant Mol Biol. 1997; 35:35–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Shim RA, Ashikari M, Angeles ER, Takashi T. Development and evaluation of Oryza glaberrima Steud chromosome segment substitution lines in the background of O. sativa subsp. japonica cv. Koshihikari. Breeding Sci. 2010; 60:613–9. 10.1270/jsbbs.60.613 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Furuta T, Uehara K, Angeles-Shim RB, Shim J, Nagai K, Ashikari M, et al. Development of chromosome segment substitution lines (CSSLs) harboring O. nivara segments and evaluation of yield-related traits. Breeding Sci. 2016; 66(5):845–50. 10.1270/jsbbs.16131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Besho-Uehara K, Furuta T, Masuda K, Yamada S, Angeles-Shim RB, Ashikari M, et al. Construction of rice chromosome segment substitution lines harboring Oryza barthii genome and evaluation of yield-related traits. Breeding Sci. 2017; 67(4):408–415. 10.1270/jsbbs.17022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zhao L, Qiu C, Li J, Chai Y, Kai G, Li Z, et al. Investigation of disease resistance and cold tolerance of Solanum lycopersicoides for tomato improvement. HortSci. 2005; 40(1):43–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Albrecht E, Escobar M, Chetelat RT. Genetic diversity and population structure in the tomato-like nightshades Solanum lycopersicoides and S. sitiens. Ann Bot. 2010. April; 105(4):535–54. 10.1093/aob/mcq009 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Peiró R, Díez MJ, Pùrez de Castro A. A set of PCR-based markers for management of a library of Solanum lycopersicoides introgression lines. J Hortic Sci Biotech. 2015. November; 90(3):279–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tomato Genome Consortium. The tomato genome sequence provides insights into fleshy fruit evolution. Nature. 2012. May 30; 485(7400):635–41. 10.1038/nature11119 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Li F, Fan G, Lu C, Xiao G, Zou C, Kohel RJ, et al. Genome sequence of cultivated Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum TM-1) provides insights into genome evolution. Nat Biotechnol. 2015. May; 33(5):524–30. 10.1038/nbt.3208 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wu K, Yang M, Liu H, Tao Y, Mei J, Zhao Y. Genetic analysis and molecular characterization of Chinese sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) cultivars using insertion-deletion (InDel) and simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. BMC Genet. 2014. March 19;15:35 10.1186/1471-2156-15-35 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ollitrault F, Terol J, Martin AA, Pina JA, Navarro L, Talon M, et al. Development of indel markers from Citrus clementina (Rutaceae) BAC-end sequences and interspecific transferability in Citrus. Am J Bot. 2012. July;99(7);e268–73. 10.3732/ajb.1100569 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bus A., Hecht J., Huettel B., Reinhardt R., & Stich B. (2012). High-throughput polymorphism detection and genotyping in Brassica napus using next-generation RAD sequencing. BMC Genomics, 13(1), 281 10.1186/1471-2164-13-281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Temnykh S, DeClerck G, Lukashova A, Lipovich L, Cartinhour S, McCouch S (2001) Computational and experimental analysis of microsatellites in rice (Oryza sativa L.): frequency, length variation, transposon associations, and genetic marker potential. Genome Res. 2001 August; 11(8):1441–52. 10.1101/gr.184001 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mullaney JM, Mills RE, Pittard WS, Devine SE. Small insertions and deletions (INDELs) in human genomes. Hum Mol Genet. 2010. October 15; 19(R2):R131–6. 10.1093/hmg/ddq400 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Terakami S, Matsumura Y, Kurita K, Kanamori H, Katayose Y, Yamamoto T, et al. Complete sequence of the chloroplast genome from pear (Pyrus pyrifolia): genome structure and comparative analysis. Tree Genet Genomes. 2012. February; 8:841–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rockah-Shmuel L, Tóth-Petróczy Á, Sela A, Wurtzel O, Sorek R, Tawfik DS. Correlated occurrence and bypass of frame-shifting insertion-deletions (InDels) to give functional proteins. PLoS Genet. 2013. October; 9(10):e1003882 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003882 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wu K, Yang M, Liu H, Tao Y, Mei J, Zhao Y. Genetic analysis and molecular characterization of Chinese sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) cultivars using insertion-deletion (InDel) and simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. BMC Genet. 2014. March 19; 15:35 10.1186/1471-2156-15-35 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Angeles-Shim RB, Vinarao RB, Marathi B, Jena KK. Molecular analysis of Oryza latifolia Desv. (CCDD genome) derived introgression lines and identification of value-added traits for rice (O. sativa L.) improvement. J Hered. 2014. Sep-Oct;105(5):676–89. 10.1093/jhered/esu032 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Angeles-Shim RB, Shim J, Vinarao RB, Lapis RS, Singleton J. A novel locus from the wild allotetraploid rice, Oryza latiolia Desv. confers bacterial blight (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae) resistance in rice (O. sativa L.). PLoS One. 2020. February 21; 15(2):e0229155 10.1371/journal.pone.0229155 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Murray MG, Thompson WF. Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1980. October;8(19):4321–5. 10.1093/nar/8.19.4321 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014. August 1;30(15):2114–20. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Version 0.11.9 [software]. 2010 [cited 2020 Mar 28]. Available from: http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc.
