Paper · 2023 · Cell

Phylogenomic discovery of deleterious mutations facilitates hybrid potato breeding

Yaoyao Wu; Dawei Li; Yong Hu; et al.

6
claims
9
verbatim quotes
126
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Hybrid potato breeding will transform the crop from a clonally propagated tetraploid to a seed-reproducing diploid. Historical accumulation of deleterious mutations in potato genomes has hindered the development of elite inbred lines and hybrids. Utilizing a whole-genome phylogeny of 92 Solanaceae and its sister clade species, we employ an evolutionary strategy to identify deleterious mutations. The deep phylogeny reveals the genome-wide landscape of highly constrained sites, comprising ∼2.4% of the genome. Based on a diploid potato diversity panel, we infer 367,499 deleterious variants, of which 50% occur at non-coding and 15% at synonymous sites. Counterintuitively, diploid lines with relatively high homozygous deleterious burden can be better starting material for inbred-line development, despite showing less vigorous growth. Inclusion of inferred deleterious mutations increases genomic-prediction accuracy for yield by 24.7%. Our study generates insights into the genome-wide incidence and properties of deleterious mutations and their far-reaching consequences for breeding.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A whole-genome phylogeny of Solanaceae reveals highly constrained sites comprising about 2.4% of the genome.

Taxon
SolanaceaeSolanaceaee1
Outcome
highly constrained sitese0
Value
∼2.4%e0

Verbatim

e0

“The deep phylogeny reveals the genome-wide landscape of highly constrained sites, comprising ∼2.4% of the genome”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 399–511 · show in text ↑
e1

“a whole-genome phylogeny of 92 Solanaceae and its sister clade species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 257–327 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Based on a diploid potato diversity panel, 367,499 deleterious variants were inferred.

Outcome
deleterious variantse0
Value
367,499e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Based on a diploid potato diversity panel, we infer 367,499 deleterious variants, of which 50% occur at non-coding and 15% at synonymous sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 513–655 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

About 50% of the inferred deleterious variants in diploid potato occur at non-coding sites.

Outcome
deleterious variantse0
Value
50%e0
Qualifier
non-codinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Based on a diploid potato diversity panel, we infer 367,499 deleterious variants, of which 50% occur at non-coding and 15% at synonymous sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 513–655 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

About 15% of the inferred deleterious variants in diploid potato occur at synonymous sites.

Outcome
deleterious variantse0
Value
15%e0
Qualifier
synonymous sitese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Based on a diploid potato diversity panel, we infer 367,499 deleterious variants, of which 50% occur at non-coding and 15% at synonymous sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 513–655 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Diploid potato lines with relatively high homozygous deleterious burden can be better starting material for inbred-line development despite less vigorous growth.

Outcome
starting material for inbred-line developmente0
Qualifier
despite showing less vigorous growthe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–73 · show in text ↑
e0

“diploid lines with relatively high homozygous deleterious burden can be better starting material for inbred-line development, despite showing less vigorous growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 677–839 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Including inferred deleterious mutations increases genomic-prediction accuracy for yield by 24.7% in potato.

Treatment
Inclusion of inferred deleterious mutationse0
Outcome
genomic-prediction accuracy for yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
24.7%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–73 · show in text ↑
e0

“Inclusion of inferred deleterious mutations increases genomic-prediction accuracy for yield by 24.7%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 841–941 · show in text ↑

loss of function · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 4 positive, 6 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.