» Articles » PMID: 37931158

Deleterious and Adaptive Mutations in Plant Germplasm Conserved Ex Situ

Overview
Journal Mol Biol Evol
Specialty Biology
Date 2023 Nov 6
PMID 37931158
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Conserving more than 7 million plant germplasm accessions in 1,750 genebanks worldwide raises the hope of securing the food supply for humanity for future generations. However, there is a genetic cost for such long-term germplasm conservation, which has been largely unaccounted for before. We investigated the extent and variation of deleterious and adaptive mutations in 490 individual plants representing barley, wheat, oat, soybean, maize, rapa, and sunflower collections in a seed genebank using RNA-Seq technology. These collections were found to have a range of deleterious mutations detected from 125 (maize) to 83,695 (oat) with a mean of 13,537 and of the averaged sample-wise mutation burden per deleterious locus from 0.069 to 0.357 with a mean of 0.200. Soybean and sunflower collections showed that accessions acquired earlier had increased mutation burdens. The germplasm with more years of storage in several collections carried more deleterious and fewer adaptive mutations. The samples with more cycles of germplasm regeneration revealed fewer deleterious and more adaptive mutations. These findings are significant for understanding mutational dynamics and genetic cost in conserved germplasm and have implications for long-term germplasm management and conservation.

Citing Articles

Flax domesticationprocesses as inferred from genome-wide SNP data.

Fu Y Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):8731.

PMID: 40082459 PMC: 11906640. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-89498-9.


Will a plant germplasm accession conserved in a genebank change genetically over time?.

Fu Y Front Plant Sci. 2024; 15:1437541.

PMID: 39430894 PMC: 11487523. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1437541.


Patterns of the Predicted Mutation Burden in 19,778 Domesticated Barley Accessions Conserved Ex Situ.

Fu Y Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(11).

PMID: 38892116 PMC: 11172543. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25115930.

References
1.
Kono T, Liu C, Vonderharr E, Koenig D, Fay J, Smith K . The Fate of Deleterious Variants in a Barley Genomic Prediction Population. Genetics. 2019; 213(4):1531-1544. PMC: 6893365. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.119.302733. View

2.
Valluru R, Gazave E, Fernandes S, Ferguson J, Lozano R, Hirannaiah P . Deleterious Mutation Burden and Its Association with Complex Traits in Sorghum (). Genetics. 2019; 211(3):1075-1087. PMC: 6404259. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.118.301742. View

3.
Davydov E, Goode D, Sirota M, Cooper G, Sidow A, Batzoglou S . Identifying a high fraction of the human genome to be under selective constraint using GERP++. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010; 6(12):e1001025. PMC: 2996323. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001025. View

4.
Gillespie J . Substitution processes in molecular evolution. III. Deleterious alleles. Genetics. 1994; 138(3):943-52. PMC: 1206239. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/138.3.943. View

5.
Schoen D, David J, Bataillon T . Deleterious mutation accumulation and the regeneration of genetic resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998; 95(1):394-9. PMC: 18235. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.95.1.394. View