  • 38.Simpson JT, Wong K, Jackman SD, Schein JE, Jones SJ, Birol I. ABySS: a parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Res. 2009. June;19(6):1117–23. 10.1101/gr.089532.108 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Swain MT, Tsai IJ, Assefa SA, Newbold C, Berriman M, Otto TD. A post-assembly genome-improvement toolkit (PAGIT) to obtain annotated genomes from contigs. Nat Protoc. 2012. June 7;7(7):1260–84. 10.1038/nprot.2012.068 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013. April 15;29(8):1072–5. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Smit AFA, Hubley R. RepeatModeler Open-1.0 [software]. 2008–2015 [cited 2020 Mar 28]. Available from: http://www.repeatmasker.org.
  • 42.www.girinst.org [Internet]. c2001-2020 [cited 2020 Nov 01]. RepeatMasker libraries; [about 3 screens]. Available from: https://www.girinst.org/downloads/.
  • 43.Smit, AFA, Hubley, R & Green, P. RepeatMasker Open-4.0 [software]. 2013–2015 [cited 2020 Mar 28]. Available from: http://www.repeatmasker.org.
  • 44.Wang X, Wang L. GMATA: An integrated software package for genome-scale SSR mining, marker development and viewing. Front Plant Sci. 2016. September 13;7:1350 10.3389/fpls.2016.01350 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kurtz S, Phillippy A, Delcher AL, Smoot M, Shumway M, Antonescu C, et al. Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol. 2004;5(2):R12 10.1186/gb-2004-5-2-r12 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM [software]. 2013 [cited 2020 Mar 28]. Available from https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3997.
  • 47.Robinson JT, Thorvaldsdóttir H, Winckler W, Guttman M, Lander ES, Getz G, et al. Integrative genomics viewer. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(1):24–26. 10.1038/nbt.1754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.www.endmemo.com [Internet]. c2020 [cited 2020 Nov 01]. GC%; [about 2 screen]. Available from: http://www.endmemo.com/bio/gc.php.
  • 49.Arep.med.harvard.edu [Internet]. c2020 [cited 2020 Nov 01]. Reverse and/or complement DNA sequences [about 5 screens]. Available from: http://arep.med.harvard.edu/labgc/adnan/projects/Utilities/revcomp.html.
  • 50.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990. October 5;215(3):403–10. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Shim J, Torollo G, Angeles-Shim RB, Cabunagan RC, Choi IR, Yeo US, et al. Rice tungro spherical virus resistance into photoperiod-insensitive japonica rice by marker-assisted selection. Breed Sci. 2015. September; 65(4):345–51. 10.1270/jsbbs.65.345 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lander ES, Waterman MS. Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: a mathematical analysis. Genomics. 1988. April; 2(3):231–9. 10.1016/0888-7543(88)90007-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Peralta IE, Spooner DM, Knapp S. Taxonomy of wild tomatoes and their relatives (Solanum sect. Lycopersicoides, sect. Juglandifolia, sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Syst Botany Monogr. 2008; 84:186. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Aflitos S, Schijlen E, de Jong H, de Ridder D, Smit S, Finkers R, et al. Exploring genetic variation in the tomato (Solanum section Lycopersicon) clade by whole‐genome sequencing. Plant J. 2014. October; 80(1):136–48. 10.1111/tpj.12616 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Feschotte C, Pritham EJ. DNA transposons and the evolution of eukaryotic genomes. Annu Rev Genet. 2007; 41:331–68. 10.1146/annurev.genet.40.110405.090448 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pertuzé RA, Ji Y, Chetelat RT. Comparative linkage map of the Solanum lycopersicoides and S. sitiens genomes and their differentiation from tomato. Genome. 2002. December; 45(6):1003–12. 10.1139/g02-066 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Canady MA, Ji Y, Chetelat RT. Homeologous recombination in Solanum lycopersicoides introgression lines of cultivated tomato. Genetics. 2006. December; 174(4):1775–88. 10.1534/genetics.106.065144 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Stern S, Agra M, Bohs L. Molecular delimitation of clades within New World species of the "spiny solanums" (Solanum subg. Leptostemonum). Taxon. 2011. October; 60(5):1429–41. 10.1002/tax.605018 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Doganlar S, Frary A, Daunay MC, Lester RN, Tanksley SD. A comparative genetic linkage map of eggplant (Solanum melongena) and its implications for genome evolution in the Solanaceae. Genetics. 2002. August; 161(4):1697–711. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Tanksley SD, Ganal MW, Prince JP, de Vicente MC, Bonierbale MW, Broun P, et al. High density molecular linkage maps of the tomato and potato genomes. Genetics. 1992. December; 132(4):1141–60. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Livingstone KD, Lackney VK, Blauth JR, van Wijk R, Jahn MK. Genome mapping in capsicum and the evolution of genome structure in the solanaceae. Genetics. 1999. July; 152(3):1183–202. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Singleton JJ, Mangat PK, Shim J., Vavra C, Coldren C, ngeles-Shim RB. Cross-species transferability of Solanum spp. DNA markers and their application in assessing genetic variation in silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) populations from Texas, USA. Weed Sci. 2020:1–25. 10.1017/wsc.2020.25 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

