Haplotype analyses reveal novel insights into tomato history and domestication driven by long-distance migrations and latitudinal adaptations

Abstract

A novel haplotype-based approach that uses Procrustes analysis and automatic classification was used to provide further insights into tomato history and domestication. Agrarian societies domesticated species of interest by introducing complex genetic modifications. For tomatoes, two species, one of which had two botanical varieties, are thought to be involved in its domestication: the fully wild Solanum pimpinellifolium (SP), the wild and semi-domesticated Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme (SLC) and the cultivated S. l. var. lycopersicum (SLL). The Procrustes approach showed that SP evolved into SLC during a gradual migration from the Peruvian deserts to the Mexican rainforests and that Peruvian and Ecuadorian SLC populations were the result of more recent hybridizations. Our model was supported by independent evidence, including ecological data from the accession collection site and morphological data. Furthermore, we showed that photosynthesis-, and flowering time-related genes were selected during the latitudinal migrations.

References

[1] Hammer K. Das Domestikationssyndrom. Die Kulturpflanze. 1984; 32: 11-34.

[2] Meyer RS, Purugganan MD . Evolution of crop species: genetics of domestication and diversification. Nat Rev Genet. 2013; 14: 840-52.

[3] Yang Z, Li G, Tieman D et al. Genomics approaches to domestication studies of horticultural crops. Horticultural Plant Journal. 2019; 5: 240-6.

[4] Zsögön A, Čermák T, Naves ER et al. De novo domestication of wild tomato using genome editing. Nat Biotechnol. 2018; 36: 1211-6.

[5] Peralta IE, Spooner DM, Knapp S . Taxonomy of Wild Tomatoes and their Relatives (Solanum Sect. Lycopersicoides, Sect. Juglandifolia, Sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae) . St. Louis, USA: American Society of Plant Taxonomists, 2008.

[6] Gibson MJS, Moyle LC . Regional differences in the abiotic environment contribute to genomic divergence within a wild tomato species. Mol Ecol. 2020; 29: 2204-17.

[7] Razifard H, Ramos A, Della Valle AL et al. Genomic evidence for complex domestication history of the cultivated tomato in Latin America. Mol Biol Evol. 2020; 37: 1118-32.

[8] Rick CM, Holle M . Andean lycopersicon esculentum var. cerasiforme: genetic variation and its evolutionary significance. Econ Bot. 1990; 44: 69.

[9] Blanca J, Montero-Pau J, Sauvage C et al. Genomic variation in tomato, from wild ancestors to contemporary breeding accessions. BMC Genomics. 2015; 16: 257.

[10] Blanca J, Cañizares J, Cordero L et al. Variation revealed by SNP genotyping and morphology provides insight into the origin of the tomato. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e48198.

[11] Lin T, Zhu G, Zhang J et al. Genomic analyses provide insights into the history of tomato breeding. Nat Genet. 2014; 46: 1220-6.

[12] Gao L, Gonda I, Sun H et al. The tomato pan-genome uncovers new genes and a rare allele regulating fruit flavor. Nat Genet. 2019; 51: 1044- 51.

[13] Pickrell JK, Pritchard JK . Inference of population splits and mixtures from genome-wide allele frequency data. PLoS Genet. 2012; 8: e1002967.

[14] Raj A, Stephens M, Pritchard JK . fastSTRUCTURE: Variational inference of population structure in large SNP data sets. Genetics. 2014; 197: 573-89.

[15] Peralta I, Spooner D . In: Razdan MK, Mattoo K, eds. History, Origin and Early Cultivation of Tomato (Solanaceae). In Genetic Improvement of Solanaceous Crops . CRC Press, 2011.

[16] Pickersgill B. Domestication of Plants in Mesoamerica: An Archaeological Review with Some Ethnobotanical Interpretations. In Ethnobotany of Mexico: Interactions of People and Plants in Mesoamerica (eds. Lira R, Casas A & Blancas J) 207-231 New York, NY: Springer, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6669-7_9.

[17] Kiple KF, Ornelas KC, Press CU . The Cambridge World History of Food . Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

[18] Reinhard KJ, Chaves SM, Jones JG et al. Evaluating chloroplast DNA in prehistoric Texas coprolites: medicinal, dietary, or ambient ancient DNA? J Archaeol Sci. 2008; 35: 1748-55.

[19] Beresford-Jones DG, Whaley O, Ledesma CA et al. Two millennia of changes in human ecology: archaeobotanical and invertebrate records from the lower Ica valley, south coast Peru. Veget Hist Archaeobot. 2011; 20: 273.

[20] Krzanowski W. Principles of Multivariate Analysis: A User’s Perspective . Vol. 23. Oxford UJ: Oxford Statistical Science Series, Oxford University Press, 2000.

[21] Causse M, Desplat N, Pascual L et al. Whole genome resequencing in tomato reveals variation associated with introgression and breeding events. BMC Genomics. 2013; 14: 791.

[22] Gutenkunst RN, Hernandez RD, Williamson SH et al. Inferring the joint demographic history of multiple populations from multidimensional SNP frequency data. PLoS Genet. 2009; 5: e1000695.

[23] Green RE, Krause J, Briggs AW et al. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science. 2010; 328: 710-22.

