Phenotypic, genetic, and population structure analysis offer insights into the genetic architecture of root shape in Beta vulgaris

Abstract

Root shape is a defining feature of marketability and breeding strategies in the Beta vulgaris crop complex encompassing sugar beet, fodder beet, table beet, and Swiss chard. This study leverages the Wisconsin Beta Diversity Panel of 234 accessions to understand the genetic architecture underlying root shape traits, utilizing field trials, genome-wide association, and population structure analyses. High heritability estimates for many root shape traits (H² > 0.9) suggest genetic control as the primary determinant of root shape with minimal genotype-by-environment interactions across locations and years. Digital biomass was not correlated with length-width ratio, a key shape descriptor. Key quantitative trait loci (QTL) on Chromosomes 4, 7, and 8 associated with traits such as length, width, and length-to-width ratio, collectively explained up to 55% of phenotypic variance. Several loci co-localize with predicted gene families known to influence organ shape in other plant species. Candidate genes near shape QTL were significantly enriched for microtubule organization and auxin response. Genomic estimated breeding values for shape traits showed high predictive accuracy, particularly for length-to-width ratio. Admixture analyses revealed eight genetic populations, suggesting distinct domestication and breeding histories of crop types in the complex. Swiss chard and wild germplasm showed unique ancestry, while sugar and fodder beet shared genetic proximity. Our analysis identifies candidate loci and molecular markers for root shape, providing resources for molecular breeding strategies in B. vulgaris. The findings add to and clarify the current knowledge on root shape inheritance, advancing the genetic improvement of these crops of economic, nutritional, and cultural significance.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NSF Award #2048425. The authors would like to thank: Goldman Lab members and WBDP collaborators, Adam D’Angelo, Audrey Pelikan, Audrey Morrison, and Liam Dixon; and undergraduate research assistants, Elizabeth Campbell, Emily Florin, Amirali Jafari, Leah Jakusz, and Grace Stoehr for field and lab assistance.

Author contributions

A.V.: Data curation and GWAS analysis, data visualization, manuscript writing, review and editing. M.O.: Conceptualization, imaging system optimization and validation, data collection, population structure analysis, writing, and editing. I.L.G.: Conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, resources, writing-review & editing.

Data availability

Supplementary Figures, Tables, code, and files are all available locally in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15482778).

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data is available at Horticulture Research online.

References

[1] Goldman IL, Janick J. Evolution of root morphology in table beet: historical and iconographic. Front Plant Sci. 2021; 12:689926

[2] Winner C. History of the crop. In: Cooke DA, Scott JE,eds. The Sugar Beet Crop. Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 1993,1-32

[3] USDA. Notice of release of FC 710 (4x) tetraploid, multigerm sugar beet germplasm.

[4] USDA. Economic Research Service. Sugar and Sweeteners.https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-and-sweeteners/background/ Date accessed 06 January 2025

[5] Clifford T, Howatson G, West DJ. et al. The potential benefits of red beetroot supplementation in health and disease. Nutrients. 2015; 7:2801-22

[6] Sandell FL, Stralis-Pavese N, McGrath JM. et al. Genomic dis-tances reveal relationships of wild and cultivated beets. Nat Commun. 2022; 13:2021

[7] Biancardi E, Panella LW, Lewellen RT. et al. Cultivated offspring. In: Biancardi PLW, Lewellen RT,eds. Beta Maritima:The Origin of Beets. Springer: New York, 2012,219-36

[8] Beetroot PD.Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris. In: Kalloo G, Bergh BO, eds. Genetic Improvement of Vegetable Crops. Elsevier: New York, 1993,473-7

[9] Stevanato P, Biaggi MD, Skaracis GN. et al. The sea beet (Beta vulgaris L. ssp. maritima) of the Adriatic coast as source of resistance for sugar beet. Sugar Tech. 2001; 3:77-82

[10] Goldman IL, Navazio JP. Table Beet. In: Prohens J, Nuez F,eds. Vegetables I. Springer: New York, 2008,219-38

[11] Liu D, Tan W, Wang H. et al. Genetic diversity and genome-wide association study of 13 agronomic traits in 977 Beta vulgaris L. germplasms. BMC Genomics. 2023; 24:413

[12] Brainard SH, Ellison SL, Simon PW. et al. Genetic characterization of carrot root shape and size using genome-wide association analysis and genomic-estimated breeding values. Theor Appl Genet. 2022; 135:605-22

[13] Vega A, Brainard SH, Goldman IL. Linkage mapping of root shape traits in two carrot populations. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 2024;14:jkae041

[14] Wang Y, Wang Q, Hao W. et al. Characterization of the OFP gene family and its putative involvement in tuberous root shape in radish. Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 21:1293