David D Fang

18 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-20252

Development of PCR-based, genetic marker resource for the tomato-like nightshade relative, Solanum lycopersicoides using whole genome sequence analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Angeles-Shim,

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

The key point is to deposit your sequences and any related information into a public database so that readers can use them later. In your revised manuscript, the accession # of your deposits should be listed. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 02 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

David D Fang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The main interest of the ms is the data obtained to help to tomato breeders. But most of the generated data are not available; such as raw sequences, assembled draft sequences, marker complete sequences. All these sequences have to be deposited on public repositories, NCBI or as supplemental data.

The authors show only the localization and primer sequences of the 345 markers tested; but not of the all identified markers.

An author has been already published 54 markers of 345 in other ms.

The authors identify SSR and indels, but a SNP calling with standard software will be very useful to identify indels and SNPs between tomato ans S. lycopersicoides.

Also test some SSR markers and indels in several accesions of S. lycopersicoides could allow to researchers to identify really polymorphic markers in this species.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript entitled ‘Development of PCR-based, genetic marker resource for the tomato-like nightshade relative, Solanum lycopersicoides using whole genome sequence analysis’, the authors presented whole genome sequencing for a Solanum lycopersicoides accession and identified a large number of SSRs and indels in comparison to other tomato reference genomes. The primer sets were produced and evaluated their PCR amplification and polymorphism between Solano lycopersicoides and tomato. In addition cross-species transferability of these Solanum lycopersicoides-specific markers was assessed using Solanaceeous plants. The manuscript was well written and methods for genome sequencing and marker development were clearly described. I think this manuscriot is acceptable for publication in this journal. The SSR and indel marker information provided in this paper will be useful for genetic mapping and other related studies. Some of my stand points for revision is as following:

In line 85, ‘cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence (CAPS) marker’ is more common name

In Table 4, please describe the polymorphism rate between S. lycopersicoides and other species

Please, provide a figure showing gel image of marker transferability.