[24] Xie Y, Zhou Q, Zhao Y et al. FHY3 and FAR1 integrate light signals with the miR156-SPL module-mediated aging pathway to regulate Arabidopsis flowering. Mol Plant. 2020; 13: 483-98.

[25] Li G, Siddiqui H, Teng Y et al. Coordinated transcriptional regulation underlying the circadian clock in Arabidopsis. Nat Cell Biol. 2011; 13: 616-22.

[26] Imamura T, Fujita K, Tasaki K et al. Characterization of spermidine synthase and spermine synthase-the polyamine-synthetic enzymes that induce early flowering in Gentiana triflora. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015; 463: 781-6.

[27] Yu H, Xu Y, Tan EL et al. AGAMOUS-LIKE 24, a dosage-dependent mediator of the flowering signals. PNAS. 2002; 99: 16336-41.

[28] Lee H, Suh SS, Park E et al. The AGAMOUS-LIKE 20 MADS domain protein integrates floral inductive pathways in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 2000; 14: 2366-76.

[29] Hu JY, Zhou Y, He F et al. miR824-regulated AGAMOUS-LIKE16 contributes to flowering time repression in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2014; 26: 2024-37.

[30] Lieberman M, Segev O, Gilboa N et al. The tomato homolog of the gene encoding UV-damaged DNA binding protein 1 (DDB1) underlined as the gene that causes the high pigment-1 mutant phenotype. Theor Appl Genet. 2004; 108: 1574-81.

[31] Pérez-Pérez JM, Esteve-Bruna D, González-Bayón R et al. Functional redundancy and divergence within the Arabidopsis RETICULATA-RELATED gene Family1[W][OA]. Plant Physiol. 2013; 162: 589-603.

[32] Hosmani PS, Flores-Gonzalez M, van de Geest et al. bioRxiv. 2019; 767764. 10.1101/767764.

[33] Wang C, Szpiech ZA, Degnan JH et al. Comparing spatial maps of human population-genetic variation using Procrustes analysis. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2010; 9.

[34] Wang C, Zhan X, Liang L et al. Improved ancestry estimation for both genotyping and sequencing data using projection Procrustes analysis and genotype imputation. Am J Hum Genet. 2015; 96: 926-37.

[35] Rick CM, Fobes JF . Allozyme variation in the cultivated tomato and closely related species. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 1975; 102: 376-84.

[36] Álvarez-Hernández JC, Cortez-Madrigal H, García-Ruiz I . Exploración y caracterización de poblaciones silvestres de jitomate (Solanaceae) en tres regiones de Michoacán. México Polibotánica. 2009; 28: 139-59.

[37] Grobman A, Bonavia D, Dillehay TD et al. Preceramic maize from Paredones and Huaca Prieta, Peru. PNAS. 2012; 109: 1755-9.

[38] Mata-Nicolás E, Montero-Pau J, Gimeno-Paez E et al. Exploiting the diversity of tomato: the development of a phenotypically and genetically detailed germplasm collection. Hortic Res. 2020; 7.

[39] Hardigan MA, Laimbeer FPE, Newton L et al. Genome diversity of tuber-bearing solanum uncovers complex evolutionary history and targets of domestication in the cultivated potato. PNAS. 2017; 114: E9999-10008.

[40] Cui Y, Wang J, Feng L et al. A combination of long-day suppressor genes contributes to the northward expansion of Rice. Front Plant Sci. 2020; 11: 864.

[41] Kates HR, Soltis PS, Soltis DE . Evolutionary and domestication history of Cucurbita (pumpkin and squash) species inferred from 44 nuclear loci. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2017; 111: 98-109.

[42] Strickler SR, Bombarely A, Munkvold JD et al. Comparative genomics and phylogenetic discordance of cultivated tomato and close wild relatives. PeerJ. 2015; 3: e793.

[43] Sato S, Tabata S, Hirakawa H et al. The tomato genome sequence provides insights into fleshy fruit evolution. Nature. 2012; 485: 635-41.

[44] Zhu G, Wang S, Huang Z et al. Rewiring of the fruit metabolome in tomato breeding. Cell. 2018; 172: 249-261.e12.

[45] Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM arXiv:1303.3997 [q-bio]. 2013.

[46] Garrison E, Marth G . Haplotype-based variant detection from short-read sequencing arXiv:1207.3907 [q-bio]. 2012.

[47] Sim SC, Durstewitz G, Plieske J et al. Development of a large SNP genotyping Array and generation of high-density genetic maps in tomato. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e40563.

[48] Peakall R, Smouse PE . GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28: 2537-9.

[49] Browning BL, Zhou Y, Browning SR . A one-penny imputed genome from next-generation reference panels. Am J Hum Genet. 2018; 103: 338-48.

[50] Liu FT, Ting KM, Zhou ZH . Isolation-based anomaly detection. ACM Trans Knowl Discov Data. 2012; 6: 3: 1- 3: 39.

[51] Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011; 12: 2825-30.

[52] Kosman E, Leonard KJ . Similarity coefficients for molecular markers in studies of genetic relationships between individuals for haploid, diploid, and polyploid species. Mol Ecol. 2005; 14: 415-24.

[53] Nei M, Roychoudhury AK . Sampling variances of heterozygosity and genetic distance. Genetics. 1974; 76: 379-90.