Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Plants logoLink to Plants
. 2022 Dec 20;12(1):13. doi: 10.3390/plants12010013

Genetic Diversity, Population Structure and Subset Development in a Sesbania sesban Collection

Alemayehu Teressa Negawo 1, Habib Olumide Akinmade 1,2, Meki S Muktar 1, Ermias Habte 1, Yilikal Assefa 1, Alice Muchugi 1, Alieu M Sartie 1,3, Chris S Jones 1,4,*
Editors: Agustín A Grimoldi, Carla E Di Bella
PMCID: PMC9823922  PMID: 36616142

Abstract

Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr. is a multipurpose legume tree grown primarily for fodder and forage in the tropical and subtropical world. In this study, the Sesbania sesban collection maintained in the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) forage Genebank was studied using genome-wide markers generated on the DArTseq platform. Genotyping produced 84,673 and 60,626 SNP and SilicoDArT markers with a mean polymorphic information content of 0.153 and 0.123, respectively. From the generated markers, 7587 and 15,031 highly informative SNP and SilicoDArT markers, respectively, were filtered and used for genetic diversity analysis and subset development. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) revealed higher variability ‘within’ (52.73% for SNP markers and 67.36% for SilicoDArT markers) than ‘between’ accessions. Hierarchical cluster analysis showed the presence of four main clusters in the collection. Mantel correlation analysis showed a lack of relationship between genetic variation of the germplasm and their geographical origin. A representative subset of 34 accessions containing germplasm from diverse origins and agro-ecologies was developed using SNP markers. The genetic diversity information generated in this study could be used for marker-assisted screening for stress tolerance, gap analysis and identification and acquisition of new distinct genotype(s) to broaden the genetic basis of the collection for future improvement programs to develop high-yielding, stress-tolerant varieties for enhancing food and environmental security in crop–livestock-based production systems.

Keywords: DArTSeq, genetic diversity, Sesbania sesban, subset

1. Introduction

Sustainable livestock production requires the year-round availability of feed resources. Among the feed resources, forage crops play a key role in helping to ensure that livestock receive a balanced diet in the smallholder mixed farming systems of the tropics and subtropics. Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr. is a fast-growing short-lived perennial forage tree in the Leguminosae family [1]. It is native to Africa and Asia [2] and is widely distributed throughout the tropical regions [1,2,3]. It is a diploid species with a basic chromosome number of x = 6 [2,4,5] and is a primarily outcrossing species [2] with 40–100% reported outcrossing levels due to its floral structure and pollen-shedding behaviour [6].

Sesbania sesban is a multipurpose legume tree primarily cultivated for forage in tropical and subtropical regions of the world [2,3,7], can produce up to 20 t DM/ha/year under favourable growing conditions, and is a cheap and good source of protein-rich forage for livestock [1,2]. It is also used as an intercrop to provide shade in coffee, tea and cocoa farms, and its leaves can be used as soap and medicine, while young stems can be used to make fibre [3]. The leaves, flowers and seeds can be eaten by people [1]. It can be grown along borders to provide a windbreak, fences and firewood for smallholder farmers [2,3]. It comprises important agronomic features that include the ability to withstand waterlogging and tolerance of moisture stress, soil acidity, alkalinity and salinity [2,3]. Its roots form symbiotic associations with Rhizobium soil bacteria and fix atmospheric nitrogen that improves soil fertility [8] and increases the availability of organic nitrogen to the neighbouring crops, thus playing an important role in improving productivity [2]. The plants provide green manure and mulch of high-nutrient content, together with nitrogen from the nodules that it contributes to soil fertility management, as well as weed control [2,8]. In general, given its multipurpose values, Sesbania sesban is one of the most commonly used tree species in agroforestry systems [8].

Research and development on the improvement of multipurpose forages like Sesbania sesban is crucial, especially in the context of smallholder farmers in the tropical and subtropical regions where feed resources are limited in terms of quality, quantity and year-round availability, and the multiple use of a single resource is highly valued. Developing adaptable and stress-tolerant crop varieties through improvement programmes and promoting the wider adoption and use of such crops requires an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the diversity of the crop species. The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) forage genebank holds germplasm of Sesbania sesban collected from different countries from around the world. However, except for limited characterisation studies, the collection has not been extensively evaluated for genetic diversity and agronomic performance under different agro-ecologies to select and develop improved lines. Low-density markers, including randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers, have been used to study the genetic relationship between Sesbania sesban accessions [5,9]. Variation in yield performance and insect resistance of accessions from the collection have also been reported [10,11]. More recently, although not yet used for diversity analysis, next-generation sequence-based expressed sequence tag-simple sequence repeat (EST-SSR) markers have been developed by transcriptome sequencing [12]. Like many other forage crops, genomic studies and the application of modern molecular tools such as next-generation sequence-based development of high throughput markers and discovery of genomic regions of interest are lacking in Sesbania sesban. Hence, in the current study, we generated a large number of genome-wide molecular markers (SNP and SilicoDArT (presence/absence)) based on next-generation sequencing and studied the genetic diversity of the Sesbania sesban collection held in the ILRI forage genebank. The markers were generated on DArTSep platform that combines restriction digestion genome complexity reduction and next-generation sequencing, as described elsewhere [13]. We also used the generated markers to develop a representative subset containing 20% of the collection.