Please, provide gene annotation information for each markers

Finally, conclusion is lengthy and overlaps with the introduction for some parts. Please, make it concise by focusing on the results and its importance.

Reviewer #3: This work provides a nice resource for those interesting in studying characteristics of lycopersicoides. Additional comments:

Line 60: Also resistance to Pseudomonas, cite appropriate paper

Line 112: Why did you choose this accession?

Line 119: Did you pool plants or choose a single individual for sequencing? A pooled sample could partially explain the poor assembly

Line 132: S. lycopersicoides has some structural variation relative to Heinz, so you probably missed this by using Heinz as a scaffolding reference.

Line 135: Which “existing libraries” did you use for repeat detection?

Line 143: I don’t understand what is going on here. You already generated an alignment using mummer, so why generate it again with BWA? I would think the mapping rate would be lower here too, but I don’t see that result.

Line 146: What “open source” software did you use?

You should check that your primers are specific in lycopersicoides by sequence analysis. This may have reduced the number of multilocus amplifications you got with your PCRs.

Options for all programs used should be included in the methods. It would be very hard to repeat this work based on the details given.

Line 171: Your sequencing coverage is pretty low for de novo assembly

Line 178: You might have been able to adjust your mapping parameters to get better alignment, but since you don’t give these parameters it is hard to know.

Line 190: There is a PacBio assembly of LA2951 already (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.039636v1.full)

Line 194: In closely related species, a lot more of the genome is annotated as repetitive. Why do you think your estimate is so low?

Line 201: I don’t understand why you say the assembly only captures less that 50% of the lycopersicoides genome. Your assembly length is actually a bit longer than the expected genome size. Are you basing this off of the % that mapped to Heinz? You should do Kmer analysis to see what the expected size is.

Line 231: Why would you do this manually? You have the mummer alignment and can generate a pipeline to do this.

Line 253: I’m curious why you did not use bioinformatics approaches to find the primers in these other species first. This approach would have given you a more refined list for PCR testing.

Figure1 is very low resolution in my copy

Figure 3: the label for chromosome 4 has shifted to a different line

Do the markers work in other lycopersicoides accessions? You could check LA2951 which is a more finished assembly.

How did you use BWA to align Lyd to Heinz? Lind 144

How did you handle multiply mapped contigs or regions of the Heinz genome that had many contigs aligning?

The reads should be submitted to SRA and the markers to solgenomics.net

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Nov 23;15(11):e0242882. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242882.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 Nov 2020

Response to Reviewers’ comments

Reviewer #1

Comment 1: The main interest of the ms is the data obtained to help to tomato breeders. But most of the generated data are not available; such as raw sequences, assembled draft sequences, marker complete sequences. All these sequences have to be deposited on public repositories, NCBI or as supplemental data.

Answer 1: Sequence information and physical location relative to the tomato genome of the 345 markers reported in this study is provided in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2. The raw sequences have been submitted to the SRA database of NCBI and assigned the accession number SRX9292807¬¬¬¬¬¬¬.

Comment 2: The authors show only the localization and primer sequences of the 345 markers tested; but not of the all identified markers.

Answer 2: The Primer3 tool of GMATA software generated more than 35,000 primer pairs for the identified SSR loci. For the purpose of this study, we only selected 196 SSRs in addition to 149 indels markers that are distributed at an average interval of 2.6 bp for validation.

Comment 3: An author has been already published 54 markers of 345 in other ms.

Answer 3: Yes, a subset of 54 indel markers designed in this study have been used in the genetic diversity analysis of silverleaf nightshade from localities in Texas and this has been cited in the text as [62] (Line 371). Full information for the citation is provided in the references as “Singleton JJ, Mangat PK, Shim, J., Vavra C, Coldren C, Angeles-Shim RB. Cross-species transferability of Solanum spp. DNA markers and their application in assessing genetic variation in silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) populations from Texas, USA. Weed Sci. 2020:1-25. doi:10.1017/wsc.2020.25”. The detailed description of how this marker subset was designed and tested for its ability to amplify targets in S. lycopersicoides and other related Solanaceous species are reported for the first time here.

Comment 4: The authors identify SSR and indels, but a SNP calling with standard software will be very useful to identify indels and SNPs between tomato and S. lycopersicoides.

Answer 4: SNPs and indels were also identified based on sequence alignment between the S. lycopersicoides assembly and the tomato reference genome using the MUMmer program (Line 145-147). A summary of the distribution of the SNPs is presented in Fig. 1.

Comment 5: Also test some SSR markers and indels in several accessions of S. lycopersicoides could allow to researchers to identify really polymorphic markers in this species.

Answer 5: As suggested, the applicability of the 345 SSR and indel markers in other accessions of S. lycopersicoides was tested. Due to the poor viability of S. lycopersicoides Acc LA4131 and given the time constraints, the markers were tested on two other accessions only (i.e. LA2951 and LA2387). Results of the ability of the markers to amplify targets in other S. lycopersicoides accessions are presented in Table 4 and lines 168-169 and 256-259.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript entitled ‘Development of PCR-based, genetic marker resource for the tomato-like nightshade relative, Solanum lycopersicoides using whole genome sequence analysis’, the authors presented whole genome sequencing for a Solanum lycopersicoides accession and identified a large number of SSRs and indels in comparison to other tomato reference genomes. The primer sets were produced and evaluated their PCR amplification and polymorphism between Solanum lycopersicoides and tomato. In addition cross-species transferability of these Solanum lycopersicoides-specific markers was assessed using Solanaceous plants. The manuscript was well written and methods for genome sequencing and marker development were clearly described. I think this manuscript is acceptable for publication in this journal. The SSR and indel marker information provided in this paper will be useful for genetic mapping and other related studies. Some of my stand points for revision is as following:

Comment 1: In line 85, ‘cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence (CAPS) marker’ is more common name.

Answer 1: Recommended change has been made (Line 86).

Comment 2: In Table 4, please describe the polymorphism rate between S. lycopersicoides and other species.

Answer 2: The overall polymorphism rate of the markers between S. lycopersicoides and tomato is 59.71% (Line 287-289). Because the premise of this study is to allow the more efficient utilization of wild Solanum relatives in breeding for tomato, we purposely screened marker polymorphism between the two and but not between S. lycopersicoides and the other Solanaceous crops. Screening for transferability of the markers to other Solanaceous crop was a peripheral activity to aid other researchers/scientists needing more markers in their respective studies.

Comment 3: Please, provide a figure showing gel image of marker transferability.

Answer 3: Gel image showing marker transferability has been added (Figure 4).

Comment 4: Please, provide gene annotation information for each markers.

Answer 4: The chromosome location and map position of the markers relative to the tomato genome are provided in S1 Table along with other information such as repeat motif, expected amplicon and annealing temperature (S2 Table). Given the origin of SSRs from retrotransposon/transposable elements, the likelihood that the SSRs identified in the study are located in genic regions is low. Nevertheless, the marker information supplied with the manuscript can be used to validate if the SSR are within genic regions or not. This however, is beyond the scope of the study.

Comment 5: Conclusion is lengthy and overlaps with the introduction for some parts. Please, make it concise by focusing on the results and its importance.

Answer 5: The conclusion was revised as suggested.

Reviewer #3: This work provides a nice resource for those interesting in studying characteristics of lycopersicoides. Additional comments:

Comment 1: Line 60: Also resistance to Pseudomonas, cite appropriate paper

Answer 1: The suggested reference has been added as [9] (Line 61). Full information for the citation is provided in the references as “Mazo-Molina C, Mainiero S, Hind SR, Kraus CM, Vachev M, Maviane-Macia F, et al. The Ptr1 locus of Solanum lycopersicoides confers resistance to race 1 strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and to Ralstonia pseudosolanacearum by recognizing the type III effectors AvrRpt2 and RipBN. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2019 Aug;32(8), 949-60. pmid:30785360”.

Comment 2: Line 112: Why did you choose this accession?

Answer 2: This study is part of a bigger project that focuses on the phenotypic and genotypic characterization of introgression lines derived from monosomic alien additional lines of S. lycopersicoides Acc. LA1964 in the background of cultivated tomato. Tomato markers have very low transferability to S. lycopersicoides LA1964 and we needed to develop a core set of S. lycopersicoides-specific markers that we can use to genotype the introgression lines.

Comment 3: Line 119: Did you pool plants or choose a single individual for sequencing? A pooled sample could partially explain the poor assembly

Answer 3: Only a single plant was sampled for genome sequencing. The assembly was reference-guided and we used the tomato genome as a reference. The genetic distance between the two species may also partially explain the low assembly.

Comment 4: Line 132: S. lycopersicoides has some structural variation relative to Heinz, so you probably missed this by using Heinz as a scaffolding reference.

Answer 4: Given the genetic distance between tomato and S. lycopersicoides, this is very likely as evident from the moderate number of contigs that we were able to map into scaffolds (Line 138). We discussed this in Lines 189-199.

Comment 5: Line 135: Which “existing libraries” did you use for repeat detection?

Answer 5: Repbase libraries were used for repeat detection [42]. A description of this library is provided in Lines 140-142.

Comment 6: Line 143: I don’t understand what is going on here. You already generated an alignment using mummer, so why generate it again with BWA? I would think the mapping rate would be lower here too, but I don’t see that result.

Answer 6: BWA alignment was generated initially between the tomato reference genome and S. lycopersicoides ABySS contigs to view the alignment in IGV. This was done to manually develop indel markers that we need for a bigger project mentioned in the response to Comment 2. The MUMmer alignment was performed later on using the draft assemblies.

Comment 7: Line 146: What “open source” software did you use?

Answer 7: EndMemo-DNA/RNA GC content calculator was used to check the GC content of the primer sequence [48]. To generate reverse primer, DNA sequence was reverse complemented using http://arep.med.harvard.edu/labgc/adnan/projects/Utilities/revcomp.html [49]. (Line 153-156)

Comment 8: You should check that your primers are specific in lycopersicoides by sequence analysis. This may have reduced the number of multilocus amplifications you got with your PCRs.

Answer 8: As it is, we only validated the specificity of all primer pairs in silico by blast searches against

available tomato sequences curated at the NCBI database (Lines 157-159).

Comment 9: Options for all programs used should be included in the methods. It would be very hard to repeat this work based on the details given.

Answer 9: Default settings were used for all the programs. (Line 147)

Comment 10: Line 171: Your sequencing coverage is pretty low for de novo assembly

Answer 10: For this study, we only requested for single lane sequencing. Multiple lane sequencing might

have helped us increase the coverage.

Comment 11: Line 178: You might have been able to adjust your mapping parameters to get better alignment, but since you don’t give these parameters it is hard to know.

Answer 11: Default settings were used to run the alignment. (Line 147)

Comment 12: Line 190: There is a PacBio assembly of LA2951 already (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.039636v1.full)

Answer 12: The assembly of LA2951 is available but there are existing provisions for the use of the assembly until the study is published (https://solgenomics.net/organism/Solanum_lycopersicoides/genome). As mentioned in response to Comment 2, this study is part of a bigger research that focuses on characterization of introgression lines derived from another S. lycopersicoides accession (LA1964) and we started working on that project way before the PacBio assembly of LA2951 was released.