[15] Morales A, Vargas IJ, Del-Sol DR. et al. Inheritance of the flesh color and shape of the tuberous root of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas [L.] Lam.). Horticulturae. 2024; 10:1032

[16] Wu Y, Zhang S, Zhang H. et al. QTL mapping and candidate gene identification of swollen root formation in turnip. Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22:653

[17] Yonis BO, Pino del Carpio D, Wolfe M. et al. Improving root characterization for genomic prediction in cassava. Sci Rep. 2020; 10:8003

[18] Elliott MC, Weston GD. Biology and physiology of the sugar-beet plant. In: Cooke DA, Scott JE,eds. The Sugar Beet Crop. Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 1993,37-66

[19] Wang S, Yue Z, Yu C. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies the genetic basis of key agronomic traits in 207 sugar beet accessions. Horticulture Research. 2024;11:uhae230

[20] Lindstrom EW. The inheritance of ovate and related shapes of tomato fruits. J Agric Res. 1927; 34:961-85

[21] Grandillo S, Ku HM, Tanksley SD. Identifying the loci responsible for natural variation in fruit size and shape in tomato. Theor Appl Genet. 1999; 99:978-87

[22] van der Knaap E, Chakrabarti M, Chu YH. et al. What lies beyond the eye: the molecular mechanisms regulating tomato fruit weight and shape. Front Plant Sci. 2014; 5:227

[23] van der Knaap E, Østergaard L. Shaping a fruit: developmen-tal pathways that impact growth patterns. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2018; 79:27-36

[24] Wu S, Zhang B, Keyhaninejad N. et al. A common genetic mecha-nism underlies morphological diversity in fruits and other plant organs. Nat Commun. 2018; 9:4734

[25] Bürstenbinder K, Möller B, Plötner R. et al. The IQD family of calmodulin-binding proteins links calcium signaling to micro-tubules, membrane subdomains, and the nucleus. Plant Physiol. 2017; 173:1692-708

[26] Snouffer A, Kraus C, van der Knaap E. The shape of things to come: ovate family proteins regulate plant organ shape. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2020; 53:98-105

[27] Zhou H, Ruijuan M, Lei G. et al. A 1.7-Mb chromosomal inversion downstream of a PpOFP1 gene is responsible for flat fruit shape in peach. Plant biotech j. 2021; 19:192-205

[28] Macko-Podgórni A, Machaj G, Stelmach K. et al. Characterization of a genomic region under selection in cultivated carrot (Daucus carota subsp. sativus) reveals a candidate domestication gene. Front Plant Sci. 2017; 8:12

[29] Pelikan A, Goldman IL. Variation for QTL alleles associated with total dissolved solids among crop types in a GWAS of a Beta vulgaris diversity panel. The Plant Genome. 2025; 18:e70014.

[30] Dixon L, Goldman IL. Genetic architecture of cercospora leaf spot response in table beet with implications for other Beta vulgaris crop types. Crop Sci. 2024; 64:3352-71

[31] Morrison AK, Goldman IL. Chromosome 1 QTL associated with response to bacterial leaf spot in Beta vulgaris. Crop Sci. 2025; 65:e21448

[32] Dujak C, Coleto-Alcudia V, Aranzana MJ. Genomic analysis of fruit size and shape traits in apple: unveiling candidate genes through GWAS analysis. Hortic Res. 2024;11:uhad270

[33] Neilson JA, Smith AM, Mesina L. et al. Potato tuber shape pheno-typing using RGB imaging. Agronomy. 2021; 11:1781

[34] Li Q, Luo S, Zhang L. et al. Molecular and genetic regulations of fleshy fruit shape and lessons from Arabidopsis and rice. Hortic Res. 2023;10:uhad108

[35] Campbell GK. Sugar beet, Beta vulgaris (Chenopodiaceae). In: Simmonds NW,ed. Evolution of Crop Plants. Longman: London, 1976,

[36] Fischer HE. Origin of the ‘Weisse Schlesische Rübe’ (white Sile-sian beet) and resynthesis of sugar beet. Euphytica. 1989; 41: 75-80

[37] Galewski P, McGrath JM. Genetic diversity among cultivated beets (Beta vulgaris) assessed via population-based whole genome sequences. BMC Genomics. 2020; 21:189

[38] Stevanato P, Trebbi D, Saccomani M. Single nucleotide polymor-phism markers linked to root elongation rate in sugar beet. Biol Plant. 2017; 61:48-54

[39] Abel S, Savchenko T, Levy M. Genome-wide comparative anal-ysis of the IQD gene families in Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa. BMC Evol Biol. 2005; 5:1-25

