Next Article in Journal
Predictive and Experimental Approaches for Elucidating Protein–Protein Interactions and Quaternary Structures
Previous Article in Journal
Around and beyond 53BP1 Nuclear Bodies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

High-Density Linkage Map Construction and Mapping of Salt-Tolerant QTLs at Seedling Stage in Upland Cotton Using Genotyping by Sequencing (GBS)

1
State Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology/Institute of Cotton Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Anyang 455000, China
2
Senegalese River Valley Development Agency (SAED), Saint-Louis Bp74, Senegal
3
School of Physical and Biological Sciences (SPBS), Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology (JOOUST), Main Campus, P.O. Box 210-40601 Bondo, Kenya
4
Chinese National Rice Research Institute (CNRRI), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 311400, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18(12), 2622; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18122622
Submission received: 30 October 2017 / Revised: 24 November 2017 / Accepted: 29 November 2017 / Published: 5 December 2017
(This article belongs to the Section Molecular Plant Sciences)

Abstract

:
Over 6% of agricultural land is affected by salinity. It is becoming obligatory to use saline soils, so growing salt-tolerant plants is a priority. To gain an understanding of the genetic basis of upland cotton tolerance to salinity at seedling stage, an intra-specific cross was developed from CCRI35, tolerant to salinity, as female with Nan Dan (NH), sensitive to salinity, as the male. A genetic map of 5178 SNP markers was developed from 277 F2:3 populations. The map spanned 4768.098 cM, with an average distance of 0.92 cM. A total of 66 QTLs for 10 traits related to salinity were detected in three environments (0, 110, and 150 mM salt treatment). Only 14 QTLs were consistent, accounting for 2.72% to 9.87% of phenotypic variation. Parental contributions were found to be in the ratio of 3:1, 10 QTLs from the sensitive and four QTLs from the resistant parent. Five QTLs were located in At and nine QTLs in the Dt sub-genome. Moreover, eight clusters were identified, in which 12 putative key genes were found to be related to salinity. The GBS-SNPs-based genetic map developed is the first high-density genetic map that has the potential to provide deeper insights into upland cotton salinity tolerance. The 12 key genes found in this study could be used for QTL fine mapping and cloning for further studies.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Currently, it is estimated that over 6% of agricultural land is affected by salinity [1]. To satisfy the increasing population demand, it is becoming obligatory to use saline soils, either by reclamation or by growing salt-tolerant plants [2]. To mitigate the challenge of salt stress, selective breeding programs are adopted in order to improve the performance of the genotypes developed [3]. However, the majority of traits with economic significance, such as salinity tolerance, are regulated by quantitative trait loci (QTL) and thus are environment-dependent [4]. Using conventional breeding techniques to enhance genetic improvement has limitations due to low efficiency, slow speed, and being expensive for some traits like salt tolerance [4]. Molecular breeding, such as marker-assisted breeding (MAS) and genomic selection (GS), have the potential to overcome the inefficiencies of conventional breeding [5]. The most valuable tool in molecular breeding is genotype by sequencing (GBS) [6]. Molecular breeding techniques such as GBS have the potential to bridge the genotyping gap between references of broad interest, mapping, and/or breeding populations of specific interest [7]. The analysis of genotypic samples through genotyping by sequence (GBS) lowers the cost of molecular work, even though the resultant next-generation sequencing data have immediate applications in many different research areas, ranging from gene discovery to genomic-assisted breeding [7]. Producing a large amount of unbiased markers in an inexpensive way makes GBS the most preferable approach to building high-density and high-resolution maps, genomic selection, and facilitating QTL mapping [8].
QTLs mapping has become an important tool for quantitative trait research, and has been widely used in the agricultural field to map a number of traits including salt tolerance in various crops [9]. A number of QTLs linked to salinity tolerance traits have been identified in plants such as Arabidopsis [10], rice, [11], barley [12], and tomatoes [13]. In upland cotton, little research has been done towards determining the effect of salt stress on cotton at the seedling stage. However, previous studies reported an association mapping study for salinity stress tolerance in cotton [14], differentially expressed genes, and transcriptional regulation induced by salt stress in two contrasting cotton genotypes [15]. Many genes controlling response to high salinity have been identified in model plants, but only a few salt stress-inducible genes have been documented, such as ERF(GhERF2-GhERF6) [16,17], CCCH-type zinc finger (GhZFP1) [18], NHX1 (GhNHX1) [19], NAC (GhNAC1-GhNAC6) [20], metallothionein (GhMT3a) [21], GhMPK2 [22], GhMKK1 [23], and DREB (GhDREB1) [24]. However, to date, according to our best knowledge, only one report on QTL mapping for salt tolerance at seedling stage in the inter-specific cross of Gossypium tomentosum with Gossypium hirsutum has been reported [25]. It focused on semi-wild plants and morphological QTLs mapping traits.
According to previous research [26], the seedling stage of cotton is the most sensitive to salinity and the effects can be quantified by measuring morphological, physiological, and biochemical traits [27]. Identifying proper selection criteria for salinity tolerance is a major issue in breeding programs. The key point of our experiment was to simulate field conditions by sowing the seeds in different salt concentrations to investigate the response of seedlings to salt stress. Besides measuring parameters such as Malondialdehyde (MDA), Chlorophyll Content (CHL), and Electric Conductivity (EC) that act on biochemical and physiological levels, a comparison of determinant traits such as germination and growth parameters of genotypes in salinity was also undertaken.
In this study, a genetic map consisting of 5178 filtered GBS markers was developed using 277 F2:3 populations derived from an intra-specific cross between two upland cotton accessions, mainly cultivated in China, CCRI35 (tolerant to salinity) as the female parent and Nan Dan Ba Di Da Hua (NH) (sensitive to salinity) as the male parent. The genetic map was used to analyze QTLs associated with salt-tolerant traits using QTL cartographer [28]. The purpose of the study was to map the QTLs for salt tolerance and identify the candidate genes underlying the QTLs and their position in the cotton genome at the seedling stage. The findings of this study will provide valuable insights for breeders looking to develop salt-tolerant cultivars and enhance selection.

2. Results

2.1. Quality Control and Mapping to Reference Genome

The parental lines CCRI35 and NH were sequenced using the GBS method with efficient sequencing depths. In regard to CCRI35 and NH, an average of 10 individual reads for each of the parents were mapped to the sequence of the cotton genome (http://mascotton.njau.edu.cn) and totaled 13,695,154 and 13,496,550, respectively. A total average of 85,372 and 117,128 SNPs were identified in CCRI35 and NH, respectively. The efficiency of enzyme digestion was 99% for both of the parental lines. For the F2:3 populations, the efficiency of enzyme digestion was slightly low, 98.85%, compared to the parental lines. A total of 1,507,193,217 mapped reads were produced, with an average of 5,074,724.636 mapped reads per individual, which corresponds to nearly 186.98 Gb of clean base. This is equivalent to approximately 83.13-foldhaploid genome coverage of raw paired-end Illumina reads by sequencing whole-genome shotgun (WGS) libraries of homozygous cv. “TM-1” compared to Li Fuguang et al. (2015) [29] in their study, which generated a total of 445.7 Gb of clean reads, or 181-fold haploid genome coverage, of raw paired-end Illumina reads by sequencing whole-genome shotgun (WGS) libraries of homozygous cv. “TM-1” had fragment lengths ranging from 250 bp to 40 kb. The average GC content of the sequences is 38.25%, with a Q20 score of 94.66%.

2.2. SNP Detection and Annotation

The parents, CCRI35 and NH, were heterozygous and homozygous lines with AC and AA genotypes, respectively. The genotype AC × AA, consisting of 93,384 markers, was used for further analysis. Among the 93,384 markers, the low-coverage sequences of the F2:3 populations (coverage less than 75%) were filtered out, leaving 24,549 markers. Markers with significant distortion (p < 0.001) were filtered out and 6405 markers were retained with the purpose of determining bin markers.

2.3. Phenotypic Variation between Parents

There was a wide range of phenotypic variation among the F2:3 populations in all the traits measured and in both environments: MDA, EC; GR; FW; SL; LFW; SLW; DLW; RWC and CHL Figure 1. All traits exhibited a normal segregation pattern, with equal distribution (Figure S1). In the control, there was no significant difference observed between the parents, except for chlorophyll content (CHL). However, under salt treatment in all environments, whether 110 mM or 150 mM, all traits were significantly reduced in the salt-susceptible genotype compared to the resistant parent; MDA, LFW, SLW, GR, and SL showed a significant difference. However, in MDA, higher concentration denoted sensitivity; its concentration in a resistant accession was significantly lower than the sensitive accession (Figure 1).

2.4. ANOVA and Heritability Analysis of Salt Tolerance Traits for the Two Parents and the Progeny

All the data collected were analyzed for ANOVA using mixed-model analysis. The ANOVA results revealed significant differences between the genotypes, environment, and their interactions for all the traits (Table 1).
The measured trait’s heritability percentage was much higher on the morphological traits compared to the physiological traits. The highest percentage of heritability was achieved in fresh weight (FW), at 87.4%, while the lowest level of heritability was noted in relative water content (RWC), at 42.3%.

2.5. Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis was carried out using the mean values of the five seedlings in each replicate for the two salt treatments, 110 mM and 150 mM.

2.5.1. Salt Treatment (110 mM)

Under 110 mM, a greater percentage of the traits were positively correlated. However, MDA had no significant correlation to any of the measured traits. Negative correlation was noted on EC/DLW, EC/CHL, SL/CHL, and RWC/CHL, while no significant correlation was observed between EC/FW, EC/LFW, EC/SLW, EC/RWC, GR/RWC, GR/CHL, FW/CHL, SLW/RWC, and DLW/RWC (Figure 2a).

2.5.2. Salt Treatment (150 mM)

In an increased salt concentration of 150 mM, MDA was negatively correlated to all traits except for EC, but EC was negatively correlated to GR and DLW. Moreover, GR, FW, SL, LFW, SLW, DLW, RWC, and CHL were positively correlated. However, no correlation was noted between RWC/GR, EC with FW, LFW, RWC and CHL; DLW/SL (Figure 2b).

2.6. Construction of the Linkage Maps

A total of 6405 markers and phenotypic data of the F2:3, an intra-specific cross of two upland cottons, were utilized for generating the intra-specific linkage map. The genotyping data of 5178 GBS markers were used for mapping after removing the distorted and the unlinked markers in Join Map 4.0 (Table S1). Linkage maps of the 5178 GBS markers generated 26 linkage groups (Figure 3 and Figure S2 and Table 2). The 26 LGs were designated as A01 to A13 for the At sub-genome and D01 to D13 for the Dt sub-genome. The total map distance was 4768.098 cM, higher than the most current linkage map with a map distance of 4450 cM of cotton genome [30]. The map developed in this study is the most highly saturated intra-specific map of upland cotton ever developed. The average distance between adjacent markers was 0.92 cM. The At sub-genome spanned 2611.43 cM and consisted of 3313 markers with 13 linkage groups. The average distance in At sub-genome was 0.79 cM, with a maximum gap of 26.598 cM between adjacent markers. In the Dt sub-genome, 13 linkage groups were assigned, comprised of 1865 markers spanning 2156.67 cM, with an average of 1.156 cM. The maximum gap between adjacent loci was 30.082 cM (Table 2). Chromosomes; A02, D02, A01, A05, A03, D01 and A10 had more markers compared to other chromosomes such as D06 and D13. For instance, Chr A02 had 705 loci with map distance of346.314 cM with average distance of 0.49 cM. Chr D06 was the smallest with only 16markers, and a total length of 79.084 cM.

2.7. Clustered QTLs Region

QTL clusters are regions of the genome in which large quantities of QTLs are co-localized [31]. A total of eight clusters for six traits were detected. The highest number of consistent QTLs mapped was three and all were identified in the marker interval of mk12058_D03-mk12186_D03on D03 (c17), as in Figure 4. This region was designated as Cluster 5, from 3,459,294 bp to 42,120,184 bp. Cluster 5 harbored QTLs for DLW, FW, and SLW with the following proportions: 4, 5, and 5, respectively, which explained the phenotypic variance ranging from 2.72% to 9.87% (Table 3 and Table S2). The lowest number of major QTLs was identified in Clusters 1, 7, and 8, which harbored QTLs for EC, FW, and MDA with the following proportions: 5, 3, and 2, respectively. Furthermore, we focused our analysis on the 14 stable QTLs across multiple environments based on their broad-sense heritability and phenotypic variation explained by a single QTL. These QTLs were mapped in eight chromosomes; A02, A06, A12, D01, D03, D06, D08, and D13, with five, six, five, eight, 14, four, three, and two QTLs, respectively (see Table 3 and Figure S2).
A total of 66 QTLs were identified for 10 traits, but only 14 QTLs were consistent in at least two environments (Table S2 and Figure S2). The distribution of the QTLs within the identified chromosomes is illustrated in Table 3. Of the 14 consistent detected QTLs, five were located on the At sub-genome while the remaining nine were located on the Dt sub-genome (Table 3). As to the contributions of the parents toward the QTLs, 10 QTLs were contributed by the sensitive parent (NH), while only four QTLs were contributed by the resistant parent (CCRI35). Moreover, only eight chromosomes out of 26 were found to harbor consistent QTLs for six traits (EC, FW, SLW, SL, DLW, and MDA) related to salt tolerance. Four types of gene actions were revealed by the genetic effects, of which four genes exhibited dominant effects (D), 13 partial dominance (PD), 28 overdominance (OD), while only two had an additive effect (A). OD was observed for most of the traits in response to salt tolerance, as shown in Table 3.

2.8. Identification of Candidate Genes

The putative candidate genes identification was done based on the QTLs consistency. The overall number of consistent QTLs was grouped into eight clusters with varying marker flanking intervals: Cluster 1 (mk19866 to mk1778_A02); Cluster 2 (mk4886_A06 to mk5000_A06); Cluster 3 (mk18878 to mk9189_A12); Cluster 4 (mk10837_D01 to mk10918_D01); Cluster 5 (mk12058_D03 to mk12186_D03); Cluster 6 (mk17780 to mk13562_D06); Cluster 7 (MulMa512_D08 to mk16015_D08), and finally Cluster 8, which had a marker interval from mk11123 to mk18547_D13. Clusters 1 to 8 were located on chromosomes A02, A06, A12, D01, D03, D06, D08, and D13, respectively. The highest number of stable QTLs was detected in Cluster 5 (D03), with three QTLs linked to DLW, FW, and SLW (see Table S3 and Figure 5 and Figure 6).
In all the clusters, 5596 genes were mined, of which 176 were found to be related to biotic and abiotic stress. The stress-related genes were found to belong to the NAC, WRKY, HAD, C2H2, and RING/U-box superfamily proteins (Table S3). In order to identify the most robust candidate genes for salt tolerance, all 176 genes were analyzed using “TM-1” RNA-seq expression profiles data at different time points of salt treatment 1, 3, 6, and 12 hin leaves part area (http://mascotton.njau.edu.cn). Out of 176 genes, 12 genes were highly expressed in salt treatment (see Table S3 and Figure 5 and Figure 6). Of the 14 major QTLs identified, 12 genes were predicted to be the putative candidate genes associated with salt-tolerant traits.
In order to understand which QTL is preferable out of the 14 detected, we based our research on the additive effect and gene action (GA). Therefore, the parental contribution was determined by the use of additive effect. For positive and negative additive effects, alleles came from CCRI35 (the tolerant parent) and NH (the sensitive parent), respectively. GA was obtained from the ratio dominant effect by additive effect, |d/a| (see Table 3). To get good QTLs for salt tolerance, we focused our analysis on the QTLs with positive additive effect, coming from the tolerant parent, CCRI35. Therefore, seven QTLs were involved with the four following traits: FW, MDA, SL, and SLW (Figure 7). The genes’ actions were partial dominance: PD (with FW trait), dominance: D (with FW trait), and overdominance: OD (with MDA, SLW, FW, and SL traits). The highest number of QTLs had an OD effect. This result suggests that these QTLs can be used for further studies in salt tolerance. Moreover, the 12 genes identified were classified into three groups, with two, two, and eight genes in Group1, Group2, and Group3, respectively. The best expression pattern was noted in Group1 (see Figure 6 and Table S3).

2.9. Collinearity Analysis

The syntenic blocks were obtained by comparing the 5178 marker position in the genetic map and physical map using AD cotton genome. The results showed that most of the markers had good collinearity (Figure 8). However, some chromosomes, such as A10 and A12, showed poor syntenic blocks. This could be attributed to the mutation effect.

3. Discussion

This study was carried out in a controlled environment and the F2:3 population and their parents were exposed to salt at the seedling stage since much evidence points to the fact that salt tolerance is a stage-specific phenomenon and seedlings are the most vulnerable to salinity stress [32]. The main aim of this research was to determine the response of cotton seedlings to salt stress when grown in a salt environment. The seedlings were highly assimilated to the natural environment by using soil as the rooting media. Soil substrate type should be considered when characterizing plant growth and physiological responses to salinity [33].
The plant materials used in developing the mapping population had varying salt stress tolerance. Significant differences between the two parents for all the measured traits were observed, both under stress and control conditions. Under stress, all the traits exhibited a significant reduction in LFW, SLW, GR, SL, and MDA. In the sensitive cultivar (NH), MDA concentration was higher than in the tolerant cultivar (CCRI35). MDA is a biochemical component of the cell; its release is triggered by exposure to stress. The lower MDA level in the tolerant cultivar is an indication of the ability of the plant to tolerate salt stress; this result is consistent with previous publications [34,35]. Moreover, the low concentration of MDA in the tolerant cultivar can be attributed to either an internal mechanism to convert the released MDA into other non-toxic compounds or minimizing the release of MDA to a minimal threshold with no major effect on the plant cell. Previous reports have shown that MDA in salt-sensitive plants is more pronounced than in salt-tolerant ones [36,37]. Furthermore, similar results were found by [38], stipulating that with regard to MDA content reduction in tolerant cultivars, it has been shown that low MDA content inhibits membrane damage by ROS and hence confers tolerance [39,40].
Under controlled conditions, in all the measured traits, no significant statistical difference was noted between the tolerant parent (CCRI35) and the sensitive parent (NH), except for CHL concentration. The sensitive cultivar produced more chlorophyll than the tolerant one. The increased level of chlorophyll content in the sensitive cultivar can be explained by the ability of the plant to maximize its photosynthetic apparatus, preparing for any sudden alteration that may occur within its environment, thus enhancing its survival. This result was consistent with the findings of [38], which reported that the chlorophyll (a), chlorophyll (b), and total chlorophyll contents were significantly lower in tolerant cultivars in comparison to sensitive cultivars. Moreover, plants under salt stress conditions are often observed to have reduced chlorophyll content [40,41].
Under stress, five traits showed significant difference (SL, GR, SLW, MDA, and LFW), while the rest showed no significant difference. However, as for chlorophyll concentration (CHL), in all the genotypes, the tolerant cultivar showed relatively higher concentrations in chlorophyll but statistically, no significant difference. It has been reported that salt-tolerant plants exhibit increased or unchanged chlorophyll content under halophytic conditions, whereas chlorophyll concentrations decrease in salt-sensitive species, indicating that this parameter can be considered a biochemical marker of salt tolerance in plants [42,43]. The higher number of chloroplasts per leaf area unit may be the main reason for the increased chlorophyll concentration in tolerant plants under salt stress. However, in the sensitive cultivar, salt stress may lead to stomatal closure, which in turn reduces the availability of carbon (IV) oxide in the leaves and therefore inhibits carbon fixation, exposing chloroplasts to excessive excitation energy, which in turn could increase the generation of reactive oxygen species (for example, MDA or other toxic elements) and induce oxidative stress [44]. High accumulation of sodium in plant tissues has been reported as one of the factors contributing to the reduction of photosynthetic pigments and rate of photosynthesis [45,46]. Chlorophyll is an important factor in plant photosynthesis; long exposure to salt stress may lead to the impairing of the photosynthetic apparatus of the plant, and in turn lead to a reduction in the plant’s performance in terms of yield and the quality of the salt-sensitive cultivars.
Most of the traits were positively correlated. MDA was negatively correlated to all traits in 150 mM of salt treatment but no significant correlation was noted in 110 mM of salt treatment. Plant growth and development are impaired with an increase in salt concentration [47]. Previous studies have shown that 150 mM NaCl results in significant growth reduction between the salt-tolerant and less salt-tolerant cotton cultivars [48,49]. A negative correlation was observed between EC and the following traits; GR, DLW, and DLW with RWC at 150 mM salt concentration. The results obtained are in agreement with previous findings in Brassica napus under salt stress: EC was significantly negatively correlated with RL, RDW, and SFW [50].
The extent of transmission of traits from the parents to the offspring is determined by levels of heritability and hence traits with higher heritability percentage are easier to manipulate [51]. The heritability was high for FW (87.4), SL (83.1), LFW (87.3), SLW (86.8), and DLW (82.6), moderate for MDA (73.4), EC (57.5), and GR (68.4), and lowest in CHL (51) and RWC (42.3). These results were in agreement with previous reports that indicated that heritability estimates in cotton are moderate to high for SH, RL, RDW, SFW, RFW, and SDW under salt conditions [52]. Selection, done based on low heritability, may be biased towards environmental influence on the genetic make-up of the plant and thus is not an effective way to improve plants [53]. In this study, the number of QTLs identified for high heritability traits was consistent, except for LFW.
Transgression was also a phenomenon noted in plant species. Ten QTLs were contributed by the sensitive parent (NH), while only four were contributed by the resistant parent (CCRI35). The positive and negative signs of the additive effect at the different loci showed the parental lines’ contribution and confirmed the transgressive segregation pattern observed at the phenotypic level. Transgressive segregation for morphological and agronomical traits always follows the Mendelian pattern [54]. This observation was also reported by [55,56] in RILs population of Arabidopsis thaliana cultivated in a nitrogen environment.
In this study, four types of gene actions (GA) were revealed by the genetic effects: four genes exhibited dominant effects (D), 13 partial dominance (PD), 28 overdominance (OD) and two had an additive effect (A). Overdominance (OD) was observed for most of the traits in response to salt tolerance. This result was in disagreement with Oluoch et al. (2016) [25], who stated that partial dominance (PD) was observed for most traits in response to salt tolerance. In Oluoch et al. (2006), the marker and map size were relatively smaller than in our map; their final linkage map consisted of 1295 markers that amplified 1342 loci [25], and this could hamper the effective determination of the gene action identification. In this study, we developed a high-density linkage map with ≤1 cM of marker intervals, which enabled us to identify QTLs with more accuracy and higher resolution than earlier reports.
A total of 14 consistent QTLs for six traits were detected, which explained the phenotypic variance ranging from 2.72% to 9.87%. Five QTLs were located in the At sub-genome, while the remaining nine were located in the Dt sub-genome. This finding was consistent with earlier reports [25,57] that suggested that the Dt sub-genome harbored genes or QTLs for stress biotic, abiotic, and fiber quality. Oluoch et al. (2016) stipulated that, of the 11 significant QTLs detected, only one (qSdw-Chr9-1) on chromosome 9 was located in the At sub-genome, while the remaining 10 were located in the Dt sub-genome. Meanwhile, approximately 58 QTLs were identified on the At sub-genome chromosomes, whereas 107 QTLs were localized on the Dt sub-genome chromosomes [57]. Saeed et al. (2014) highlighted the contribution of the Dt sub-genome of tetraploid cotton to abiotic stress tolerance [14]. QTLs were also present at unique loci with defined underlying markers on different chromosomes, and none were shared by two or more traits. However, some were present in close proximity to each other, such as QTLs on chromosome D03 with the following traits: MDA and FW.
A number of the QTLs found in this study were in agreement with previous findings [14]. For example, Clusters 2 (A06), 6 (D06), and 7 (D08), according to Saeed et al. (2014) [14], were reported to be flanked by markers NAU2679 (A06), BNL3103 (D06), and NAU478 (D08), respectively, all with significant associations with salt treatment.
Of the 12 key genes found in this study, 11 genes were located in the Dt sub-genome. Only Gh_A12G0454 gene on chromosome A12, which belongs to the zinc finger (C2H2 type) family protein, was located in the At sub-genome. This result could explain the high number of QTLs in the Dt sub-genome compared to the At sub-genome in upland cotton. This finding is consistent with reports by Oluoch et al. (2016) and Jamshed et al. (2016) [25,57]. Moreover, the 12 key genes were localized in six families: RING/U-box superfamily protein, NAC, WRKY, Haloacid dehalogenase-like hydrolase (HAD) superfamily protein, zinc finger (C2H2 type) family protein, and MYB. Gh_D03G0935, Gh_D06G0163, and Gh_D06G0462 genes belonged to RING/U-box superfamily protein and were located on Clusters 5 and 6, respectively. The U-box genes in Arabidopsis such as AtPUB23 have been reported to show strong upregulation in the roots under salt and drought conditions [58]. The highest expression was observed with Gh_D03G0654 and Gh_D06G0417 genes in D03 and D06, respectively (Figure 6 and Table S3). These two genes belonged to Group1 and could be helpful in further salt-tolerant gene studies. Furthermore, C2H2 (94 genes), MYB (225 genes), NAC (170 genes), and WRKY (222 genes) unigenes were mostly upregulated under salt stress. MYB, NAC, and WRKY were also highly enriched at 4 h and 24 h of salt stress [15].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Greenhouse Experiment

Seeds of two upland cotton (G. hirsutum) lines, CCRI35 (salt-tolerant) and Nan Dan Ba Di Da Hua or NH (salt-sensitive) were used. The salt-tolerant cultivar was used as the female plant while the salt-sensitive one was the male plant. All plant materials were obtained from the National Mid-Term Gene Bank of the Institute of Cotton Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences [59]. The seeds were then sterilized in 70% ethanol for 15 s, and put in 4% sodium hypochlorite for 15 min. The seeds were later submerged in sterile water for 12 h to rinse off the treatment chemicals. The seeds were sown in sterile silica sand with 0, 110, and 150 mM salt concentrations in planting boxes measuring 60 cm by 35 cm and depths of 12 cm in a greenhouse, where the conditions were optimized to 28/22 °C day/night, 60–80% relative humidity, and a 14-h photoperiod under 450 µmol·m−2·s light intensity. The experiment was done by laying out a complete randomized block design (CRD) with three replicates, with 10 and four seeds sown in 60 cm long and 35 cm wide rows, respectively. Two experimental periods were chosen, the first one from April to June 2015, and the second one from April to June 2016, corresponding to the cotton cultivation seasons in the Yellow River region of China with different salt concentrations of 110 mM or 150 mM. In both experiments, the plant population size was 277, with three replications. The two salt concentrations, 110 mM and 150 mM, were chosen based on the proportion of Hoagland [60]. Seven days after sowing (D.A.S), five seedlings with uniform growth for each treatment were sampled for all traits. Seed germination (GR) was determined by counting the seedlings in each replication. Five fresh seedlings were weighed for fresh weight (FW) in each replicate; leaf fresh weight (LFW) and stem length (SL) were measured immediately after collection. The sampled leaves were submerged in distilled water overnight and their saturated leaves were weighed (SLW). The leaf samples were then oven dried at 60 °C for 48 h; after attaining constant mass, all were weighed to obtain the dry leaf weight (DLW). Relative water content (RWC) was calculated using the formula described by [61]. The electric conductivity (EC) of the sample leaves was determined by using a sliced leaf portion of 0.5 g dipped in 100 mL of ddH2O; initial measurements were taken at the start, while the final measurements were taken after 48 h, as explained by [62]. For chlorophyll content (CHL) estimation, we used a chlorophyll meter (SPAD 502 m, Minolta, Osaka, Japan), and the average of five measurements on the same leaf was taken.

4.2. Sample Collection, Library Preparation, Sequencing, and SNP Genotyping

4.2.1. DNA Quantification and Qualification

The DNA of the entire population of 277 individuals of the F2:3 generation, together with 10 samples for each parent, was extracted by the CTAB method [63]. Fresh and young leaves were collected and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen. Each sample was then crushed in liquid nitrogen into a fine powder, then immediately added to a CTAB solution. For each 100 mg of homogenized tissue, we used 500 µL of CTAB extraction buffer. The contents were mixed and thoroughly vortexed. The homogenized mixture was then incubated in a 60 °C water bath for 30 min. Following the incubation period, we centrifuged the homogenate for 5 min at 12,000× g. After centrifuging, the supernatant was transferred to a new tube. Then 5 µL of RNase solution was added to remove RNA and the result was incubated at 32 °C for 20 min. An equal volume of chloroform/isoamyl alcohol (24:1) was added and the sample was vortexed for 5 sand centrifuged for 1 min at 12,000× g to separate the phases. We transferred the aqueous upper phase to a new tube; the method was then repeated until the upper phase was clear. The upper aqueous phase was then transferred to a new tube. DNA was precipitated by adding 70% volume pre-refrigerated isopropanol and incubating at −20 °C for 15 min. The precipitated DNA samples were then centrifuged at 12,000× g for 10 min. The supernatant was then decanted without disturbing the pellet and subsequently washed with 500 µL ice cold 70% ethanol twice, then absolute alcohol. Then DNA pellets were later dissolved in 20 µL TE buffer (10 mM Tris, pH 8, 1 mM EDTA) [64]. DNA degradation and contamination were monitored on 1% agarose gels. DNA purity was checked using the Nano Photometer® spectrophotometer (IMPLEN, Westlake Village, CA, USA). The ratio of absorbance at 260 nm and 280 nm was used to assess the purity of DNA. The DNA samples with a ratio of ~1.8 were selected as pure [65]. The DNA concentration was measured using Qubit® DNA Assay Kit in Qubit® 2.0 Fluorimeter (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The Qubit® dsDNA HS (High Sensitivity) Assay Kits make DNA quantitation easy and accurate. The kits include concentrated assay reagent, dilution buffer, and pre-diluted DNA standards. The reagents were diluted by the buffer solution, then we added 1–20 μL of each DNA sample. The concentrations were read using the Qubit® Fluorometer; only DNA samples with a concentration range of 10 pg/µL to 100 ng/µL were used (https://tools.thermofisher.com/content/sfs/manuals/Qubit_dsDNA_HS_Assay_UG.pdf).

4.2.2. GBS Library Preparation, Sequencing, and SNP Genotyping

Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) is an efficient method of large-scale genotyping, which is based on reduced-representation libraries (RRL) and high-throughput sequencing. First, we performed a GBS pre-design experiment to confirm the effectiveness of the GBS protocol and the quality of the output data. The enzymes and sizes of restriction fragments were evaluated using training data. Three criteria were considered: (i) The number of tags must be suitable for the specific needs of the research project; (ii) the enzymatic tags must be evenly distributed through the sequences to be examined; (iii) repeated tags must be avoided. These considerations improved the efficiency of GBS. To maintain the sequence depth uniformity of different fragments, a narrow length range was selected (about 50 bp).
Next, we constructed the GBS library in accordance with the pre-designed scheme. For the F2:3 populations, genomic DNA was incubated at 37 °C with MseI (New England Biolabs, NEB, Ipswich, MA, USA), T4 DNA ligase [66], ATP [66], and MseI Y adapter N containing barcode. Restriction-ligation reactions were heat-inactivated at 65 °C and then digested for additional restriction enzyme NlaIII at 37 °C. The restriction ligation samples were purified with Agencourt AMPure XP (Beckman, Brea, CA, USA). Then a PCR reaction was performed using purified samples, Phusion Master Mix [66] universal primer, and index primer to add index, complete i5 and i7 sequence. The PCR productions were purified using Agencourt AMPure XP (Beckman) and pooled, then run out on a 2% agarose gel. Fragments with 375–400 bp (with indexes and adaptors) in size were isolated using a Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). These fragment products were then purified using Agencourt AMPure XP (Beckman), which was diluted for sequencing.
Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) was carried out as outlined by Elshire et al. (2011) [67], integrating three 96-well plates across 288 barcodes for library preparation and sequencing. For SNP calling, the raw sequence data for the 277 F2 progeny plus the F1 progenitor were processed through the TASSEL 3.0 GBS pipeline [68] using Gossypium_hirsutum_v1.1.fa as the reference genome [69], obtained from Nanjing Agriculture University’s Cotton Research Institute (http://mascotton.njau.edu.cn/info/1054/1118.htm) for alignment and the Burrows–Wheeler Aligner (BWA) mem [70] with default parameters. The output consisted of variant call format (VCF) file version 4.1 [71], including SNPs present in at least 40% of the progeny and with a minor allele frequency (MAF) 0.1. Subsequently, the VCF was filtered using vcf tools version1.12a [71] and TASSEL [72] versions 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 93,384 SNPs were identified in 277 F2:3 progeny by TASSEL 3.0, then a custom filtering process was applied for alignment. The filtering was based on keeping sites with a minimum read depth of 6% and 75% completeness by site across progeny and by progeny across sites. The results were produced as a TASSEL hapmap file.
Finally, using custom perl script markers heterozygous in the F1 progenitor and witha co-dominant 1:2:1 segregation among the F2:3, progenies were identified by a chi-squared (χ2) goodness-of-fit test at α ≤ 0.01. These were reformatted to be imported in JoinMap® 4.1 [73] for linkage group determination. A total of 26 linkage groups were formed; each linkage group was matched to its corresponding chromosome using BLASTN for the marker sequence (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi).

4.3. Construction of the Linkage Maps and Data Analysis

ANOVA was performed using the greenhouse experiment data of the two seasons, 2015 and 2016. A mixed procedure was used; the genotypes and the environments were fixed as factors in order to detect the heritability. A post hoc test (Turkey’s) was used to compare means. The broad-sense heritability (H) was calculated using the formula described by [31]:
H = σ2G/σ2G + (σ2e/r)
where σ2G is the genotypic variance; σ2e: phenotypic variance and r: replication. All the data were analyzed using R software version 3.4.1 [74].
Linkage map analysis was conducted using Join Map 4.0 [73] with a recombination frequency of 0.40 and a LOD score of 2.5 for the F2:3 population. The Kosambi mapping function was used to convert the recombination frequencies to map distances. For the two experiments, each data point represented the mean of three replications, with each treatment consisting of 40 plants. Salt-tolerance-related traits EC, GR, SL, FW, LFW, SLW, DLW, RWC, and CHL were used to conduct a QTL analysis. WinQTL Cartographer 2.5 was used to detect QTLs using composite interval mapping by [75]. In the composite interval mapping (CIM) method, model 6, forward–backward regression method with 1 cM walking speed, a probability into and out of the model of 0.01, and window size set at 10 cM were used. A stringent logarithm of odds (LOD) threshold value was estimated by 1000 permutation test for all traits and used to determine the significant QTLs with a significance level of p = 0.05. However, QTLs in varying environments with an LOD threshold of at least 2.5 were considered common QTLs based on the explanation by Lander and Kruglyak [76].
QTL nomenclature was done based on previous criteria [77]. The phenotypic variance observed proportions as illustrated by each QTL was estimated by coefficient of determination R2 (%) as a percentage. The additive and dominance effects from QTL cartographer results were used to calculate the genetic effects (|d/a|). The results were used to classify the QTL as additive (A) (0–0.20), partially dominant (PD) (0.21–0.80), dominant (D) (0.81–1.20), or over-dominant (OD) >1.20, according to [78]. The graphic presentation of the linkage group and QTLs marked was created by Map Chart 2.2 [79] and the R/qtl package was used to generate the genetic map in R software version 3.4.1 [74].
In this study, only consistent QTLs were used to identify the crucial candidate genes for salinity tolerance. The genes were identified through the available resources [80] (http://mascotton.njau.edu.cn). The physical position of the SNP markers flanking major QTLs for salinity tolerance was used to find the genes located in each cluster. The function of the identified genes was determined through gene annotation. Furthermore, the expression profiles of the candidate genes were analyzed by mapping the genes in the “TM-1” RNA-seq transcriptome data of cotton leaf tissues at different time points of salt treatment (1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 h) (http://mascotton.njau.edu.cn). The putative candidate genes were mapped using VLOOK UP Excel formula and the output FPKM for each gene was expressed to log10 to get the final gene expression. These values were used to generate the heat map by using R script.

4.4. Collinearity Analysis

Based on the high-density genetic linkage map and sequences corresponding to markers, collinearity analysis between genetic and physical maps within chromosome was carried out using a BLASTN (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) search with E ≤ 1 × 105, identity ≥80%, and matched length ≥200 bp. Next, the best hit for each marker was chosen and all the best hits were illustrated intuitively using online drawing tools (http://circos.ca/).

5. Conclusions

We identified 66 QTLs, of which 14 QTLs were consistent in eight chromosomes in at least two environments. A total of 5596 genes were identified; 12 genes showed preferential expression in leaf tissues at different time points (1, 3, 6, and 12 h) of salt treatment in the “TM-1” transcriptome data. The genes found in this research work were in three groups (Figure 6); 11 genes were from the Dt sub-genome, and only one (Gh_A12G0454 in chromosome A12) was identified from the At sub-genome. Cloning and gene saturation need to be done to verify their specific functional role in cotton plants under salt stress.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials can be found at www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/12/2622/s1.

Acknowledgments

We thank Xiongming Du (Cotton Research Institute/Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science), Wen-fang Gong (Cotton Research Institute/Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science), Shou-Pu He, and all our lab mates and friends for their helpful suggestions and useful comments on the manuscript. This research was sponsored by the National Science and Technology Support Program of China (No. 68612014028) and also by the Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 31621005). We are very grateful to the China Scholarship Council.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: Xiongming Du, Wen-Fang Gong, Shou-Pu He, Zhaoe Pan, Yin Hua Jia, Latyr Diouf, Richard Odongo Magwanga, Kimbembe Romesh Eric Romy, Joy Nyangasi Kirungu, and Harun or Rashid. Performed the experiments: Latyr Diouf. Analyzed the data: Latyr Diouf. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: Xiongming Du and Zhaoe Pan. Wrote the paper: Latyr Diouf and Richard Odongo Magwanga.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

TraitMeaningUnit
MDAMalondialdehydeµM/g.FW
ECElectric Conductivity%
GRGermination Ratenumber/40 seeds
FWFresh Weightg
SLStem Lengthcm
LFWLeaf Fresh Weightg
SLWSaturated Leaf Weightg
DLWDry Leaf Weightg
RWCRelated Water ContentmL
CHLChlorophyllmg/g.FW
NHNan Dan Ba Di Da Hua
CCRI35Zhong35

References

  1. Munns, R. Genes and salt tolerance: Bringing them together. New Phytol. 2005, 167, 645–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Saeed, M.; Dahab, A.H.A.; Guo, W.Z.; Zhang, T.Z. Acascade of recently discovered molecular mechanisms involved in abiotic stress tolerance of plants. OMICS 2012, 16, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Yue, G.H. Recent advances of genome mapping and marker-assisted selection in aquaculture. Fish Fish. 2014, 15, 376–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Goddard, M.E.; Hayes, B.J. Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2009, 10, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Meuwissen, T.H.E.; Hayes, B.J.; Goddard, M.E. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001, 157, 1819–1829. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. He, J.; Zhao, X.; Laroche, A.; Lu, Z.X.; Liu, H.; Li, Z. Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), an ultimate marker-assisted selection (MAS) tool to accelerate plant breeding. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Thomson, M.; Zhao, K.; Wright, M.; McNally, K.; Rey, J.; Tung, C.W.; Reyn-olds, A.; Scheffler, B.; Eizenga, G.; McClung, A.K.H.; et al. High-throughput single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping for breeding applications in rice using the BeadXpress platform. Mol. Breed. 2012, 29, 875–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Poland, J.A.; Rife, T.W. Genotyping-by-sequencing for plant breeding and genetics. Plant Genome 2012, 5, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Muhammad, A.; Majid, R.F. Crop breeding for salt tolerance in the era of molecular markers and marker-assisted selection. Plant Breed. 2013, 132, 10–20. [Google Scholar]
  10. Quesada, V.; García-Martínez, S.; Piqueras, P.; Ponce, M.; Micol, J.L. Genetic architecture of NaCl tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol. 2002, 130, 951–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Takehisa, H.; Shimodate, T.; Fukuta, Y. Identification of quantitative trait loci for plant growth of rice in paddy field flooded with salt water. Field Crop Res. 2004, 89, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mano, Y.; Takeda, K. Mapping quantitative trait loci for salt tolerance at germination and the seedling stage in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Euphytica 1997, 94, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Villalta, I.; Reina-Sa´nchez, A.; Boları´n, M.C. Genetic analysis of Na+ and K+ concentrations in leaf and stem as physiological components of salt tolerance in Tomato. Theor. Appl. Genet. Int. J. Plant Breed. Res. 2008, 116, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Saeed, M.; Wangzhen, G.; Tianzhen, Z. Association mapping for salinity tolerance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) germplasm from US and diverse regions of China. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2014, 8, 338–346. [Google Scholar]
  15. Penf, Z.; He, S.; Gong, W.; Sun, J.; Pan, Z.; Xu, F.; Lu, Y.; Xiongming, D. Comprehensive analysis of differentially expressed genes and transcriptional regulation induced by salt stress in two contrasting cotton genotypes. BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 760. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jin, L.; Li, H.; Liu, J.Y. Molecular characterization of three ethylene responsive element binding factor genes from cotton. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2010, 52, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Champion, A.; Hébrard, E.; Parra, B.; Bournaud, C.; Marmey, P.; Tranchant, C.; Nicole, M. Molecular diversity and gene expression of cotton ERF transcription factors reveal that group IXa members are responsive to jasmonate, ethylene and Xanthomonas. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2009, 10, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Guo, Y.; Yu, Y.P.; Wang, D.; Wu, C.A.; Yang, G.D.; Huang, J.G.; Zheng, C.C. GhZFP1, a novel CCCH-type zinc finger protein from cotton, enhances salt stress tolerance and fungal disease resistance in transgenic tobacco by interacting with GZIRD21A and GZIPR5. New Phytol. 2009, 183, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Wu, C.A.; Yang, G.D.; Meng, Q.W.; Zheng, C.C. The cotton GhNHX1 gene encoding a novel putative tonoplast Na+/H+ antiporter plays an important role in salt stress. Plant Cell Physiol. 2004, 45, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Meng, C.; Cai, C.; Zhang, T.; Guo, W. Characterization of six novel NAC genes and their responses to abiotic stresses in Gossypium hirsutum L. Plant Sci. Int. J. Exp. Plant Biol. 2009, 176, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xue, T.; Li, X.; Zhu, W.; Wu, C.; Yang, G.; Zheng, C. Cotton metallothionein GhMT3a, a reactive oxygen species scavenger, increased tolerance against abiotic stress in transgenic tobacco and yeast. J. Exp. Biol. 2009, 60, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zhang, L.; Xi, D.; Li, S.; Gao, Z.; Zhao, S.; Shi, J.; Wu, C.; Guo, X. A cotton group C MAP kinase gene, GhMPK2, positively regulates salt and drought tolerance in tobacco. Plant Mol. Biol. 2011, 77, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lu, W.; Chu, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, C.; Guo, X. Cotton GhMKK1 Induces the Tolerance of Salt and Drought Stress, and Mediates Defence Responses to Pathogen Infection in Transgenic Nicotianabenthamiana. PLoS ONE 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gao, S.Q.; Chen, M.; Xia, L.Q.; Xiu, H.J.; Xu, Z.S.; Li, L.-C.; Zhao, C.P.; Cheng, X.G.; Ma, Y.Z. A cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) DRE-binding transcription factor gene, GhDREB, confers enhanced tolerance to drought, high salt, and freezing stresses in transgenic wheat. Plant Cell Rep. 2009, 28, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Oluoch, G.; Zheng, J.; Wang, X.; Khan, M.K.R.; Zhou, Z.; Cai, X.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, H.; et al. QTL mapping for salt tolerance at seedling stage in the interspecific cross of Gossypium tomentosum with Gossypium hirsutum. Euphytica 2016, 209, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Khorsandi, F.; Anagholi, A. Reproductive compensation of cotton after salt stress relief at different growth stages. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2009, 195, 278–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Munns, R. Utilizing genetic resources to enhance productivity of salt-prone land. CAB Rev. 2007, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, S.; Zeng, Z.B. Department of Statistics; Windows QTL Cartographer 2.5; North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, F.; Fan, G.; Lu, C.; Xiao, G.; Zou, C.; Kohel, R.J.; Ma, Z.; Shang, H.; Ma, X.; Wu, J.; et al. Genome sequence of cultivated Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum TM-1) provides insights into genome evolution. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 524–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Rong, J.; Abbey, C.; Bowers, J.E. A 3347-locus genetic recombination map of sequence-tagged sites reveals features of genome organization, transmission and evolution of cotton (Gossypium). Genet. Mol. Biol. 2004, 166, 389–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Singh, U.M.; Yadav, S.; Dixit, S.; Ramayya, P.J.; Devi, M.N.; Raman, K.A.; Kumar, A. QTL Hotspots for Early Vigor and Related Traits under Dry Direct-Seeded System in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Foolad, M.R.; Jones, R.A. Mapping salt-tolerance genes in tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum) using trait-based marker analysis. Theor. Appl. Genet. Int. J. Plant Breed. Res. 1993, 87, 184–192. [Google Scholar]
  33. García-Sánchez, F.; Syvertsen, J.P. Substrate Type and Salinity Affect Growth Allocation, Tissue Ion Concentrations, and Physiological Responses of Carrizo Citrange Seedlings. Hortscience 2009, 44, 1432–1437. [Google Scholar]
  34. Esfandiari, E.; Enayati, V.; Abbasi, A. Biochemical and Physiological Changes in Response to Salinity in Two Durum Wheat (Triticumturgidum L.) Genotypes. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. 2011, 39, 165–170. [Google Scholar]
  35. Abeer Ahmad, R.; Ali Farghaly, F.; Hamada, A.M. Physiological and biochemical responses of salt-tolerant. J. Biol. Earth Sci. 2013, 3, B72–B88. [Google Scholar]
  36. Koca, H.; Bor, M.; Özdemir, F.; Türkan, I. The effect of salt stress on lipid peroxidation, antioxidative enzymes and proline content of sesame cultivars. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2007, 60, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ksouri, R.; Megdiche, W.; Debez, A.; Falleh, H.; Grignon, C. Salinity effects on polyphenol content and antioxidant activities in leaves of the halophyte Cakile maritime. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2007, 45, 244–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kaur, N.; Dhawan, M.; Sharma, I.; Pati, P.K. Interdependency of Reactive Oxygen Species generating and scavenging system in salt sensitive and salt tolerant cultivars of rice. BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. André, D.; José, T.; Joaquim, E.; Carlos, E.; Enéas, G. Effect of salt stress on antioxidative enzymes and lipid peroxidation in leaves and roots of salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive maize genotypes. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2006, 56, 87–94. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sharma, I.; Ching, E.; Saini, S.; Bhardwaj, R.; Pati, P.K. Exogenous application of brassinosteroid offers tolerance to salinity by altering stress responses in rice variety Pusa Basmati-1. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013, 69, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Li, J.; Hu, L.; Zhang, L.; Pan, X.; Hu, X. Exogenous spermidine is enhancing tomato tolerance to salinity–alkalinity stress by regulating chloroplast antioxidant system and chlorophyll metabolism. BMC Plant Biol. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Stepien, P.; Johnson, G.N. Contrasting responses of photosynthesis to salt stress in the glycophyte Arabidopsis and the halophyte Thellungiella: Role of the plastid terminal oxidase as an alternative electron sink. Plant Physiol. 2009, 149, 1154–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ashraf, M.; Harris, P.J.C. Photosynthesis under stressful environments: An overview. Photosynthetica 2013, 51, 163–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gossett, D.R.; Millhollon, E.P.; Lucas, M.C. Antiox-idant response to NaCl stress in salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive cultivars of cotton. Crop Sci. 1994, 34, 706–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sairam, R.; Veerabhadra Rao, K.; Srivastava, G.C. Differential response of wheat genotypes to long term salinity stress in relation to oxidative stress, antioxidant activity and osmolyte concentration. Plant Sci. Int. J. Exp. Plant Biol. 2002, 163, 1037–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Muhammad, A. Some important physiological selection criteria for salt tolerance in plants. Flora 2004, 199, 361–376. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lauchli, A.; Grattan, S.R. Plant growth and development under salinity stress. Springer 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gossett, D.R.; Millhollon, E.P.; Caldwell, W.D.; Mundy, S. Isozyme variation among salt tolerant and salt sensitive varieties of cotton. In Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conference, Nashnille, TN, USA, 6–10 January 1992; pp. 556–559. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bhatti, M.A.; Azhar, F.M. Salt tolerance of nine Gossypium hirsutum L. varieties to NaCl salinity at early stage of plant development. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2002, 4, 544–546. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lang, L.; Xu, A.; Ding, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, N.; Tian, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Liang, F.; et al. Quantitative Trait Locus Mapping of Salt Tolerance and Identification of Salt-Tolerant Genes in Brassica napus L. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Saba, J.; Moghaddam, M.; Ghassemi, K.; Nishabouri, M.R. Genetic properties of drought resistance indices. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2001, 3, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hanif, M.; Noor, E.; Murtaza, N. Assessment of variability for salt tolerance at seedling stage in Gossypium hirsutum L. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2008, 6, 134–138. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nadarajan, N.G.M. Quantitative Genetics and Biometrical Techniques in Plant Breeding; Kalyani Publication: New Delhi, India, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rachid Al-Chaarani, G.; Gentzbittel, L.; Huang, X.; Sarrafi, A. Genotypic variation and identification of QTLs for agronomic traits using AFLP and SSR in recombinant inbred lines of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. Theor. Angew. Genet. 2004, 109, 1353–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Loudet, O.; Sylvain, C.; Patricia, M.; Joël, T.; Françoise, D.-V. Quantitative trait loci analysis of water and anion contents in interaction with nitrogen availability in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 2003, 163, 711–722. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Loudet, O.; Sylvain, C.; Patricia, M.; Joël, T.; Françoise, D.-V. Quantitative trait loci analysis of nitrogen use efficiency in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2003, 131, 345–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Jamshed, M.; Jia, F.; Gong, J.; Palanga, K.K.; Shi, Y.; Li, J.; Shang, H.; Liu, A.; Chen, T.; Zhang, Z.; et al. Identification of stable quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for fiber quality traits across multiple environments in Gossypium hirsutum recombinant inbred line population. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Cho, S.K.; Ryu, M.Y.; Song, C.; Kwak, J.M.; Kima, W.T. Arabidopsis PUB22 and PUB23 are homologous U-Box E3 ubiquitin ligases that play combinatory roles in response to drought stress. Plant Cell 2008, 20, 1899–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Du, X.-M.; Sun, J.-L.; Zhou, Z.-L.; Gu, Y.-H.; Pan, Z.-E.; He, S.-P.; Pang, B.-Y.; Wang, L.-R. Current Situation and the Future in Collection, Preservation, Evaluation. Plant Genet. Resour. 2012, 13, 163–168. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hoagland, D.R.; Arnon, D.I. The Water-Culture Method for Growing Plants without Soil; California Experiment Station Circular, The College of Agriculture, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1950. [Google Scholar]
  61. Barr, H.D.; Weatherley, P.E. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 1962, 15, 413–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Madhava Rao, K.V.; Sresty, T.V. Antioxidative parameters in the seedlings of pigeonpea (Cajanuscajan L. Millspaugh) in response to Zn and Ni stresses. Plant Sci. 2000, 157, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Paterson, A.H.; Brubaker, C.; Wendel, J.F. A rapid method for extraction of cotton (Gossypium spp.) genomic DNA suitable for RFLP or PCR analysis. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 1993, 11, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Krizman, M.J.J.; Baricevic, D.; Jakše, J.; Prosek, M. Robust CTAB-activated charcoal protocol for plant DNA extraction. Acta Agric. Slov. 2006, 87, 427–433. [Google Scholar]
  65. Wilfinger, W.W.; Chomczynski, M.K. P 260/280 and 260/230 Ratios NanoDrop® ND-1000 and ND-8000 8-Sample Spectrophotometers. BioTechniques 1997, 22, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  66. Kante, M.; Rattunde, H.F.W.; Leiser, W.L.; Nebié, B.; Diallo, B.; Diallo, A.; Touré, A.O.; Weltzien, E.; Haussmann, B.I.G. Can Tall Guinea-Race Sorghum Hybrids Deliver Yield Advantage to Smallholder Farmers in West and Central Africa? Crop Sci. 2017, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Elshire, R.J.; Glaubitz, G.J.; Sun, Q.; Jesse, A.; Kawamoto, K.; Buckler, E.S.; Mitchell, S.E. A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE 2011, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Glaubitz, J.C.; Casstevens, T.M.; Lu, F.; Harriman, J.; Elshire, R.J.; Sun, Q.; Buck, E.S. TASSEL-GBS: A High Capacity Genotyping by Sequencing Analysis Pipeline. PLoS ONE 2014, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Paten, B.; Novak, A.; Haussler, D. Mapping to a Reference Genome Structure. arXiv, 2014; 1–26arXiv:1404.5010. [Google Scholar]
  70. Li, H.; Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1754–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Danecek, P.; Auton, A.; Abecasis, G.; Albers, C.A.; Banks, E.; DePristo, M.A.; Handsaker, R.E.; Lunter, G.; Marth, G.T.; Sherry, S.T.; et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2156–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Bradbury, P.J.; Zhang, Z.; Kroon, D.E.; Casstevens, T.M.; Ramdoss, Y.; Buckler, E.S. TASSEL: Software for association mapping of complex traits in diverse samples. Bioinformatics 2007, 23, 2633–2635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Stam, P.; van Ooijen, J.W. JoinMapTM Version 2.0: Software for the Calculation of Genetic Linkage Maps; Plant Research International B.V. and Kyazma B.V.: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  74. The R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  75. Silva, M.J.R.; Ferreira, T.E.; Domiciano, S.; Paula, A.; Paiva, M.; Tecchio, M.A.; Leonel, S. Phenology, yield and fruit quality of four persimmon (Diospyros kaki L.) cultivars in So Paulos Midwest countryside, Brazil. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 11, 5171–5177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lander, E.; Kruglyak, L. Genetic dissection of complex traits: Guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage results. Nat. Genet. 1995, 1, 1241–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Liang, Q.; Hu, C.; Hua, H.; Li, Z.; Hua, J. Construction of a linkage map and QTL mapping for fiber quality traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Chin. Sci. Bull. 2013, 58, 3233–3243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stuber, C.; Edwards, M.D.; Wendel, J.F. Molecular marker facilitated investigations of quantitative trait loci in maize. II. Factors influencing yield and its component traits. Crop Sci. Rep. 1987, 27, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Voorrips, R.E. MapChart: Software for the graphical presentation of linkage maps and QTLs. J. Hered. 2002, 93, 77–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Zhang, T.; Hu, Y.; Jiang, W.; Fang, L.; Guan, X.; Chen, J.; Zhang, J.; Saski, C.A.; Scheffler, B.E.; Stelly, D.M.; et al. Sequencing of allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. acc. TM-1) provides a resource for fiber improvement. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Phenotypic analysis of salt tolerance at the seedling stage of the two parents; (A) MDA: Malondialdehyde (µM/g.FW); (B) EC: Electric Conductivity (%); (C) GR: Germination Rate (number/40 seeds); (D) FW: Fresh Weight (g); (E) SL: Stem Length (cm); (F) LFW: Leaves Fresh Weight (g); (G) SLW: Saturated Leaves Weight (g); (H) DLW: Dry Leaves Weight (g); (I) RWC: Related Water Content (mL) and (J) CHL: Chlorophyll Content (mg/g.FW).
Figure 1. Phenotypic analysis of salt tolerance at the seedling stage of the two parents; (A) MDA: Malondialdehyde (µM/g.FW); (B) EC: Electric Conductivity (%); (C) GR: Germination Rate (number/40 seeds); (D) FW: Fresh Weight (g); (E) SL: Stem Length (cm); (F) LFW: Leaves Fresh Weight (g); (G) SLW: Saturated Leaves Weight (g); (H) DLW: Dry Leaves Weight (g); (I) RWC: Related Water Content (mL) and (J) CHL: Chlorophyll Content (mg/g.FW).
Ijms 18 02622 g001
Figure 2. Correlation analysis of the 10 traits in two salt environments:(a) 110 mM, (b) 150 mM, (*), (**), (***) significant levels of 0.5, 0.01 and 0.001 respectively.
Figure 2. Correlation analysis of the 10 traits in two salt environments:(a) 110 mM, (b) 150 mM, (*), (**), (***) significant levels of 0.5, 0.01 and 0.001 respectively.
Ijms 18 02622 g002
Figure 3. Genetic map constructed using the F2:3 population derived from the parental lines.
Figure 3. Genetic map constructed using the F2:3 population derived from the parental lines.
Ijms 18 02622 g003
Figure 4. Clustered QTLs identified in D03 (c17) for salt tolerance. Bars and lines on the right-hand side of the linkage groups show the QTL likelihood intervals. Map distances in centimorgan (cM) are indicated at the left-hand side of the linkage groups. Asterisk (***): means the QTL is consistent.
Figure 4. Clustered QTLs identified in D03 (c17) for salt tolerance. Bars and lines on the right-hand side of the linkage groups show the QTL likelihood intervals. Map distances in centimorgan (cM) are indicated at the left-hand side of the linkage groups. Asterisk (***): means the QTL is consistent.
Ijms 18 02622 g004
Figure 5. Candidate genes identified by syntenic analysis between two markers. Red loci represent the flanking markers and black represent the key genes. Unit distances in Mb. Chromosomes are as follows: (a) A12; (b) D01; (c) D03; (d) D06; (e) D08; (f) D13.
Figure 5. Candidate genes identified by syntenic analysis between two markers. Red loci represent the flanking markers and black represent the key genes. Unit distances in Mb. Chromosomes are as follows: (a) A12; (b) D01; (c) D03; (d) D06; (e) D08; (f) D13.
Ijms 18 02622 g005
Figure 6. Heat map of identified putative candidate genes in various cotton leaf salt treatment.
Figure 6. Heat map of identified putative candidate genes in various cotton leaf salt treatment.
Ijms 18 02622 g006
Figure 7. QTLs for salt tolerance. The x-axis indicates the QTL for these different traits. The y-axis indicates the phenotypic variation explained by the QTL for each trait; FW: Fresh Weight (g); MDA: Malondialdehyde (µM/g.FW); SL: Stem Length (cm), SLW: Saturated Leaves Weight (g), D: dominance effect, OD: overdominance effect and PD: partial dominance effect.
Figure 7. QTLs for salt tolerance. The x-axis indicates the QTL for these different traits. The y-axis indicates the phenotypic variation explained by the QTL for each trait; FW: Fresh Weight (g); MDA: Malondialdehyde (µM/g.FW); SL: Stem Length (cm), SLW: Saturated Leaves Weight (g), D: dominance effect, OD: overdominance effect and PD: partial dominance effect.
Ijms 18 02622 g007
Figure 8. Collinearity between the genetic map and the physical map.
Figure 8. Collinearity between the genetic map and the physical map.
Ijms 18 02622 g008
Table 1. ANOVA and heritability analysis of salt tolerance traits for the two parents and the progeny.
Table 1. ANOVA and heritability analysis of salt tolerance traits for the two parents and the progeny.
F2:3
Trait aEnv bSourceDfMean SquareF ValuePr > FHB (%)NH = P2CCRI35 = P1P1–P2MeanVarSDMinMaxSkewKurt
MDACKe20.009199.712<0.000173.40.0280.022−0.0060.04200.01100.0850.0520.753
1g2760.00114.401<0.00010.0270.015−0.0120.03700.0110.0040.066−0.050.159
2g * e5430.00036.11<0.00010.0140.009−0.0050.03600.01600.0980.1980.081
ECCKe229,102.2978.452<0.000157.568.50564.085−4.4245.469109.20710.4522.75492.320.720.762
1g276246.0728.273<0.000137.88241.4063.52435.44841.4036.43518.82459.9020.630.645
2g * e543125.3384.214<0.000139.69541.6171.92234.60175.8588.7116.71367.5050.9660.883
GRCKe28313.01427.302<0.000168.43133.6672.66732.92233.5835.795740−1.171.364
1g276191.8019.859<0.000122.66726.53.83326.67761.1737.821640−0.533−0.535
2g * e54365.4413.364<0.00012630428.35554.8297.405440−0.7740.058
FWCKe28.5437435<0.000187.40.6150.6460.0310.6680.0070.0860.4120.894−0.055−0.394
1g2760.03328.453<0.00010.5010.550.0490.5130.0050.0710.3180.70.053−0.343
2g * e5430.0097.621<0.00010.4190.4450.0260.4720.0070.0850.2840.790.444−0.029
SLCKe2971.2726639.29<0.000183.19.149.2670.1278.0820.5120.7165.4610.54−0.2690.407
1g2763.98827.261<0.00017.388.1870.8077.060.8820.9394.1210.440.1070.194
2g * e5431.83312.526<0.00015.5336.320.7875.8521.5751.2552.99.580.172−0.388
LFWCKe21.1033127.67<0.000187.30.2630.3050.0420.2920.0020.0420.1680.416−0.019−0.21
1g2760.0127.156<0.00010.2420.2730.0310.2580.0020.0420.1380.3960.2050.064
2g * e5430.0026.484<0.00010.1880.2160.0280.2170.0020.0460.0620.390.4490.385
SLWCKe20.7781641.26<0.000186.80.2920.3430.0510.3110.0020.0440.1780.432−0.035−0.152
1g2760.01225.249<0.00010.2970.3290.0320.3190.0020.0490.180.4940.1470.037
2g * e5430.0035.455<0.00010.2550.2850.030.260.0030.050.0760.4780.3980.657
DLWCKe20.00186.178<0.000182.60.0250.0310.0060.03200.0050.0160.046−0.015−0.053
1g2760.000117.117<0.00010.0320.0330.0010.03400.0050.0180.050.0440.113
2g * e5432.18 × 10−52.826<0.00010.0370.032−0.0050.03400.0050.0180.0520.1450.02
RWCCKe25.0917581.42<0.000142.30.8890.878−0.0110.9340.0020.0420.5240.994−3.5650.22
1g2760.0068.758<0.00010.7920.8090.0170.7860.0010.0380.6080.941−0.1381.348
2g * e5430.0046.559<0.00010.6910.7270.0360.8070.0030.0570.6150.987−0.1410.969
CHLCKe215,495.42024.51<0.00015159.63352.86−6.77354.09115.9693.99639.5865.82−0.1730.345
1g27667.2978.793<0.000151.07351.9070.83457.58314.453.80141.4466.78−0.4860.467
2g * e54343.4195.673<0.000148.41350.942.52748.72138.0696.1729.7463.46−0.530.126
CK = 0 mM; 1 = 110 mM; 2 = 150 mM; MDA: Malondialdehyde; EC: Electric Conductivity; GR: Germination Rate; FW: Fresh Weight; SL: Stem Length; LFW: Leaves Fresh Weight; SLW: Saturated Leaves Weight; DLW: Dry Leaves Weight; RWC: Related Water Content and CHL: Chlorophyll. For the traits units see Figure 1, Var: Variance, SD: Standard deviation, Min: Minimum, Max: Maximum, Skew: Skewness, Kurt: Kurtosis, a: traits, b: treatments, e: environment, g: genotype, and (*) means interaction. For traits units see to Figure 1.
Table 2. Genomic distributions of SNP markers in the AD genome.
Table 2. Genomic distributions of SNP markers in the AD genome.
GroupMarker_NumberMap_Length (cM)Av_Distance (cM)Max_Gap (cM)<5 cM5–10 cM10–20 cM>20 cMRatio
A01(c1)448146.7040.338.5054452001
A02(c2)705346.3140.4917.84868712500.98
A03(c3)323213.9370.6617.14530910300.96
A04(c4)106203.8911.9226.598918510.87
A05(c5)378385.0921.0221.198354111110.94
A06(c6)5873.0631.2615.032531300.93
A07(c7)279205.8920.7411.6222724200.98
A08(c8)69112.1371.6318.894587300.85
A09(c9)98138.5011.4119.234869200.89
A10(c10)292202.1340.6910.5512807400.96
A11(c11)5170.5481.3823.241472010.94
A12(c12)244309.6081.2719.59322412700.92
A13(c13)262203.610.7817.4252497500.95
At sub-genome33132611.430.7926.5983155925030.94
D01(c15)319144.0920.456.3513162000.99
D02(c14)454313.2680.6914.54143812300.97
D03(c17)133170.5551.2814.9931247100.94
D04(c22)114136.2281.1920.2751073210.95
D05(c19)153218.7881.4327.0621417220.93
D06(c25)1679.0844.9422.389111210.73
D07(c16)169235.3661.3926.0411547610.92
D08(c24)118226.6881.9220.8781036710.88
D09(c23)40136.7443.4214.48285600.72
D10(c20)80129.0511.6120.539715210.9
D11(c21)9889.7820.9227.564932110.96
D12(c26)143194.7351.3630.0821332520.94
D13(c18)2882.2862.9420.917223110.81
Dt sub-genome18652156.671.15630.08217416238110.9
Total (At + Dt)51784768.10.9230.082489615488140.92
Ratio: number of markers less than (<) 5 cM divided by total number of markers within chromosome.
Table 3. Consistent and clustered QTLs of salt tolerance traits identified in three environments by CIM.
Table 3. Consistent and clustered QTLs of salt tolerance traits identified in three environments by CIM.
ClusterTraitQTLsChrStart MarkerEnd MarkerStart Marker (bp)End Marker (bp)Length of CI Markers (Mb)Position (cM)LODAeDe|d/a|R2 (%)GADPE
1ECqEC_A02_ckA02mk1046_A02mk1107_A024,445,5577,584,8393.142.64−1.35224.37133.233.65ODNH
qEC_A02_150A02MulMa26-m_A02mk1778_A0276,134,21681,766,1255.6320.812.78−1.3853−2.22431.611.73ODNH
qEC_A02_110.2A02mk19866mk14259187622470.0004197.412.71−7.1631−2.53850.351.14PDNH
qEC_A02_110.3A02mk1293_A02mk1512_A0223,817,68040,364,78616.55220.013.1−9.7207−2.93060.30PDNH
qEC_A02_110.1A02mk1340_A02mk1443_A0225,911,71535,098,2199.19134.512.85−8.6005−3.37560.390PDNH
2FWqFW_A06_150.1A06mk4886_A06mk4999_A0692,310,42997,063,1934.750.313.71−0.00930.05045.423.39ODNH
qFW_A06_150.2A06mk4886_A06mk4999_A0692,310,42997,063,1934.750.814.5−0.00410.03257.933.14ODNH
qFW_A06_110.1A06mk4886_A06mk4999_A0692,310,42997,063,1934.751.313.320.00190.043222.740.52ODCCRI35
qFW_A06_110.2A06mk4998_A06mk5001_A0697,063,19097,172,4800.111.314.750.00040.029473.50.87ODCCRI35
SLWqSLW_A06_110A06mk4886_A06mk4999_A0692,310,42997,063,1934.751.313.050.00350.02777.910.01ODCCRI35
qSLW_A06_150A06mk4999_A06mk5000_A0697,063,19397,137,6760.070.814.5−0.00380.03599.452.76ODNH
3ECqEC_A12_110.1A12mk9153_A12mk9167_A1277,455,44477,705,8770.2557.514.35−1.46492.45031.677.91ODNH
qEC_A12_150A12mk9173_A12mk9189_A1279,355,80681,365,0072.0129.513.01−1.9851−0.66440.334.47PDNH
qEC_A12_110.2A12MulMa655-mmk1937823,98892,6780.0775.215.28−1.25554.39613.58.29ODNH
SLqSL_A12_150A12mk18878mk9187_A1217381,262,30181.2646.512.68−0.2876−0.05930.214.18PDNH
qSL_A12_110A12mk8806_A12mk8817_A12253,9011,660,9951.41287.812.640.0650.4567.020.03ODCCRI35
4FWqFW_D01_110.3D01mk10908_D01mk10918_D0154,507,76054,630,0170.1255.413.950.00970.00640.664.25PDCCRI35
qFW_D01_110.2D01mk10908_D01mk10918_D0154,507,76054,630,0170.1255.413.320.01570.00720.464.06PDCCRI35
qFW_D01_110.1D01mk10900_D01mk10955_D0154,444,28055,458,8181.0150.212.510.0130.01270.982.25DCCRI35
qFW_D01_150.2D01mk10837_D01MulMa276_D0151,102,99053,566,0342.4682.312.720.00650.0192.920.74ODCCRI35
qFW_D01_150.1D01mk10840_D01MulMa276_D0151,199,33353,566,0342.3783.312.690.00970.03853.970.32ODCCRI35
SLWqSLW_D01_110D01mk10840_D01MulMa276_D0151,199,33353,566,0342.3780.713.370.00950.01932.032.09ODCCRI35
qSLW_D01_150.2D01mk10837_D01MulMa276_D0151,102,99053,566,0342.4682.312.840.00720.02183.030.73ODCCRI35
qSLW_D01_150.1D01MulMa268-m_D01MulMa272_D0151,320,05851,944,1130.622.53−0.010.02272.274.94ODNH
5DLWqDLW_D03_ck.1D03mk12058_D03mk12060_D033,459,2944,072,9810.6154.714.04−0.0010.00161.66.92ODNH
qDLW_D03_ck.2D03mk12061_D03mk12065_D034,073,1164,904,7550.8360.912.65−0.00070.00182.574.29ODNH
qDLW_D03_110D03mk12143_D03mk12152_D0336,784,17337,665,1670.88135.012.88−0.00110.00010.094.29ANH
qDLW_D03_ck.3D03mk12156_D03mk12167_D0337,695,15640,261,5782.57149.312.66−0.00060.00193.173.34ODNH
FWqFW_D03_110.2D03mk12096_D03mk12127_D0326,385,56230,628,9514.2492.115.76−0.02310.00670.299.87PDNH
qFW_D03_ckD03mk12142_D03mk12152_D0336,697,65637,665,1670.97132.214.19−0.02270.02411.068DNH
qFW_D03_110.1D03mk15025mk150275,017,0895,704,2310.6981.916.05−0.0219−0.00930.427.24PDNH
qFW_D03_150.1D03mk12142_D03mk12154_D0336,697,65637,676,4140.98132.214.45−0.0241−0.0140.585.46PDNH
qFW_D03_150.2D03mk12140_D03mk12154_D0335,382,97437,676,4142.29136.012.79−0.0103−0.00470.463.63PDNH
SLWqSLW_D03_110D03mk12142_D03mk12152_D0336,697,65637,665,1670.97135.015.12−0.0143−0.00020.017.6ANH
qSLW_D03_ck.1D03mk12140_D03mk12154_D0335,382,97437,676,4142.29136.012.64−0.00740.01682.274.83ODNH
qSLW_D03_ck.2D03mk12158_D03mk12165_D0337,938,15840,254,8752.32151.213.58−0.00530.02234.214.28ODNH
qSLW_D03_150D03mk12140_D03mk12154_D0335,382,97437,676,4142.29135.013.27−0.0117−0.0070.63.69PDNH
qSLW_D03_ck.3D03mk12162_D03mk12186_D0340,254,81442,120,1841.87157.612.81−0.00340.02035.972.72ODNH
6DLWqDLW_D06_110D06mk13340_D06mk13562_D0611,196,12923,393,58412.259.214.21−0.00080.0022.55.85ODNH
qDLW_D06_ckD06mk17780mk13340_D0698211,196,12911.259.213.25−0.00060.0023.334.29ODNH
SLWqSLW_D06_ckD06mk13340_D06mk13562_D0611,196,12923,393,58412.259.212.72−0.00710.01462.064.4ODNH
qSLW_D06_110D06mk13340_D06mk13562_D0611,196,12923,393,58412.259.213.14−0.0060.02153.583.79ODNH
7FWqFW_D08_150D08MulMa513_D08mk16015_D0854,937,77759,655,8014.72200.812.660.0095−0.00961.014.71DCCRI35
qFW_D08_110D08MulMa512_D08mk16022_D0854,681,23359,878,8255.2191.613.290.01710.01150.673.76PDCCRI35
qFW_D08_110D08MulMa512_D08MulMa517-m_D0854,681,23358,216,4933.54187.613.120.00870.00881.012.66DCCRI35
8MDAqMDA_D13_110D13mk18516_D13mk18547_D1341,759,68148,359,0576.61.312.78−0.00210.00341.624.79ODNH
qMDA_D13_150D13mk11123mk7779746258,1750.0580.212.930.0010.00939.30.11ODCCRI35
LOD: logarithm of odds, 0 < Ae (additive effect) < 0.20; 0.21 < PD (partial dominance) < 0.80; 0.81 < D (dominance) < 1.20; OD (overdominance) > 1.20, |d/a| = De/Ae, GA: gene action, DPE: direction of phenotypic explanation.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Diouf, L.; Pan, Z.; He, S.-P.; Gong, W.-F.; Jia, Y.H.; Magwanga, R.O.; Romy, K.R.E.; Or Rashid, H.; Kirungu, J.N.; Du, X. High-Density Linkage Map Construction and Mapping of Salt-Tolerant QTLs at Seedling Stage in Upland Cotton Using Genotyping by Sequencing (GBS). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 2622. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18122622

AMA Style

Diouf L, Pan Z, He S-P, Gong W-F, Jia YH, Magwanga RO, Romy KRE, Or Rashid H, Kirungu JN, Du X. High-Density Linkage Map Construction and Mapping of Salt-Tolerant QTLs at Seedling Stage in Upland Cotton Using Genotyping by Sequencing (GBS). International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2017; 18(12):2622. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18122622

Chicago/Turabian Style

Diouf, Latyr, Zhaoe Pan, Shou-Pu He, Wen-Fang Gong, Yin Hua Jia, Richard Odongo Magwanga, Kimbembe Romesh Eric Romy, Harun Or Rashid, Joy Nyangasi Kirungu, and Xiongming Du. 2017. "High-Density Linkage Map Construction and Mapping of Salt-Tolerant QTLs at Seedling Stage in Upland Cotton Using Genotyping by Sequencing (GBS)" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 18, no. 12: 2622. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18122622

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop