Skip to main content

Evolutionary balance between LRR domain loss and young NBS–LRR genes production governs disease resistance in Arachis hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

Abstract

Background

Cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an important oil and protein crop, but it has low disease resistance; therefore, it is important to reveal the number, sequence features, function, and evolution of genes that confer resistance. Nucleotide-binding site–leucine-rich repeats (NBS–LRRs) are resistance genes that are involved in response to various pathogens.

Results

We identified 713 full-length NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. Genetic exchange events occurred on NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, which were detected in the same subgenomes and also found in different subgenomes. Relaxed selection acted on NBS–LRR proteins and LRR domains in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. Using quantitative trait loci (QTL), we found that NBS–LRRs were involved in response to late leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus, and bacterial wilt in A. duranensis (2 NBS–LRRs), A. ipaensis (39 NBS–LRRs), and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (113 NBS–LRRs). In A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, 113 NBS–LRRs were classified as 75 young and 38 old NBS–LRRs, indicating that young NBS–LRRs were involved in response to disease after tetraploidization. However, compared to A. duranensis and A. ipaensis, fewer LRR domains were found in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner NBS–LRR proteins, partly explaining the lower disease resistance of the cultivated peanut.

Conclusions

Although relaxed selection acted on NBS–LRR proteins and LRR domains, LRR domains were preferentially lost in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner compared to A. duranensis and A. ipaensis. The QTL results suggested that young NBS–LRRs were important for resistance against diseases in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. Our results provid insight into the greater susceptibility of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner to disease compared to A. duranensis and A. ipaensis.

Background

In plants, the innate immune system can be categorized into two layers: pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) and effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [1]. PTI is mediated by surface-localized pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) that can recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) of the pathogen. ETI is mediated by intracellular immune receptors, which evolve resistance (R) genes to recognize effectors of pathogens. R genes can be divided into at least five classes [2, 3], and the biggest category is nucleotide binding–leucine-rich repeats (NBS–LRRs) [4]. NBS–LRRs are distributed in various plant species. Many NBS–LRRs have been identified at the genome-wide level such as in Arabidopsis thaliana [5], Arachis duranensis [6], Arachis ipaensis [6], Glycine max [7], Medicago truncatula [8], Oryza sativa [9], and Triticum aestivum [10]. NBS–LRRs are classified into two types based on the N-terminal domain, coiled-coil (CC)–NBS–LRR (CNL) and toll/mammalian interleukin-1 receptor (TIR)–NBS–LRR (TNL) [5]. Generally, the NBS domain hydrolyzes ATP or GTP to obtain energy [2]. Overexpression of CC or TIR domains can reduce hypersensitive response in plants [11, 12]. The LRR domain undergoes more relaxed selection or positive selection because this domain interacts with pathogenic effectors [13,14,15], indicating that LRR domains are more diverse compared to NBS, TIR, and CC domains [13, 14, 16].

To date, a few studies have focused on the phylogenetic relationship of NBS–LRRs between polyploids and their donors. T. aestivum (AABBDD) is a hybrid of Aegilops tauschii (DD) and T. dicoccoides (AABB) which originated from a hybridization process between T. urartu (AA) and A. speltoides (BB) [17]. Many NBS–LRRs are extinct in T. aestivum compared to the NBS–LRRs in its donors; the evolutionary rate of NBS–LRRs of T. aestivum is also slower than that of its donors [10], causing disease resistance in T. aestivum to be lower than its donors. Similarly, Gossypium hrisutum (AADD) is a hybrid between G. raimondii (DD) and G. arboretum (AA) [18]. New NBS–LRRs are produced in G. hrisutum because of polyploidy, natural and artificial selection, gene duplication, and chromosomal recombination [19]. However, gene number and gene structure of NBS–LRRs are similar for Citrus sinensis and its donor, C. clementina [16]. Therefore, it is important to study the evolution and function between polyploids and parental donors.

NBS–LRRs involved in response to pathogens have been well documented. RFO1, WRR4, and RPW8 genes are NBS–LRRs that have been isolated from A. thaliana [20,21,22]. Functional analyses have shown that RFO1 genes provide resistance to a broad spectrum of Fusarium races [20], and RPW8 controls resistance to a broad spectrum of powdery mildew pathogens [21]. Overexpression of WRR4 in Brassica species can confer broad-spectrum white rust resistance [22]. In addition, a total of 15 NBS–LRRs from five rice cultivars have been introduced into a transgenic rice cultivar, increasing its broad-spectrum resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae [15]. In legumes, RCT1 from M. truncatula, which is classified as a TNL gene, confers broad-spectrum anthracnose resistance in transgenic susceptible alfalfa plants [23]. In Arachis, NBS–LRRs are involved in response to Aspergillus flavus and Meloidogyne arenaria infection [6, 24, 25].

Cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L., AABB) is an allotetraploid hybrid between two wild peanuts, A. duranensis (AA) and A. ipaensis (BB) [26,27,28]. The complete genome sequences of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner and related diploids, A. duranensis and A. ipaensis, have been published [26, 29,30,31,32]. In addition, NBS–LRRs of A. duranensis and A. ipaensis have been identified and subjected to phylogenetic analyses [6]. These studies provided a powerful basis for the understanding of evolution and function of NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. In this study, we identified 713 full-length NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. We analyzed the sequence structure, evolution and function of NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. We proposed that the low disease resistance of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner may be partially caused by the loss of LRR domains.

Results and discussion

NBS–LRR gene family in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

We identified 1105 NBS-containing sequences using HMMER in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. Among the NBS-containing sequences, 713 NBS-containing genes contained complete NBS domains and had full-length coding sequences (Additional file 1: Table S1). Previously, results were more difficult to interpret when the evolution of NBS–LRR proteins was analyzed using the incomplete NBS domain of Lotus japonicus [33]. Therefore, in our study, only 713 regular NBS–LRRs encoding intact NBS domains were used for further analyses. There are a total of 278 and 303 full-length NBS–LRRs in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis, respectively [6].

Among the 713 NBS–LRR proteins, 229 sequences contained TIR domains, and 118 sequences included CC domains (Additional file 1: Table S1). Interestingly, we found that 26 sequences contained both TIR and CC domains in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (Additional file 1: Table S1). However, none of the sequences contained both TIR and CC domains in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis [6]. Previous studies have demonstrated that TNL and CNL have different origins [34,35,36]. We speculated that genetic exchange or gene rearrangement likely resulted in the fusion of the TIR and CC domains after tetraploidization. Bertioli et al. [30] found many crossovers between A and B subgenomes, and chromosome inversions were detected in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. The chromosome translacations could change gene direction. In addition, we found three sequences that simultaneously contained an NBS domain and WRKY domain in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. In other legumes, NBS–WRKY fusion proteins have only been identified in G. max, A. duranensis, and A. ipaensis [37]. The bacterial effectors AvrRps4 or PopP2 can trigger WRKY transcription factors that are involved in active NBS–LRR gene responses to pathogens [38]. We speculated that NBS–WRKY fusion proteins can play a crucial role in response to biotic stress in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner.

LRR domains play important roles in protein–ligand and protein–protein interactions; these LRR domains are involved in plant immune responses [39, 40]. In this study, we found that 348 NBS–LRR proteins contained four types of LRR domains in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, namely, LRR1, LRR3, LRR4, and LRR8 (Additional file 1: Table S1). Among these sequences, the greatest number of LRR domains were classified as LRR8-type (308), followed by LRR3 (133), LRR4 (88), and LRR1 (7). A. duranensis and A. ipaensis had five types of LRR domains: LRR1, LRR3, LRR4, LRR5, and LRR8 [6]. Moreover, the greatest number of LRR domains in A. duranensis were classified as LRR8-type, followed by LRR4, LRR3, and LRR5 [6]. In A. ipaensis, the greatest number of LRR domains were classified as LRR8-type, followed by LRR4, LRR3, LRR5, and LRR1 [6]. The LRR5 domain only appeared in CNL proteins in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis [6]. We proposed that A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner lost the LRR5 domain possibly due to genetic exchange or gene loss after tetraploidization or whole genome duplication (WGD).

Genetic exchange of NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner has 20 chromosomes, Arahy.01–Arahy.20 [30]. The chromosomal location results showed that the greatest number of NBS–LRRs was located on Arahy.12, while the lowest number of NBS–LRRs were located on Arahy.17 (Fig. 1). The chromosomal location of NBS–LRRs was reported in A. duranensis (chromosome: A01–A10) and A. ipaensis (chromosome: B01–B10) by Song et al. [6]. A02 and B02 contained the highest number of NBS–LRRs in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis, respectively, and A06 and B07 had the lowest NBS–LRR number in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis, respectively [6]. In this study, the A subgenome was represented as Arahy.01–Arahy.10, and B subgenome was represented as Arahy.11–Arahy.20 in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner based on the number of NBS–LRRs on each chromosome (Fig. 2). This result was consistent with a previous description of chromosome assembly in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner by Bertioli et al. [30].

Fig. 1
figure1

The number of NBS–LRRs distributed on each chromosome in Arachis hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

Fig. 2
figure2

Comparison of the location of representative NBS–LRRs on each chromosome among Arachis duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

A polyploidization event (or WGD) can cause gene duplication and loss [41, 42]. A. hypogaea had at least three WGDs [32]; therefore, the number of NBS–LRRs on each chromosome of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner changed and was different from the number of NBS–LRRs on each chromosome of A. duranensis and A. ipaensis. We found that although some NBS–LRRs were lost, the total number of NBS–LRRs was higher in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. For example, the number of NBS–LRRs on Arahy.10, 17, and 20 decreased, and the number of NBS–LRRs on other chromosomes increased compared with A. duranensis and A. ipaensis (Fig. 2).

To further reveal the relationship of NBS–LRRs between wild and cultivated peanuts, we constructed one-to-one orthologs. A total of 99 one-to-one orthologous gene pairs were identified between A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner and A. duranensis, and 142 one-to-one orthologous gene pairs were identified between A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner and A. ipaensis (Fig. 3). Most one-to-one orthologs corresponded to a similar location on the chromosome between wild and cultivated peanut species. However, some NBS–LRRs from A. duranensis (A genome) corresponded to NBS–LRRs in the B subgenome of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner and vice versa (Fig. 3). These results indicated that there was genetic exchange in the A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner genome, which is consistent with previous findings by Leal-Bertioli et al. [43], who demonstrated that A. ipaensis B genome segments were replaced by the A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner A subgenome segments, and A. duranensis A genome segments were replaced by A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner B subgenome segments. The genome structure was not the expected AABB, but was AAAA or BBBB in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner [30]. Specifically, approximately 14.8 Mb of the A subgenome sequences were transferred into the B subgenome, and 3.1 Mb of the B subgenome sequences migrated into the A subgenome based on genetic exchange or homoeologous exchange [30].

Fig. 3
figure3

One-to-one orthologous NBS–LRR gene pairs among Arachis duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. The orange line indicates orthologous NBS–LRR gene pairs in a similar chromosomal location between wild and cultivated peanuts. The blue line indicates orthologous NBS–LRR gene pairs in a different chromosomal location between wild and cultivated peanuts

Relaxed selection acting on paralogous NBS–LRR gene pairs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

A total of 43, 87, and 756 paralogous gene pairs were found in A. duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, respectively (Additional file 2: Table S2 and Additional file 3: Table S3). A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner had a greater number of paralogous gene pairs than A. duranensis and A. ipaensis. This could be explained by tetraploidization or WGD. Specifically, a polyploidization event may have retained many duplicated genes [41, 42]. The average Ka/Ks of paralogous NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (0.60) was greater than the Ka/Ks of A. ipaensis (0.59) and A. duranensis (0.55, Fig. 4a). Nevertheless, the average Ka/Ks value of paralogous NBS–LRRs was greater than 0.5 in A. duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, indicating that the paralogous NBS-LRRs were under relaxed selection.

Fig. 4
figure4

Comparison of selective pressure (Ka/Ks) of paralogous NBS–LRR proteins among Arachis duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. A. Ka/Ks of paralogous NBS–LRR proteins; B. Ka/Ks of paralogous LRR domains. Ka/Ks: nonsynonymous to synonymous per site substitution rates. P < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference

Compared to other domains of NBS–LRR proteins, the LRR domain underwent more relaxed selection or positive selection because this domain was implicated in pathogenic effector sensing [13,14,15]. Our results showed that the average Ka/Ks value of the LRR domain in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (0.80) was greater the average Ka/Ks value of A. duranensis (0.33) and A. ipaensis (0.41, Fig. 4b), suggesting that LRR domains were under relaxed selection in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, but under purifying selection in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis.

Young NBS–LRR paralogs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

In this study, the paralogs produced by gene duplication events that occurred before tetraploidization were considered old paralogs. Young paralogs were generated by gene duplication events after tetraploidization. We detected 29 old and 727 young paralogous NBS–LRR gene pairs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (Additional file 3: Table S3), indicating that many young NBS–LRR paralogs were generated as a result of gene duplication events after tetraploidization. In addition, some old paralogous NBS–LRR gene pairs were lost after tetraploidization, where A subgenome lost 35 paralogous NBS–LRR gene pairs, and B subgenome lost 66 paralogous NBS–LRR gene pairs compared with A. duranensis and A. ipaensis. Previous studies have reported that the properties of old and young genes have different features [44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. For example, young genes have faster evolutionary rates, relaxed selection, lower gene expression levels, shorter gene length, and higher intrinsic structural disorder (ISD) than old genes [46, 47, 49,50,51,52,53]. We found that the average Ka/Ks values of young paralogous NBS–LRRs (0.60) were higher than old NBS–LRRs (0.54, Fig. 5a), indicating that young paralogous NBS–LRRs were under relaxed selection. The average polypeptide length of young paralogous NBS–LRRs (1110 amino acids) was longer than old paralogous NBS–LRRs (1080 amino acids; Fig. 5b). The average ISD value of young paralogous NBS–LRRs (0.14) was lower than the old paralogous NBS–LRRs (0.15, Fig. 5c), indicating that the protein structure of young paralogous NBS–LRRs was stable compared to old paralogous NBS–LRRs. In contrast to these findings, previous studies have found that young genes often have shorter gene length and higher ISD compared to old genes [46, 49]. Young gene has essential function at least underwent 100 MYA [52]. However, the A. hypogaea origination is relatively late [26, 31]. Therefore, we speculated that young NBS–LRRs played the essential functions need more time, it was just rapidly fixed in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner.

Fig. 5
figure5

Comparison of sequence features and substitution rates between old and young paralogous NBS–LRR proteins in Arachis hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. A. Selective pressure (Ka/Ks) between old and young paralogous NBS–LRR proteins in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner; B. Polypeptide length between old and young paralogous NBS–LRR proteins in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner; C. The intrinsic structural disorder (ISD) of old and young paralogous NBS–LRR proteins in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. Ka/Ks: nonsynonymous to synonymous per site substitution rates. P < 0.05 and < 0.01 indicate significant differences

NBS–LRR proteins lost LRR domains in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

NBS–LRR orthologs in A. duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner were under relaxed selection (Fig. 6a), indicating that the biological functions of NBS–LRRs diversified after the divergence of these three Arachis species. Relaxed selection acted on LRR domains of NBS–LRR orthologs between A. duranensis and A. ipaensis (0.53) and between A. duranensis and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (0.71) and purifying selection acted on LRR domains from NBS–LRR orthologs between A. ipaensis and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (0.39; Fig. 6b). These results indicated that the LRR domains between A. ipaensis and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner were conserved, and LRR domains between A. duranensis and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner were divergent. Moreover, we found that the average Ka/Ks value of homoeologous NBS–LRR proteins (0.57) and LRR domains (0.75) in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner was greater than the average Ka/Ks value of orthologs between A. duranensis and A. ipaensis (NBS–LRR: 0.55; LRR domain: 0.53; Fig.7). Taken together, the LRR domains were under more relaxed selection after tetraploidization.

Fig. 6
figure6

Comparison of selective pressure (Ka/Ks) between orthologous NBS–LRR proteins among Arachis duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. A. Ka/Ks of orthologous NBS–LRR proteins; B. Ka/Ks of orthologous LRR domains. DI. A. duranensis VS A. ipaensis; DH. A. duranensis VS A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner; IH. A. ipaensis VS A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. Ka/Ks: nonsynonymous to synonymous per site substitution rates

Fig. 7
figure7

Comparison of selective pressure (Ka/Ks) between homoeologous NBS–LRR proteins and orthologous NBS–LRR proteins among Arachis duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. A. Ka/Ks of NBS–LRR proteins; B. Ka/Ks of LRR domains. Ka/Ks: nonsynonymous to synonymous per site substitution rates

The number of LRR domains in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis were greater than that in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (average number: 2.35 vs 0.72; Fig. 8a). There were fewer types of LRR domains in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner NBS–LRRs compared to A. duranensis and A. ipaensis (average number of type: 1.45 vs 0.64; Fig. 8b). Similarly, the number of LRR domains in orthologs of A. duranensis and A. ipaensis was greater than the homoeologs of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (average number: 2.48 vs 0.56, average number of type: 1.73 vs 0.48; Fig. 8c and d).

Fig. 8
figure8

Comparison of number and type of LRR domains between wild and cultivated peanuts. A. Number of LRR domains between wild and cultivated peanuts; B. Type of LRR domains between wild and cultivated peanuts. C. Number of LRR domains between homoeologous NBS–LRRs and its orthologs; D. Type of LRR domains between homoeologous NBS–LRRs and its orthologs. E. Number of LRR domains from NBS–LRRs that respond to late leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus, and bacterial wilt between wild and cultivated peanuts. F. Type of LRR domains from NBS–LRRs that respond to late leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus, and bacterial wilt between wild and cultivated peanuts. P < 0.05 and < 0.01 indicate statistical significant differences

Although relaxed selection had a greater effect on the NBS–LRRs of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner compared to A. duranensis and A. ipaensis, A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner lost a greater number of LRR domains. These results indicated that the resistance of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner to biotic effectors was weaker than that of A. duranensis and A. ipaensis, likely because A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner lost LRR domains. Similarly, Peele et al. [54] found that A. thaliana was sensitive to biotic stress due to the loss of LRR domains compared to Arabidopsis lyrata, Capsella rubella, Brassica rapa, and Eutrema salsugineum.

It is unclear whether A. duranensis donated the A subgenome to A. hypogaea [26]. A recent study showed that the genome of A. duranensis from Rio Seco, Argentina, was the most similar to the A subgenome of A. hypogaea using chloroplast and ribosomal DNA haplotypes from 50 accessions [30]. In this study, we used A. duranensis (no. V14167) from Argentina [26]. Although there may be differences in the species used in this study, our data suggests that these potential population-level differences did not influence our results. The A subgenome from A. hypogaea had an average DNA similarity of 99.76% to the A. duranensis Rio Seco accessions and 99.61% similarity to A. duranensis V14167 using whole-genome sequencing [30].

NBS–LRRs involved in biotic resistance based on QTLs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

The QTLs of resistance to late leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus, and bacterial wilt were identified in cultivated peanut using A. duranensis and A. ipaensis as reference genomes [55, 56]. Three QTLs with 27 NBS–LRRs, four QTLs with six NBS–LRRs, and one QTL with eight NBS–LRRs were involved in response to late leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus, and bacterial wilt, respectively (Table 1 and Additional file 4: Table S4). All of these QTLs were mapped onto the genome of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. One QTL (qTSW_T10_B03_1) contained two NBS–LRRs in A. ipaensis, but its collinear region was absent in NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (Table 1), indicating that some NBS–LRRs were lost in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner.

Table 1 The number of NBS–LRRs in QTLs that respond to late leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus, and bacterial wilt in Arachis duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

In the collinear region, A. duranensis and A. ipaensis had greater number of LRR domains than A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner (average number: 2.56 vs 0.60, average number of type: 1.58 vs 0.56; Fig. 8e and f). These results indicated that the loss of LRR domains may have decreased ability of NBS-LRR to recognize effectors of bacterial wilt, late leaf spot, and tomato spotted wilt virus in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. Many studies have demonstrated that A. duranensis and A. ipaensis have greater resistant to biotic stressors than cultivated peanut [57,58,59,60]. Thus, we proposed that we may have overestimated the disease resistance of cultivated peanut using A. duranensis and A. ipaensis as reference genomes.

In this study, we identified 31, 11, and 71 NBS–LRRs that responded to late leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus, and bacterial wilt in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, respectively. Among these NBS–LRRs, we found 75 young NBS–LRRs and 38 old NBS–LRRs based on gene duplication events after tetraploidization. There were more young NBS–LRRs compared to old NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, indicating that young NBS–LRRs were involved in the plant’s response against pathogens. Similarly, Song et al. [61] found that compared to old duplicated genes, young duplicated genes were more likely to be involved in response to biotic stressors in A. duranensis. Although no studies have demonstrated that young genes confer resistance to biotic stress in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, our results indicated that young NBS–LRRs may be involved in response to late leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus, and bacterial wilt compared to old NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner.

Conclusions

We identified NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. Genetic exchange events occurred in NBS-LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner compared to A. duranensis and A. ipaensis. Although the LRR domains were under relaxed selection, more LRR domains were lost in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner compared to A. duranensis and A. ipaensis. Based on the QTL data, we found that NBS–LRRs were involved in response to late leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus, and bacterial wilt in A. duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. Interestingly, the results suggested that young NBS–LRRs were more likely to be involved in disease resistance compared to old NBS-LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner.

Methods

Identification of the NBS–LRR gene family in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner

The complete genome sequence of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner has been published [30] and is available on PeanutBase (https://www.peanutbase.org/data/public/Arachis_hypogaea/) [29]. The hidden Markov models (HMM) of NBS (PF00931) and TIR (PF01582) domains were downloaded from the Pfam database [62]. We identified the NBS-containing sequences using NBS domain by HMMER [63] in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. We extracted NBS-containing sequences using an in-house Perl script based on the sequencing ID. Subsequently, we uploaded the NBS-containing sequences to the Pfam database [62] and re-examined these sequences. Among the NBS-containing sequences, we used the same method to identify the TIR-containing sequences. In A. duranensis and A. ipaensis, we found the following five types of LRR domains: LRR1, LRR3, LRR4, LRR5, and LRR8 [6]. We downloaded these five HMMs of the LRR domain from the Pfam database [62] and identified the LRR domains in NBS-containing sequences using HMMER [63] in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. The CC domains of NBS-containing sequences were surveyed using Paircoil2 (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/cb/paircoil2/). The P-score cutoff was 0.03.

Chromosomal location

The gff3 file of the A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner genome has been released on PeanutBase (https://www.peanutbase.org/data/public/Arachis_hypogaea/) [29]. We used the TBtools program [64] to extract the chromosomal location of NBS–LRRs based on the sequencing ID. The chromosomal location of NBS–LRRs was reported in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis [6]. We used Circos v0.69 [65] to compare the chromosomal location of NBS–LRRs in A. duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner.

Homology in Arachis species

Genes that are paralogs and orthologs in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis have been reported in previous studies [6667]. We identified NBS–LRR paralogs and homoeologs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner, and NBS–LRR orthologs between wild and cultivated peanut species. The following evaluation criteria were used as thresholds to determine paralogs and homoeologs in local BLAST analyses [26]: (1) alignment coverage exceeding 80% of the two sequences, (2) identity > 80%, and (3) E-value ≤10− 10.

The paralogous, orthologous, and homoeologous NBS–LRR gene pairs were extracted using an in-house Perl script. MAFFT [68] was used to align pairs of amino acid sequences. PAL2NAL [69] was used to convert amino acid sequences into their corresponding nucleotide sequences. PAML 4.0 [70] was used to calculate the nonsynonymous substitution per nonsynonymous site (Ka), synonymous substitution per synonymous site (Ks), and nonsynonymous to synonymous per site substitution rates (Ka/Ks). Ka/Ks = 1, Ka/Ks > 1, and Ka/Ks < 1 indicated neutral, positive, and purifying selection, respectively. We estimated the Ks, Ka, and Ka/Ks of LRR domains using the same methods.

Polypeptide length and intrinsic structural disorder

The polypeptide length of each NBS–LRR sequence was estimated using codon W (version 1.4, http://codonw.sourceforge.net) with default parameters. The intrinsic structural disorder (ISD) was estimated using IUPred2A with default parameters [71]. The ISD value ranged from 0 to 1, where 0 indicated a stable protein structure, and 1 indicated an unstable protein structure.

Identification of the potential function of NBS–LRRs using quantitative trait loci analysis

To date, many recombinant inbred peanut lines have been constructed to improve biotic resistance, including resistance to bacterial, fungal, insect, and viral stressors. A number of major quantitative trait loci (QTL) were obtained using various molecular markers and genome sequencing methods [55, 56, 72,73,74,75]. Agarwal et al. [55] identified major QTLs related to response to early leaf spot, late leaf spot, and tomato spotted wilt virus using a recombinant inbred population (Tifrunner × GT-C20). Luo et al. [56] identified two QTLs that act in response to bacterial wilt using a recombinant inbred population (Yuanza 9102 × Xuzhou 68–4). The abovementioned QTLs were obtained using genome sequencing of A. duranensis and A. ipaensis as the reference genomes [55, 56]. We obtained these QTLs, and mapped them onto the genome sequences of A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner using a local BLAST program [76]. The parameters were set as follows: (1) alignment coverage exceeding 80% of QTL sequences, (2) identity > 80%, and (3) E-value ≤10− 10. The NBS–LRRs were identified using the gene location information across the collinear areas in A. duranensis, A. ipaensis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CC:

Coiled-coil

HMM:

Hidden Markov models

ISD:

Intrinsic structural disorder

K a :

Nonsynonymous substitution per nonsynonymous site

K a/K s :

Nonsynonymous to synonymous substitution ratio

K s :

Synonymous substitution per synonymous site

NBS–LRR:

Nucleotide-binding site–leucine-rich repeat

QTL:

Quantitative trait loci

TIR:

Toll/mammalian interleukin-1 receptor

WGD:

Whole-genome duplication

References

  1. 1.

    Dodds PN, Rathjen JP. Plant immunity: towards an integrated view of plant-pathogen interactions. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11(8):539–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Dangl JL, Jones JD. Plant pathogens and integrated defence responses to infection. Nature. 2001;411(6839):826–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Staskawicz BJ, Mudgett MB, Dangl JL, Galan JE. Common and contrasting themes of plant and animal diseases. Science. 2001;292(5525):2285–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jones JD, Dangl JL. The plant immune system. Nature. 2006;444(7117):323–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Meyers BC, Kozik A, Griego A, Kuang HH, Michelmore RW. Genome-wide analysis of NBS-LRR-encoding genes in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2003;15(4):809–34.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Song H, Wang P, Li C, Han S, Zhao C, Xia H, et al. Comparative analysis of NBS-LRR genes and their response to Aspergillus flavus in Arachis. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171181.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kang YJ, Kim KH, Shim S, Yoon MY, Sun S, Kim MY, et al. Genome-wide mapping of NBS-LRR genes and their association with disease resistance in soybean. BMC Plant Biol. 2012;12:139.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Song H, Nan Z. Genome-wide analysis of nucleotide-binding site disease resistance genes in Medicago truncatula. Chin Sci Bull. 2014;59(11):1129–38.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Zhou T, Wang Y, Chen JQ, Araki H, Jing Z, Jiang K, et al. Genome-wide identification of NBS genes in japonica rice reveals significant expansion of divergent non-TIR NBS-LRR genes. Mol Gen Genomics. 2004;271(4):402–15.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gu L, Si W, Zhao L, Yang S, Zhang X. Dynamic evolution of NBS-LRR genes in bread wheat and its progenitors. Mol Gen Genomics. 2015;290(2):727–38.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Swiderski MR, Birker D, Jones JD. The TIR domain of TIR-NB-LRR resistance proteins is a signaling domain involved in cell death induction. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2009;22:157–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Maekawa T, Cheng W, Spiridon LN, Toller A, Lukasik E, Saijo Y, et al. Coiled-coil domain-dependent homodimerization of intracellular barley immune receptors defines a minimal functional module for triggering cell death. Cell Host Microbe. 2011;9:187–99.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Yang S, Zhang X, Yue JX, Tian D, Chen JQ. Recent duplications dominate NBS-encoding gene expansion in two woody species. Mol Gen Genomics. 2008;280(3):187–98.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Yang S, Li J, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Huang J, Chen JQ, et al. Rapidly evolving R genes in diverse grass species confer resistance to rice blast disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(46):18572–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Zhang X, Yang S, Wang J, Jia Y, Huang J, Tan S, et al. A genome-wide survey reveals abundant rice blast R-genes in resistant cultivars. Plant J. 2015;84(1):20–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wang Y, Zhou L, Li D, Dai L, Lawton-Rauh A, Srimani PK, et al. Genome-wide comparative analysis reveals similar types of NBS genes in hybrid Citrus sinensis genome and original Citrus clementine genome and provides new insights into non-TIR NBS genes. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0121893.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Marcussen T, Sandve SR, Heier L, Spannagl M, Pfeifer M, Jakobsen KS, et al. Ancient hybridizations among the ancestral genomes of bread wheat. Science. 2014;345(6194):1250092.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Paterson AH, Wendel JF, Gundlach H, Guo H, Jenkins J, Jin D, et al. Repeated polyploidization of Gossypium genomes and the evolution of spinnable cotton fibres. Nature. 2012;492:423–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Khan AM, Khan AA, Azhar MT, Amrao L, Cheema HMN. Comparative analysis of resistance gene analogues encoding NBS-LRR domains in cotton. J Sci Food Agr. 2016;96(2):530-8.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Diener AC, Ausubel FM. RESISTANCE TO FUSARIUM OXYSPORUM 1, a dominant Arabidopsis disease-resistance gene, is not race specific. Genetics. 2005;171:305–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Xiao S, Ellwood S, Calis O, Patrick E, Li T, Coleman M, et al. Broad-spectrum mildew resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana mediate by RPW8. Science. 2001;291(5501):118–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Borhan MH, Holub EB, Kindrachuk C, Omidi M, Bozorgmanesh-Frad G, Rimmer SR. WRR4, a broad-spectrum TIR-NB-LRR gene from Arabidopsis thaliana that confers white rust resistance in transgenic oilseed brassica crops. Mol Plant Pathol. 2010;11(2):283–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Yang S, Gao M, Xu C, Gao JH, Deshpande S, Lin S, et al. Alfalfa benefits from Medicago truncatula: the RCT1 gene from M. truncatula to anthracnose in alfalfa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(34):12164–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Mota APZ, Vidigal B, Danchin EGJ, Togawa RC, Leal-Bertioli SCM, Bertioli DJ, et al. Comparative root transcriptome of wild Arachis reveals NBS-LRR genes related to nematode resistance. BMC Plant Biol. 2018;18:159.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Song H, Guo Z, Chen T, Sun J, Yang G. Genome-wide identification of LRR-containing sequences and the response of these sequences to nematode infection in Arachis duranensis. BMC Plant Biol. 2018;18:279.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bertioli DJ, Cannon SB, Froenicke L, Huang G, Farmer AD, Cannon EKS, et al. The genome sequences of Arachis duranensis and Arachis ipaensis, the diploid ancestors of cultivated peanut. Nat Genet. 2016;48(4):438–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Moretzsohn MC, Gouvea EG, Inglis PW, Leal-Bertioli SCM, Valls JFM, Bertioli DJ. A study of the relationships of cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and its most closely related wild species using intron sequences and microsatellite markers. Ann Bot. 2013;11:113–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kochert G, Stalker H, Gimenes M, Galgaro M, Lopes C, Moore K. RFLP and cytogenetic evidence on the origin and evolution of allotetraploid domesticated peanut, Arachis hypogaea (Leguminosae). Am J Bot. 1996;83(10):1282–91.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Dash S, Cannon EKS, Kalberer SR, Farmer AD, Cannon SB: PeanutBase and other bioinformatic resources for peanut. In: Peanuts Genetics, Processing, and Utilization. Edited by Stalker HT, Wilson RF: AOCS Press; 2016: 241–252.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bertioli DJ, Jenkins J, Clevenger J, Dudchenko O, Gao D, Seijo G, et al. The genome sequence of segmental allotetraploid peanut Arachis hypogaea. Nat Genet. 2019;51:877–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Zhuang W, Chen H, Yang M, Wang J, Pandey MK, Zhang C, et al. The genome of cultivated peanut provides insight into legume karyotypes, polyploid evolution and crop domestication. Nat Genet. 2019;51:865–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Chen X, Lu Q, Liu H, Zhang J, Hong Y, Lan H, et al. Sequencing of cultivated peanut, Arachis hypogaea, yields insights into genome evolution and oil improvement. Mol Plant. 2019;12(7):920-4.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Song H, Wang PF, Li TT, Xia H, Zhao SZ, Hou L, et al. Genome-wide identification and evolutionary analysis of nucleotide-binding site-encoding resistance genes in Lotus japonicus (Fabaceae). Genet Mol Res. 2015;14(4):16024–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    McHale L, Tan X, Koehl P, Michelmore RW. Plant NBS-LRR proteins: adaptable guards. Genome Biol. 2006;7(4):212.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Yue JX, Meyers BC, Chen JQ, Tian D, Yang S. Tracing the origin and evolutionary history of plant nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) genes. New Phytol. 2012;193(4):1049–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Shao ZQ, Xue JY, Wu P, Zhang YM, Wu Y, Hang YY, et al. Large-scale analyses of angiosperm nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) genes reveal three anciently diverged classes with distinct evolutionary patterns. Plant Physiol. 2016;01487.

  37. 37.

    Song H, Sun W, Yang G, Sun J. WRKY transcription factors in legumes. BMC Plant Biol. 2018;18:243.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Sarris PF, Duxbury Z, Huh SU, Ma Y, Segonzac C, Sklenar J, et al. A plant immune receptor detects pathogen effectors that target WRKY transcription factors. Cell. 2015;161(5):1089–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kobe B, Kajava AV. The leucine-rich repeat as a protein recognition motif. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2001;11(6):725–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kobe B, Deisenhofer J. The leucine-rich repeat: a versatile binding motif. Trends Biochem Sci. 1994;19(10):415–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Van de Peer Y, Mizrachi E, Marchal K. The evolutionary significance of polyploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2017;18(7):411–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    De Bodt S, Maere S, Van de Peer Y. Genome duplication and the origin of angiosperms. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005;20(11):591–7.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Leal-Bertioli SCM, Godoy IJ, Santos JF, Doyle JJ, Guimaraes PM, Abernathy BL, et al. Segmental allopolyploidy in action: increasing diversity through polyploid hybridization and homoeologous recombination. Am J Bot. 2018;105(6):1–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Chen WH, Trachana K, Lercher MJ, Bork P. Younger genes are less likely to be essential than older genes, and duplicates are less likely to be essential than singletons of the same age. Mol Bio Evol. 2012;29(7):1703–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Yin H, Ma L, Wang G, Li M, Zhang Z. Old genes experience stronger translational selection than young genes. Gene. 2016;590(1):29–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Wilson BA, Foy SG, Neme R, Masel J. Young genes are highly disordered as predicted by the preadaptation hypothesis of de novo gene birth. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1(6):0146.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Banerjee S, Chakraborty S. Protein intrinsic disorder negatively associates with gene age in different eukaryotic lineages. Mol BioSyst. 2017;13(10):2044–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Liebeskind BJ, McWhite CD, Marcotte EM. Towards consensus gene ages. Genome Biol Evol. 2016;8(6):1812–23.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wolf YI, Novichkov PS, Karev GP, Koonin EV, Lipman DJ. The universal distribution of evolutionary rates of genes and distinct characteristics of eukaryotic genes of different apparent ages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(18):7273–80.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Vishnoi A, Kryazhimskiy S, Bazykin GA, Hannenhalli S, Plotkin JB. Young proteins experience more variable selection pressures than old proteins. Genome Res. 2010;20(11):1574–81.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Wang J, Tao F, Marowsky NC, Fan C. Evolutionary fates and dynamic functionalization of young duplicate genes in Arabidopsis genomes. Plant Physiol. 2016;172(1):427–40.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Capra JA, Pollard KS, Singh M. Novel genes exhibit distinct patterns of function acquisition and network integration. Genome Biol. 2010;11(12):R127.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Cui X, Lv Y, Chen M, Nikoloski Z, Twell D, Zhang D. Young genes out of the male: an insight from evolutionary age analysis of the pollen transcriptome. Mol Plant. 2015;8(6):935–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Peele HM, Guan N, Fogelqvist J, Dixelius C. Loss and retention of resistance genes in five species of the Brassicaceae family. BMC Plant Biol. 2014;14:298.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Agarwal G, Clevenger J, Pandey MK, Wang H, Shasidhar Y, Chu Y, et al. High-density genetic map using whole-genome resequencing for fine mapping and candidate gene discovery for disease resistance in peanut. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018;16(11):1954–67. 

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Luo H, Pandey MK, Khan AW, Wu B, Guo J, Ren X, et al. Next-generation sequencing identified genomic region and diagnostic markers for resistance to bacterial wilt on chromosome B02 in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Plant Biotechnol J. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13153

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Michelotto MD, Jr BW, de Resende MDV, de Godoy IJ, Leonardecz E, Fávero AP. Identification of fungus resistant wild accessions and interspecific hybrids of the genus Arachis. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0128811. 

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Herbert TT, Stalker HT. Resistance to peanut stunt virus in cultivated and wild Arachis species. Peanut Science. 1981;8:45–7. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Simpson CE. Use of wild Arachis species/introgression of genes into A. hypogaea L. Peanut Science. 2001;28(2):114–6. 

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Pande S, Narayana RJ. Resistance of wild Arachis species to late leaf spot and rust in greenhouse trials. Plant Dis. 2001;85:851–5. 

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Song H, Sun J, Yang G. Old and young duplicate genes reveal different responses to environmental changes in Arachis duranensis. Mol Genet Genomics. 2019;294(5):1199-09.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Finn RD, Mistry J, Schuster-Böckler B, Griffiths-Jones S, Hollich V, Lassmann T, et al. Pfam:clan, web tools and services. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(suppl 1):247–51.

  63. 63.

    Finn RD, Clements J, Eddy SR. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(suppl 2):W29–37.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Chen C, Xia R, Chen H, He Y. TBtools, a Toolkit for Biologists integrating various HTS-data handing tools with a user-friendly interface. bioRxiv. 2018:289660.

  65. 65.

    Krzywinski M, Schein J, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R, Horsman D, et al. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 2009;19(9):1639–45. 

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Song H, Sun J, Yang G. Comparative analysis of selection mode reveals different evolutionary rate and expression pattern in Arachis duranensis and Arachis ipaënsis duplicated genes. Plant Mol Biol. 2018;98(4–5):349–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Song H, Gao H, Liu J, Tian P, Nan Z. Comprehensive analysis of correlations among codon usage bias, gene expression, and substitution rate in Arachis duranensis and Arachis ipaënsis orthologs. Sci Rep. 2017;7:14853.

  68. 68.

    Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Bio Evol. 2013;30(4):772–80.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Suyama M, Torrents D, Bork P. PAL2NAL: robust conversion of protein sequence alignments into the corresponding codon alignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(suppl 2):609–12.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    ​Yang Z. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Bio Evol. 2007;24(8):1586–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Mészáros B, Erdős G, Dosztányi Z. IUPred2A: context-dependent prediction of protein disorder as a function of redox state and protein binding. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(W1):W329–37. 

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Wang H, Pandey MK, Qiao L, Qin H, Culbreath AK, He G, et al. Genetic mapping and quantitative trait loci analysis for disease resistance using F2 and F5 generation-based genetic maps derived from 'Tifrunner' X 'GT-C20' in peanut. The Plant Genome. 2013;6(3):E1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    ​Mondal S, Hadapad AB, Hande PA, Badigannavar AM. Identification of quantitative trait loci for bruchid (Caryedon serratus Olivier) resistance components in cultivated groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Mol Breeding. 2014;33(4):961–73.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    ​Qin H, Feng S, Chen C, Guo Y, Knapp S, Culbreath A, et al. An integrated genetic linkage map of cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) constructed from two RIL populations. Theor Appl Genet. 2012;124(4):653–64.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Mondal S, Badigannavar AM. Mapping of a dominant rust resistance gene revealed two R genes around the major Rust_QTL in cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Theor Appl Genet. 2018;131(8):1671–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Altschul S, Madden T, Schäffer A, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25(17):3389–402.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was partially supported by the Breeding Project from the Department of Science & Technology of Shandong Province (2017LNZ033, 2017LZGC003), the Agricultural Scientific and Technological Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CXGC2016B02, CXGC2018E21), Qingdao People's Livelihood Science and the Technology Project (19-6-1-61-nsh), and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China (ZR2019QC017).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

HS and JC conceived and designed this research. HS analyzed data and wrote the manuscript. ZG, XH, LQ, FM and XZ executed the data analyses. All authors have read and approved the final version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hui Song or Jing Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Information of chromosomal location and structure in Arachis hypogaea cv. Tifrunner NBS–LRRs.

Additional file 2: Table S2.

The paralogous NBS–LRRs in Arachis duranensis, A. ipaenesis. MAFFT was used to align amino acid sequence pairs. PAL2NAL was used to convert amino acid sequences into the corresponding nucleotide sequences. PAML 4.0 was used to calculate the nonsynonymous substitution per nonsynonymous site (Ka), synonymous substitution per synonymous site (Ks), and nonsynonymous to synonymous per site substitution rates (Ka/Ks).

Additional file 3: Table S3.

The paralogous NBS–LRRs in A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. MAFFT was used to align amino acid sequence pairs. PAL2NAL was used to convert amino acid sequences into the corresponding nucleotide sequences. PAML 4.0 was used to calculate the nonsynonymous substitution per nonsynonymous site (Ka), synonymous substitution per synonymous site (Ks), and nonsynonymous to synonymous per site substitution rates (Ka/Ks).

Additional file 4: Table S4.

The NBS–LRRs identified in each QTL in Arachis duranensis, A. ipaenesis, and A. hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. QTL: quantitative trait loci. a The QTLs are named from references 55 and 56. A and B indicated the chromosome in A. duranensis and A. ipaensis, respectively. b The genomic region of QTLs located on A. duranensis and A. ipaensis.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, H., Guo, Z., Hu, X. et al. Evolutionary balance between LRR domain loss and young NBS–LRR genes production governs disease resistance in Arachis hypogaea cv. Tifrunner. BMC Genomics 20, 844 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-6212-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Arachis hypogaea cv. Tifrunner
  • Genetic exchange
  • NBS–LRR
  • Selective pressure
  • Young gene