Comment 13: Line 194: In closely related species, a lot more of the genome is annotated as repetitive. Why do you think your estimate is so low?

Answer 13: We used a reference-guided assembly based on the tomato genome. Because of the genetic distance between tomato and S. lycopersicoides, only a moderate number of contigs assembled into longer scaffolds that made up the draft. Analysis of the repetitive region was based on that draft which explains the lower estimate we got (Line 211-213).

Comment 14: Line 201: I don’t understand why you say the assembly only captures less that 50% of the lycopersicoides genome. Your assembly length is actually a bit longer than the expected genome size. Are you basing this off of the % that mapped to Heinz? You should do Kmer analysis to see what the expected size is.

Answer 14: The de novo assembly does have a longer length but the final assembly that was used for all the structural analysis was scaffolded based on the tomato reference genome and not all contigs from the de novo assembly was used in the final assembly.

Comment 15: Line 231: Why would you do this manually? You have the mummer alignment and can generate a pipeline to do this.

Answer 15: The indel markers were designed based on BWA alignment even before we decided to analyze the S. lycopersicoides genome to generate markers that we need for a bigger project (see answers to Comment 2). The MUMmer alignment was performed at a later stage.

Comment 16: Line 253: I’m curious why you did not use bioinformatics approaches to find the primers in these other species first. This approach would have given you a more refined list for PCR testing.

Answer 16: This study is a part of a bigger project and the markers were basically designed specifically for S. lycopersicoides and tomato polymorphism. The transferability in other species was tested later on.

Comment 17: Figure1 is very low resolution in my copy

Answer 17: Please download the figure file from the link on the upper-right corner of the page containing the figure. The figures that come with the pdf generated from the submission is always blurred.

Comment 18: Figure 3: the label for chromosome 4 has shifted to a different line

Answer 18: The label for chromosome 4 in Figure 3 has been adjusted.

Comment 19: Do the markers work in other lycopersicoides accessions? You could check LA2951 which is a more finished assembly.

Answer 19: The markers have been tested in two other accessions of S. lycopersicoides, LA2951 and LA2387 (Table 4).

Comment 20: How did you use BWA to align Lyd to Heinz? Line 144

Answer 20: Tomato cv. Heinz was used as a reference genome and the ABySS contigs were aligned to the tomato reference using BWA.

Comment 21: How did you handle multiply mapped contigs or regions of the Heinz genome that had many contigs aligning?

Answer 21: PAGIT software was able to manage the multiple contigs mapped to generate a single consensus sequence.

Comment 22: The reads should be submitted to SRA and the markers to solgenomics.net

Answer 22: The raw reads have been submitted to SRA and assigned the accession number SRX9292807. Marker information including sequences, chromosome location, map position in the chromosome, annealing temperature, and motif are made available in the S1 and S2 Tables.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Comments.docx

Decision Letter 1

David D Fang

11 Nov 2020

Development of a PCR-based, genetic marker resource for the tomato-like nightshade relative, Solanum lycopersicoides using whole genome sequence analysis

PONE-D-20-20252R1

Dear Dr. Angeles-Shim,

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

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

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

David D Fang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

David D Fang

13 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-20252R1

Development of a PCR-based, genetic marker resource for the tomato-like nightshade relative, Solanum lycopersicoides using whole genome sequence analysis

Dear Dr. Angeles-Shim:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. David D Fang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. S. lycopersicoides-specific DNA markers developed using whole genome sequence analysis.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Forward and reverse primer sequences of S. lycopersicoides-specific markers.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images. Amplification of S. lycopersicoides-specific markers in other Solanaceous species.

    One SSR and one indel marker for each chromosome were used to amplify targets in tomato, silverleaf nightshade, eggplant and pepper. SLM = SSR marker, SLYD = indel marker, 1 = S. lycopersicoides, 2 = tomato, 3 = silverleaf nightshade, 4 = eggplant, 5 = pepper, L = 100 bp-ladder. Lanes marked in X were not used to generate Fig 4.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES