Submitted:
04 July 2023
Posted:
04 July 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Raw reads and Mapping
2.2. Genome-Wide SNPs Calling
2.3. Variant Effect Analysis
2.4. Synteny Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Genome-Wide Identification of SNPs
3.2. Genome-Wide Variant Analysis Using Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor
3.2.1. General Statistics Data Description of Analyzed Variants
3.2.2. Variants Classes
3.2.3. All Consequences and Most Severe Consequences of Variants
3.2.4. Coding Consequences and Variant Location on Chromosomes
3.3. Synteny Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lee, H.Y.; Kim, J.G.; Kang, B.C; Song, K. Assessment of the Genetic Diversity of the Breeding Lines and a Genome Wide Association Study of Three Horticultural Traits Using Worldwide Cucumber (Cucumis spp.) Germplasm Collection. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1736. [CrossRef]
- Datar, M.N.; Pathak, G; Ghate, H.V. A note on the occurrence of Cucumis sativus L. forma hardwickii (Royle) WJ De Wilde and Duyfjes (Cucurbitaceae) in peninsular India. J. Threa. Taxa 2013, 5, 5010-5012.
- Golabadi, M.; Golkar, P; Eghtedary, A.R. Assessment of genetic variation in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) genotypes. Eur. J. Exp. Biol 2012, 2, 1382-1388.
- Naegele, R.P.; Wehner, T.C.; Genetic resources of cucumber. In Genetics and genomics of Cucurbitaceae. Springer, Cham 2016, 61-86.
- Staub, J.E; Grumet, R. Selection for multiple disease resistance reduces cucumber yield potential. Euphytica, 1993, 67, 205-213. [CrossRef]
- Behera, T.K.; Behera, S.; Bharathi, L.K.; John, K.J.; Simon, P.W; Staub, J.E. 2 bitter-gourd: botany, horticulture, Breeding. Hort. reviews 2010, 37, 101.
- Mariod, A.A.; Mirghani, M.E.S; Hussein, I.H. Unconventional oilseeds and oil sources. Academic Press 2017.
- Pandey, S.; Ansari, W.A.; Mishra, V.K.; Singh, A.K; Singh, M. Genetic diversity in Indian cucumber based on microsatellite and morphological markers. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 2013, 51, 19-27. [CrossRef]
- Singh, D.K.; Tewari, R.; Singh, N.K; Singh, S.S. Genetic diversity cucumber using inter simple sequence repeats (ISSR). Transcriptomics 2016, 4, 1-4. [CrossRef]
- Kesh, H.; Kaushik, P. Advances in melon (Cucumis melo L.) breeding: An update. Scientia Horticulturae 282, 110045, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Arzani, A; Ashraf, M. Smart engineering of genetic resources for enhanced salinity tolerance in crop plants. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci 2016, 35, 146-189. [CrossRef]
- Nadeem, M.A.; Nawaz, M.A.; Shahid, M.Q.; Doğan, Y.; Comertpay, G.; Yıldız, M.; Hatipoğlu, R.; Ahmad, F.; Alsaleh, A.; Labhane, N.; Özkan, H. DNA molecular markers in plant breeding: current status and recent advancements in genomic selection and genome editing. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip 2018, 32, 261-285. [CrossRef]
- Gabaldón, T.; Koonin, E.V. Functional and evolutionary implications of gene orthology. Nat Rev Genet, 2013, 14, 360-366. [CrossRef]
- Fitch, W.M. Homology a personal view on some of the problems. Trends Genet 2000, 16, 227-31. [CrossRef]
- Xu et al. OrthoVenn2: a web server for whole-genome comparison and annotation of orthologous clusters across multiple species, Nucleic Acids Research, Volume 47, Issue W1, Pages 2019, W52–W58. [CrossRef]
- Fareed, M; Afzal, M. Single nucleotide polymorphism in genome-wide association of human population: a tool for broad spectrum service. Egypt. J. Med. Hum. Genet 2013, 14, 123-134. [CrossRef]
- Zaid, I.U.; Tang, W.; Liu, E.; Khan, S.U.; Wang, H.; Mawuli, E.W; Hong, D. Genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphisms in CMS and restorer lines discovered by genotyping using sequencing and association with marker-combining ability for 12 yield- related traits in Oryza sativa L. subsp. japonica. Front. Plant Sci 2017. [CrossRef]
- Patel, D.A.; Zander, M.; Dalton-Morgan, J.; Batley, J. Advances in plant genotyping: where the future will take us, in: Plant Genotyping. Springer 2015, 1-11. [CrossRef]
- Rasheed, A.; Hao, Y.; Xia, X.; Khan, A.; Xu, Y.; Varshney, R.K.; He, Z. Crop breeding chips and genotyping platforms: progress, challenges, and perspectives. Mol. plant 2017, 10, 1047–1064. [CrossRef]
- Li, H; Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows– Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics, 2009, 25, 1754-1760. [CrossRef]
- DePristo, M.A.; Banks, E.; Poplin, R.; Garimella, K.V.; Maguire, J.R.; Hartl, C.; Philippakis, A.A.; Del, G.; Rivas, M.A.; Hanna, M; McKenna, A. A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nature genet 2011, 43, 491. [CrossRef]
- Danecek, P.; Auton, A.; Abecasis, G.; Albers, C.A.; Banks, E.; DePristo, M.A.; Handsaker, R.E.; Lunter, G.; Marth, G.T.; Sherry, S.T; McVean, G. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2156-2158. [CrossRef]
- McLaren, W.; Gil, L.; Hunt, S.E.; Riat, H.S.; Ritchie, G.R.; Thormann, A.; Flicek, P; Cunningham, F. The ensembl variant effect predictor. Genome biology 2016, 17, 1-14.
- Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor script http://www.ensembl.org/info/docs/tools/vep/scrip t/index.html. Accessed 17 Mar 2016.
- Pawelkowicz, M.E.; Skarzyńska, A.; Pląder, W; Przybecki, Z. Genetic and molecular bases of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) sex determination. Mole. breed 2019, 39, 1-27. [CrossRef]
- Pawełkowicz, M.; Zieliński, K.; Zielińska, D.; Pląder, W.; Yagi, K.; Wojcieszek, M.; Siedlecka, E.; Bartoszewski, G.; Skarzyńska, A; Przybecki, Z. Next generation sequencing and omics in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) breeding directed research. Plant sci, 2016, 242, 77-88. [CrossRef]
- Mammadov, J.; Aggarwal, R.; Buyyarapu, R; Kumpatla, S. SNP markers and their impact on plant breeding. Inter J plant genom 2012. [CrossRef]
- Cavagnaro, P.F.; Senalik, D.A.; Yang, L.; Simon, P.W.; Harkins, T.T.; Kodira, C.D.; Huang, S; Weng, Y. Genome-wide characterization of simple sequence repeats in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). BMC genomics 2010, 11, 1-18. [CrossRef]
- Morgil, H.; Gercek, Y.C; Tulum, I. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in plant genetics and breeding. In the Recent Topics in Genetic Polymorphisms. Intech Open 2020. [CrossRef]
- Shameer, K.; Tripathi, L.P.; Kalari, K.R.; Dudley, J.T; Sowdhamini, R. Interpreting functional effects of coding variants: challenges in proteome-scale prediction, annotation and assessment. Brief. Bioinfo 2016, 17, 841-862. [CrossRef]
- Keller, B.; Feuillet, C. Colinearity and gene density in grass genomes. Trends Plant Sci 2000, 5, 246-251. [CrossRef]
- Paterson, A.; Bowers, J.; Burow, M.; Draye, X.; Eisik, C.; Jiang, C.; Katsar, C.; Land, T.; Lin, Y.; Ing, R.; Wright, R. Comparative genomics of plant chromosomes. Plant Cell 2000, 12, 1523-1539.
- Mudge, J.; Cannon, S.B.; Kalo, P.; Oldroyd, G.E.; Roe, B.A.; Town, C.D.; Young, N, D. Highly syntenic regions in the genomes of soybean, Medicago truncatula, and Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Plant Biol 2005, 5, 15. [CrossRef]
- Tang, H.; Bowers, J.E.; Wang, X.; Ming, R.; Maqsudul, A.; Paterson, A.H. Synteny and collinearity in plant genomes. Science 2008, 320, 486-488. [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.; SanMiguel, P.; Bennetzen, J.L. Sequence organization and conservation in sh2/a1-homologous regions of sorghum and rice. Genetics 1998, 148, 435-443. [CrossRef]
- Ramakrishna, W.; Bennetzen, J.L. Genomic colinearity as a tool for plant gene isolation Methods. Mol. Biol 2003, 236, 109-122.
- Nieto, C.; Morales, M.; Orjeda, G.; Clepet, C.; Monfort, A.; Sturbois, B.; Puigdomenech, P.; Pitrat, M.; Caboche, M.; Dogimont, C.; Garcia-Mas, J.; Aranda, M.; Bendahmane, A. An eIF4E allele confers resistance to an uncapped and non-polyadenylated RNA virus in melon. Plant J 2006, 48, 452-462. [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.; Li, R.; Zhang, Z.; Li, L.I.; Gu, X.; Fan, W.; Lucas, W.J.; Wang, X.; Xie, B.; Ni, P.; Ren, Y. The genome of the cucumber, Cucumis sativus L. Nature genet 2009, 41, 1275-1281. [CrossRef]
- Fukino, N.; Yoshioka, Y.; Sakata, Y.; Matsumoto, S.; Thies, J.A.; Kousik, S; Levi, A. Construction of an intervarietal genetic map of cucumber and its comparison with the melon genetic map. Cucurbitaceae 2010, 22-25.
- Li, D.; Cuevas, H.E.; Yang, L.; Li, Y.; Garcia-Mas, J.; Zalapa, J.; Staub, J.E.; Luan, F.; Reddy, U.; He, X.; Gong, Z. Syntenic relationships between cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and melon (C. melo L.) chromosomes as revealed by comparative genetic mapping. BMC genom 2011, 12,1-14. [CrossRef]
- Park, M.; Jo, S.H.; Kwon, J.K.; Park, J.; Ahn, J.H.; Kim, S.; Lee, Y.H.; Yang, T.J.; Hur, C.G.; Kang, B.C.; Kim, S.D.; Choi, D. Comparative analysis of pepper and tomato reveals euchromatin expansion of pepper genome caused by differential accumulation of Ty3/Gypsy-like elements. BMC Genomics 2011, 12, 85. [CrossRef]
- Wu, F.; Eannetta, N.T.; Xu, Y.; Durrett, R.; Mazourek, M.; Jahn, M.M; Tanksley, S.D. A COSII genetic map of the pepper genome provides a detailed picture of synteny with tomato and new insights into recent chromosome evolution in the genus Capsicum. Theor. appl. Genet 2009, 118, 1279-1293. [CrossRef]
- Wu, F.N.; Tanksley, S.D. Chromosomal evolution in the plant family Solanaceae. BMC Genomics 2010, 11, 182. [CrossRef]
- Byrne, S.L.; Nagy, I.; Pfeifer, M.; Armstead, I.; Swain, S.; Studer, B.; Mayer, K.; Campbell, J.D.; Czaban, A.; Hentrup, S; Panitz, F. A synteny-based draft genome sequence of the forage grass Lolium perenne. The Plant Journal, 2015, 84, 816-826. [CrossRef]
- Rohner, M.; Manzanares, C.; Yates, S.; Thorogood, D.; Copetti, D.; Lübberstedt, T.; Asp, T.; Studer, B. Fine-mapping and comparative genomic analysis reveal the gene composition at the S and Z self-incompatibility loci in grasses. Mole. Biol. Evol 2023, 40, 259. [CrossRef]
- Zhu, S.; Liu, C.; Gong, S.; Chen, Z.; Chen, R.; Liu, T.; Liu, R.; Du, H.; Guo, R.; Li, G; Li, M. Orthologous genes Pm12 and Pm21 from two wild relatives of wheat show evolutionary conservation but divergent powdery mildew resistance. Plant Commun, 2023. [CrossRef]
- Khahani, B.; Tavakol, E.; Shariati, V; Fornara, F. Genome wide screening and comparative genome analysis for Meta-QTLs, ortho-MQTLs and candidate genes controlling yield and yield-related traits in rice. BMC genom, 2020, 21, 1-24. [CrossRef]
- Shariatipour, N.; Heidari, B.; Tahmasebi, A.; Richards, C. Comparative genomic analysis of quantitative trait loci associated with micronutrient contents, grain quality, and agronomic traits in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Front. Plant Sci 2021, 2142. [CrossRef]
- Kalo, P.; Seres, A.; Taylor, S.A.; Jakab, J.; Kevei, Z.; Kereszt, A.; Endre, G.; Ellis, T.H.; Kiss, G.B. Comparative mapping between Medicago sativa and Pisum sativum. Mole. Genet. Genom 2004, 272, 235-246.. [CrossRef]
- Yan, H.H.; Mudge, J.; Kim, D.J.; Shoemaker, R.C.; Cook, D.R.; Young, N.D. Comparative physical mapping reveals features of microsynteny between Glycine max, Medicago truncatula, and Arabidopsis thaliana. Genome 2004, 47, 141-55. [CrossRef]
- Cannon, S.B.; Sterck, L.; Rombauts, S.; Sato, S.; Cheung, F.; Gouzy, J.; Wang, X.; et al. Legume genome evolution viewed through the Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicus genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 2006, 103, 14959-14964. [CrossRef]
- Phan, H.T.; Ellwood, S.R.; Hane, J.K.; Ford, R.; Materne, M.; Oliver, R.P. Extensive macrosynteny between Medicago truncatula and Lens culinaris ssp. culinaris. Theor. Appl. Genet 2007, 114, 549-558. [CrossRef]
- McClean, P.E.; Mamidi, S.; McConnell, M.; Chikara, S.; Lee, R. Synteny mapping between common bean and soybean reveals extensive blocks of shared loci. BMC Genom 2010, 11, 184. [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Lydiate, D.J.; Parkin, I.A.P.; Falentin, C.; Delourme, R.; Carion, P.W.C.; King, G.J. Integration of linkage maps for the amphidiploid Brassica napus and comparative mapping with Arabidopsis and Brassica rapa. BMC Genom 2011, 12, 101. [CrossRef]
- Dirlewanger, E.; Graziano, E.; Joobeur, T.; Garriga-Calderé, F.; Cosson, P.; Howad, W.; Arús, P. Comparative mapping and marker-assisted selection in Rosaceae fruit crops. Pro. Natl. Acad. Sci 2004, 101, 9891-9896. [CrossRef]
- Jung, S.; Jiwan, D.; Cho, I.; Lee, T.; Abbott, A.; Sosinski, B.; Main, D. Synteny of Prunus and other model plant species. BMC Genom 2009, 10, 76. [CrossRef]


| Analyzed Factors | Values |
| Failed Filters | 0 |
| Passed Filters | 6404727 |
| SNPs | 1974213 |
| MNPs | 0 |
| Insertions | 133468 |
| Deletions | 143237 |
| Indels | 75 |
| Same as reference | 3991061 |
| Missing Genotype | 162673 |
| SNP Transitions/Transversions | 1.53 (2189498/1432901) |
| Total Het/Hom ratio | 0.26 (459863/1791130) |
| SNP Het/Hom ratio | 0.20 (327665/1646548) |
| MNP Het/Hom ratio | - (0/0) |
| Insertion Het/Hom ratio | 0.99 (66254/67214) |
| Deletion Het/Hom ratio | 0.85 (65869/77368) |
| Indel Het/Hom ratio | - (75/0) |
| Insertion/Deletion ratio | 0.93 (133468/143237) |
| Indel/SNP+MNP ratio | 0.14 (276780/1974213) |
| Lines of input read | 6404727 |
| Variants processed | 2228224 |
| Variants filtered out | 0 |
| Novel / existing variants | - |
| Overlapped genes | 23777 |
| Overlapped transcripts | 23777 |
| Overlapped regulatory features | - |
| Variant class | Count | % |
| Sequence alteration | 275 | 0.01 |
| Insertion | 132,531 | 5.94 |
| Deletion | 142,040 | 6.37 |
| SNV | 1,953,378 | 87.66 |
| Total | 2228224 |
| Most severe Consequence type | Count | All Consequence type | Count |
| Splice donor variant | 220 | Splice donor variant | 220 |
| Splice acceptor variant | 235 | Splice acceptor variant | 235 |
| Stop gained | 869 | Stop gained | 869 |
| Frameshift variant | 1,114 | Frameshift variant | 1,147 |
| Stop lost | 174 | Stop lost | 191 |
| Start lost | 192 | Start lost | 220 |
| Inframe insertion | 588 | Inframe insertion | 602 |
| Inframe deletion | 712 | Inframe deletion | 719 |
| Missense variant | 38,641 | Protein altering variant | 30 |
| Protein altering variant | 29 | Missense variant | 38,779 |
| Splice region variant | 6,386 | Splice region variant | 7,034 |
| Start retained variant | 2 | Start retained variant | 13 |
| Synonymous variant | 42,823 | Synonymous variant | 43,701 |
| Stop retained variant | 88 | Stop retained variant | 112 |
| Coding sequence variant | 21 | Coding sequence variant | 44 |
| 5’ Prime UTR variant | 20,079 | 5’ Prime UTR variant | 20,418 |
| 3’ Prime UTR variant | 27,691 | 3’ Prime UTR variant | 28,389 |
| Intron variant | 304,952 | Intron variant | 311,414 |
| Upstream gene variant | 1,029,734 | Upstream gene variant | 1,547,272 |
| Downstream gene variant | 366,513 | Downstream gene variant | 1,352,690 |
| Intergenic variant | 387,161 | Intergenic variant | 387,766 |
| Total | 2228224 | Total | 3741865 |
| Consequence type | Count | % |
| Stop gained | 869 | 1.00 |
| Frameshift variant | 1,147 | 1.32 |
| Stop lost | 191 | 0.22 |
| Start lost | 220 | 0.25 |
| Inframe insertion | 602 | 0.69 |
| Inframe deletion | 719 | 0.83 |
| Protein altering variant | 30 | 0.03 |
| Missense variant | 38,779 | 44.86 |
| Start retained variant | 13 | 0.01 |
| Stop retained variant | 112 | 0.12 |
| Synonymous variant | 43,701 | 50.55 |
| Coding sequence variant | 44 | 0.05 |
| Total | 86435 |
| Chromosome | Count | % |
| 1 | 344,544 | 15.46 |
| 2 | 287,924 | 12.92 |
| 3 | 401,920 | 18.03 |
| 4 | 270,449 | 12.13 |
| 5 | 352,961 | 15.84 |
| 6 | 328,039 | 14.72 |
| 7 | 242,387 | 10.87 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).