[40] Wang S, Chang Y, Guo J. et al. Arabidopsis ovate family protein 1 is a transcriptional repressor that suppresses cell elongation. Plant J. 2007; 50:858-72

[41] Drevensek S, Goussot M, Duroc Y. et al. The Arabidopsis TRM1-TON1 interaction reveals a recruitment network common to plant cortical microtubule arrays and eukaryotic centrosomes. Plant Cell. 2012; 24:178-91

[42] Schaefer E, Belcram K, Uyttewaal M. et al. The preprophase band of microtubules controls the robustness of division orientation in plants. Science. 2017; 356:186-9

[43] Goldman IL, Wang Y, Vega A. et al. Form and contour: breeding and genetics of organ shape from wild relatives to modern vegetable crops. Front Plant Sci. 2023; 14:1257707

[44] Zhao J, Favero DS, Qiu J. et al. Insights into the evolution and diversification of the AT-hook motif nuclear localized gene fam-ily in land plants. BMC Plant Biol. 2014; 14:1-19

[45] Brainard SH, Bustamante JA, Dawson JC. et al. A digital image-based phenotyping platform for analyzing root shape attributes in carrot. Front Plant Sci. 2021; 12:690031

[46] Jiang H, Lei R, Ding SW. et al. A fast and accurate adapter trimmer for next-generation sequencing paired-end reads. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014; 15:182

[47] Glaubitz C, Casstevens T, Liu F. et al. TASSEL-GBS: a high-capacity genotyping-by-sequencing analysis pipeline. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e90346

[48] Langmead B, Salzberg S. Fast gapped-read alignment with bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012; 9:357-9

[49] Wigg KS, Brainard SH, Metz N. et al. Novel QTL associated with Rhizoctonia solani Kühn resistance identified in two table beet x sugar beet F2:3 populations using a new table beet reference genome. Crop Sci. 2023; 63:535-55

[50] Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A. et al. The sequence alignmen-t/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25:2078-9

[51] Holland JB, Piepho H. Don’t BLUP twice. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 2024;14:jkae250

[52] Aparicio J. Agriutilities GitHub repository.

[53] Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN. The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Aust J Agric Res. 1963; 14:742-54

[54] Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LCAM. et al. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. GigaScience. 2015; 4:4

[55] Alexander DH, Novembre J, Lange K. Fast model-based estima-tion of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res. 2009; 19: 1655-64

[56] Dray S, Dufour A. The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Softw. 2007; 22:1-20

[57] Paradis E, Schliep K. Ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylo-genetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics. 2019; 35: 526-8

[58] Yu G, Lam TT, Zhu H. et al. Two methods for mapping and visualizing associated data on phylogeny using ggtree. Mol Biol Evol. 2018; 35:3041-3

[59] Yu G, Smith D, Zhu H. et al. Ggtree: an R package for visual-ization and annotation of phylogenetic trees with their covari-ates and other associated data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017; 8: 28-36

[60] Goudet J. Hierfstat, a package for R to compute and test hierar-chical F-statistics. Mol Ecol Notes. 2005; 5:184-6

[61] Rosyara UR, De Jong WS, Douches DS. et al. Software for genome-wide association studies in autopolyploids and its application to potato. The plant genome. 2016; 9:2015-08

[62] Wang J, Zhang Z. GAPIT version 3: boosting power and accu-racy for genomic association and prediction. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2021; 19:629-40

[63] Vega A. geneticMapR GitHub repository.

[64] McGrath JM, Funk A, Galewski P. et al. A contiguous de novo genome assembly of sugar beet EL10 (Beta vulgaris L.). DNA Res. 2023;30:dsac033

[65] Abel S, Savchenko T, Levy M. Genome-wide comparative anal-ysis of the IQD gene families in Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa. BMC Evol Biol. 2005; 5:1-25

[66] Drevensek S, Goussot M, Duroc Y. et al. The Arabidopsis TRM1-TON1 interaction reveals a recruitment network common to plant cortical microtubule arrays and eukaryotic centrosomes. Plant Cell. 2012; 24:178-91

[67] Bailey TL, Gribskov M. Combining evidence using p-values: application to sequence homology searches. Bioinformatics. 1998; 14:48-54

[68] Endelman JB. Ridge regression and other kernels for genomic selection with R package rrBLUP. Plant Genome. 2011; 4:250-5

[69] Drevensek S, Goussot M, Duroc Y. et al. The Arabidopsis TRM1-TON1 interaction reveals a recruitment network common to plant cortical microtubule arrays and eukaryotic centrosomes. Plant Cell. 2012; 24:178-91