Study on population structure of kiwifruit and GWAS for hairiness character
Shimao Zheng, Yuexing Wang, Dong Qu, Wang Sun, Yuehua Yu, Yu Zhang
Abstract
A total of 74,936 SNPs were employed to carry out population structure and genome-wide association studies and post-GWAS for hairiness character of the fifty-six samples including thirty-six Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa, eighteen A. chinensis var. chinensis, and two A. polygama in the light of morphological observations. The percentage of heterozygous sites of A. chinensis var. deliciosa is higher than that of A. chinensis var. chinensis, which could be one of the reasons for A. chinensis var. deliciosa high disease resistance. Fifty-six samples were divided into two subgroups, in which the genetic distance, ranged from 0.17 to 0.99, according to their genetic divergence. Analysis of molecular variance shows that the frequency of genetic variations within the population is 83.53% and 16.47% between populations. Fst between the two populations is 0.14, and Nm is 1.60. Set at α ≤ 0.05, a total of 327 SNPs and 260 haplotypes were related to the hairiness character. A total of 246 proteins were annotated using GO and KEGG analyses, which indicated the membrane-related genes and stress-resistant metabolic pathways are related to the hairiness character of leaves, stems, and peels of kiwifruit. Protein interaction analysis showed that DNA-directed RNA polymerase was an important node protein that interacted with many proteins. The genetic basic in the fifty-six genotypes was rich. The results of clustering and morphological observations are not completely consistent, indicating the hairiness character play an important role in the classification of kiwifruit, in which two A. polygama were clustered together with those of A. chinensis var. chinensis. Phylogeny and haplotype analysis showed that the evolution of A. chinensis var. chinensis is later than that of A. chinensis var. deliciosa in A. chinesis. The loss of hairiness character on leaves, stems and peels of A. chinensis var. chinensis compare with A. chinensis var. deliciosa, which is also the result of its poor resistance.