2. Results

2.1. Informativeness and Diversity of the DArTseq Markers

Genotyping data of 84,673 and 60,626 SNP and SilicoDArT markers, respectively, were generated for 171 Sesbania sesban accessions. The missing data percentage ranged from zero to 65% and zero to 26% for SNP and SilicoDArT markers, respectively (Figure 1a,b). The PIC value of the markers ranged from 0.0 to 0.5 (Figure 1c,d) with an average of 0.153 and 0.123 for SNP and SilicoDArT markers, respectively. In general, the genotyping generated enough informative markers (PIC ≥ 0.2, missing data percentage ≤ 20%) to select for downstream genetic diversity and population structure analysis.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Number of DArTSeq markers by missing data (%) and PIC values for SNP (a,c) and SilicoDArT markers (b,d), respectively. The dotted blue vertical line indicated the threshold value for filtered markers.

The sequence length of the markers ranged from 26 to 69 bases with a mean value of 66 bases for both marker types. Over 85.73% of the SNP and 81.11% of the SilicoDArT markers had a fragment length of 69 bases. The types of variation (transitions versus transversions) were also analysed for the SNP markers (Figure 2). Approximately 55.4% of the variation was due to transition polymorphisms while 44.6% of the variation was due to transversions. The proportions of variation due to the different transitions were 15.51% C/T, 14.27% G/A, 13.51% T/C and 13.73% A/G. Similarly, the contribution of the different transversions ranged from 4.29% for C/G to 7.08% for A/T.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Proportion of SNP markers by transition and transversion polymorphisms.

2.2. Mapping and Genome-Wide Distribution of the DArTSeq Markers

Sequence fragments of 17.99% and 9.04% of the generated SNP and SilicoDArT markers, respectively, were mapped to the transcriptome sequence of Sesbania sesban [12]. In an effort to select markers with known genome position for downstream analyses, the reference genomes of Medicago truncatula [14], Lotus japonicus [15] and Pisum sativum [16] were selected on the basis of their phylogenetic relationship with Sesbania sesban and used to map the generated markers (Table 1, Supplementary Figure S1). However, only a small proportion of the generated markers mapped on the reference genomes. Among the reference genomes, the largest number of markers (4.39%) mapped on Lotus japonicus while the smallest number of markers (1.43%) mapped on Medicago truncatula.

Table 1.

Number of markers mapped onto reference genomes.

Reference Genomes Number and Percentage of Markers Mapped
SNP (N = 84,673) SilicoDArT (N = 60,626)
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Sesbania sesban * 15,234 17.99 5483 9.04
Lotus japonicus 3724 4.39 1144 1.89
Pisum sativum 3344 3.95 1319 2.17
Medicago truncatula 2790 3.29 864 1.43
Open in a new tab

* Transcriptome sequence.

The genome-wide marker density plot showed that the highest number of markers per chromosome mapped on Lotus japonicus, with the number of markers per chromosome ranging from 520 to 782 for SNP and 141 to 257 for SilicoDArT markers. This was followed by Pisum sativum, with the greatest number of markers per chromosome, ranging from 378 to 559 for SNP and 119 to 257 for SilicoDArT markers. For Medicago truncatula, the number of markers per chromosome ranged from 121 to 550 for SNP and 42 to 173 for SilicoDArT markers. The highest and lowest number of markers per chromosome were mapped on chromosome 1 of Lotus japonicus and chromosome 6 of Medicago truncatula, respectively (see Supplementary Figure S1).

2.3. Between and Within Accession Genetic Diversity

Table 2 shows the AMOVA result for genetic diversity between and within accessions. The result showed a significant (p value = 0.01) contribution of the between accessions’ variation to the total diversity in the collection. However, the within accessions’ variation contributed a larger proportion of the total diversity. The accessions’ pairwise Fst value, using SNP markers, ranged from −0.006 to 0.854 with an average of 0.344 (Figure 3, Supplementary Figure S2).

Table 2.

AMOVA result showing the contribution of ‘between’ and ‘within’ accessions diversity to the total diversity in the collection.

Marker Type Source of Variation Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Sum of Squares Sigma Variation (%) Phi p-Value
SNP * Between accessions 167 1,143,711 6848.57 469.73 47.27 0.473 0.001
Within accessions 2098 1,099,140 523.90 523.90 52.73
Total 2265 2,242,851 990.22 993.63
SilicoDArT ** Between accessions 167 3,669,694 21,974.22 1415.08 32.64
Within accessions 2098 6,128,065 2920.91 2920.91 67.36 0.326 0.001
Total 2265 9,797,759 4325.72 4335.99 100.00
Open in a new tab

* 7587 SNP markers; ** 15,031 SilicoDArT markers.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Accessions’ pairwise Fst value.

2.4. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure Detected in the Collection

To analyse the genetic relationship between the accessions, genetic distances were calculated based on the Euclidean method and used for hierarchical clustering. The mantel correlation analysis showed a positive correlation between the genetic distances calculated from SNP and SilicoDArT markers (r = 0.6375, p-value = 0.0001). Figure 4 shows the hierarchical clustering of the collection. Using both the SNP and SilicoDArT markers, the collection was assembled into four main groups, with further subgrouping into smaller groups. The hierarchical clusters generated from the SNP and SilicoDArT markers had a cophenetic correlation coefficient of 90.83%. Figure 5 shows the cluster plots of the accessions showing the four main groups. The result of the DAPC showing cluster membership of individual sample in the four clusters is shown in Figure 6. For the SNP markers, the first and second dimensions of the cluster plot explained 16.5% of the total genetic variation. Similarly, structure analysis was used to analyse the presence of subpopulations in the collection. Accordingly, the highest peak for delta K was observed at K = 3, indicating the presence of three subpopulations in the collection (Figure 7).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Hierarchical clustering of Sesbania sesban accessions by (a) SNP and (b) SilicoDArT markers.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Cluster plots showing the four main clusters using (a) SNP and (b) SilicoDArT markers.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC) of the Sesbania sesban collection. Discriminant analysis by (a) SNP and (b) SilicoDArT markers. The cluster membership of individual sample inferred from discriminant analysis by (c) SNP and (d) SilicoDArT markers.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Population structure analysis of the Sesbania sesban collection: (a) the delta K showing the highest peak at K = 3 suggesting the presence of three subpopulations and (b) a bar plot based on the admixture model in STRUCTURE for K = 3.

Table 3 shows the AMOVA result for clusters and subpopulations inferred based on hierarchical clustering and structure analysis, respectively. The results show that the largest proportion (64.28% and 73.39% using SNP and SilicoDArT markers, respectively) of the total variation was contributed by the within cluster variation. The contribution of between clusters’ variation to the total genetic variation was 35.72% and 26.61% using SNP and SilicoDArT markers, respectively.

Table 3.

AMOVA result for clusters inferred by hierarchical clustering.

Method Marker Source of Variation Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Sum of Squares Sigma Variation
(%)		 Phi p-Value
Hierarchical clustering SNP Between clusters 3 658,336.00 219,445.32 389.16 35.72 0.357 0.001
Within clusters 2262 1,584,176.00 700.34 700.34 64.28
Total 2265 2,242,512.00 990.071 1089.50 100.00
Structure analysis SNP Between clusters 3 17,241.71 5747.24 10.47 1.05 0.011 0.001
Within clusters 2262 2,225,608.85 983.91 983.91 98.95
Total 2265 2,242,850.56 990.22 994.38 100.00
Hierarchical clustering SilicoDArT Between clusters 3 1,988,965.00 662,988.26 1251.49 26.61 0.266 0.001
Within clusters 2262 7,808,795.00 3452.16 3452.16 73.39
Total 2265 9,797,759.00 4325.72 4703.65 100.00
Open in a new tab

Passport data shows that 161 accessions in the collection were obtained from 25 countries. Of these, coordinate (latitude and longitude) information is available for 136 accessions. The coordinate information was converted to geographical distances using the distm() function of the R package geosphere [17] and was then used for Mantel correlation analysis to assess the relationship between the geographical and genetic distances. The results showed non-significant correlation between the geographical and genetic distances (r = 0.097, p-value = 0.055 for SNP and r= 0.06158, p-value= 0.123 for SilicoDArT markers). We also conducted analysis of molecular variance for the population according to their geographical origin and assessed how the genetic differentiation is related to the geographical origin of the accessions. The results revealed the within population diversity contributed a large proportion of the total diversity (Table 4). Despite a small proportion, the variation between populations collected from different countries of origin was significant, indicating the uniqueness of the accessions from the different countries. Population pairwise Fst value ranged from −0.007 to 0.782 with a mean of 0.126 using SNP markers (Figure 8, Supplementary Figure S3).

Table 4.

AMOVA result for the populations according to the accessions’ countries of origin.

Marker Source of Variation Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Sum of Squares Sigma Variation
(%)		 Phi p-Value
SNP Between populations 25 501,209.8 20,048.39 256.36 24.80 0.248 0.001
Within populations 2240 1,741,640.8 777.52 777.52 75.20
Total 2265 2,242,850.6 990.22 1033.88 100.00
SilicoDArT Between populations 25 1,506,995.0 60,279.82 752.66 16.90 0.169 0.001
Within populations 2240 8,290,764.0 3701.23 3701.23 83.10
Total 2265 9,797,759.0 4325.72 4453.90 100.00
Open in a new tab

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Population pairwise Fst value.

2.5. Subset Development

The filtered informative SNP markers were used to develop a representative subset containing 20% of the collection. Within accession identity by descent (IBD) was calculated using the R package SNPRelate [18], and samples with a kinship of ≥0.30 were retained for subset development. Then, a representative sample per accession was selected and used for subset establishment. The developed subset contained 34 accessions collected from diverse geographical origins (Table 5), including: 12 accessions from Tanzania; six from Ethiopia; three from Kenya; five from Malawi; one each from Central African Republic, Namibia, Uganda, India, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mexico; and one accession of unknown origin. AMOVA was used to assess the representativeness of the subset, and the result revealed the about 96∓99% of the genetic variation was captured by the developed subset (Table 6).

Table 5.

List of accessions with DOI identifiers and origin contained in the subset, developed using SNP markers.

DOI Accession Code Country of Origin Latitude Longitude Elevation
10.18730/G7QE= 920 Tanzania −1.3821 34.2823
10.18730/FQPKF 1180 Tanzania −6.3483 36.4813 900
10.18730/FQT5J 1191 Tanzania −8.8413 34.1676 1050
10.18730/FQTV3 1193 Tanzania −8.8324 33.8688 1060
10.18730/FQVGR 1195 Tanzania −9.1166 32.9237 1550
10.18730/FR21B 1215 Tanzania −4.9191 29.6036 780
10.18730/FR3V* 1221 Tanzania −4.0411 30.5473 1120
10.18730/FR8EZ 1237 Tanzania −2.641 30.994 1280
10.18730/FRAY0 1246 Tanzania −2.6575 32.6592 1100
10.18730/FRFYC 1262 Tanzania −3.787 35.862 920
10.18730/FRQDX 1286 Tanzania −4.65 38.0833 400
10.18730/FRRDR 1289 Tanzania −4.9333 38.3 385
10.18730/FYRK* 2000 Ethiopia 8.35 39.33 1750
10.18730/FZBC4 2055 Ethiopia 10.9833 36.4333 1700
10.18730/FZC2T 2057 Ethiopia 11 36.4 1740
10.18730/G7HPU 8740 Ethiopia 6.4167 37.2 1120
10.18730/FPJQE 10521 Ethiopia 6.8333 37.7667 1925
10.18730/FPNT2 10639 Ethiopia 7.75 36.5667 1640
10.18730/FRXRA 13144 Kenya 0.5833 34.5667 1450
10.18730/FTAXC 15020 Kenya
10.18730/FTAYD 15021 Uganda
10.18730/FTC6G 15077 India
10.18730/FTMJS 15364 Kenya −0.7333 36.4333 1890
10.18730/FVJY= 16514 Central African Republic 8.4833 21.2167 600
10.18730/FVPB~ 16626 Namibia −17.2167 12.4167 250
10.18730/FWB6$ 17313 Unknown
10.18730/FWBKA 17326 Zambia −15.75 26.05 1120
10.18730/FWCH3 17356 Malawi −14.6167 35.3167 472
10.18730/FWCSB 17364 Malawi −14.0167 33.35 1150
10.18730/FWCTC 17365 Malawi −13.6667 34.5833 415
10.18730/FWCVD 17366 Malawi −13.15 34.3333 474
10.18730/FWCYG 17369 Malawi −10.4833 34.2 480
10.18730/G2N6Q 23701 Zimbabwe −17.827 31.0514 1484
10.18730/G2P5H 23733 Mexico 27.75 −110.5 50
Open in a new tab

Table 6.

AMOVA result between the subset and the rest of the germplasm.

Marker Source of Variation Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Sum of Squares Sigma Variation (%) Phi p-Value
SNP Between groups 1 3087.77 3087.77 38.29 3.65 0.036 0.0001
Within groups 166 167,794.35 1010.81 1010.81 96.35
Total 167 170,882.13 1023.25 1049.10 100.00
SilicoDArT Between groups 1 7198.437 7198.44 50.08 1.11 0.011 0.0083
Within groups 166 744,008.13 4481.98 4481.98 98.89
Total 167 751,206.56 4498.24 4532.06 100.00
Open in a new tab

3. Discussion

3.1. Genotyping and Informativeness of DArTSeq Markers

Genomic tools such as next-generation sequencing and bioinformatics packages have advanced the genetic studies of many orphan crops, and their application in tropical forage crops has increased in recent years. However, so far Sesbania sesban has not been studied using genome-wide high-throughput markers generated by next-generation sequencing. In this study, we investigated the genetic diversity in a Sesbania sesban collection held in the ILRI forage genebank using the genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach of the DArTSeq platform [13]. A large number of SNP and SilicoDArT markers were generated, and highly informative SNP and SilicoDArT markers were selected and used for diversity analysis and the development of a representative subset containing 20% of the collection.

3.2. Mapping Sesbania sesban DArTSeq markers onto the Reference Genomes of Closely Related Legume Species

In an effort to understand the distribution and select markers of known positions in the genome for downstream analyses, we explored the literature on the sequence information of legume species and reference genomes that were available in the public domain for a few legumes. We used the closely related legume reference genomes to map the Sesbania sesban markers generated in this study. We also used the Sesbania sesban transcriptome sequences available in the public domain [12]. Approximately 18% of the markers (SNP) mapped onto the transcriptome. However, the transcriptome sequences were at the scaffold level, making it difficult to select genome-wide representative markers for further analysis. Taxonomically, Sesbania sesban belongs to the clade Hologalegina in the subfamily Papilionoideae of the leguminosae family [19,20]. The publicly available genomes of the legumes with a similar basic chromosome number to Sesbania sesban such as Medicago truncatula, Lotus japonicus and Pisum sativum were selected to align the markers. However, only a small proportion of the generated markers (3.29–4.39% for SNPs and 1.43–2.17% for SilicoDArT) were able to be mapped onto the reference genomes.

The poor mapping of markers onto the reference genomes of the closely related species presented a challenge to select genome-wide representative markers for the genetic studies. Similar challenges have been observed in other forage species where the reference genomes of closely related species were used [21,22,23]. In the future, we believe that the development of a reference genome for this widely grown multipurpose forage crop will strengthen the genomic tools available to support the management and improvement of germplasm, to enhance its contribution to sustainable livestock production and to support environmental management.

3.3. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure in the Collection

The diversity in the collection was partitioned into ‘between’ and ‘within’ accessions, and the result revealed that a large proportion of the total variation was contributed by the ‘within’ accessions diversity. Similarly, the within clusters’ and subpopulations’ variation also contributed a larger proportion of the total variation in the collection. This is in line with the expectation for cross-pollinated species. A similar result was reported in rye (Secale cereale L.), a cross-pollinated cereal grown in the temperate zone [24]. Variation between accessions was also significant (Phi = 0.473, p-value = 0.001 for SNP and Phi = 0.326 p-value = 0.001 for SilicoDArT). This is also supported by a high pairwise Fst value (mean = 0.344) demonstrating the existence of genetic differentiation between the accessions. Sesbania sesban is a largely cross-pollinated species [2], and this reproduction mode contributes to the diversity enrichment through recombination and segregation of alleles attributing to new genotypes in the population or new allele combinations in the genome. Besides the reproduction mode, during the exploration it could be possible that seeds were collected from multiple plants to constitute an accession, leading to the higher within accession variation (Jean Hanson, former forage genebank manager, personal communication). Moreover, the possibility of mixtures cannot be ruled out in the process of regeneration in the field due to cross-pollination that contributes to the within accession variation.

The genetic diversity analysis revealed the presence of four main clusters in the collection, with significant genetic variation between the clusters. This shows the rich genetic variation in the collection. The analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) showed a significant difference between the identified clusters, with up to 35.72% variation between the clusters. In the case of subpopulations identified using Structure analysis, within subpopulations’ variation contributed almost all the total diversity (98.95%) in the collection, indicating the major contribution of between accessions’ variation to the total diversity in the collection, with limited stratification into subpopulation. The rich diversity and the clusters observed could be attributed to the outcrossing nature of the crop and the possible admixture of seeds during exploration. The rich genetic variation reported here is in line with the presence of considerable variation in soluble phenolic and insoluble proanthocyanin compounds in the Sesbania sesban collection, described elsewhere [2]. Together with morphological and chemical traits, the diversity in the species collection could be exploited for the development of cultivars through hzybrization with closely related species with better feed quality for livestock production and through developing improved high-yielding varieties with better tolerance to stresses such as saline, soil acidity and aluminum toxicity. Thus, the molecular information could be used to tag the different species in the potential hybrids and to select genotypes for improvement programs. The collection contained germplasm from different geographical origins; however, no statistically significant correlation was observed between the geographical and genetic distances. This shows the lack of genetic differentiation by geographical origin in the Sesbania sesban collection. An earlier study using low-density markers also showed the lack of direct relationship between genetic similarity/dissimilarity and geographic location (distance) for 11 Sesbania sesban populations [9]. The diversity analysis also revealed a large proportion of the total variation contributed by the within populations’ (by origin) variation compared to the between populations’ variation. The current result suggests the existence of variation within populations from each geographic origin and the need to systematically target the niche variation within the populations of different geographical origins.

3.4. Subset Development

We established a representative subset containing 20% of the Sesbania sesban collection maintained in the ILRI genebank, using the generated markers. After calculating identity-by-descent, a representative sample per accession (with pairwise kinship value ≥0.30) was selected, and a subset containing 34 accessions was identified. Over 96–98% of the total variation was contributed by within groups’ variation, indicating the representativeness of the identified subset.

The subset contained germplasm from a range of African countries, representing germplasm from low, medium and high-altitude areas, indicating its wide climatic representation. We believe the inclusiveness of germplasm from different ranges of altitudes in the subset complements the diversity niche, representing the diverse agro-ecologies occupied by the species.

3.5. Gap Analysis and Identification of Niche Diversity to Broaden the Genetic Basis of the Collection

The observed large within accessions’ and populations’ contribution to the total diversity could have implications for broadening the genetic basis of the collection; essentially, whether to collect germplasm from new geographical areas and/or to focus on crossing genotypes within the current existing collection in the genebank(s). From a conservation and management perspective, maintaining a small-sized collection, e.g., a representative subset in terms of diversity, would be more feasible as maintaining a large collection is more expensive in terms of time, space and resources. The representative subset should contain germplasm from diverse agro-ecologies and genetic backgrounds globally. However, the observed significant genetic variation among populations of different geographical origins suggests the need for gap analysis and identification of unique genotypes from the agro-ecologies where the crop is native and/or already naturalised. This is also evidenced from the geographical representation of the collection as most of the germplasm came from a few countries in Africa. Sesbania sesban is native to many countries in Africa and Asia [2]. Two-thirds of the ILRI collection is represented by germplasm from four African countries (Tanzania = 66 accessions, Ethiopia = 26 accessions, Malawi = 12 accessions and Kenya = 10 accessions). In addition, eleven of the 25 countries of origin are represented by one accession each. This indicates the gap in the geographical representation of the collection and the need for a strategic approach to acquire niche diversity to broaden the genetic basis to ensure the global representativeness of the collection conserved in the genebank. Hence, the results from this study could be used to guide a gap analysis towards identification of uncaptured niche diversity in the germplasm of Sesbania sesban.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Materials

One hundred and seventy-one accessions of Sesbania sesban, collected from different parts of the world, were used in this study (Figure 9, Supplementary Table S1). Seeds were germinated on moist germination paper in an incubator set at 25 °C. The germinated seedlings were transferred to pots filled with a sterilized (at 180 °C for 24 h) medium containing sand, manure, and forest soil in the ratio of 1:2:3 and grown in a greenhouse until big enough for the collection of leaf samples.

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Sesbania sesban accessions studied by their country of origin.

4.2. DNA Extraction and Genotyping

Leaf samples were collected from multiple individual plants per accession and freeze-dried (Model: Labocon lfd-101). Freeze-dried leaf samples were ground to a fine powder using a TissueLyser II (Cat. No./ID: 85300), and DNA was extracted from the powdered leaf samples using a DNeasy Plant Mini kit (Cat No./ID:69106) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The DNA quantity and quality were checked using a DeNovix spectrophotometer (mode: DS-11+). DNA samples were diluted to a concentration of 50–100 ng/µL, and 30 µL of the diluted samples were aliquoted into fully skirted 96-well plates. Finally, the samples were packed and shipped to SEQART Africa (previously known as Integrated Genotyping Service and Support, IGSS) in Kenya for genotyping.

Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) was performed on the DArTSeq platform, and DArTSeq markers were generated as described elsewhere [13]. The generated markers were aligned with reference genomes of Medicago truncatula [14], Lotus japonicus [15] and Pisum sativum [16]. The transcriptome sequence of Sesbania sesban [12] was also used to map the generated markers. Genome-wide distribution of the generated markers was visualised using the R package Synbreed [25].

4.3. Data Analysis

The genotyping data were analysed using different R statistical software packages (https://www.r-project.org/, accessed on 16 January 2019). The percentage of missing data, allele frequency and polymorphic information content (PIC) were calculated using a locally written script in R. The PIC values were calculated using the formula PIC = 1 − ∑Xi2, where Xi is the frequency of ith allele of the marker [26]. Marker fragment lengths were summarised using the R package stringr [27]. Markers were filtered for missing data percentage (≤20%) and informativeness (PIC ≥ 0.2).

Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) was used to partition the total genetic variation into ‘between’ and ‘within’ accessions using the R package poppr [28]. Accessions’ pairwise Fst based on two methods [29,30] was calculated using the snpgdsFst() function of the R package SNPRelate [18]. Linkage disequilibrium-based pruning of the SNP markers was carried out using the snpgdsLDpruning() function of the R package SNPRelate using the default settings, except for LD threshold (0.5). The snpgdsIBDMLE() function of R package SNPRelate was then used to calculate the identity-by-descent based on the pruned set of SNP markers using the maximum likelihood method. All individuals with a kinship value ≥ 0.3 were retained for diversity analysis. To study the genetic relatedness between the accessions, Euclidean genetic distances were calculated using the dist() function in R. Mantel correlation coefficient was calculated using the R package vegan [31] to assess the relationship between the genetic distances from the two marker types as well as between the genetic and geographical distances. The Euclidean genetic distance was converted to a hierarchical cluster (hclust object) using the hclust() function in R which was then converted into a dendrogram using the R package dendextend [32]. The fviz_cluster() function of the R package factoextra [33] was used to visualize the cluster plots of the accessions. The dendrogram (phylogenetic tree) was visualised using the plot() function in R. The cophenetic correlation coefficient of the dendrograms was calculated using the cor-cophenetic() function of the R package dendextend [32]. The optimal number of clusters was determined using the find.clusters() function of the R package adegenet [34]. The discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC) function of R package adegenet [34] was used to infer the cluster membership probability and assign individual samples into the different clusters. The cluster membership and assignment of the samples were visualised using the compoplot() and assignplot() functions of the R package adegenet [34].

Population structure was analysed using the admixture model in STRUCTURE [35,36], and the probability of two to ten subpopulations (K) was estimated using the admixture model, 100,000 Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) repetitions and a 100,000 burn-in period. The result of the run was uploaded online to the software “STRUCTURE HARVESTER” [37], and the optimal number of subpopulations was determined using the Evanno delta K method [38].

The SNP markers were used to develop a subset containing 20% of the collection, representing the maximum amount of genetic diversity contained in the collection. A representative sample per accession was selected based on pairwise kinship value ≥ 0.30 and used for subset development using the R package CoreHunter v.3.1 [39]. The diversity and representativeness of the developed subset was assessed using AMOVA.

5. Conclusions

Sesbania sesban is a multipurpose legume tree with significant roles in crop–livestock-based production systems. Understanding the germplasm resources of Sesbania sesban maintained in the genebank is important for sustainable conservation and improvement of the species and to promote the wide use of potential genotypes to enhance the contribution of livestock to sustainable development through increased production of improved forages. In this study, we studied a Sesbania sesban collection held in the ILRI forage genebank and generated a large set of genotyping data using the DArTSeq platform. Diversity analysis using a subset of informative markers revealed the presence of rich genetic diversity in the collection, with little or no evidence of genetic variation according to the geographical origin of the germplasm. The genetic diversity analysis also revealed a large proportion of the variation contributed by the ‘within’ compared to the ‘between’ accessions’ and populations’ variability. We also developed a genetically representative subset containing germplasm from diverse origins. The generated genetic diversity information and the established subset could promote further research and greater use of Sesbania sesban germplasm. Phenotypic assessment of the representative subset for agronomical and morphological traits across agro-ecologies will help in the identification of best-bet accessions for improved performance and value in specific ecologies or across different growing environments. The informative markers could be used to guide gap analysis to capture niche diversity from geographic areas not or less represented in the collection as well as in the future endeavors of marker-assisted identification of stress-tolerant adaptable genotypes to different agro-ecologies and soil characteristics. The lack of a reference genome for the species has limited our capability to select genome-wide markers for downstream analysis. Hence, development of a reference genome should be considered in the future to accelerate breeding and selection efforts in this important multipurpose legume tree. In general, the generated information could play a vital role in the future efforts of developing and promoting climate-resilient varieties of this forage legume to support the production of forages and forage-based agroforestry/landscape management practices.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Genebank staff (1) Yeshi Woldemariam, Mulu Abebe and Tigist Woldehanna for the technical support on seed germination and (2) Alemayehu Demeke and Teklu Hundessa for assisting in seedling management in the greenhouse.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12010013/s1. Figure S1: Genome-wide distribution and density of DArTSeq markers on the selected reference genomes; Figure S2: Heatmap showing accession pairwise Fst value based on the W&H02 method; Figure S3: Heatmap showing population (by origin) pairwise Fst value based on the W&H02 method; Table S1: Passport data of the Sesbania sesban collection.

Click here for additional data file. (445.1KB, zip)

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.S. and A.T.N.; Data collection and curation, H.O.A. and A.T.N.; Data analysis, A.T.N. and M.S.M.; Funding acquisition, A.M.S. and C.S.J.; Investigation, A.T.N., A.M.S. and C.S.J.; Methodology, H.O.A., A.T.N. and Y.A.; Resources, A.M.S. and C.S.J.; Supervision, A.M.S. and C.S.J.; Visualisation, A.T.N.; Writing—original draft, A.T.N.; Writing—review & editing, A.T.N., H.O.A., A.M.S., M.S.M., E.H., A.M. and C.S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated in this study are freely available as international public goods.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest, and the sponsors had no role in the design, execution, interpretation or writing of the study.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Genebank Platform “use module”.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

  • 1.Heuzé V., Tran G., Bastianelli D., Lebas F. Sesban (Sesbania sesban). Feedipedia, A Programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO.2015. [(accessed on 17 March 2022)]. Available online: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/253.
  • 2.Cook B.G., Pengelly B.C., Schultze-Kraft R., Taylor M., Burkart S., Cardoso Arango J.A., González Guzmán J.J., Cox K., Jones C., Peters M. Tropical Forages: An Interactive Selection Tool. 2nd ed. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI); Nairobi, Kenya: 2020. [(accessed on 17 March 2022)]. Available online: www.tropicalforages.info. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Orwa C., Mutua A., Kindt R., Jamnadass R., Simons A. Agroforestree Database: A Tree Reference and Selection Guide, version 4. World Agroforestry Centre; Nairobi, Kenya: 2009. [(accessed on 17 March 2022)]. Available online: http://worldagroforestry.org/output/agroforestree-database. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Heering J.H., Hanson J. Karyotype analysis and interspecific hybridization in 3 perennial Sesbania Species (Leguminosae) Euphytica. 1993;71:21–28. doi: 10.1007/BF00023463. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Soliman M.I., Ibrahim A.A., Samaan L.Z., Sedky E. Comparative studies between annual and perennial Sesbania using karyological, biochemical and molecular studies. J. Appl. Sci. 2019;19:593–604. doi: 10.3923/jas.2019.593.604. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gebremariam G., Nemomissa S., Demissie A., Hanson J. The mating system of Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr. (Leguminosae) SINET Ethiop. J. Sci. 2002;25:177–190. doi: 10.4314/sinet.v25i2.18079. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nigussie Z., Alemayehu G. Sesbania sesban (L.) Merrill: Potential uses of an underutilized multipurpose tree in Ethiopia. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 2013;7:468–475. doi: 10.5897/AJPS2012.0716. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Muimba-Kankolongo A. Common cultivation practices. In: Muimba-Kankolongo A., editor. Food Crop Production by Smallholder Farmers in Southern Africa. Academic Press; Cambridge, MA, USA: 2018. pp. 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jamnadass R., Hanson J., Poole J., Hanotte O., Simons T.J., Dawson I.K. High differentiation among populations of the woody legume Sesbania sesban in sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for conservation and cultivation during germplasm introduction into agroforestry systems. For. Ecol Manag. 2005;210:225–238. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Karachi M.K., Matata Z. Forage and seed yields, mortality and nutritive value of Sesbania sesban under unimodal rainfall in Tanzania. J. Trop. For. Sci. 2000;12:238–246. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sileshi G., Ogol C.K.P.O., Sithanantham S., Rao M.R., Baumgärtner J., Maghembe J.A., Mafongoya P.L. Resistance of Sesbania accessions to Mesoplatys ochroptera Stål (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Insect Sci. Its Appl. 2011;21:139–153. doi: 10.1017/S1742758400020191. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Russell J.R., Hedley P.E., Cardle L., Dancey S., Morris J., Booth A., Odee D., Mwaura L., Omondi W., Angaine P., et al. TropiTree: An NGS-based EST-SSR resource for 24 tropical tree species. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e102502. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kilian A., Wenzl P., Huttner E., Carling J., Xia L., Blois H., Caig V., Heller-Uszynska K., Jaccoud D., Hopper C., 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]
  • 14.Pecrix Y., Staton S.E., Sallet E., Lelandais-Briere C., Moreau S., Carrere S., Blein T., Jardinaud M.F., Latrasse D., Zouine M., et al. Whole-genome landscape of Medicago truncatula symbiotic genes. Nat. Plants. 2018;4:1017–1025. doi: 10.1038/s41477-018-0286-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sato S., Nakamura Y., Kaneko T., Asamizu E., Kato T., Nakao M., Sasamoto S., Watanabe A., Ono A., Kawashima K., et al. Genome structure of the legume, Lotus japonicus. DNA Res. 2008;15:227–239. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsn008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kreplak J., Madoui M.A., Capal P., Novak P., Labadie K., Aubert G., Bayer P.E., Gali K.K., Syme R.A., Main D., et al. A reference genome for pea provides insight into legume genome evolution. Nat. Genet. 2019;51:1411–1426. doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0480-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hijmans R.J. Geosphere: Spherical Trigonometry. R Package Version 1.5-14. 2021. [(accessed on 18 March 2022)]. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=geosphere.
  • 18.Zheng X., Levine D., Shen J., Gogarten S.M., Laurie C., Weir B.S. A high-performance computing toolset for relatedness and principal component analysis of SNP data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:3326–3328. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wojciechowski M.F., Lavin M., Sanderson M.J. A phylogeny of legumes (Leguminosae) based on analyses of the plastid matK gene resolves many well-supported subclades within the family. Am. J. Bot. 2004;91:1846–1862. doi: 10.3732/ajb.91.11.1846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bertioli D.J., Moretzsohn M.C., Madsen L.H., Sandal N., Leal-Bertioli S.C.M., Guimaraes P.M., Hougaard B.K., Fredslund J., Schauser L., Nielsen A.M., et al. An analysis of synteny of Arachis with Lotus and Medicago sheds new light on the structure, stability and evolution of legume genomes. BMC Genom. 2009;10:45. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Muktar M.S., Teshome A., Hanson J., Negawo A.T., Habte E., Entfellner J.B.D., Lee K.W., Jones C.S. Genotyping by sequencing provides new insights into the diversity of Napier grass (Cenchrus purpureus) and reveals variation in genome-wide LD patterns between collections. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:6936. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43406-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Negawo A.T., Assefa Y., Hanson J., Abdena A., Muktar M.S., Habte E., Sartie A.M., Jones C.S. Genotyping-by-sequencing reveals population structure and genetic diversity of a Buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) collection. Diversity. 2020;12:88. doi: 10.3390/d12030088. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Negawo A.T., Muktar M.S., Assefa Y., Hanson J., Sartie A.M., Habte E., Jones C.S. Genetic diversity and population structure of a Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) collection. Genes. 2021;12:1233. doi: 10.3390/genes12081233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bolibok-Bragoszewska H., Targonska M., Bolibok L., Kilian A., Rakoczy-Trojanowska M. Genome-wide characterization of genetic diversity and population structure in Secale. BMC Plant Biol. 2014;14:184. doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-14-184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wimmer V., Albrecht T., Auinger H.-J., Schon C.-C. synbreed: A framework for the analysis of genomic prediction data using R. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:2086–2087. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nei M. Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1973;70:3321–3323. doi: 10.1073/pnas.70.12.3321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wickham H. Stringr: Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operations; R Package Version 1.4.0. 2017. [(accessed on 12 April 2020)]. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/stringr/index.html.
  • 28.Kamvar Z.N., Tabima J.F., Grünwald N.J. Poppr: An R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. Peerj. 2014;2:e281. doi: 10.7717/peerj.281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Weir B.S., Cockerham C.C. Estimating F-Statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution. 1984;38:1358–1370. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1984.tb05657.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Weir B.S., Hill W.G. Estimating F-Statistics. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2002;36:721–750. doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.36.050802.093940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Oksanen J., Blanchet F.G., Kindt R., Legendre P., Minchin P.R., O’Hara R.B., Simpson G.L., Solymos P., Stevens M.H.H., Wagner H. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2022. [(accessed on 30 November 2022)]. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.
  • 32.Galili T. dendextend: An R package for visualizing, adjusting and comparing trees of hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:3718–3720. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kassambara A., Mund F. Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. 2017. [(accessed on 15 August 2019)]. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/factoextra/factoextra.pdf.
  • 34.Jombart T. adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics. 2008;24:1403–1405. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Falush D., Stephens M., Pritchard J.K. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: Linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics. 2003;164:1567–1587. doi: 10.1093/genetics/164.4.1567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pritchard J.K., Stephens M., Donnelly P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics. 2000;155:945–959. doi: 10.1093/genetics/155.2.945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Earl D.A., VonHoldt B.M. Structure Harvester: A website and program for visualizing Structure output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 2012;4:359. doi: 10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Evanno G., Regnaut S., Goudet J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 2005;14:2611–2620. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.De Beukelaer H., Davenport G.F., Fack V. Core Hunter 3: Flexible core subset selection. BMC Bioinform. 2018;19:203. doi: 10.1186/s12859-018-2209-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Click here for additional data file. (445.1KB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

All data generated in this study are freely available as international public goods.

Articles from Plants are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES