Next Article in Journal
Novel Compound Heterozygous Mutation in TRAPPC9 Gene: The Relevance of Whole Genome Sequencing
Next Article in Special Issue
Harnessing Crop Wild Diversity for Climate Change Adaptation
Previous Article in Journal
Screening and Identification of Host Proteins Interacting with Iris lactea var. chinensis Metallothionein IlMT2a by Yeast Two-Hybrid Assay
Previous Article in Special Issue
QTL Mapping for Domestication-Related Characteristics in Field Cress (Lepidium campestre)—A Novel Oil Crop for the Subarctic Region
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Allelic Diversity at Abiotic Stress Responsive Genes in Relationship to Ecological Drought Indices for Cultivated Tepary Bean, Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray, and Its Wild Relatives

by
María A. Buitrago-Bitar
1,2,
Andrés J. Cortés
3,4,
Felipe López-Hernández
3,
Jorge M. Londoño-Caicedo
1,2,
Jaime E. Muñoz-Florez
1,
L. Carmenza Muñoz
1 and
Matthew Wohlgemuth Blair
1,5,*
1
Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Palmira 763533, Colombia
2
Grupo de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Biotecnología (GIBUQ), Universidad del Quindío, Armenia 630002, Colombia
3
Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria AGROSAVIA, C.I. La Selva, Km 7 vía Rionegro—Las Palmas, Rionegro 054048, Colombia
4
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias—Departamento de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia—Sede Medellín, Medellín 050034, Colombia
5
Department of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN 37209, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2021, 12(4), 556; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12040556
Submission received: 6 March 2021 / Revised: 1 April 2021 / Accepted: 9 April 2021 / Published: 12 April 2021

Abstract

:
Some of the major impacts of climate change are expected in regions where drought stress is already an issue. Grain legumes are generally drought susceptible. However, tepary bean and its wild relatives within Phaseolus acutifolius or P. parvifolius are from arid areas between Mexico and the United States. Therefore, we hypothesize that these bean accessions have diversity signals indicative of adaptation to drought at key candidate genes such as: Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA. By sequencing alleles of these genes and comparing to estimates of drought tolerance indices from climate data for the collection site of geo-referenced, tepary bean accessions, we determined the genotype x environmental association (GEA) of each gene. Diversity analysis found that cultivated and wild P. acutifolius were intermingled with var. tenuifolius and P. parvifolius, signifying that allele diversity was ample in the wild and cultivated clade over a broad sense (sensu lato) evaluation. Genes Dreb2B and ERECTA harbored signatures of directional selection, represented by six SNPs correlated with the environmental drought indices. This suggests that wild tepary bean is a reservoir of novel alleles at genes for drought tolerance, as expected for a species that originated in arid environments. Our study corroborated that candidate gene approach was effective for marker validation across a broad genetic base of wild tepary accessions.

1. Introduction

Identifying and characterizing novel sources of tolerance to abiotic stresses is among the most pressing requirements for coping with the effects of climate change on crop production [1]. Climate modeling forecasts that increased drought alone will jeopardize global crop production by over 10% sooner than 2050 [2], substantially worsening global malnutrition in the most vulnerable areas, which are also the poorest. Therefore, species and landraces locally adapted to dry environments [3] will prove keys to meet future demands. These exotic germplasm sources compared to those we use today, may either confer the necessary alleles to make cultivars more tolerant via backcrossing and genome editing [4], or they could stand as novel crop alternatives by themselves [5] if they convey local market preferences required to feed people in semi-arid regions.
Legumes from temperate and tropical regions (the true beans and peas) are known for high dietary protein and micronutrient contents, but are generally drought susceptible [6], while some semi-tropical and Mediterranean species are more tolerant [7,8]. Among the five cultivated species of the well-liked bean genus Phaseolus, the most drought tolerant as a whole is the tepary bean s.s. (Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray), an annual autogamous species from northwest Mexico, likely domesticated one or twice near the arid border with the USA [9,10,11], and with a strong preference for hot and dry environments [12,13,14]. Generally, tepary beans are considered more drought tolerant than common bean (P. vulgaris L.) because of their origin in dryland environments [15] and have been recommended for breeding across species boundaries. Wild relatives of tepary bean such as P. parvifolius may be even more drought tolerant given their desert collection sites; yet this remains poorly studied as some tepary beans are ephemeral plants that appear after desert rains at the borders of dry upland forests [16].
Even though tepary bean has limited relevance as a modern crop, it is still a possible donor of alleles for tolerance [16,17,18]. Previous works have already explored this potential for heat tolerance, but it is less well explored for drought [17]. Despite this, common bean (P. vulgaris L.) has been backcrossed with tepary bean, yielding successful drought and disease resistance [19,20,21] despite their phylogenetic distance [6,22,23] and low levels of inter-specific introgression [16]. Yet, these efforts have been limited to pyramid target alleles at multiple loci because the genetics of tolerance in tepary is less studied [24,25,26].
Drought tolerance pathways [27] and QTL are widely studied in common bean [28]. Various candidate genes have been identified [29], most with moderate effects as expected for a complex adaptive trait [26]. Some mechanisms of drought tolerance are controlled through an abscisic acid (ABA) responsive pathway [30]; among which Asr (abscisic acid, stress, ripening induced) transcription factors are components [31] of the ABA-dependent pathway [32] that interact with ABA-responsive element promoters [33] for sucrose synthase genes [34]. Asr1 has been under positive natural selection for drought adaptation in wild common beans from semi-mesic to dry habitats [35] indicating its importance for breeding or gene editing in the future and for the present study.
Meanwhile, other mechanisms of drought tolerance are independent of ABA [30,36]. For instance, drought-responsive element-binding (DREB) protein-encoding Dreb genes are also plant-specific, stress-regulated transcription factors that belong to the AP2/EREBP family, but are in the ABA-independent pathway [37,38]. These transcription factors have an AP2 domain and interact with drought-responsive elements (DRE) or promoters found near other genes involved in adaptation to drought [39]. In common bean’s wild genepools, Dreb2A exhibited levels of nucleotide diversity above the genomic average, which is indicative of adaptive (divergent) selection across variable habitats differing in natural evapotranspiration and precipitation [40]. In contrast, Dreb2B had very low nucleotide diversity relative to neutral reference loci, likely due to purifying selection, so that cultivated accessions have lower diversity than the wild [41].
Upstream of the drought stress response pathways, ERECTA-like encoding genes are among the best-characterized transcriptional regulators affecting drought tolerance in plants [42]. These leucine rich repeats (LRR) receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase trans-membrane proteins perceive the drought stress signal across the cell membranes where they are located [43]. Specifically, ERECTA proteins regulate the frequency and development of stomata on leaves [44], among many other biological processes including development, pathogen defense and phyto-hormone perception [45]. Similarly to Asr and Dreb genes, an ERECTA-encoding gene was associated with ecological differences in common bean wild accessions found across a range of wet to dry habitats.
In a trait typically regarded as polygenic like drought tolerance [46], these genes are candidates for adaptive introgression [47], as a way to overcome the genetic erosion from the domestication bottlenecks in a cultivated genepool of tepary bean [48]. Since these regulators display signatures of adaptation in wild common bean from habitats with different water regimens, we hypothesized that tepary may exhibit diversity signals at these same genes indicative of adaptation to dry environments.
With the overall objective of understanding drought tolerance genes in tepary bean, our goals in this study were (1) to estimate drought tolerance in the hybridizing tepary bean clade s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius) using geo-referenced germplasm accessions and associated climate information, and (2) to examine genetic correlations between estimated drought stress in tepary bean and its allele diversity at Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding genes, which we had previously studied and found to be significantly associated with domestication and drought tolerance in common bean. This will allow the unlocking of drought-related genetic variation hidden in tepary beans and their wild relatives [11,49,50], extending from there into early landraces that together with variation from common bean wild relatives can be used to increase the rate of genetic gain for drought tolerance via inter-specific hybridization, marker-assisted backcrossing [51,52], genomic editing [53], or predictive breeding [54] in any of the Phaseolus cultigens.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material

A panel of diverse tepary bean genotypes representing the allelic variation in the P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade were considered in this study (23 wild P. acutifolius, 6 cultivated P. acutifolius, 4 P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and 19 P. parvifolius, Figure S1, Table S1). Wild accessions were prioritized over cultivated ones because many cultivars of tepary bean are duplicate or highly similar as indicated by Muñoz, Duque, Debouck, and Blair [16] and Blair, Pantoja, and Carmenza Munoz [9], using AFLP and SSR marker datasets, respectively. Besides, the hybridizing nature of the cultivated-wild tepary bean clade s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius) implied that the effective size of this sampling was higher in terms of available standing adaptive variation and contrasted abiotic responses, allowing for a candidate gene design, as described below. Additional sequencing control genotypes were made up of the common bean accessions BAT93, BAT477, BAT881, and G19833. Seed material and recommendations were provided by D. Debouck and O. Toro of the Genetic Resource Unit and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Genebank collection, CIAT (http://isa.ciat.cgiar.org/urg/main.do, 10 April 2021).

2.2. Habitat-Based Drought Stress Indices

Available geo-referencing of the collection site for each accession was used to extract climate information at a 2.5-min resolution from WorldClim (http://www.worldclim.org, 10 April 2021) using the dismo and raster packages of the software package R v.4.0.2 (R Core Team). Historical temperature and precipitation values were obtained as monthly averages from 1970 to 2000 in order to estimate habitat Drought Index (DI) ratio (Table S2) using Thornthwaite’s potential classic evapotranspiration (PET) model [55]. PETj computation followed Equation (1) for the ‘j’ month, as validated by Cortés, Monserrate, Ramírez-Villegas, Madriñán, and Blair [40], and López-Hernández and Cortés [56], in a diverse panel of common bean accessions.
P E T j = { 1.6 L j ( 10 T j I ) a T j > 0 0 T j 0
This PETj estimate considered explicit temperature effects (Tj, monthly mean air temperature in °C), as well as indirect temperature-related properties via annual heat index (I, Equation (2)) and a cubic function of I (a, Equation (3)).
I = { i = 1 12 ( T j 5 ) 1.514 T j > 0 0 T j 0
a = 6.75 10 7 I 3 7.71 10 5 I 2 + 1.792 10 2 I + 0.49239
The PETj score in Equation (1) did not just account for temperature drivers, but also incorporated latitudinal adjusted sunlight radiation (Lj, Equation (4)) as a function of day length duration (Dj) and latitude in sexagesimal degrees (Equation (5)).
L j = D j 12
D j = 24 ( 24 π ) c o s 1 ( s i n ( 0.8333 π 180 ) + s i n ( L a t i t u d e π 180 ) s i n A j c o s ( L a t i t u d e π 180 ) c o s A j )
Day length duration (Dj) was in turn corrected for day of year (Ji, day 15 of the ‘j’ month), as in Equation (6)).
A j = s i n 1 ( 0.39795 c o s ( 0.2163108 + 2 t a n 1 ( 0.9671396 t a n ( 0.00860 ( J i 186 ) ) ) ) )
Finally, after computing PETj, monthly Drought Indices (DIj) were obtained by comparing PETj estimators with monthly precipitation values (Pj), so that DIj followed Equation (7) for the ‘j’ month, where Dj ≤ 100.
D I j = 100 ( P E T j P j P E T j )
The PETj (Equation (1)) and DIj (Equation (7)) scores were considered over three, six, and 12 month intervals in the first place, then in an alternative analysis, where the estimations were carried out over four trimesters, with the aim to match tepary bean phenology at any time period over the year with drought stress indicators such as the ones described.
The timeframes considered accumulated (three, six, and 12 month periods) and non-accumulated (trimesters one, two, three, and four) drought events over seasonal or yearlong time frames in the natural habitat where each accession was collected. A map of collection sites was drawn for the study area at 30 s resolution in R v.4.0.2 using ggmap package (Figure 1). This geographical representation considered altitude in one panel and DI in the other showing each tepary bean collections site in parallel. The maps were useful to understand the overall DI, where red areas had higher stress values compared to those graphed in blue with lower drought stress and greater water availability, in comparison to altitude.

2.3. DNA Extraction, Candidate Gene Amplification and Sequencing

Total DNA was extracted from young leaves after seedling germination of each tepary bean genotype following the method of Dellaporta et al. [57]. Combinations of primers (Table S3) and amplification conditions of introns and flanking variable sections from three prioritized candidate genes followed standardizations carried out by Cortés, Chavarro, Madriñán, This, and Blair [35], Cortés, This, Chavarro, Madriñán, and Blair [41], and Blair, Cortés, and This [48] for Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding genes, respectively. The same primers worked for amplicons’ preparation and sequencing. Amplicons’ quality and sizes were checked on a 1.5% agarose-Tris-Borate-EDTA gel containing GelRed (Biotium, Fremont, CA, USA). Successful amplicons with bright bands in the gels were purified using Exo-Sap clean-up reactions in order to be used as templates for subsequent paired-end Sanger sequencing reactions using BigDye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA, USA). Purified samples of the cleaned-up bands were aliquoted to a standard 200 ng of DNA, lyophilized, and sent to Macrogen USA (Psomagen Inc., Rockville, MD, USA) to be run on an ABI prism 3730 automated sequencer with original primers for sequencing and Big Dye chemistry (ABI, Foster City, CA, USA). Four common bean (P. vulgaris) genotypes (BAT93, BAT477, BAT881, and G19833) were included as sequencing controls to assist allele calling.

2.4. Patterns of Nucleotide Diversity and Environmental Correlations at Candidate Genes

Nucleotide alignments were carried out on Geneious v4.0 software (Biomatters Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand). The sequences were manually examined for quality of the alignment and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) call. Genetic diversity was explored per gene by computing PCA plots in DnaSP v5.10 [58], and Neighbor Joining (NJ) dendrograms with 1000 bootstrap iterations in Mega v4 [59]. The former software was also used to compute summary statistics of the site frequency spectrum. Pairwise FST and median joining haplotype networks for each gene were calculated and drawn (FST ranges were plotted per quartiles) in R packages poppr and pegas—ape, respectively (R Core Team).
Two strategic analyses were performed to identify the correlation between SNPs and environmental conditions of specific collection sites. Firstly, timeframes at three, six, and 12 months were considered. Secondly, timeframes included four trimesters along the year. The environmental indices were then correlated with all timeframes analyzed for the three genes. Environmental correlations with candidate genes implemented GLM, MLM, and CMLM models in Tassel v5.0 [60] for SNP markers, and MLM models for gene haplotypes in R’s (v.3.4.4, R Core Team) package nlme [61]. SNP and haplotype-based mixed models, respectively, accounted for population strata [62] via an IBS kinship matrix as computed in Tassel v5.0 [60], as well as the first two principal genetic components consistent with previously generated SNP [23] and SSR [10] data. Since the candidate gene method had a priori bases on gene functionality and violated the random and independence allelic sampling hypotheses, a FDR equivalent p-value threshold of 0.01 was considered as in Oord and Sullivan [63].

3. Results

3.1. Pervasive Environmental and Allelic Diversity for Three Drought Candidate Genes in Tepary Bean s.l.

Drought stress was found to be extensive in tepary beans based on the climate data for the habitats where they were collected (Figure 1). Wild tepary beans were from the foothills of the dry Sonoran desert mountains of northern Mexico with cultivars collected further afield as far south as Guatemala.
When observing the map below, we see that P acutifolius—parvifolius clade s.l. showed a correspondence to dry environments, with P. acutifolius and P. parvifolius prevalent in desert habitats at various altitudes. Distribution of the var. tenuifolius was in the northern area of the range, while wild var. acutifolius was from across the full range from Northern to Central Mexico. P. parvifolius was distributed in the middle part of the range with a few outliers from both extremes. The source of P. vulgaris were not illustrated here because they were not used in the climate analyses.
Following mapping and in order to study the variability of the drought stress indices based on taxonomic origin, we performed ANOVA and Tukey tests for the indices with normal behavior, and the pairwise Wilcox test for the non-normal indices corrected by Bonferroni (Figure 2).
Scaled habitat drought stress indices were equivalent for different timeframes, as shown in Figure 2 with boxplots for the three (median = 0.14, CI 95%: 0.13–1.36), six (median = 0.40, CI 95%: −0.66–0.90), and 12 month (median = 0.33, CI 95%:−0.33–1.00); similarly, trimester timeframes analysis showed extensive drought stress, being trimester one (mean = 0.128, CI 95%: −0.63–0.89), trimester two (mean = 2.147, CI 95%: −4.43–8.72), trimester three (mean = −8.65 CI 95%: −13.97–3.32), and trimester four (mean = −0.79 CI 95%: −1.53–0.06) equivalent values for dry habitats especially in the last semester of the year (Figure 2A–C).

3.2. Allele Variants at Dreb2B and ERECTA-Encoding Candidate Genes Were Correlated with Drought Stress

Single nucleotide polymorphism alleles and frequencies along with expected heterozygosity (He) are found in Table 1, with 13 SNPs in Asr2, 8 in Dreb2B, and 22 in ERECTA. The difference in SNP number for each gene was probably related to the length of the fragment analyzed by sequencing or the nature of polymorphism in the genes.
Grouping of accessions by PCA clustering was minimal based on overall genetic polymorphism at Asr2 (Figure 3A), Dreb2B (Figure 3B), and ERECTA-encoding (Figure 3C), respectively. Reconstruction of Neighbor Joining (NJ) dendrograms supported this observation (Figures S2–S4, respectively for the same genes). Genotypes of different taxonomic origins for drought tolerance were generally intermingled (Table S4). More concretely, cultivated P. acutifolius was not necessarily more clustered than wild P. acutifolius (i.e., Asr2, Figure 3A), and these were not assembled separately from P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius and P. parvifolius.
Summary statistics calculated for the site frequency spectrum for each candidate gene in tepary bean s.l. revealed contrasting demographic/selection patterns (Table 2). In this analysis, Asr2 matched the expectations of a semi-structured pairwise mismatch distribution (positive Tajima’s D value of 0.873). Meanwhile, for Dreb2B and ERECTA-encoding genes, signatures of directional/purifying selection (negative Tajima’s D values of −0.814 and −0.974, correspondingly) were observed, likely in favor of adaptive alleles selectively advantageous.
In a different analysis, boxplots of the pairwise FST values were prepared (Figure 4) for each candidate gene across the taxonomic origins to search for significant differences between Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA. Differences were not observed for the first and last of these genes, but a cultivated vs. wild P. acutifolius difference was observed for Dreb2B.
Haplotype network reconstructions were made for Asr2 (Figure 5A), Dreb2B (Figure 5B), and ERECTA-encoding (Figure 5C) candidate genes. For the latter, all cultivated tepary beans shared a single haplotype, while the wild tepary beans from within P. acutifolius and from P. parvifolius were in various nodes of the networks.
In the test of habitat drought stress correlation with alleles at the three genes, results were consistent across several model types, yet CMLM was stricter than GLM and MLM (Table 3). For instance, GLM showed most of the correlations at Dreb2B, being 87.5% of the segregating sites correlated under this model for both timeframes. At ERECTA, the correlated SNPs accounted for 27%. MLM, on the other hand, was less prevalent at any timeframe, and CMLM showed no significance to any SNP, likely due to an over-correction or inflated type β error. Significant associations were lost when carrying out haplotype-based environmental correlations.

4. Discussion

4.1. Tepary Bean s.l. Is a Reservoir of Novel Alleles at Candidate Genes for Drought Tolerance

Tepary bean is unique compared to common bean in being monophyletic, having a single genepool, and furthermore, low introgression from other species due to its highly autogamous inbreeding status. This is reflected in the results of the candidate gene analysis here for wild and cultivated tepary accessions. Genes Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA harbored signatures of directional/purifying selection, in favor of adaptive alleles represented by various SNPs significantly correlated with the environmental drought indices (p-value < 0.05 and 0.01). Network analysis also found haplotypes more frequent for wild accessions than cultivars. These results suggest that tepary bean s.l., especially wild species P. parvifolius and wild accessions of P. acutifolius var. acutifolius or var. tenuifolius, were reservoirs of novel alleles at candidate genes for tolerance, as expected for a drought-tolerant species that originated in arid environments. Overall diversity is thought to increase consecutively from low levels in cultivated P. acutifolius, to intermediate levels in wild P. acutifolius var. acutifolius or var. tenuifolius, to higher levels in P. parvifolius. For this reason, sampling of larger amounts of wild accessions was important and representative of the diversity found in previous characterizations [9,16].
Allele diversity in Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding candidate genes was recovered in tepary bean s.l. (including all of those in the primary and secondary genepool, namely the variants which are all inter-crossable, and the wild species P. parvifolius, which can also be crossed with no barrier to P. acutifolius). This is appealing because variation of cultivated tepary bean is limited by strong genetic bottlenecks, given the paucity of diversity in seed color or SSR marker genotypes in cultivated accessions [9].
The observation above of diversity signals indicative of adaptation to drought at these candidate genes brings us back to the hypothesis for this research and questions of whether wild tepary beans and P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius and P. parvifolius are more variable for drought gene alleles than cultivated types. Although we cannot answer the question definitively, it appears that drought tolerance candidate genes were not as severely affected by domestication as suggested by the limited allele diversity found for SSR markers or few seed colors in the crop [48]. The main reason for this might be that drought tolerance was likely an “untouched” trait during the domestication of tepary bean, being a drought-tolerant species complex from very arid environments. Increases in functional diversity—but not in expression diversity [67], had already been noticed at target traits during the domestication of common bean as revealed by genome-wide enrichment of non-synonymous substitutions [68], and may also be responsible for adaptive functions, beyond drought tolerance, in tepary bean.
Analyses of the same candidate genes for drought tolerance reveal contrasting patterns in the closely related common bean species. Signatures of directional and divergent selection are observed in Asr1 [35] and Dreb2A [40] for genes in wild accessions from semi-mesic to dry habitats, and an ERECTA-encoding gene exhibits haplotype correlations with ecological differences in diverse common beans [48]. Additionally, when these candidate genes were screened in cultivated genepools and races of common bean, diversity signals indicative of adaptation to drought are in line with expectations concerning selection during the domestication syndrome or simply reflect demographic bottlenecks.

4.2. Unlocking Useful Genetic Variation for Drought Tolerance

Since genetic variation at drought candidate genes is partly recovered for tepary bean, this polymorphism likely predates the domestication event. Still, wild tepary bean, especially from P. acutifolius var. acutifolius and var. tenuifolius with no genetic barriers to the cultivated types, might be useful to add new variability for cultivars. P. parvifolius has also been shown to be not too distant from tepary beans [9] and crossability should be tested with multiple accessions. The domestication of tepary bean in the xeric region of the Sonoran Desert, along mountain arroyos and up to the Mexico–USA border could have reinforced allele variation at drought genes in favor of tolerant phenotypes. This appears to hold true for both var. tenuifolius and var. acutifolius in the wild accessions. Inter-crossing would be useful with a panel of diverse, multi-colored tepary beans with multiple seed sizes since most cultivars are white seeded [17], but some cream, yellow and tan to brown colored cultivated accessions exist [16]. Among our wild accessions, most had the typical wild tepary bean patterned seed, which are mottled, small in size, angular in shape, and gray to black in seed color.
Drought tolerance has traditionally not been a trait under direct selection as part of the domestication syndromes of Phaseolus bean species [12]. Seed germination, color and size, or pod size and dehiscence plus flowering time [69], Rhizobia symbiosis [70,71], secondary metabolites [72], and circadian clock components [73] are all functions more commonly regulated during the domestication process of legumes. Still, the nature of the strength and the direction of the selection have varied across domestications in Phaseolus. This is the case for common bean with two or three domestication events [74], and lima bean also with multiple possible domestications [75].
However, since tepary bean is a drought-tolerant species that originated in drought-prone environments only once, drought tolerance may have preceded the domestication syndrome, and could have been a trait unaffected by domestication despite strong population bottlenecks of a single domestication of light colored seeded types [9]. Unlocking newer genetic variation for drought tolerance in tepary bean can harness further resequencing of allelic diversity and marker validation in a broader basis of germplasm material, wild accessions, and related species, within the limitations of the few accessions collected in gene banks.
Returning to the allele diversity found among Phaseolus, abiotic stress responsive candidate genes exhibit comparable patterns of diversity when contrasting orthologous sequences across species. For instance, the common bean’s Asr2 matches the bimodal expectations of a pairwise folded site frequency spectrum [35] inferred using neutral reference loci [76], while Dreb2B shows signatures of purifying selection [40]. This contrasts with the double domestication of common bean [77]. Dreb2B and ERECTA-encoding orthologous genes display analogous selective signatures in tepary bean s.l., as supported by Tajima’s D summary statistic, despite P. vulgaris and P. acutifoliusparvifolius not being sister clades [12,78]. Parallel studies might be done in P. lunatus, an outlier among the Phaseolus or in related species as Mesoamerican P. vulgaris, P. dumosus (year-long), and P. coccineus (scarlet runner bean).
Furthermore, full sequencing of linked and well-understood genic regions, e.g., [79], as compared to “random” discovery of SNP markers in linkage equilibrium [80,81], allows for a more precise application of analytical tools, targeting adaptation in wild [82] and semi-domesticated materials [83]. Techniques such as gene-based species tree reconstruction [84] and inferences of the mutation/selection balance [85,86] presuppose physical linkage among markers. As perspective for oncoming studies, we recommend leveraging [87] tools capable of discerning among genuine signatures of adaptive selection to drought from those due to spurious effects [88] related to the demography of the domestication bottlenecks [69,89,90]. Phylogeographic inferences, e.g., [91] will also be improved by assuming independent gene mutation models [92], yet unlinked marker inferences are already available [93,94,95]. Finally, harnessing polygenic adaptive scores from gene-based and genome-wide prediction models [96,97,98] will help building a more cohesive picture of natural drought adaptation and vulnerability [99] in the face of climate change [100], with a focus on highly heterogeneous mountain geographies [101].
As the candidate gene approach bypasses the theoretical limitations of using biallelic genetic markers, it is still an efficient and cost-effective methodological alternative, e.g., [102], especially at advanced stages in the genetic mapping of key traits or for marker validation; and in “orphan” species short either on funding or genetic knowledge base. The three genes we analyzed showed significant SNPs (p-value < 0.05 and 0.01, the latter a FDR equivalent [62] for a candidate gene [63] design) given habitat drought stress DI (at three, six, and 12 months) in one, five, and four segregating sites for Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding genes, respectively considering semester timeframes as well, supporting the hypothesis that the genes are key for drought tolerance in tepary beans. The utility of genotype x environment adaptation variables based on geo-references collection sites for the study of candidate genes in wild and cultivated accessions is demonstrated by our study.
For well-studied traits with relatively conserved pathways, such as drought tolerance, the candidate gene approach is still informative despite de novo high-throughput genome-wide genotyping [103,104,105]. While reduced genome complexity genotyping techniques, like genotyping-by-sequencing [106], perform well in medium-size panels, the candidate gene approach allows deeper genotyping of fewer gene regions [107,108] for traits influenced by variants with intermediate effects, e.g., [109,110].

5. Conclusions

In summary, our candidate gene study allowed us to delve into the signatures of directional/purifying selection, in favor of adaptive alleles, or the frequency of haplotypes among taxonomic groups or correlated with the environmental drought indices. The results suggested that tepary bean s.l., especially wild accessions, could be sources of novel alleles for breeding of further drought tolerance in the cultivated accessions of an already drought-tolerant orphan crop. Cultivated tepary bean, being low in diversity [9], would benefit from wide crosses with wild relatives to obtain new traits such as new leaf shapes and new seed colors while maintaining the drought tolerance that it innately possesses.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genes12040556/s1; Figure S1: Tepary bean accessions georeferenced; Figures S2–S4: Neighbor Joining (NJ) dendrograms with 1000-iterations bootstrap support, respectively, for Asr2, Dreb2B (both under Tamura’s 3-parameter, T92, substitution model with a γ distribution), and ERECTA (under Jukes–Cantor evolution substitution model) candidate genes; Table S1: Tepary bean passport data; Table S2: Habitat drought stress estimates in Tepary bean; Table S3: Primer combination; Table S4: Principal Components for each Tepary bean accession.

Author Contributions

M.W.B. and L.C.M. with A.J.C. conceived the different parts of this study and together with M.A.B.-B. as Masters of Science (MSc) student and J.E.M.-F. and L.C.M. as thesis directors developed the study. L.C.M. and M.W.B. obtained funding and together with J.E.M.-F. supervised all sequencing and germplasm work. M.A.B.-B. and L.C.M. organized all amplicons purification and sequencing for collection of data. M.A.B.-B., A.J.C. and F.L.-H. retrieved and analyzed environmental data. M.A.B.-B., A.J.C. and J.M.L.-C. analyzed genetic data and performed gene x environment correlation models. M.A.B.-B., A.J.C. and M.W.B. wrote the manuscript with substantial comments from F.L.-H. and L.C.M. All authors helped interpret data and make figures, tables, and legends. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to LCM co-sponsored by MWB is recognized for sponsoring this research. Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL), Palmira Campus, provided laboratory and greenhouse space for tepary beans. The Dirección de Relaciones Exteriores (DRE) fund from UNAL and Evans Allen United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-TENX-07) funding are acknowledged for supply funds during the international exchange for AB-B and JML-C in order to carry out an internship at MWB’s lab in Tennessee State University (TSU) between February and August 2017. UNAL’s Dean of Agriculture, JEM-F is recognized for help funding studentships and lab mobility as well as administering IAEA grant through the Biotechnology laboratory at UNAL. AGROSAVIA’s Department for Research Capacity Building is thanked for sponsoring FL-H internship in 2018, during which he carried out environmental analyses for this study. Grants from Vetenskapsrådet (VR) and Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien (KVA), under project numbers PI 4.1-2016-00418 and BS2017-0036, respectively, are acknowledged for funding AJC’s time in order to discuss gene-environment correlation models. The Geneco Mobility Fund and the Fulbright Specialist Award are appreciated for encouraging discussions between AJC, FL-H, and MWB on drought tolerance in legume crops in meetings held in Nashville (TN, USA) in 2018, as well as in Bogota and Rionegro (Antioquia, Colombia) in 2019.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data analysis scripts and datasets are archived at Dryad Digital Repository with DOI https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.bg79cnp8j (11 August 2020).

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Genetic Resources Unit for providing the seeds of the accessions that were included in this study. We are also grateful with the Genomic Facility of Macrogen (USA) for assistance in sequencing. Additionally, we appreciate insightful discussions with E.E. Burbano, C. Cordero, R. León, and A. Tofiño-Rivera regarding climate x drought tolerance. Support from M.J. Torres-Urrego is very much valued while drafting this manuscript. Anonymous reviewers and topic editor are thanked for their comments on this manuscript. This article is dedicated to two dear family members lost in the pandemic, Jose Fernando Muñoz Florez (died 3 January 2021) and Robert Wohlgemuth (died 24 December 2020).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ripple, W.J.; Wolf, C.; Newsome, T.M.; Barnard, P.; Moomaw, W.R. World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency. BioScience 2020, 70, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tai, A.P.K.; Martin, M.V.; Heald, C.L. Threat to future global food security from climate change and ozone air pollution. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 817–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Donoghue, M.J. Adaptation meets dispersal: Legumes in the land of succulents. New Phytol. 2019, 222, 1667–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Coyne, C.J.; Kumar, S.; von Wettberg, E.J.B.; Marques, E.; Berger, J.D.; Redden, R.J.; Ellis, T.H.N.; Brus, J.; Zablatzká, L.; Smýkal, P. Potential and limits of exploitation of crop wild relatives for pea, lentil, and chickpea improvement. Legume Sci. 2020, 2, e36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Borelli, T.; Hunter, D.; Powell, B.; Ulian, T.; Mattana, E.; Termote, C.; Pawera, L.; Beltrame, D.; Penafiel, D.; Tan, A.; et al. Born to Eat Wild: An Integrated Conservation Approach to Secure Wild Food Plants for Food Security and Nutrition. Plants 2020, 9, 1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Smýkal, P.; Coyne, C.J.; Ambrose, M.J.; Maxted, N.; Schaefer, H.; Blair, M.W.; Berger, J.; Greene, S.L.; Nelson, M.N.; Besharat, N.; et al. Legume Crops Phylogeny and Genetic Diversity for Science and Breeding. Crit. Rev. Plant. Sci. 2014, 34, 43–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Baudoin, J.-P.; Maquet, A. Improvement of protein and amino acid contents in seeds of food legumes. A case study in Phaseolus. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 1999, 3, 220–224. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gepts, P.; Aragão, F.; Barros, E.; Blair, M.; Brondani, R.; Broughton, W.; Galasso, I.; Hernandez, G.; Kami, J.; Lariguet, P.; et al. Genomics of Phaseolus Beans, a Major Source of Dietary Protein and Micronutrients in the Tropics. In Genomics of Tropical Crop Plants; Moore, P., Ming, R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  9. Blair, M.W.; Pantoja, W.; Carmenza Munoz, L. First use of microsatellite markers in a large collection of cultivated and wild accessions of tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2012, 125, 1137–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mhlaba, Z.B.; Amelework, B.; Shimelis, H.; Modi, A.T.; Mashilo, J. Genetic differentiation among selected tepary bean collections revealed by morphological traits and simple sequence repeat markers. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B-Soil Plant. Sci. 2018, 68, 608–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mhlaba, Z.B.; Mashilo, J.; Shimelis, H.; Assefa, A.B.; Modi, A.T. Progress in genetic analysis and breeding of tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray): A review. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 237, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Bitocchi, E.; Rau, D.; Bellucci, E.; Rodriguez, M.; Murgia, M.L.; Gioia, T.; Santo, D.; Nanni, L.; Attene, G.; Papa, R. Beans (Phaseolus ssp.) as a Model for Understanding Crop Evolution. Front. Plant. Sci 2017, 8, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Debouck, D.G. Biodiversity, ecology and genetic resources of Phaseolus beans–Seven answered and unanswered questions. In Proceedings of the Wild Legumes, Tsukuba, Japan, 14 September 2009; pp. 95–123. [Google Scholar]
  14. Parsons, L.R.; Howe, T.K. Effects of water stress on the water relations of Phaseolus vulgaris and the drought resistant Phaseolus acutifolius. Physiol. Plant. 1984, 60, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cruz Jimenez-Galindo, J. Screening for Drought Tolerance in Tepary and Common Bean Based on Osmotic Potential Assays. Plant 2018, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Muñoz, L.C.; Duque, M.C.; Debouck, D.G.; Blair, M.W. Taxonomy of tepary bean and wild relatives as determined by amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers. Crop. Sci. 2006, 46, 1744–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Porch, T.; Beaver, J.; Debouck, D.; Jackson, S.; Kelly, J.; Dempewolf, H. Use of Wild Relatives and Closely Related Species to Adapt Common Bean to Climate Change. Agronomy 2013, 3, 433–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Singh, S.P. Broadening the genetic base of common bean cultivars: A review. Crop. Sci. 2001, 41, 1659–1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Muñoz, L.C.; Blair, M.W.; Duque, M.C.; Tohme, J.; Roca, W. Introgression in common bean x tepary bean interspecific congruity-backcross lines as measured by AFLP markers. Crop. Sci. 2003, 44, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mejía-Jiménez, A.; Muñoz, C.; Jacobsen, H.J.; Roca, W.M.; Singh, S.P. Interspecific hybridization between commonand tepary beans: Increased hybrid embryo growth, fertility, andefficiency of hybridization through recurrent and congruity backcrossing. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1994, 88, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Souter, J.R.; Gurusamy, V.; Porch, T.G.; Bett, K.E. Successful Introgression of Abiotic Stress Tolerance from Wild Tepary Bean to Common Bean. Crop. Sci. 2017, 57, 1160–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Crespo, S.; Rivera-Peña, M.; Rosero-Alpala, D.A.; Muñoz-Florez, J.E.; Rao, I.M.; Muñoz-Florez, L.C. Pollen viability of Tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray.) mutant lines under water stress conditions and inoculation with rhizobia. Acta Agronómica 2018, 67, 319–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Gujaria-Verma, N.; Ramsay, L.; Sharpe, A.G.; Sanderson, L.-A.; Debouck, D.G.; Tar’an, B.; Bett, K.E. Gene-based SNP discovery in tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) and common bean (P. vulgaris) for diversity analysis and comparative mapping. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Beebe, S.E.; Rao, I.M.; Blair, M.W.; Acosta-Gallegos, J.A. Phenotyping common beans for adaptation to drought. Front. Physiol. 2013, 4, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Blair, M.W.; Galeano, C.H.; Tovar, E.; Muñoz Torres, M.C.; Castrillón, A.V.; Beebe, S.E.; Rao, I.M. Development of a Mesoamerican intra-genepool genetic map for quantitative trait loci detection in a drought tolerant × susceptible common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cross. Mol. Breed. 2012, 29, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Asfaw, A.; Ambachew, D.; Shah, T.; Blair, M.W. Trait Associations in Diversity Panels of the Two Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Gene Pools Grown under Well-watered and Water-Stress Conditions. Front. Plant. Sci. 2017, 8, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gibson, M.J.S.; Moyle, L.C. Regional differences in the abiotic environment contribute to genomic divergence within a wild tomato species. Mol. Ecol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Diaz, L.M.; Ricaurte, J.; Tovar, E.; Cajiao, C.; Teran, H.; Grajales, M.; Polania, J.; Rao, I.; Beebe, S.; Raatz, B. QTL analyses for tolerance to abiotic stresses in a common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) population. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cortés, A.J.; Blair, M.W. Genotyping by Sequencing and Genome—Environment Associations in Wild Common Bean Predict Widespread Divergent Adaptation to Drought. Front. Plant. Sci. 2018, 9, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Bartels, D.; Sunkar, R. Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Crit. Rev. Plant. Sci. 2005, 24, 23–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sachdeva, S.; Bharadwaj, C.; Singh, R.K.; Jain, P.K.; Patil, B.S.; Roorkiwal, M.; Varshney, R. Characterization of ASR gene and its role in drought tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Frankel, N.; Carrari, F.; Hasson, E.; Lusem, N.D. Evolutionary history of the Asr gene family. Gene 2006, 378, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Philippe, R.; Courtois, B.; Billot, C.; Rami, J.F.; This, D. Allelic diversity at orthologous candidate genes for drought tolerance in crops: Examples of the ASR gene family. In Plant Genomics European Meetings, Venice; Avenue Media: Bologne, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  34. Huber, S.C.; Huber, J.L. Role and regulation of sucrose-phosphate synthase in higher plants. Annu. Rev. Plant. Physiol. Plant. Mol. Biol. 1996, 47, 431–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cortés, A.J.; Chavarro, M.C.; Madriñán, S.; This, D.; Blair, M.W. Molecular ecology and selection in the drought-related Asr gene polymorphisms in wild and cultivated common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). BMC Genet. 2012, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Taiz, L.; Zeiger, E. Plant. Physiology, 4th ed.; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  37. Agarwal, P.K.; Agarwal, P.; Reddy, M.K.; Sopory, S.K. Role of DREB transcription factors in abiotic and biotic stress tolerance in plants. Plant. Cell Rep. 2006, 25, 1263–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Riechmann, J.L.; Meyerowitz, E.M. The AP2/EREBP family of plant transcription factors. Biol. Chem. 1998, 379, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Kim, J.-S.; Mizoi, J.; Yoshida, T.; Fujita, Y.; Nakajima, J.; Ohori, T.; Todaka, D.; Nakashima, K.; Hirayama, T.; Shinozaki, K.; et al. An ABRE promoter sequence is involved in osmotic stress-responsive expression of the DREB2A gene, which encodes a transcription factor regulating drought-inducible genes in Arabidopsis. Plant. Cell Physiol. 2011, 52, 2136–2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cortés, A.J.; Monserrate, F.; Ramírez-Villegas, J.; Madriñán, S.; Blair, M.W. Drought Tolerance in Wild Plant Populations: The Case of Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Cortés, A.J.; This, D.; Chavarro, C.; Madriñán, S.; Blair, M.W. Nucleotide diversity patterns at the drought-related DREB2 encoding genes in wild and cultivated common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2012, 125, 1069–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Masle, J.; Gilmore, S.R.; Farquhar, G.D. The ERECTA gene regulates plant transpiration efficiency in Arabidopsis. Nature 2005, 436, 866–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Torii, K.U.; Mitsukawa, N.; Oosumi, T.; Matsuura, Y.; Yokayama, R.; Whittier, R.F.; Komeda, Y. The Arabidopsis ERECTA gene encodes a putative receptor protein kinase with extracellular leucine-rich repeats. Plant. Cell 1996, 8, 735–746. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tisne, S.; Barbier, F.; Granier, C. The ERECTA gene controls spatial and temporal patterns of epidermal cell number and size in successive developing leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana. Ann. Bot. 2011, 108, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Zanten, M.; Snoek, L.B.; Proveniers, M.; Peeters, A.J. The many functions of ERECTA. Trends Plant. Sci. 2009, 14, 214–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Barghi, N.; Hermisson, J.; Schlötterer, C. Polygenic adaptation: A unifying framework to understand positive selection. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020, 21, 769–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Burgarella, C.; Barnaud, A.; Kane, N.A.; Jankowski, F.; Scarcelli, N.; Billot, C.; Vigouroux, Y.; Berthouly-Salazar, C. Adaptive Introgression: An Untapped Evolutionary Mechanism for Crop Adaptation. Front. Plant. Sci. 2019, 10, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Blair, M.W.; Cortés, A.J.; This, D. Identification of an ERECTA gene and its drought adaptation associations with wild and cultivated common bean. Plant. Sci. 2016, 242, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jiri, O.; Mafongoya, P.; Chivenge, P. Tepary Bean: A Climate Smart Crop for Food and Nutritional Security. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mwale, S.E.; Shimelis, H.; Mafongoya, P.; Mashilo, J.; Link, W. Breeding tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) for drought adaptation: A review. Plant. Breed. 2020, 139, 821–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Miklas, P.N.; Kelly, J.D.; Beebe, S.E.; Blair, M.W. Common bean breeding for resistance against biotic and abiotic stresses: From classical to MAS breeding. Euphytica 2006, 147, 105–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Herzog, E.; Frisch, M. Selection strategies for marker-assisted backcrossing with high-throughput marker systems. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2011, 123, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 2014, 346, 1258096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Crossa, J.; Perez-Rodriguez, P.; Cuevas, J.; Montesinos-Lopez, O.; Jarquin, D.; de Los Campos, G.; Burgueno, J.; Gonzalez-Camacho, J.M.; Perez-Elizalde, S.; Beyene, Y.; et al. Genomic Selection in Plant Breeding: Methods, Models, and Perspectives. Trends Plant. Sci. 2017, 22, 961–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Thornthwaite, C.W.; Mather, J.R. The Water Balance. Climatology 1955, 8, 1–104. [Google Scholar]
  56. López-Hernández, F.; Cortés, A.J. Last-Generation Genome–Environment Associations Reveal the Genetic Basis of Heat Tolerance in Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Dellaporta, S.L.; Wood, J.; Hicks, J.B. A plant DNA minipreparation: Version II. Plant. Mol. Biol. Rep. 1983, 1, 19–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Librado, P.; Rozas, J. DnaSP v5: A software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1451–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Tamura, K.; Dudley, J.; Nei, M.; Kumar, S. MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24, 1596–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bradbury, P.J.; Zhang, Z.; Kroon, D.E.; Casstevens, R.M.; Ramdoss, Y.; Buckler, E.S. TASSELL Software for association mapping of complex traits in diverse samples. Bioinformatics 2007, 23, 2633–2635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Pinheiro, J.; Bates, D.; DebRoy, S.; Sarkar, D. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Package Version 2011, 3, 109. [Google Scholar]
  62. Barton, N.; Hermisson, J.; Nordborg, M. Why structure matters. Elife 2019, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Oord, E.J.C.G.v.d.; Sullivan, P.F. False discoveries and models for gene discovery. Trends Genet. 2003, 19, 537–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Nei, M. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  65. Watterson, G.A. Number of segregating sites in genetic models without recombination. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1975, 7, 256–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tajima, F. Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 1989, 123, 585–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Bellucci, E.; Bitocchi, E.; Ferrarini, A.; Benazzo, A.; Biagetti, E.; Klie, S.; Minio, A.; Rau, D.; Rodriguez, M.; Panziera, A.; et al. Decreased Nucleotide and Expression Diversity and Modified Coexpression Patterns Characterize Domestication in the Common Bean. Plant. Cell 2014, 26, 1901–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Bitocchi, E.; Rau, D.; Benazzo, A.; Bellucci, E.; Goretti, D.; Biagetti, E.; Panziera, A.; Laido, G.; Rodriguez, M.; Gioia, T.; et al. High Level of Nonsynonymous Changes in Common Bean Suggests That Selection under Domestication Increased Functional Diversity at Target Traits. Front. Plant. Sci. 2016, 7, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Chacon-Sanchez, M.I.; Martinez-Castillo, J. Testing Domestication Scenarios of Lima Bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) in Mesoamerica: Insights from Genome-Wide Genetic Markers. Front. Plant. Sci. 2017, 8, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Liu, A.; Ku, Y.-S.; Contador, C.A.; Lam, H.-M. The Impacts of Domestication and Agricultural Practices on Legume Nutrient Acquisition Through Symbiosis With Rhizobia and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Front. Genet. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Liu, J.; Yu, X.; Qin, Q.; Dinkins, R.D.; Zhu, H. The Impacts of Domestication and Breeding on Nitrogen Fixation Symbiosis in Legumes. Front. Genet. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Ku, Y.-S.; Contador, C.A.; Ng, M.-S.; Yu, J.; Chung, G.; Lam, H.-M. The Effects of Domestication on Secondary Metabolite Composition in Legumes. Front. Genet. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Li, M.-W.; Lam, H.-M. The Modification of Circadian Clock Components in Soybean During Domestication and Improvement. Front. Genet. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gepts, P.; Debouck, D. Origin, domestication and evolution of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). In Common Beans: Research for Crop Improvement; Van Shoonhoven, A., Voysest, O., Eds.; Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau: Wallingford, UK, 1991; pp. 7–53. [Google Scholar]
  75. Gepts, P. Biochemical Evidence Bearing on the domestication of beans. Econ. Bot. 1990, 44, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cortés, A.J.; Chavarro, M.C.; Blair, M.W. SNP marker diversity in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2011, 123, 827–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Blair, M.W.; Soler, A.; Cortés, A.J. Diversification and Population Structure in Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e49488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Broughton, W.J.; Hernandez, G.; Blair, M.; Beebe, S.; Gepts, P.; Vanderleyden, J. Beans (Phaseolus spp.)—Model food legumes. Plant. Soil 2003, 252, 55–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Andermann, T.; Torres Jimenez, M.F.; Matos-Maravi, P.; Batista, R.; Blanco-Pastor, J.L.; Gustafsson, A.L.S.; Kistler, L.; Liberal, I.M.; Oxelman, B.; Bacon, C.D.; et al. A Guide to Carrying Out a Phylogenomic Target Sequence Capture Project. Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Blair, M.W.; Cortes, A.J.; Farmer, A.D.; Huang, W.; Ambachew, D.; Penmetsa, R.V.; Carrasquilla-Garcia, N.; Assefa, T.; Cannon, S.B. Uneven recombination rate and linkage disequilibrium across a reference SNP map for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0189597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Kelleher, C.T.; Wilkin, J.; Zhuang, J.; Cortés, A.J.; Quintero, Á.L.P.; Gallagher, T.F.; Bohlmann, J.; Douglas, C.J.; Ellis, B.E.; Ritland, K. SNP discovery, gene diversity, and linkage disequilibrium in wild populations of Populus tremuloides. Tree Genet. Genomes 2012, 8, 821–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cortés, A.J.; López-Hernández, F.; Osorio-Rodriguez, D. Predicting thermal adaptation by looking into populations’ genomic past. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 564515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cortés, A.J.; Restrepo-Montoya, M.; Bedoya-Canas, L.E. Modern Strategies to Assess and Breed Forest Tree Adaptation to Changing Climate. Front. Plant. Sci. 2020, 11, 583323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Madriñán, S.; Cortés, A.J.; Richardson, J.E. Páramo is the world’s fastest evolving and coolest biodiversity hotspot. Front. Genet. 2013, 4, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Bustamante, C.D.; Wakeley, J.; Sawyer, S.; Hartl, D.L. Directional Selection and the Site-Frequency Spectrum. Genetics 2001, 159, 1779–1788. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  86. Yeaman, S.; Otto, S.P. Establishment and maintenance of adaptive genetic divergence under migration, selection, and drift. Evolution 2011, 65, 2123–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wakeley, J. Coalescent Theory: An. Introduction; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  88. Barrett, R.D.H.; Hoekstra, H.E. Molecular spandrels: Tests of adaptation at the genetic level. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12, 767–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Schmutz, J.; McClean, P.E.; Mamidi, S.; Wu, G.A.; Cannon, S.B.; Grimwood, J.; Jenkins, J.; Shu, S.; Song, Q.; Chavarro, C.; et al. A reference genome for common bean and genome-wide analysis of dual domestications. Nat. Genet. 2014, 46, 707–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Cortés, A.J.; Skeen, P.; Blair, M.W.; Chacón-Sánchez, M.I. Does the genomic landscape of species divergence in Phaseolus beans coerce parallel signatures of adaptation and domestication? Front. Plant. Sci 2018, 9, 1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Cortés, A.J. On the Origin of the Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Am. J. Plant. Sci. 2013, 4, 1998–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Caliebe, A. Mathematical models in population genetics. Med. Genet. 2008, 20, 282–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bryant, D.; Bouckaert, R.; Felsenstein, J.; Rosenberg, N.A.; RoyChoudhury, A. Inferring species trees directly from biallelic genetic markers: Bypassing gene trees in a full coalescent analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29, 1917–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Cornuet, J.M.; Pudlo, P.; Veyssier, J.; Dehne-Garcia, A.; Gautier, M.; Leblois, R.; Marin, J.M.; Estoup, A. DIYABC v2.0: A software to make approximate Bayesian computation inferences about population history using single nucleotide polymorphism, DNA sequence and microsatellite data. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 1187–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Cortés, A.J.; Garzón, L.N.; Valencia, J.B.; Madriñán, S. On the Causes of Rapid Diversification in the Páramos: Isolation by Ecology and Genomic Divergence in Espeletia. Front. Plant. Sci. 2018, 9, 1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Arenas, S.; Cortés, A.J.; Mastretta-Yanes, A.; Jaramillo-Correa, J.P. Evaluating the accuracy of genomic prediction for the management and conservation of relictual natural tree populations. Tree Genet. Genomes 2021, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Capblancq, T.; Fitzpatrick, M.C.; Bay, R.A.; Exposito-Alonso, M.; Keller, S.R. Genomic Prediction of (Mal)Adaptation Across Current and Future Climatic Landscapes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2020, 51, 245–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Reyes-Herrera, P.H.; Muñoz-Baena, L.; Velásquez-Zapata, V.; Patiño, L.; Delgado-Paz, O.A.; Díaz-Diez, C.A.; Navas-Arboleda, A.A.; Cortés, A.J. Inheritance of Rootstock Effects in Avocado (Persea americana Mill.) cv. Hass. Front. Plant. Sci. 2020, 11, 555071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Valencia, J.B.; Mesa, J.; León, J.G.; Madriñán, S.; Cortés, A.J. Climate Vulnerability Assessment of the Espeletia Complex on Páramo Sky Islands in the Northern Andes. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cortés, A.J.; Blair, M.W. Lessons from Common Bean on How Wild Relatives and Landraces Can Make Tropical Crops More Resistant to Climate Change. In Rediscovery of Landraces as a Resource for the Future; Grillo, O., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Cortés, A.J.; Wheeler, J.A. The Environmental Heterogeneity of Mountains at a Fine Scale in a Changing World. In Mountains, Climate, and Biodiversity; Hoorn, C., Perrigo, A., Antonelli, A., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  102. Hendrick, M.F.; Finseth, F.R.; Mathiasson, M.E.; Palmer, K.A.; Broder, E.M.; Breigenzer, P.; Fishman, L. The genetics of extreme microgeographic adaptation: An integrated approach identifies a major gene underlying leaf trichome divergence in Yellowstone Mimulus guttatus. Mol. Ecol. 2016, 25, 5647–5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Galeano, C.H.; Cortés, A.J.; Fernandez, A.C.; Soler, A.; Franco-Herrera, N.; Makunde, G.; Vanderleyden, J.; Blair, M.W. Gene-Based Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Markers for Genetic and Association Mapping in Common Bean. BMC Genet. 2012, 13, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Cortés, A.J.; Wheeler, J.A.; Sedlacek, J.; Lexer, C.; Karrenberg, S. Genome-wide patterns of microhabitat-driven divergence in the alpine dwarf shrub Salix herbacea L. In On The Big Challenges of a Small Shrub: Ecological Genetics of Salix herbacea L.; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Uppsala, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  105. Blair, M.W.; Cortés, A.J.; Penmetsa, R.V.; Farmer, A.; Carrasquilla-Garcia, N.; Cook, D.R. A high-throughput SNP marker system for parental polymorphism screening, and diversity analysis in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2013, 126, 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Elshire, R.J.; Glaubitz, J.C.; Sun, Q.; Poland, J.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, e19379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Hirschhorn, J.N.; Daly, M.J. Genome-wide association studies for common diseases and complex traits. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005, 6, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Rafalski, J.A. Association genetics in crop improvement. Curr. Opin. Plant. Biol. 2010, 13, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Manolio, T.A.; Collins, F.S.; Cox, N.J.; Goldstein, D.B.; Hindorff, L.A.; Hunter, D.J.; McCarthy, M.I.; Ramos, E.M.; Cardon, L.R.; Chakravarti, A.; et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 2009, 461, 747–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Yang, J.; Benyamin, B.; McEvoy, B.P.; Gordon, S.; Henders, A.K.; Nyholt, D.R.; Madden, P.A.; Heath, A.C.; Martin, N.G.; Montgomery, G.W.; et al. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nature Genet. 2010, 42, 565–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Geographical representation of collection sites for tepary beans s.l. (P. acutifolius–parvifolius clade) evaluated in this study with (A) altitude in meters above sea level as a background and (B) drought index on a 30 s grid for the region between the Southern United States and Central America, including the collection hotspot of Northwest Mexico. Dots are colored by taxonomic origin (Table S1) as follows: Green and blue for cultivated and wild P. acutifolius, red for wild P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for wild P. parvifolius. Altitudes represented in various tones of achromatic gray. Drought severity index based on Thornthwaite’s potential evapotranspiration (PET) model (DI—Thornthwaite’s index) indicated by scales of red (most intense), orange, yellow to green, and blue (least intense). Latitude and longitude represented by grids in both panels. Wild and cultivated accessions marked as filled triangles (▲) and squares (■), respectively.
Figure 1. Geographical representation of collection sites for tepary beans s.l. (P. acutifolius–parvifolius clade) evaluated in this study with (A) altitude in meters above sea level as a background and (B) drought index on a 30 s grid for the region between the Southern United States and Central America, including the collection hotspot of Northwest Mexico. Dots are colored by taxonomic origin (Table S1) as follows: Green and blue for cultivated and wild P. acutifolius, red for wild P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for wild P. parvifolius. Altitudes represented in various tones of achromatic gray. Drought severity index based on Thornthwaite’s potential evapotranspiration (PET) model (DI—Thornthwaite’s index) indicated by scales of red (most intense), orange, yellow to green, and blue (least intense). Latitude and longitude represented by grids in both panels. Wild and cultivated accessions marked as filled triangles (▲) and squares (■), respectively.
Genes 12 00556 g001
Figure 2. Dispersal graph boxplots for habitat drought stress index in four taxonomical divisions of broad sense (s.l.) tepary bean (from the P. acutifolius–parvifolius clade) based on the Thornthwaite’s potential evapotranspiration (PET) model. Drought indices computed at (A) three, (B) six, and (C) 12 months. Colors mark taxonomy: Green and blue for cultivated P. acutifolius and wild P. acutifolius, red for wild P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for wild P. parvifolius.
Figure 2. Dispersal graph boxplots for habitat drought stress index in four taxonomical divisions of broad sense (s.l.) tepary bean (from the P. acutifolius–parvifolius clade) based on the Thornthwaite’s potential evapotranspiration (PET) model. Drought indices computed at (A) three, (B) six, and (C) 12 months. Colors mark taxonomy: Green and blue for cultivated P. acutifolius and wild P. acutifolius, red for wild P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for wild P. parvifolius.
Genes 12 00556 g002
Figure 3. Principal component analyses (PCAs) of genetic polymorphism at (A) Asr2, (B) Dreb2B, and (C) ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Colors follow Figure 1, by taxonomic origin (Table S1): Green and blue for cultivated and wild P. acutifolius, red for P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for P. parvifolius, latter two wild entries. First two principal genetic components allow comparisons with previously generated SNP [23] and SSR [10] data.
Figure 3. Principal component analyses (PCAs) of genetic polymorphism at (A) Asr2, (B) Dreb2B, and (C) ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Colors follow Figure 1, by taxonomic origin (Table S1): Green and blue for cultivated and wild P. acutifolius, red for P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for P. parvifolius, latter two wild entries. First two principal genetic components allow comparisons with previously generated SNP [23] and SSR [10] data.
Genes 12 00556 g003
Figure 4. Boxplots of the pairwise FST distributions at (A) Asr2, (B) Dreb2B, and (C) ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Boxplots colored by taxonomy: Green and blue for cultivated and wild P. acutifolius, red for P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for P. parvifolius, the latter two wild.
Figure 4. Boxplots of the pairwise FST distributions at (A) Asr2, (B) Dreb2B, and (C) ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Boxplots colored by taxonomy: Green and blue for cultivated and wild P. acutifolius, red for P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for P. parvifolius, the latter two wild.
Genes 12 00556 g004
Figure 5. Haplotype networks of genetic polymorphism at (A) Asr2, (B) Dreb2B, and (C) ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Nodes represent haplotypes, its size relative to its frequency. Marks above each segment are substitutions. Nodes are colored by taxonomy (Table S1): Green and blue for cultivated and wild P. acutifolius, red for P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for P. parvifolius, the latter two wild accessions.
Figure 5. Haplotype networks of genetic polymorphism at (A) Asr2, (B) Dreb2B, and (C) ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Nodes represent haplotypes, its size relative to its frequency. Marks above each segment are substitutions. Nodes are colored by taxonomy (Table S1): Green and blue for cultivated and wild P. acutifolius, red for P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius, and purple for P. parvifolius, the latter two wild accessions.
Genes 12 00556 g005
Table 1. SNP marker polymorphisms at Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding drought candidate genes in tepary bean s.l. SNPs in coding regions are marked in bold, and non-synonymous variants are in bold and underlined.
Table 1. SNP marker polymorphisms at Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding drought candidate genes in tepary bean s.l. SNPs in coding regions are marked in bold, and non-synonymous variants are in bold and underlined.
Gene NamePosition (bp)Major AlleleMajor Allele FrequencyMinor AlleleMinor Allele FrequencyHe
Asr21C0.5T0.50.5
Asr2101A0.67G0.330.44
Asr2185T0.73A0.270.4
Asr2188T0.55A0.450.5
Asr2189A0.67T0.330.44
Asr2190A0.74T0.260.39
Asr2191T0.69A0.310.43
Asr2192T0.69A0.310.43
Asr2200A0.88T0.120.21
Asr2246T0.88A0.120.21
Asr2407G0.67A0.330.44
Asr2455C0.74A0.260.39
Asr2486C0.9T0.10.17
Dreb2B24C0.89G0.110.2
Dreb2B33C0.64G0.360.46
Dreb2B81A0.93T0.070.13
Dreb2B134A0.68G0.320.43
Dreb2B135C0.68T0.320.43
Dreb2B136A0.68G0.320.43
Dreb2B342C0.8T0.20.33
Dreb2B357G0.82C0.180.3
ERECTA32C0.85T0.150.26
ERECTA33T0.53A0.480.5
ERECTA46C0.8T0.20.32
ERECTA47A0.8G0.20.32
ERECTA55T0.93A0.080.14
ERECTA137G0.93A0.080.14
ERECTA172G0.93A0.080.14
ERECTA187G0.95A0.050.1
ERECTA189C0.93T0.080.14
ERECTA223T0.95C0.050.1
ERECTA228C0.93T0.080.14
ERECTA285T0.93C0.080.14
ERECTA286G0.93A0.080.14
ERECTA311C0.63A0.380.47
ERECTA449C0.93G0.080.14
ERECTA476T0.65A0.350.46
ERECTA480A0.93G0.080.14
ERECTA615T0.93C0.080.14
ERECTA637G0.9A0.10.18
ERECTA683T0.93A0.080.14
ERECTA725C0.63A0.380.47
ERECTA734T0.95G0.050.1
Table 2. Summary statistics of the site frequency spectrum at Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Depicted summary statistics include S: Number of polymorphic (segregating) sites (enforced maf > 0.05 for the entire dataset), maf: Average minimum allele frequency, He: average expected heterozygosity—as a measure of the polymorphism information content (PIC), π: Nucleotide diversity [64], θW: Theta of Watterson—per site from S [65], and Tajima’s D [66]. Only variable taxa with enough sampling to make per-population computations reliable are kept.
Table 2. Summary statistics of the site frequency spectrum at Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Depicted summary statistics include S: Number of polymorphic (segregating) sites (enforced maf > 0.05 for the entire dataset), maf: Average minimum allele frequency, He: average expected heterozygosity—as a measure of the polymorphism information content (PIC), π: Nucleotide diversity [64], θW: Theta of Watterson—per site from S [65], and Tajima’s D [66]. Only variable taxa with enough sampling to make per-population computations reliable are kept.
Gene NameTaxaLength (bp)SmafHeπθWTajima’s D
Asr2All547130.290.380.0170.0140.873
Asr2P. acutifolius (cultivated)548130.210.330.0090.010−0.816
Asr2P. acutifolius (wild)54890.230.360.0050.0050.314
Asr2P. parvifolius548150.170.290.0080.008−0.079
Dreb2BAll37380.240.340.0120.016−0.814
Dreb2BP. acutifolius (wild)37490.180.290.0070.0070.128
Dreb2BP. parvifolius374110.160.270.0080.009−0.512
ERECTAAll750220.150.220.0090.012−0.974
ERECTAP. acutifolius (cultivated)75180.250.380.0050.0050.142
ERECTAP. acutifolius (wild)751220.100.180.0050.009−1.519
ERECTAP. parvifolius751250.180.300.0090.010−0.447
Table 3. Habitat drought stress significant correlations with SNP polymorphisms at Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Habitat drought stress (Table S2) was computed as a drought index (DI) using Thornthwaite’s evapotranspiration model at three, six, and 12 months as well as trimester timeframes (T1 to T4). Environmental correlations with each candidate gene were determined using generalized, mixed, and compressed mixed (GLM, MLM, and CMLM) linear models accounting for population stratification via an IBS kinship matrix as implemented in Tassel v5.0. Only significant associations are depicted; their p-value estimates are bolded (p-value < 0.05) and underlined (p-value ≤ 0.01), the latter a FDR equivalent for a candidate gene design [63]. SNPs in coding regions are in bold, and non-synonymous underlined.
Table 3. Habitat drought stress significant correlations with SNP polymorphisms at Asr2, Dreb2B, and ERECTA-encoding candidate genes for drought tolerance in tepary bean s.l. (P. acutifoliusparvifolius clade). Habitat drought stress (Table S2) was computed as a drought index (DI) using Thornthwaite’s evapotranspiration model at three, six, and 12 months as well as trimester timeframes (T1 to T4). Environmental correlations with each candidate gene were determined using generalized, mixed, and compressed mixed (GLM, MLM, and CMLM) linear models accounting for population stratification via an IBS kinship matrix as implemented in Tassel v5.0. Only significant associations are depicted; their p-value estimates are bolded (p-value < 0.05) and underlined (p-value ≤ 0.01), the latter a FDR equivalent for a candidate gene design [63]. SNPs in coding regions are in bold, and non-synonymous underlined.
SNPGLM p-ValueMLM p-ValueGLM p-ValueMLM p-Value
Genebp3 m6 m12 m3 m6 m12 mT 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4
Asr10.4210.0500.1830.5940.4560.7510.4670.0660.9690.0330.5940.4220.5050.094
Dreb2B810.4500.9210.1800.8930.8100.0500.4510.8520.0020.1440.8930.7620.0090.487
Dreb2B1340.3790.6720.1000.2970.4650.4000.3800.5970.0260.1440.2970.4880.7370.464
Dreb2B1350.3790.6720.1000.2970.4650.4000.3800.5970.0260.1440.2970.4880.7370.464
Dreb2B1360.3790.6720.1000.2970.4650.4000.3800.5970.0260.1440.2970.4880.7370.464
Dreb2B3420.1340.1620.0640.2760.0480.2190.1350.2150.7290.5040.2760.0540.8510.234
ERECTA320.3840.0100.3420.2740.0400.5300.3840.0100.6540.9230.2740.0770.9430.922
ERECTA460.5190.0090.1450.8910.2020.0890.5200.0050.3440.7680.8910.4100.1220.765
ERECTA470.5190.0090.1450.8910.2020.0890.5200.0050.3440.7680.8910.4100.1220.765
ERECTA1870.8910.0010.4490.9840.0100.5560.8920.0010.8910.8850.9840.0120.9470.883
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Buitrago-Bitar, M.A.; Cortés, A.J.; López-Hernández, F.; Londoño-Caicedo, J.M.; Muñoz-Florez, J.E.; Muñoz, L.C.; Blair, M.W. Allelic Diversity at Abiotic Stress Responsive Genes in Relationship to Ecological Drought Indices for Cultivated Tepary Bean, Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray, and Its Wild Relatives. Genes 2021, 12, 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12040556

AMA Style

Buitrago-Bitar MA, Cortés AJ, López-Hernández F, Londoño-Caicedo JM, Muñoz-Florez JE, Muñoz LC, Blair MW. Allelic Diversity at Abiotic Stress Responsive Genes in Relationship to Ecological Drought Indices for Cultivated Tepary Bean, Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray, and Its Wild Relatives. Genes. 2021; 12(4):556. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12040556

Chicago/Turabian Style

Buitrago-Bitar, María A., Andrés J. Cortés, Felipe López-Hernández, Jorge M. Londoño-Caicedo, Jaime E. Muñoz-Florez, L. Carmenza Muñoz, and Matthew Wohlgemuth Blair. 2021. "Allelic Diversity at Abiotic Stress Responsive Genes in Relationship to Ecological Drought Indices for Cultivated Tepary Bean, Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray, and Its Wild Relatives" Genes 12, no. 4: 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12040556

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