Patent Grant
10633715
This application includes a Sequence Listing as a text file named “096380-1022544-000120US-SEQLIST.txt” created Sep. 12, 2016, and containing 7,082,975 bytes. The material contained in this text file is incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.
The oil palm (E. guineensis and E. oleifera) can be classified into separate groups based on its fruit characteristics, and has three naturally occurring fruit types which vary in shell thickness and oil yield. Dura type palms are homozygous for a wild type allele of the shell gene (sh+/sh+), have a thick seed coat or shell (2-8 mm) and produce approximately 5.3 tons of oil per hectare per year. Tenera type palms are heterozygous for a wild type and mutant allele of the shell gene (sh+/sh−), have a relatively thin shell surrounded by a distinct fiber ring, and produce approximately 7.4 tons of oil per hectare per year. Finally, pisifera type palms are homozygous for a mutant allele of the shell gene (sh−/sh−), have no seed coat or shell, and are usually female sterile (Hartley, 1988) (Table 1). Therefore, the inheritance of the single gene controlling shell phenotype is a major contributor to palm oil yield.
Tenera palms are hybrids between the dura and pisifera palms. Whitmore (1973) described the various fruit forms as different varieties of oil palm. However, Latiff (2000) was in agreement with Purseglove (1972) that varieties or cultivars as proposed by Whitmore (1973), do not occur in the strict sense in this species. As such, Latiff (2000) proposed the term “race” to differentiate dura, pisifera and tenera. Race was considered an appropriate term as it reflects a permanent microspecies, where the different races are capable of exchanging genes with one another, which has been adequately demonstrated in the different fruit forms observed in oil palm (Latiff, 2000). In fact, the characteristics of the three different races turn out to be controlled simply by the inheritance of a single gene. Genetic studies revealed that the shell gene shows co-dominant monogenic inheritance, which is exploitable in breeding programmes (Beirnaert and Vanderweyen, 1941).
The shell gene responsible for this phenotype was first reported in the Belgian Congo in the 1940's (Beirnaert and Venderweyan, 1941). However, tenera fruit forms were recognized and exploited in Africa well before then (Devuyst, 1953; Godding, 1930; Sousa et al., 2011). Given the central role played by the shell gene, oil palm breeding utilizes reciprocal recurrent selection of maternal (dura) and paternal (pisifera) pools using the North Carolina Model 1 maize breeding design (Rajanaidu el al., 2000). The Deli dura population, direct descendants of the four original African palms planted in Bogor Botanical Garden, Indonesia (1848), has excellent combining ability with the AVROS (Algemene Vereniging van Rubberplanters ter Oostkust van Sumatra) and other pisifera parental palms. AVROS pisifera palms were derived from the famous “Djongo” palm from Congo, but more recently several different accessions of dura and pisifera have also been sourced from Africa (Rajanaidu el al., 2000).
Tenera fruit types have a higher mesocarp to fruit ratio, which directly translates to significantly higher oil yield than either the dura or pisifera palm (as illustrated in Table 1).
Since the crux of the breeding programmes in oil palm is to produce planting materials with higher oil yield, the tenera palm is the preferred choice for commercial planting. It is for this reason that substantial resources are invested by commercial seed producers to cross selected dura and pisifera palms in hybrid seed production. And despite the many advances which have been made in the production of hybrid oil palm seeds, two significant problems remain in the seed production process. First, batches of tenera seeds, which will produce the high oil yield tenera type palm, are often contaminated with dura seeds (Donough and Law, 1995). Today, it is estimated that dura contamination of tenera seeds can reach rates of approximately 5% (reduced from as high as 20-30% in the early 1990's as the result of improved quality control practices). Seed contamination is due in part to the difficulties of producing pure tenera seeds in open plantation conditions, where workers use ladders to manually pollinate tall trees, and where palm flowers for a given bunch mature over a period time, making it difficult to pollinate all flowers in a bunch with a single manual pollination event. Some flowers of the bunch may have matured prior to manual pollination and therefore may have had the opportunity to be wind pollinated from an unknown tree, thereby producing contaminant seeds in the bunch. Alternatively premature flowers may exist in the bunch at the time of manual pollination, and may mature after the pollination occurred allowing them to be wind pollinated from an unknown tree thereby producing contaminant seeds in the bunch. Prior to the invention described herein, it was not possible to identify the fruit type of a given seed of a given plant arising from a seed until it matured enough to produce a first batch of fruit, which typically takes approximately six years after germination. Notably, in the four to five years interval from germination to fruit production, significant land, labor, financial and energy resources are invested into what are believed to be tenera trees, some of which will ultimately be of the unwanted low yielding contaminant fruit types. By the time these suboptimal trees are identified, it is impractical to remove them from the field and replace them with tenera trees, and thus growers achieve lower palm oil yields for the 25 to 30 year production life of the contaminant trees. Therefore, the issue of contamination of batches of tenera seeds with dura or pisifera seeds is a problem for oil palm breeding, underscoring the need for a method to predict the fruit type of seeds and nursery plantlets with high accuracy.
A second problem in the seed production process is the investment seed producers make in maintaining dura and pisifera lines, and in the other expenses incurred in the hybrid seed production process. Prior to the present invention, there was no know way to produce a tree with an optimal shell phenotype which when crossed to itself or to another tree with optimal shell phenotype would produce seeds which would only generate optimal shell phenotypes. Therefore, there is a need to engineer trees to breed true from one generation to the next for optimal shell phenotype.
The genetic mapping of the shell gene was initially attempted by Mayes et al. (1997). A second group in Brazil, using a combination of bulked segregation analysis (BSA) and genetic mapping, reported two random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers flanking the shell locus (Moretzsohn et al., 2000). More recently, Billotte et al., (2005) reported a simple sequence repeat (SSR)-based high density linkage map for oil palm, involving a cross between a thin shelled E. guineensis (tenera) palm and a thick shelled E. guineensis (dura) palm. A patent filed by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) describes the identification of a marker using restriction fragment technology, in particular a Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) marker linked to the shell gene for plant identification and breeding purposes (RAJINDER SINGH, LESLIE OOI CHENG-LI, RAHIMAH A. RAHMAN AND LESLIE LOW ENG TI. 2008. Method for identification of a molecular marker linked to the shell gene of oil palm. Patent Application No. PI 20084563. Patent Filed on 13 Nov. 2008). The RFLP marker (SFB 83) was identified by way of generation or construction of a genetic map for a tenera fruit type palm.
In this patent, we describe the genetic mapping and identification of the shell gene responsible for the different fruit forms and methods for determining the shell phenotype of a palm plant (including but not limited to a whole palm plant or palm seed). We used homozygosity mapping by sequencing to overcome challenges posed by phenotyping experimental populations, and we found two independent mutations in the DNA binding domain of an oil palm MADS-box gene substantially similar to Arabidopsis SEEDSTICK (STK), also referred to as AGAMOUS-like 11 (AGL11), as well as to Arabidopsis SHATTERPROOF (SHP1), also referred to as AGAMOUS-like 1 (AGL1). For brevity, herein we refer to the shell gene as SHELL We demonstrate that SHELL is responsible for the shell phenotype in both cultivated and wild palms from sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, our findings provide a genetic explanation for the single gene heterosis attributed to SHELL This is the first demonstration of a gene mutation explaining an economic trait in oil palm, and has important implications for the competing interests of global edible oil production, biofuels and rainforest conservation (Danielsen et al., 2009).
In some embodiments, methods for determining the shell phenotype of a palm (e.g., oil palm) plant (including but not limited to a whole palm plant or palm seed) are provided. In some embodiments, the method comprises, providing a sample from the plant or seed; and determining from the sample the genotype of at least one polymorphic marker in the genomic region corresponding to SEQ ID NO:8218, wherein heterozygosity within the region indicates the presence of the tenera shell phenotype. In some embodiments, the plant or seed is generated from i) a cross between a plant having the dura shell phenotype and a plant having the pisifera shell phenotype, ii) the selfing of a tenera palm, iii) a cross between two plants having the tenera shell phenotype, iv) a cross between a plant having the dura shell phenotype and a plant having the tenera shell phenotype, or v) a cross between a plant having the tenera shell phenotype and a plant having the pisifera shell phenotype. In some embodiments, the plant is less than 5 years old. In some embodiments, the plant is less than one year old.
In some embodiments, the polymorphic marker is within a position in the genomic region corresponding to SEQ ID NO:8219. In some embodiments, the polymorphic marker is within 1, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 200, 3000 kb from a position in the genomic region corresponding to SEQ ID NO:8219. In some embodiments, the polymorphic marker is at least 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, or 99% predictive of the tenera phenotype.
In some embodiments, the method further comprises selecting the seed or plant for cultivation if the plant is heterozygous for the polymorphic marker. In some embodiments, the plants or seeds are discarded if the plants or seeds do not have a genotype predictive of the tenera shell phenotype.
Also provided is a method for segregating a plurality of palm (e.g., oil palm) plants into different categories based on predicted shell phenotype. In some embodiments, the method comprises, providing a sample from each plant in the plurality of plants; determining from the samples the genotype of at least one polymorphic marker in the genetic region corresponding to SEQ ID NO:8218; and segregating the plants into groups based on the genotype of the polymorphic marker, wherein the groups correspond to plants predicted to have the tenera shell phenotype, plants predicted to have the dura shell phenotype, and plants predicted to have the pisifera shell phenotype.
Also provided are kits for determining the shell phenotype of a palm seed or plant. In some embodiments, the kit comprises, one or more oligonucleotide primer or probe that comprises:
a sequence of at least, e.g., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 (or 20, 22, 24, or more) nucleotides of SEQ ID NO:8218; or;
a sequence 100% complementary to at least e.g., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 (or 20, 22, 24, or more) nucleotides of SEQ ID NO:8218.
In some embodiments, the primer or probe specifically hybridizes to palm plant DNA or RNA.
In some embodiments, the primer or probe comprises:
a sequence of at least, e.g., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 (or 20, 22, 24, or more) nucleotides of SEQ ID NO:8219; or;
a sequence 100% complementary to at least, e.g., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 (or 20, 22, 24, or more) nucleotides of SEQ ID NO:8219.
In some embodiments, a detectable label is linked to the oligonucleotide. In some embodiments, the detectable label is fluorescent.
In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide comprising a sequence substantially (e.g., a least 80, 85, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99%) identical or identical to SEQ ID NO:8220, 8221, or 8222.
Also provided is an isolated nucleic acid comprising a polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide comprising a sequence substantially (e.g., a least 80, 85, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99%) identical or identical to SEQ ID NO:8220, 8221, or 8222.
Also provided is a cell or seed or plant comprising a heterologous expression cassette, the expression cassette comprising a heterologous promoter operably linked to a polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide comprising a sequence substantially (e.g., a least 80, 85, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99%) identical or identical to SEQ ID NO:8220, 8221, or 8222. In some embodiments, the seed or plant is a palm (e.g., oil palm) seed or palm (e.g., oil palm) plant. In some embodiments, the polypeptide comprises SEQ ID NO:8220, 8221, or 8222. In some embodiments, the heterologous promoter results in expression level of an RNA encoding the polypeptide in the seed or plant that is less than, equal to, or more than expression of an endogenous SHELL RNA in the seed or plant. In some embodiments, the seed or plant comprises two pisifera alleles of an endogenous SHELL gene. In some embodiments, the seed or plant makes mature shells that are on average less than 2 mm thick.
Also provided is a cell or seed or plant comprising a heterologous expression cassette, the expression cassette comprising a promoter operably linked to a polynucleotide, which polynucleotide, when expressed in the seed or plant, reduces expression of a SHELL polypeptide in the seed or plant (compared to a control plant lacking the expression cassette), wherein reduced expression of the SHELL polypeptide results in reduced shell thickness of the future seeds produced by the plant.
In some embodiments, the polynucleotide comprises at least 20 contiguous nucleotides, or the complement thereof, of an endogenous nucleic acid encoding a SHELL polypeptide substantially (e.g., a least 80, 85, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99%) identical or identical to SEQ ID NO:8220, 8221, or 8222, such that expression of the polynucleotide inhibits expression of the endogenous SHELL gene. In some embodiments, the polynucleotide comprises a sequence at least 80% identical to at least 100 contiguous nucleotides, or the complement thereof, of an endogenous nucleic acid encoding a SHELL polypeptide substantially (e.g., a least 80, 85, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99%) identical or identical to SEQ ID NO:8220, 8221, or 8222, such that expression of the polynucleotide inhibits expression of the endogenous SHELL gene. In some embodiments, the polynucleotide encodes an siRNA, antisense polynucleotide, a microRNA, or a sense suppression nucleic acid, thereby suppressing expression of an endogenous SHELL gene. In some embodiments, the seed or plant makes mature shells that are on average less than 2 mm thick.
Also provided is a plant comprising a heterologous expression cassette, the expression cassette comprising a promoter operably linked to a polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide comprising a SHELL M, I, and K domain but lacks a functional C domain. In some embodiments, the polypeptide comprises an amino acid sequence substantially (e.g., a least 80, 85, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99%) identical or identical to the palm SHELL polypeptide. In some embodiments, the polypeptide comprises a non-functional C domain. In some embodiments, the plant is a palm plant. In some embodiments, the palm plant is in the dura background.
Also provided is a method of making a plant as described above or elsewhere herein, comprising introducing the expression cassette into a plant.
Also provided is a method of cultivating the plants described herein.
Other embodiments will be evident from reading the rest of the disclosure.
A “shell phenotype” refers to the three fruit forms of E. guineensis-dura, tenera and pisifera caused by the presence or absence of the shell or the thickness of the shell.
A “polymorphic marker” refers to a genetic marker that distinguishes between two alleles.
A genomic region “corresponding to” a test sequence refers to a genomic DNA that aligns with the test sequence. It is generally expected that a plant genome will have only one genomic region (i.e., a locus represented by two alleles in a diploid plant) corresponding to the test sequence. To the extent more than one genomic region from a plant can be aligned to the test sequence, the “corresponding” genomic region is the genomic region with the highest percent of identical nucleotides. Sequence comparisons can be performed using any BLAST™ including BLAST 2.2 algorithm with default parameters, described in Altschul et al., Nuc. Acids Res. 25:3389 3402 (1977) and Altschul et al., J. Mol. Biol. 215:403 410 (1990), respectively.
As used herein, the terms “nucleic acid,” “polynucleotide” and “oligonucleotide” refer to nucleic acid regions, nucleic acid segments, primers, probes, amplicons and oligomer fragments. The terms are not limited by length and are generic to linear polymers of polydeoxyribonucleotides (containing 2-deoxy-D-ribose), polyribonucleotides (containing D-ribose), and any other N-glycoside of a purine or pyrimidine base, or modified purine or pyrimidine bases. These terms include double- and single-stranded DNA, as well as double- and single-stranded RNA.
A nucleic acid, polynucleotide or oligonucleotide can comprise, for example, phosphodiester linkages or modified linkages including, but not limited to phosphotriester, phosphoramidate, siloxane, carbonate, carboxymethylester, acetamidate, carbamate, thioether, bridged phosphoramidate, bridged methylene phosphonate, phosphorothioate, methylphosphonate, phosphorodithioate, bridged phosphorothioate or sulfone linkages, and combinations of such linkages.
A nucleic acid, polynucleotide or oligonucleotide can comprise the five biologically occurring bases (adenine, guanine, thymine, cytosine and uracil) and/or bases other than the five biologically occurring bases.
Optimal alignment of sequences for comparison may be conducted by the local homology algorithm of Smith and Waterman Add. APL. Math. 2:482 (1981), by the homology alignment algorithm of Needle man and Wunsch J. Mol. Biol. 48:443 (1970), by the search for similarity method of Pearson and Lipman Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (U.S.A.) 85: 2444 (1988), by computerized implementations of these algorithms (GAP, BESTFIT, BLAST™, FASTA, and TFASTA in the Wisconsin Genetics Software Package, Genetics Computer Group (GCG), 575 Science Dr., Madison, Wis.), or by inspection.
“Percentage of sequence identity” is determined by comparing two optimally aligned sequences over a comparison window, wherein the portion of the polynucleotide sequence in the comparison window may comprise additions or deletions (i.e., gaps) as compared to the reference sequence (which does not comprise additions or deletions) for optimal alignment of the two sequences. The percentage is calculated by determining the number of positions at which the identical nucleic acid base or amino acid residue occurs in both sequences to yield the number of matched positions, dividing the number of matched positions by the total number of positions in the window of comparison and multiplying the result by 100 to yield the percentage of sequence identity.
The term “substantial identity” of polypeptide sequences means that a polypeptide comprises a sequence that has at least 75% sequence identity. Alternatively, percent identity can be any integer from 75% to 100%. Exemplary embodiments include at least: 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or 99% compared to a reference sequence using the programs described herein; preferably BLAST™ using standard parameters, as described below. One of skill will recognize that these values can be appropriately adjusted to determine corresponding identity of proteins encoded by two nucleotide sequences by taking into account codon degeneracy, amino acid similarity, reading frame positioning and the like. Polypeptides which are “substantially similar” share sequences as noted above except that residue positions which are not identical may differ by conservative amino acid changes. Conservative amino acid substitutions refer to the interchangeability of residues having similar side chains. For example, a group of amino acids having aliphatic side chains is glycine, alanine, valine, leucine, and isoleucine; a group of amino acids having aliphatic-hydroxyl side chains is serine and threonine; a group of amino acids having amide-containing side chains is asparagine and glutamine; a group of amino acids having aromatic side chains is phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan; a group of amino acids having basic side chains is lysine, arginine, and histidine; and a group of amino acids having sulfur-containing side chains is cysteine and methionine. Preferred conservative amino acids substitution groups are: valine-leucine-isoleucine, phenylalanine-tyrosine, lysine-arginine, alanine-valine, aspartic acid-glutamic acid, and asparagine-glutamine.
Another indication that nucleotide sequences are substantially identical is if two molecules hybridize to each other, or a third nucleic acid, under stringent conditions. Stringent conditions are sequence dependent and will be different in different circumstances. Generally, stringent conditions are selected to be about 5° C. lower than the thermal melting point (Tm) for the specific sequence at a defined ionic strength and pH. The Tm is the temperature (under defined ionic strength and pH) at which 50% of the target sequence hybridizes to a perfectly matched probe. Typically, stringent conditions will be those in which the salt concentration is about 0.02 molar at pH 7 and the temperature is at least about 60° C.
The term “promoter” or “regulatory element” refers to a region or sequence determinants located upstream or downstream from the start of transcription and which are involved in recognition and binding of RNA polymerase and other proteins to initiate transcription. Promoters need not be of plant origin, for example, promoters derived from plant viruses, such as the CaMV35S promoter, can be used.
The term “plant” includes whole plants, shoot vegetative organs/structures (e.g. leaves, stems and tubers), roots, flowers and floral organs/structures (e.g. bracts, sepals, petals, stamens, carpels, anthers and ovules), seed (including embryo, endosperm, and seed coat) and fruit (the mature ovary), plant tissue (e.g. vascular tissue, ground tissue, and the like) and cells (e.g. guard cells, egg cells, trichomes and the like), and progeny of same. The class of plants that can be used in the method of the invention is generally as broad as the class of higher and lower plants amenable to transformation techniques, including angiosperms (monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants), gymnosperms, ferns, and multicellular algae. It includes plants of a variety of ploidy levels, including aneuploid, polyploid, diploid, haploid and hemizygous.
An “expression cassette” refers to a nucleic acid construct, which when introduced into a host cell, results in transcription and/or translation of a RNA or polypeptide, respectively. Antisense constructs or sense constructs that are not or cannot be translated are expressly included by this definition.
The term “operably linked” refers to a functional linkage between a nucleic acid expression control sequence (such as a promoter, or array of transcription factor binding sites) and a second nucleic acid sequence, wherein the expression control sequence directs transcription of the nucleic acid corresponding to the second sequence.
A polynucleotide sequence is “heterologous to” an organism or a second polynucleotide sequence if it originates from a foreign species, or, if from the same species, is modified from its original form. For example, a heterologous promoter operably linked to a coding sequence refers to a promoter from a species different from that from which the coding sequence was derived, or, if from the same species, a promoter which is different from any naturally occurring allelic variants.
I. Introduction
The present disclosure describes the construction of a dense genetic map for a selfed tenera palm, designated T128 from MPOB's Nigerian germplasm collection. The position of the shell locus was determined on the genetic map. The markers located on the linkage group containing the shell gene were used to pull out the genome scaffolds generated from whole genome DNA sequencing of pisifera corresponding to the linkage group. The gene linked to the shell locus was subsequently identified in the genome scaffold. Disclosed herein, the gene responsible for fruit shell type is substantially similar to Arabidopsis SEEDSTICK (STK), also referred to as AGAMOUS-like 11 (AGL11), as well as to Arabidopsis SHATTERPROOF (SHP1), also referred to as AGAMOUS-like 1 (AGL1). For brevity, herein we refer to the shell gene as SHELL Two independent mutations in the DNA binding domain of this type II MADS-box transcription factor gene were identified and validated in 336 individual oil palms, one occurring in the pisifera collected from Nigeria and the other occurring in the pisifera collected from Zaire. The genotype at either of these two positions explains 96.7% of the fruit shell phenotypes of the 336 sample population (148 tenera, 100 pisifera, 86 dura and 2 with unknown phenotypes). In total, the SHELL genotype was discordant with the fruit type phenotype in only 11 palms (3 tenera, 2 pisifera and 6 dura) of the 334 that had phenotypes. The 3.3% discordance rate is within the range of the rate of incorrect phenotyping or genotyping based on either questionable fruit type classification or collection of samples from unintended trees in the field, respectively (approximately 5%). This represents the first demonstration of a gene mutation explaining an important economic trait in oil palm. Furthermore, the findings provide a genetic explanation for the single gene heterosis characteristic of the fruit shell phenotype, and they have implications in oil palm breeding and commercial seed production.
A polymorphic marker closely linked to the shell gene character, or the identification of the shell gene itself and the use of a polymorphic marker located within the gene itself, is of significant commercial importance, as it can be used by seed producers as a quality control tool to i) reduce or eliminate dura or pisifera contamination of tenera seed or plantlets, and ii) positively identify tenera seeds or plantlets which are then selected as suitable planting material for commercial palm oil production. The identification of the shell gene or a marker genetically linked to shell trait is also of importance in breeding programmes. The marker or the alleles of the gene responsible for the trait can be used to separate the dura, tenera and pisifera plants in the nursery; the advantage here being that they could be planted separately based on shell phenotype. This is of interest as the pisifera palms usually show very vigorous vegetative growth, so in a trial consisting of all three types, distortion of results could occur due to intra-cross competition. Furthermore, separating out the pisifera palms and planting them in high density encourages male inflorescence and this facilitates pollen production which is used in breeding programmes (Jack et al., 1998). Accordingly, following detection of the presence or absence of dura, pisifera, or tenera SHELL genotype, or a linked marker as described below, a further step of: (1) reduction elimination of dura or pisifera contamination of tenera seed or plantlets, (2) positive identification of tenera seeds or plantlets which are then selected as suitable planting material for commercial palm oil production, or (3) separating dura, tenera and pisifera plants into two or more groups (e.g., plants predicted to be tenera in one group and plants predicted to be dura or pisifera in a second group; plants predicted to be dura in one group and plants predicted to be tenera or pisifera in a second group; plants predicted to be pisifera in one group and plants predicted to be dura or tenera in a second group, or separating into three groups: dura, pisifera, and tenera) with can be achieved.
Any marker that exists that is polymorphic between the parent dura and pisifera trees in a cross and is linked to the shell locus has the potential to serve as a molecular signal to identify tenera trees in a cross. For example, if a dura tree, which is homozygous for “T” (ie., T/T) at a given SNP position near the shell locus is crossed with a pisifera tree that is homozygous for “A” (ie., A/A) at the same SNP position, then one could genotype seeds of the cross, or one could genotype plantlets arising from seeds of the cross, at the SNP position to track and identify contaminant seeds or plantlets. Seeds that are determined to be heterozygous at the SNP position, (i.e., A/T) are very likely to be tenera, unless a recombination between the marker and the shell gene had occurred in the individual being genotyped. Similarly, seeds which are homozygous at the SNP position for “A” or “T”, (ie., A/A or T/T), are pisifera or dura contaminant trees respectively, and when these trees become sexually mature in several years, they will produce suboptimal fruit types. Additionally, seeds or plantlets which have a “C” or “G” in the SNP position, neither of which is present in paternal palm of the cross, are likely trees arising from a different pollen donor than the one intended in the cross, and therefore can be discarded as contaminant seeds or plantlets. Markers that are in closer proximity to the shell locus would have higher predictive accuracy than markers that are farther away from the shell locus, because the closer the marker is to the shell gene, the less likely a recombination could occur which would break the linkage between the marker and the shell gene. Consequently, polymorphic markers within the shell gene itself are expected to have the strongest predictive power, and analysis of multiple markers closely linked to or within the shell gene may be advantageous.
II. Determination of Shell Phenotype Based on Nucleic Acid Detection
In view of the discovery that the SHELL genotype segregates with the tenera/pisifera/dura shell phenotype, genotyping a plant or seed at the SHELL locus or at adjacent genomic regions can be used to predict the shell phenotype of a palm plant.
SEQ ID NO:8220 represents the predicted amino acid sequence of the N-terminal 181 amino acids of the protein expressed in oil palm of the dura fruit type. The endogenous protein includes additional C-terminal amino acids not included in SEQ ID NO:8220. In oil palm of the dura fruit type, the proteins derived from both alleles of the gene include a leucine (L) amino acid at the 28th amino acid position and a lysine (K) amino acid at the 30th amino acid position.
SEQ ID NO:8221 represents the predicted amino acid sequence of the N-terminal 181 amino acids of the protein expressed in oil palm of the pisifera fruit type that is derived from the Zaire line. The endogenous protein includes additional C-terminal amino acids not included in SEQ ID NO:8221. This polypeptide includes a leucine (L) amino acid at the 28th amino acid position and an asparagine (N) amino acid at the 30th amino acid position.
SEQ ID NO:8222 represents the predicted amino acid sequence of the N-terminal 181 amino acids of the protein expressed in oil palm of the pisifera fruit type that is derived from the Nigerian line. The endogenous protein includes additional C-terminal amino acids not included here. This polypeptide includes a proline (P) amino acid at the 28th amino acid position and a lysine (K) at the 30th amino acid position.
Oil palm trees of the pisifera fruit type are the result of one of at least three possibilities: i) both alleles coding for the SEQ ID NO:8221 protein sequence, ii) both alleles coding for the SEQ ID NO:8222 protein sequence, or iii) one allele coding for the SEQ ID NO:8221 protein sequence and the other allele coding for the SEQ ID NO:8222 protein sequence.
Oil palm trees of the tenera fruit type are the result of one of at least two possibilities: i) one allele coding for the SEQ ID NO:8220 protein sequence and the other allele coding for the SEQ ID NO:8221 protein sequence, or ii) one allele coding for the SEQ ID NO:8220 protein sequence and the other allele coding for the SEQ ID NO:8222 protein sequence.
It will be appreciated that SEQ ID NOS:8220, 8221, and 8222 are representative sequences and that different individual palms may have an amino acid sequence having one or more amino acid changes relative to SEQ ID NOS:8220, 8221, and 8222 due, for example, to natural variation.
One or more polymorphism(s) between pisifera and dura SHELL alleles can be used to determine the shell phenotype of a palm or other plant. For example, when the polymorphism is co-dominant (detectable independent of the other allele) then:
the presence of only a dura SHELL allele indicates that the plant has or will have a dura shell phenotype;
the presence of only a pisifera SHELL allele indicates that the plant has or will have a pisifera shell phenotype; and
the presence of a pisifera SHELL allele and a dura SHELL allele indicates that the plant has or will have a tenera shell phenotype.
SEQ ID NO:922 and 923 represent SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) corresponding to those within the SHELL gene sequence itself.
However, genomic regions adjacent to the SHELL gene are also useful to determining whether a palm plant will likely manifest a particular shell phenotype. Because of genetic linkage to the SHELL gene, polymorphisms adjacent to the SHELL locus are predictive of shell phenotype, albeit with reduced accuracy as a function of increased distance from the SHELL locus. SEQ ID NO:8218 provides an approximately 3.4 MB genomic region of the palm genome that comprises the SHELL gene. Table A provides a listing of more than 8200 SNPs identified within SEQ ID NO:8218. A small selection of the SNPs in Table A have been genetically mapped relative to the SHELL locus. Table A provides an estimated predictive value for each SNP provided based on the selection of markers mapped. Thus, as an example, SEQ ID NO:1 represents a SNP that is accurate in predicting shell phenotype 83% of the time. Said another way, using the SNP of SEQ ID NO:1 as a genetic marker, one can correctly predict shell phenotype of palm plants 83 out of 100 times. Thus, even at a significant physical distance from the SHELL locus on the palm chromosome, polymorphic markers allow for relatively accurate prediction of shell phenotype of plants. In some embodiments, the polymorphic marker is within 1, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 kb from the SHELL gene (e.g., the gene corresponding to SEQ ID NO:8219).
Accordingly, methods of detecting one or more polymorphic marker within a region of the palm genome corresponding to SEQ ID NO:8218 are provided. Such methods are useful for predicting shell phenotype of palm plants for example. While over 8200 specific polymorphisms are provided in Table A, it should be appreciated that the polymorphisms represented in Table A are merely an example of polymorphisms within the genomic region corresponding to SEQ ID NO:8218. Additional polymorphisms can be identified as desired and also be used to predict shell phenotype of a palm plant. Such additional polymorphisms are intended to be encompassed in the methods described herein. Moreover, it will be appreciated that SEQ ID NO:8218 is a representative sequence and that different individual palms may have a corresponding genomic region having one or more nucleotide changes relative to SEQ ID NO:8218 due, for example, to natural variation. As noted elsewhere herein, nevertheless, identifying the region of a genome corresponding to SEQ ID NO:8218 can be readily determined using alignment programs, etc.
The nucleic acid sequences provided herein were generated by nucleotide sequencing and on occasion, include one or more stretches of “N's.” These stretches of N's represent gaps in assembly of sequences of an estimated size. The precise number of N's in a sequence is an estimate (for example, 100 N's may only represent 30 bases). N's can be any base, and are likely repetitive sequence in the genome.
Detecting specific polymorphic markers can be accomplished by methods known in the art for detecting sequences at polymorphic sites. For example, standard techniques for genotyping for the presence of SNPs and/or microsatellite markers can be used, such as fluorescence-based techniques (Chen, X. et al., Genome Res. 9(5): 492-98 (1999)), utilizing PCR, LCR, Nested PCR and other techniques for nucleic acid amplification. Specific commercial methodologies available for SNP genotyping include, but are not limited to, TaqMan™ genotyping assays and SNPlex platforms (Applied Biosystems), gel electrophoresis (Applied Biosystems), mass spectrometry (e.g., MassARRAY system from Sequenom), minisequencing methods, real-time PCR, Bio-Plex system (BioRad), CEQ and SNPstream systems (Beckman), array hybridization technology (e.g., Affymetrix GeneChip; Perlegen), BeadArray Technologies (e.g., Illumina GoldenGate and Infinium assays), array tag technology (e.g., Parallele), and endonuclease-based fluorescence hybridization technology (Invader; Third Wave). Some of the available array platforms, including Affymetrix SNP Array 6.0 and Illumina CNV370-Duo and 1M BeadChips, include SNPs that tag certain copy number variants.
In certain embodiments, polymorphic markers are detected by sequencing technologies. Obtaining sequence information about an individual plant identifies particular nucleotides in the context of a sequence. For SNPs, sequence information about a single unique sequence site is sufficient to identify alleles at that particular SNP. For markers comprising more than one nucleotide, sequence information about the nucleotides of the individual that contain the polymorphic site identifies the alleles of the individual for the particular site.
Various methods for obtaining nucleic acid sequence are known to the skilled person, and all such methods are useful for practicing the invention. Sanger sequencing is a well-known method for generating nucleic acid sequence information. Recent methods for obtaining large amounts of sequence data have been developed, and such methods are also contemplated to be useful for obtaining sequence information of a plant, if desired. These include pyrosequencing technology (Ronaghi, M. et al. Anal Biochem 267:65-71 (1999); Ronaghi, et al., Biotechniques 25:876-878 (1998)), e.g. 454 pyrosequencing (Nyren, P., et al. Anal Biochem 208:171-175 (1993)), Illumina/Solexa sequencing technology (Strausberg, R L, et al Drug Disc Today 13:569-577 (2008)), and Supported Oligonucleotide Ligation and Detection Platform (SOLiD) technology; Strausberg, R L, et al Drug Disc Today 13:569-577 (2008).
Methods of polymorphism detection can be performed on any type of biological sample from the plant that contains nucleic acids (e.g., DNA, RNA). As one particular advantage of the methods is to predict the shell phenotype of young plants before cultivation in the field, in some embodiments, the samples are obtained from a plant that has been germinated less than 1, 2, 4, 6, months or less than 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years. In some embodiments, the plants are generated from i) a cross between dura_and pisfera palms ii) the selfing of a tenera palm, iii) a cross between two plants having the tenera shell phenotype, iv) a cross between dura and tenera palms, and v) a cross between tenera and pisifera palms. Because such crosses are not 100% efficient, such crosses result in some percentage of seeds or plants that will not in the future produce seeds or plants with the tenera shell phenotype, (in case of i) and the observed number of tenera palms observed do not follow the expected Mendellian segregation (ii, iii & iv). By testing seeds or plants resulting from the attempted crosses, one can reduce or eliminate non-tenera contaminant seeds or plants from material planted for cultivation (optionally discarding those plants that are predicted to be dura and/or pisifera ). Alternatively, one can identify and segregate plants based on their predicted shell genotype, allowing for selection and cultivation of fields of pure pisifera and dura trees, if desired, e.g., for later breeding purposes.
III. Transgenic Plants
As discussed above, the SHELL gene of palm has been discovered to control shell phenotype. Thus in some embodiments, plants having modulated expression of a SHELL polypeptide are provided. The more desirable shell phenotype (tenera, having a shell less than 2 mm thick) occurs naturally as a heterozygote of the between the dura and pisifera allele.
It has been discovered that pisifera SHELL alleles contain missense mutations in portions of the gene encoding the MADS box domain of the protein, which plays a role in transcription regulation. Thus, it is possible that the tenera phenotype results from a reduced level of SHELL protein compared to dura plants, which have two copies of the active protein. Accordingly, in some embodiments, plants having reduced level of active SHELL protein compared to a dura plant are provided. Such plants can be generated, for example, using gene inhibition technology, including but not limited to siRNA technology, to reduce, but not eliminate, endogenous SHELL gene expression of an active SHELL protein (e.g., in a dura or tenera background).
Alternatively, a heterologous expression cassette (i.e., a transgene) can be introduced into a pisifera background where the expression cassette controls expression of SHELL at a reduced level compared to the native SHELL promoter. This can be achieved, for example, by operably linking a mutated SHELL promoter to a polynucleotide encoding a SHELL polypeptide, thereby weakening the “strength” of the promoter, or by operably linking a heterologous promoter that is weaker than the native SHELL promoter to a polynucleotide encoding a SHELL polypeptide.
Alternatively, it is possible that the tenera phenotype results from a mechanism involving the protein:protein interaction of non-DNA binding pisifera types of SHELL proteins with fully functional types of SHELL (homodimers) or other MADS-box family members (heterodimers). Thus, in some embodiments, plants that heterologously express a SHELL polypeptide with a functional M, I, and K domain and a non-function C-(MADsbox) domain are provided. M, I, K, and C domains are described in, e.g., Gramzow and Theissen, 2010 Genome Biology 11: 214-224 and the corresponding domains can be identified in the palm sequences described herein. By expressing such a protein having active protein:protein interaction domains but a non-functional DNA binding domain, proteins that interact with the modified SHELL protein will be removed from biological action, thereby resulting in a reduced shell thickness. Thus, for example, one can express either of the pisifera alleles described herein under control of a heterologous promoter in the plant (e.g., a palm plant, e.g., a dura background), thereby resulting in the reduced shell thickness.
A. Inhibition or Suppression of Gene Expression
The invention provides methods for controlling shell trait in a palm (e.g., oil palm, coconut, or date palm) or other plant by reducing expression of an endogenous nucleic acid molecule encoding a SHELL polypeptide. For example, in a transgenic plant, a nucleic acid molecule, or antisense, siRNA, microRNA, or dsRNA constructs thereof, targeting a SHELL gene product, or fragment thereof, or a SHELL mRNA, or fragment thereof can be operatively linked to an exogenous regulatory element, wherein expression of the construct suppresses endogenous SHELL expression.
A number of methods can be used to inhibit gene expression in plants. For instance, antisense technology can be conveniently used. To accomplish this, a nucleic acid segment from the desired gene is cloned and operably linked to a promoter such that the antisense strand of RNA will be transcribed. The expression cassette is then transformed into plants and the antisense strand of RNA is produced. In plant cells, it has been suggested that antisense RNA inhibits gene expression by preventing the accumulation of mRNA which encodes the protein of interest, see, e.g., Sheehy et al., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 85:8805-8809 (1988); Pnueli et al., The Plant Cell 6:175-186 (1994); and Hiatt et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,801,340.
The antisense nucleic acid sequence transformed into plants will be substantially identical to at least a portion of the endogenous gene or genes to be repressed. The sequence, however, does not have to be perfectly identical to inhibit expression. Thus, an antisense or sense nucleic acid molecule encoding only a portion of a SHELL-encoding sequence can be useful for producing a plant in which SHELL expression is suppressed. The vectors of the present invention can be designed such that the inhibitory effect applies to other proteins within a family of genes exhibiting homology or substantial homology to the target gene, or alternatively such that other family members are not substantially inhibited.
For antisense suppression, the introduced sequence also need not be full length relative to either the primary transcription product or fully processed mRNA. Generally, higher homology can be used to compensate for the use of a shorter sequence. Furthermore, the introduced sequence need not have the same intron or exon pattern, and homology of non-coding segments may be equally effective. In some embodiments, a sequence of at least, e.g., 15, 20, 25 30, 50, 100, 200, or more continuous nucleotides (up to mRNA full length) substantially identical to an endogenous SHELL mRNA, or a complement thereof, can be used.
Catalytic RNA molecules or ribozymes can also be used to inhibit expression of SHELL genes. It is possible to design ribozymes that specifically pair with virtually any target RNA and cleave the phosphodiester backbone at a specific location, thereby functionally inactivating the target RNA. In carrying out this cleavage, the ribozyme is not itself altered, and is thus capable of recycling and cleaving other molecules, making it a true enzyme. The inclusion of ribozyme sequences within antisense RNAs confers RNA-cleaving activity upon them, thereby increasing the activity of the constructs.
A number of classes of ribozymes have been identified. One class of ribozymes is derived from a number of small circular RNAs that are capable of self-cleavage and replication in plants. The RNAs replicate either alone (viroid RNAs) or with a helper virus (satellite RNAs). Examples include RNAs from avocado sunblotch viroid and the satellite RNAs from tobacco ringspot virus, lucerne transient streak virus, velvet tobacco mottle virus, Solanum nodiflorum mottle virus and subterranean clover mottle virus. The design and use of target RNA-specific ribozymes is described in Haseloff et al. Nature, 334:585-591 (1988).
Another method of suppression is sense suppression (also known as co-suppression). Introduction of expression cassettes in which a nucleic acid is configured in the sense orientation with respect to the promoter has been shown to be an effective means by which to block the transcription of target genes. For an example of the use of this method to modulate expression of endogenous genes see, Napoli et al., The Plant Cell 2:279-289 (1990); Flavell, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 91:3490-3496 (1994); Kooter and Mol, Current Opin. Biol. 4:166-171 (1993); and U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,034,323, 5,231,020, and 5,283,184.
Generally, where inhibition of expression is desired, some transcription of the introduced sequence occurs. The effect may occur where the introduced sequence contains no coding sequence per se, but only intron or untranslated sequences homologous to sequences present in the primary transcript of the endogenous sequence. The introduced sequence generally will be substantially identical to the endogenous sequence intended to be repressed. This minimal identity will typically be greater than about 65%, but a higher identity might exert a more effective repression of expression of the endogenous sequences. In some embodiments, the level of identity is more than about 80% or about 95%. As with antisense regulation, the effect can apply to any other proteins within a similar family of genes exhibiting homology or substantial homology and thus which area of the endogenous gene is targeted will depend whether one wished to inhibit, or avoid inhibition, of other gene family members.
For sense suppression, the introduced sequence in the expression cassette, needing less than absolute identity, also need not be full length, relative to either the primary transcription product or fully processed mRNA. This may be preferred to avoid concurrent production of some plants that are overexpressers. A higher identity in a shorter than full length sequence compensates for a longer, less identical sequence. Furthermore, the introduced sequence need not have the same intron or exon pattern, and identity of non-coding segments will be equally effective. Normally, a sequence of the size ranges noted above for antisense regulation is used.
Endogenous gene expression may also be suppressed by way of RNA interference (RNAi), which uses a double-stranded RNA having a sequence identical or similar to the sequence of the target gene. RNAi is the phenomenon in which when a double-stranded RNA having a sequence identical or similar to that of the target gene is introduced into a cell, the expressions of both the inserted exogenous gene and target endogenous gene are suppressed. The double-stranded RNA may be formed from two separate complementary RNAs or may be a single RNA with internally complementary sequences that form a double-stranded RNA. Although details of the mechanism of RNAi are still unknown, it is considered that the introduced double-stranded RNA is initially cleaved into small fragments, which then serve as indexes of the target gene in some manner, thereby degrading the target gene. RNAi is known to be also effective in plants (see, e.g., Chuang, C. F. & Meyerowitz, E. M., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 4985 (2000); Waterhouse et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:13959-13964 (1998); Tabara et al. Science 282:430-431 (1998)). For example, to achieve suppression of the expression of a DNA encoding a protein using RNAi, a double-stranded RNA having the sequence of a DNA encoding the protein, or a substantially similar sequence thereof (including those engineered not to translate the protein) or fragment thereof, is introduced into a plant of interest. The resulting plants may then be screened for a phenotype associated with the target protein and/or by monitoring steady-state RNA levels for transcripts encoding the protein. Although the genes used for RNAi need not be completely identical to the target gene, they may be at least 70%, 80%, 90%, 95% or more identical to the target gene sequence. See, e.g., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0029283. The constructs encoding an RNA molecule with a stem-loop structure that is unrelated to the target gene and that is positioned distally to a sequence specific for the gene of interest may also be used to inhibit target gene expression. See, e.g., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0221211.
The RNAi polynucleotides may encompass the full-length target RNA or may correspond to a fragment of the target RNA. In some cases, the fragment will have fewer than 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 600, 700, 800, 900 or 1,000 nucleotides corresponding to the target sequence. In addition, in some embodiments, these fragments are at least, e.g., 50, 100, 150, 200, or more nucleotides in length. In some cases, fragments for use in RNAi will be at least substantially similar to regions of a target protein that do not occur in other proteins in the organism or may be selected to have as little similarity to other organism transcripts as possible, e.g., selected by comparison to sequences in analyzing publicly-available sequence databases.
Expression vectors that continually express siRNA in transiently- and stably-transfected have been engineered to express small hairpin RNAs, which get processed in vivo into siRNAs molecules capable of carrying out gene-specific silencing (Brummelkamp et al., Science 296:550-553 (2002), and Paddison, et al., Genes & Dev. 16:948-958 (2002)). Post-transcriptional gene silencing by double-stranded RNA is discussed in further detail by Hammond et al. Nature Rev Gen 2: 110-119 (2001), Fire et al. Nature 391: 806-811 (1998) and Timmons and Fire Nature 395: 854 (1998).
One of skill in the art will recognize that using technology based on specific nucleotide sequences (e.g., antisense or sense suppression, siRNA, microRNA technology, etc.), families of homologous genes can be suppressed with a single sense or antisense transcript. For instance, if a sense or antisense transcript is designed to have a sequence that is conserved among a family of genes, then multiple members of a gene family can be suppressed. Conversely, if the goal is to only suppress one member of a homologous gene family, then the sense or antisense transcript should be targeted to sequences with the most variance between family members.
Yet another way to suppress expression of an endogenous plant gene is by recombinant expression of a microRNA that suppresses a target (e.g., a SHELL gene). Artificial microRNAs are single-stranded RNAs (e.g., between 18-25 mers, generally 21 mers), that are not normally found in plants and that are processed from endogenous miRNA precursors. Their sequences are designed according to the determinants of plant miRNA target selection, such that the artificial microRNA specifically silences its intended target gene(s) and are generally described in Schwab et al, The Plant Cell 18:1121-1133 (2006) as well as the internet-based methods of designing such microRNAs as described therein. See also, US Patent Publication No. 2008/0313773.
B. Use of Nucleic Acids of the Invention to Enhance Gene Expression
Nucleic acid sequences encoding all or an active part of a SHELL polypeptide (including but not limited to polypeptides substantially identical to SEQ ID NO:8220, 8221, or 8222, or SHELL polypeptides having a functional M, I, and K domain and a non-function C, which when expressed control shell thickness) can be used to prepare expression cassettes that enhance, or increase SHELL gene expression. Where overexpression of a gene is desired, the desired SHELL gene from a different species may be used to decrease potential sense suppression effects.
Any of a number of means well known in the art can be used to increase SHELL activity in plants. Any organ can be targeted, such as shoot vegetative organs/structures (e.g. leaves, stems and tubers), roots, flowers and floral organs/structures (e.g. bracts, sepals, petals, stamens, carpels, anthers and ovules), seed (including embryo, endosperm, and seed coat) and fruit. Alternatively, a SHELL gene can be expressed constitutively (e.g., using the CaMV 35S promoter).
One of skill will recognize that the polypeptides encoded by the genes of the invention, like other proteins, have different domains which perform different functions. Thus, the gene sequences need not be full length, so long as the desired functional domain of the protein is expressed.
III. Preparation of Recombinant Vectors
In some embodiments, to use isolated sequences in the above techniques, recombinant DNA vectors suitable for transformation of plant cells are prepared. Techniques for transforming a wide variety of higher plant species are well known and described in the technical and scientific literature. See, for example, Weising et al. Ann. Rev. Genet. 22:421-477 (1988). A DNA sequence coding for the desired polypeptide, for example a cDNA sequence encoding a full length protein, will preferably be combined with transcriptional and translational initiation regulatory sequences which will direct the transcription of the sequence from the gene in the intended tissues of the transformed plant.
For example, for overexpression, a plant promoter fragment may be employed which will direct expression of the gene in all tissues of a regenerated plant. Such promoters are referred to herein as “constitutive” promoters and are active under most environmental conditions and states of development or cell differentiation. Examples of constitutive promoters include the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S transcription initiation region, the 1′- or 2′-promoter derived from T-DNA of Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and other transcription initiation regions from various plant genes known to those of skill.
Alternatively, the plant promoter may direct expression of the polynucleotide of the invention in a specific tissue (tissue-specific promoters) or may be otherwise under more precise environmental control (inducible promoters). Examples of tissue-specific promoters under developmental control include promoters that initiate transcription only in certain tissues, such as fruit, seeds, or flowers. Examples of environmental conditions that may affect transcription by inducible promoters include anaerobic conditions, elevated temperature, or the presence of light.
If proper polypeptide expression is desired, a polyadenylation region at the 3′-end of the coding region should be included. The polyadenylation region can be derived from the natural gene, from a variety of other plant genes, or from T-DNA.
The vector comprising the sequences (e.g., promoters or coding regions) from genes of the invention can optionally comprise a marker gene that confers a selectable phenotype on plant cells. For example, the marker may encode biocide resistance, particularly antibiotic resistance, such as resistance to kanamycin, G418, bleomycin, hygromycin, or herbicide resistance, such as resistance to chlorosluforon or Basta.
SHELL nucleic acid operably linked to a promoter is provided that, in some embodiments, is capable of driving the transcription of the SHELL coding sequence in plants. The promoter can be, e.g., derived from plant or viral sources. The promoter can be, e.g., constitutively active, inducible, or tissue specific. In construction of recombinant expression cassettes, vectors, transgenics, of the invention, a different promoters can be chosen and employed to differentially direct gene expression, e.g., in some or all tissues of a plant or animal. In some embodiments, as discussed above, desired promoters are identified by analyzing the 5′ sequences of a genomic clone corresponding to a SHELL gene as described here.
V. Production of Transgenic Plants
DNA constructs of the invention may be introduced into the genome of the desired plant host by a variety of conventional techniques. For example, the DNA construct may be introduced directly into the genomic DNA of the plant cell using techniques such as electroporation and microinjection of plant cell protoplasts, or the DNA constructs can be introduced directly to plant tissue using ballistic methods, such as DNA particle bombardment. Alternatively, the DNA constructs may be combined with suitable T-DNA flanking regions and introduced into a conventional Agrobacterium tumefaciens host vector. The virulence functions of the Agrobacterium tumefaciens host will direct the insertion of the construct and adjacent marker into the plant cell DNA when the cell is infected by the bacteria.
Various palm transformation methods have been described. See, e.g., Masani and Parveez, Electronic Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 11 No. 3, Jul. 15, 2008; Chowdury et al., Plant Cell Reports, Volume 16, Number 5, 277-281 (1997).
Microinjection techniques are known in the art and well described in the scientific and patent literature. The introduction of DNA constructs using polyethylene glycol precipitation is described in Paszkowski et al. EMBO J. 3:2717-2722 (1984). Electroporation techniques are described in Fromm et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82:5824 (1985). Ballistic transformation techniques are described in Klein et al. Nature 327:70-73 (1987).
Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation techniques, including disarming and use of binary vectors, are well described in the scientific literature. See, for example Horsch et al. Science 233:496-498 (1984), and Fraley et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80:4803 (1983).
Transformed plant cells that are derived from any transformation technique can be cultured to regenerate a whole plant that possesses the transformed genotype and thus the desired phenotype. Such regeneration techniques rely on manipulation of certain phytohormones in a tissue culture growth medium, optionally relying on a biocide and/or herbicide marker that has been introduced together with the desired nucleotide sequences. Plant regeneration from cultured protoplasts is described in Evans et al., Protoplasts Isolation and Culture, Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, pp. 124-176, MacMillilan Publishing Company, New York, 1983; and Binding, Regeneration of Plants, Plant Protoplasts, pp. 21-73, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1985. Regeneration can also be obtained from plant callus, explants, organs, or parts thereof. Such regeneration techniques are described generally in Klee et al. Ann. Rev. of Plant Phys. 38:467-486 (1987).
The nucleic acids of the invention can be used to confer desired traits on essentially any plant. Thus, the invention has use over a broad range of plants, including species from the genera Asparagus, Atropa, Avena, Brassica, Citrus, Citrullus, Capsicum, Cucumis, Cucurbita, Daucus, Fragaria, Glycine, Gossypium, Helianthus, Heterocallis, Hordeum, Hyoscyamus, Lactuca, Linum, Lolium, Lycopersicon, Malus, Manihot, Majorana, Medicago, Nicotiana, Oryza, Panieum, Pannesetum, Persea, Pisum, Pyrus, Prunus, Raphanus, Secale, Senecio, Sinapis, Solanum, Sorghum, Trigonella, Triticum, Vitis, Vigna, and, Zea. Plants having a shell, and thus those that have use in the present invention, include but are not limited to dicotyledons and monocotyledons including but not limited to palm.
The following examples are offered to illustrate, but not to limit the claimed invention.
The mapping family used for generating the genetic linkage map was derived from the selfing of the high iodine value (IV) tenera palm, T128, from MPOB's Nigerian germplasm collection (Rajanaidu, 1990). Controlled self-pollination was used to generate the mapping family. A total of 241 palms were originally planted at several locations in Malaysia, including the MPOB-UKM Research Station at Bangi, Selangor, Ulu Paka Research Station at Terengganu, Keratong Research Station at Pahang, Lahad Datu Research Station at Sabah, United Plantations, Teluk Intan, Perak and FELDA Research Station at Jerantut, Pahang. Of the 241 palms, 240 were still available for both marker and phenotype analysis.
Unopened leaf samples (spear leaf) were collected from individual palms and immediately frozen under liquid nitrogen and then stored at −80° C. until DNA preparation. DNA from the leaf samples was extracted and purified using the method described by Doyle and Doyle (1990).
Standard RFLP analysis was performed as described by Singh et al., 2009. The RFLP probes used in this study were complementary DNA (cDNA) clones obtained from various cDNA libraries (young etiolated seedling, mesocarp, kernel and root) constructed previously as described by Cheah et al. (1996). cDNA clones from a subtracted flower library (Cheah and Rajinder, 1998) were also used to screen the mapping population.
The cDNA clones were picked at random from the various libraries. Plasmid DNA was prepared from individual clones by using column purification, with Qiagen-tip 20 (Qiagen) as described by the manufacturer. The concentration of the prepared plasmids was determined by using ethidium bromide plates (Sambrook et al. 1989).
The presence of DNA insert was examined by restriction digestion of lug plasmid DNA with 10 U of the appropriate restriction enzyme for 3 hours, to release the insert DNA. One fifth (⅕) volume of loading buffer, FOG, was added to the digestion mix and the fragments were separated by electrophoresis through a 1.5% agarose gel. cDNA clones with insert size larger than 500 base-pairs (bp) were selected to screen for their ability to detect RFLP in the mapping population.
Probes for mapping were derived from the selected plasmids as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplified DNA fragments. Bacterial clones containing selected probes were maintained as frozen glycerol stocks at −80° C.
The DNA probes were labeled for RFLP analysis as described by Singh et al., 2009.
SSR analysis was carried out essentially as described by Singh et al., 2009. The SSR primers were sourced as follows: i) A SSR enriched library described by Singh et a., 2007, ii) the published microsatellite primer pairs (Billotte et al., 2005) were also tested on the mapping populations, and iii) SSR primers derived from MPOB's in-house expressed sequence tag (EST) collection) and genomic sequences were also used in map construction.
The OPSNP3 SNP set comprising 4,451 SNPs was interrogated using the Illumina iSelect Infinium II assay. The automatic allele calling for each SNP locus was accomplished with the GenCall software (Illumina San Diego, Calif.). The Genome Studio software (version 2010.3) was used to analyze the SNP genotyping data.
The individual RFLP, SSR and SNP loci were scored as co-dominant markers and, for this selfed cross, loci segregating in the 1:2:1 ratios were scored. Some RFLP probes and SSR primers revealed complex patterns, for which the alleles were difficult to determine. For such cases, segregating bands were individually scored as being absent or present.
Table 2 below illustrates the 2 different types of segregation patterns observed in the mapping family from RFLP, SSR, SNP and AFLP markers.
In the present study, the identification of the shell gene was of interest. The monogenic trait scored was the fruit form. The trait was evaluated on ripened bunches in the field. All 240 F1 progeny, derived by controlled self-pollination of the Nigerian tenera accession T128 and grown over two decades in plantations throughout Malaysia, were scored for fruit form phenotype (Rajanaidu et al., 1989). Oil palm trees were grown to maturity in open plantations, making accurate phenotyping of fruit form for some samples difficult due to variation in fertility, yield and environment. Several fruits were harvested from each palm, and shell thickness and fruit form was determined using established criteria.
In order to determine the fruit form, the individual fruits were cut into two equal halves using a sharp knife. A visual observation was made of the shell and classified according to Corley & Tinker, 2003 and Hartley 1988, as follows:
In most cases, the presence of the fibre ring was sufficient to distinguish between dura and tenera fruit forms. An experienced oil palm breeder assisted with the evaluation of the traits.
To assess the accuracy of the fruit form phenotypic data used in the study, we reviewed 460 phenotype calls which were made between 2003 and 2012. In this period, up to three independent attempts were made to visually determine the fruit form phenotypes of 339 palms, 240 of which were from the T-128 selfed population used to map SHELL, and 99 from a different population for which re-phenotyping data were available. In the data, ambiguous calls were made 26 times (or 5.7% of total phenotype determinations) where breeders were unsure of the fruit form phenotype.
The segregation data for the phenotypic characters observed in the mapping family is listed in Table 3.
Dura
Tenera
Pisifera
Dura
Tenera
Pisifera
#There was a discrepancy between the total number of palms genotyped and that observed for fruit type because two palms could not be phenotyped accurately..
The shell gene trait in the mapping family used in this study met the expected Mendelian ratio (1:2:1 for the dura, tenera and pisifera fruit forms, respectively). The other three reports to date on mapping of the shell gene locus (Mayes et al., 1997; Moretszohn et al., 2000 and Bilotte et al., 2005) did not indicate if the trait met the expected Mendelian ratio in the mapping families employed in their study.
In constructing the genetic map, apart from the 200 RFLP and SSR markers, the progeny consisting of 240 palms were genotyped for 4,451 SNP markers derived from the oil palm genome sequence by the Infinium iSelect® Assay (Illumina). Map construction for the 240 available progeny palms obtained from self-pollination of the Nigerian tenera palm T128 was carried out by using the Joinmap ver. 4.0 computer programme (Ooij en, 2006). The oil palm is an out-breeding species, and as such, a high degree of heterozygosity can be expected in its genome. The progeny palms from the selfed cross can thus be expected to behave like an F2 population.
However, in map construction, it is useful to first determine the “phases” of the markers, either in coupling or repulsion. For this reason, two sets of the genotype data were then created, whereby one set is the converse of the other to account for phase differences in the T128 selfed F2 population. Markers that exhibited severe distortion (p<0.0001) and markers having more than 10% missing data were excluded. Both sets of genotype data were then grouped at a recombination frequency of ≤0.2. Eighteen nodes were selected to create 18 initial groups for calculating the linkage groups.
The linkages were calculated and loci ordered based on the maximum likelihood algorithm. None of the markers showed severe distortion (p<0.0001). The few distorted markers observed were significant at p<0.05−0.1. These markers were removed from further analysis when necessary. Markers exhibiting nearest neighbour stress (N.N. Stress) value >2 (cM) were identified and excluded from the analysis. Markers contributing to insufficient linkages were also determined and removed. The T128 co-dominant map constructed consisted of 16 groups. The number of linkage groups observed matched the haploid chromosome number of oil palm (Maria et al. 1995).
After construction of the consensus map, shell was placed on linkage group 7 (
The SHELL gene had been previously mapped 4.7 cM and 9.8 cM away from the closest molecular marker (Billotte et al., 2005; Mayes et al., 1997; Moretzsohn et al., 2000) but has proven extremely challenging to identify given the large genome, long generation times and difficulty of phenotyping in experimental populations of oil palm, which are widely distributed among different plantations. To help with identification of the shell gene, great care was taken to phenotype the monogenic trait carefully as described above. Subsequently we took advantage of the oil palm genome sequence to identify the shell gene.
An AVROS Pisifera palm was sequenced to high coverage on the 454 XL next generation sequencing platform (454/Roche). Sequence reads were generated from DNA fragment libraries and from a complex series of linker libraries (or jumping libraries) where read ends span fragment sizes ranging from 0.75 kb to >30 kb. Sequence reads were assembled with the Newbler assembler (Roche 454, Bradford, Conn.) producing a reference sequence of the oil palm genome. Scaffolds from the reference assembly containing markers genetically mapped in the shell interval were identified. A BAC physical map was constructed from a 10 fold BAC library constructed from the same AVROS Pisifera used to generate the reference sequence. BAC end sequences were also generated from each BAC in the library using standard Sanger sequencing on the 3730 sequencing platform (Life Technologies). BAC end sequences were assembled into the reference genome with the Newbler assembler. A minimum tiling path of BAC clones spanning the SHELL interval was selected, and BAC clones in the tiling path were sequenced in pools to high coverage with 454 XL technology. The reference genome was reassembled including the original 454 whole genome shotgun sequence data, the BAC pool sequence data and all BAC end sequences. Improved scaffold coverage and scaffold length spanning the shell interval was produced. Two pedigrees were used in homozygosity mapping studies. A total of 43 individual AVROS pisifera palms (originating from Zaire, Africa) were the first pedigree used. Additionally, a total of 14 of the AVROS Pisifera palms were independently sequenced while the DNA from the remaining 29 palms were pooled together for deep sequencing (Pool 1). The second pedigree was the progeny palms from the selfing of the Nigerian tenera palm T128. The DNA of thirty (30) pisifera palms from the Nigerian selfed palm were also pooled and sequenced (Pool 2). In Pool 3, DNA from 17 Nigerian dura palms and 20 Nigerian tenera palms were pooled and sequenced. Whole genome shotgun sequence data was generated on the HISEQ 2000 (Illumina). Individual trees and pools of trees were sequenced to 20 and 40 fold raw sequence coverage respectively. Individual reads from each tree and from each pool were read mapped to sequence scaffolds form the reference genome assembly described above.
The SNP markers on linkage group 7 were subsequently mapped by sequence similarity to a 3.4 Mb assembly Scaffold 43 (p3-sc00043). The scaffolds corresponding to linkage group 7 containing the SHELL gene is presented in
Thirty additional SNP markers were also designed from the scaffolds p3-sc00191, p3-sc00203 and p3-sc02216, which were also associated with linkage Group 7. These 80 SNP markers (designated as SNPE) were also genotyped on the 240 palms from the Nigerian T128 selfed population using the Sequenom MassArray® iPlex platform. Of the 80 SNPE SNP markers tested, 63 (78%) were polymorphic.
The additional 63 SNP genotypes were incorporated into the map as above giving a final co-dominant genetic linkage map consisting of 828 markers [722 SNP (inclusive of SNPE), 103 SSR, 2 RFLP markers and shell in 16 linkage groups (
Shell remained in linkage group 7 (
The shell gene locus was successfully mapped in Group 7, this time flanked by two SNP markers, namely SNPE00039, SNPE00037 (about 3 cM) on either side (
Next, we employed homozygosity mapping using the AVROS pedigree (
Arabidopsis SHP1, SHP2 and FRUITFULL (FUL), for example, are Type II MADS-box proteins of the MIKCc class, and form a network of transcription factors that controls differentiation of the endocarp. In Brassicaceae, the endocarp comprises lignified cells that separate the valve from the replum and control shattering of the seedpod (Dinneny and Yanofsky, 2005). Failure to differentiate the endocarp in shp1 shp2 double mutants in Arabidopsis results in indehiscent fruit pods that do not shatter (Liljegren et al. 2000; Pinyopich et al., 2003), while mesophyll cells in ful carpels become lignified due to ectopic SHP expression, and burst randomly when full of seed (Dinneny and Yanofsky, 2005; Gu et al., 1998). Interestingly, the ortholog of SHP in tomato controls fleshy fruit expansion in the endocarp (Vrebalov et al., 2009) while homologs of FUL and SHP have been implicated in split-pit formation in peaches, which are also drupes (Tani et al., 2007). SHP proteins bind to DNA as homodimers or as heterodimers (Huang et al., 1996), and the highly conserved MADS domain is involved in both DNA binding and in dimerization (Immink et al., 2010).
Analysis of 10,916,126 RNA-seq reads from 22 different oil palm libraries revealed only 159 reads matching oil palm SHELL, all of which were found in just four libraries: whole florets one day after anthesis, kernels 10 and 15 weeks after anthesis, and mesocarp 15 weeks after anthesis. These libraries correspond to the stages of shell development (Hartley, 1988; Bhasker and Mohankumar, 2001). PCR Amplicon sequencing (see Example 6) identified allelic differences between the SHELL orthologs in Deli dura (ShDeliDura), and those in the AVROS (shAvROS) and T128 (shMPOB) pisifera haplotypes derived from Congo and Nigeria, respectively (
To further explore segregation in E. guineensis populations, SHELL Exon 1 sequence was generated from a diversity panel of 379 palms representing nine distinct wild oil palm populations collected from Angola (Rajanaidu et al., 2000), Madagascar (Rajanaidu et al., 2000), Nigeria (Hartley, 1988) and Tanzania (Rajanaidu et al., 2000), and a subset of a 110,000-accession seed bank collected over the past five decades (Rajanaidu et al., 2000) (see also Example 5). We found that all palms carried either the ShDeliDura, shAvROS or shMPOB alleles in exon 1 (
DNA sequencing of the eight exons of the SHELL gene was carried out initially for 12 palms from the T128 selfed mapping population. Exon 1 of the gene was sequenced from all palms of the mapping family as well as the AVROS pisifera palms used in homozygosity mapping. In addition, Exon 1 from the palms listed in Table 5 was also sequenced.
1Palms on the left of the symbol ‘x’ denote the female parent, while the palm on the right is the male parent.
2In the populations listed above, the female parent of population 1 is palm T128, which was self-pollinated to generate the population used for map construction in this study.
3Populations 1-5 above were segregating for the shell gene
PCR primers were designed based on the reference pisifera genome sequence to amplify the entirety of SHELL exon 1 (SEQ ID NO:8237):
Primer sequences were confirmed to be unique in the reference pisifera genome, and to avoid any identified polymorphic nucleotides. A 5′ M13 forward sequence tag was added to the Exon 1 forward PCR primer (TTGCTTTTAATTTTGCTTGAATACC; SEQ ID NO: 8238). A 5′ M13 reverse sequence tag was added to the Exon 1 reverse primer (TTTGGATCAGGGATAAAAGGGAAGC; SEQ ID NO: 8239). SHELL exon 1 was amplified from genomic DNA initially from DNA from 12 oil palm trees, and subsequently from a total of 336 oil palm samples (148 tenera, 100 pisifera and 86 dura and two palms where phenotype calls could not be made). PCR amplification was performed on 20 ng of genomic DNA under standard PCR amplification conditions. Amplicons were treated with exonuclease I and shrimp alkaline phosphatase to remove unincorporated primers and deoxynucleotides. An aliquot of each amplicon was sequenced using M13 forward as primer on an ABI 3730 instrument using standard conditions. Each amplicon was sequenced twice in the forward direction. An aliquot of each amplicon was additionally sequenced using M13 reverse as primer. Each amplicon was sequenced twice in the reverse direction.
All sequencing data was aligned to the reference pisifera genome sequence. Data were analyzed to determine the genotype at each of the two SNP positions identified to be associated with the pisifera fruit type.
At the SNP position of SEQ ID NO:922, dura trees were found to be homozygous for T (T/T), encoding a leucine amino acid at the corresponding position of the SHELL protein. At the same nucleotide position, pisifera trees were either homozygous T/T (if derived from the Zaire line) or homozygous C/C (if derived from the Nigerian line), encoding either a leucine or proline amino acid at the corresponding position of the SHELL protein, respectively. Therefore, tenera trees derived from a cross including Congo-derived pisifera should be homozygous T/T at the same position, while tenera trees derived from a cross including Nigerian-derived pisifera will be heterozygous C/T at the same position.
At the SNP position of SEQ ID NO:923, dura trees are homozygous A/A, encoding a lysine amino acid at the corresponding position of the SHELL protein. At the same position, pisifera trees are either homozygous A/A (if derived from the Nigerian line) or homozygous T/T (if derived from the Zaire line), encoding either a lysine or asparagine amino acid at the corresponding position of the SHELL protein, respectively. In addition, pisifera trees may be heterozygous C/T at the SNP position of SEQ ID NO:922, and heterozygous A/T at the SNP position of SEQ ID NO:923 as a result of having contribution from both Zaire and Nigerian derived lines. Therefore, tenera trees derived from a cross including Nigerian-derived pisifera should be homozygous A/A at the SNP position of SEQ ID NO: 923, while tenera trees derived from a cross including Zaire-derived pisifera will be heterozygous A/T at the same position.
Therefore, if derived from a cross involving Nigerian derived pisifera, tenera palms are heterozygous at the SNP position of SEQ ID NO:922 (T/C, where the dura derived T allele codes for leucine at the corresponding amino acid position and the pisifera derived C allele codes for proline at the same amino acid position), and they are homozygous (A/A) at the SNP position of SEQ ID NO:923 (where both alleles code for lysine). Conversely, if derived from a cross involving Zaire derived pisifera, tenera palms are homozygous T/T at the SNP position of SEQ ID NO:922 (where both alleles “T” code for leucine), and they are heterozygous at the SNP position of SEQ ID NO:923 (A/T, where the dura derived “A” allele codes for lysine and the pisifera derived “T” allele codes for asparagine at the same amino acid position).
DNA sequencing of the eight exons of SHELL was carried out for all palms of the mapping family as well as the AVROS pisifera palms used in homozygosity mapping. One of the 14 sequenced pisifera palms (TP10) proved to be heterozygous for the Zaire (shAVROS) and Nigerian (shMPOB) haplotypes, due to contamination in a breeding trial, and was not used for the homozygosity analysis. PCR primers were designed based on the reference pisifera genome sequence to amplify the entirety of SHELL exon 1. SHELL-specific primer sequences were TTGCTTTTAATTTTGCTTGAATACC (forward primer upstream of exon 1; SEQ ID NO:8238) and TTTGGATCAGGGATAAAAGGGAAGC (reverse primer downstream of exon 1; SEQ ID NO:8239). Primer sequences were confirmed to be unique in the reference pisifera genome, and to avoid any identified polymorphic nucleotides. A 5′ M13 forward sequence tag (GTTTTCCCAGTCACGACGTTGTA; SEQ ID NO:8240) was added to the Exon 1 forward PCR primer. A 5′ M13 reverse sequence tag (AGGAAACAGCTATGACCAT; SEQ ID NO:8241) was added to the Exon 1 reverse primer. SHELL exon 1 was amplified from genomic DNA and PCR amplification was performed using 20 ng of purified genomic DNA under standard PCR amplification conditions. Amplicons were treated with exonuclease I and shrimp alkaline phosphatase to remove unincorporated primers and deoxynucleotides. An aliquot of each amplicon was sequenced using M13 forward as primer on an ABI 3730 instrument using standard conditions. Each amplicon was sequenced twice in the forward direction. An aliquot of each amplicon was additionally sequenced using M13 reverse as primer. Each amplicon was sequenced twice in the reverse direction. All sequencing data was aligned to the reference pisifera genome sequence. Data were analyzed to determine the genotype at each of the two SNP positions identified to be associated with the pisifera fruit form.
We sequenced SHELL Exon 1 from 336 individual palms from the T-128 mapping population, the samples used to construct homozygosity maps, and a collection of palms in crosses with advanced lines (100 pisifera, 148 tenera, 86 dura and 2 with ambiguous phenotype). 323 (96.7%) had SHELL genotypes concordant with their phenotype, and 11 (3.3%) had discordant phenotypes, reflecting the accuracy of phenotyping in the plantation (see above). SHELL exon 1 was also sequenced from all 4 pisifera palms derived from TxT crosses between Nigerian (shMPOB) and Zaire (shAvROS) (Felda AA and MPOB 0.305), and proved to be heteroallelic as predicted. An additional 3 pisifera palms were also found to be heteroallelic, including TP10 which was sequenced completely and proved to be a contaminant in the AVROS pedigree (see above). The other 2 heteroallelic palms were likely similarly contaminated.
A second attempt was made to phenotype and re-sequence the 11 apparently discordant trees, enabling the re-evaluation of 9 trees for fruit type. The second phenotype call of 1 palm was concordant with the genotype prediction, while the second phenotype calls of 7 palms were ambiguous, and 1 palm retained the original phenotype. This palm was re-genotyped and proved to have a consistent genotype. It is plausible that the 9 palms remaining (or 2.7% of the genotyped population) had been misphenotyped originally, given that fruit form phenotyping error is believed to be in excess of 5% (see above), highlighting the need for a molecular assay which more accurately predicts fruit form. This assumption was confirmed in 6 of the 9 palms for which haplotypes were available, as haplotypes were consistent with genotype not phenotype, ruling out recombination as an explanation for discrepancy. The map expansion immediately around SHELL is similarly explained by mis-phenotyped palms. That is, the 4 SNP markers closest to the mapped shell locus(see
Overall, a 2 to 3% discordance rate is within the range of the rate of incorrect phenotyping or genotyping based on either questionable fruit type classification or collection of samples from unintended trees in the field, respectively (approximately 5%). Furthermore, the two palms where the phenotype call could not be made were predicted as pisifera, by the SHELL genotype. This is in line with reports describing some pisifera palms as not being able to produce mature bunches—a trait observed for these two palms and the reason why fruit form could not be assigned.
In situ hybridization was performed on fruits between 1 and 5 WAA, at the earliest stages of shell formation (Singh et al., submitted). Uniform but weak hybridization signals were detected in the mesocarp of both the thick-shelled (Dura) and shell-less (pisifera ) fruit forms, but very strong signals were detected in the outer layers of the developing kernel in only the Dura type, consistent with the function of Shell.
Therefore, the DNA sequence changes in the oil palm SHELL gene disclosed in this invention would clearly have effects on the function of the SHELL protein, thereby leading to the fruit type phenotype.
Beirnaert, A. and Vanderweyen, R. 1941. Contribution a l'etude genetique et biometrique des varieties d'Elaeis guineensis Jacq. Pubis. INEAC, Series Ser. Sci. (27):101.
Bhasker, S. & Mohankumar, C. Association of lignifying enzymes in shell synthesis of oil palm fruit (Elaeis guineensis—dura variety). 2001. Indian J Exp Biol 39: 160-4.
Billotte, N., Marseillac, N., Risterucci, A. M., Adon, B., Brotteir, P., Baurens, F. C., Singh, R., Herran, A., Asmady, H., Billot, C., Amblard, P Durrand-Gasselin, T., Courtois, B., Asmono, D., Cheah, S. C., Rohde, W and Charrier, A. 2005. Microsatellite-based high density linkage map in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110: 754-765.
Birchler, J. A., Auger, D. L. & Riddle, N. C. 2003. In search of the molecular basis of heterosis. Plant Cell 15: 2236-9.
Cheah, S. C. 1996. Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) in Oil Palm. Project Completion Report No. 0011/95, 4 Jul. 1996, Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), Bangi, Malaysia.
Cheah, S. C. and Rajinder, S. 1998. Gene expression during flower development in the oil palm. Project Completion Report No. 0057/98, 16th Jul. 1999. Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (PORIM), Bangi, Malaysia.
Corley, R. H. V. and Tinker, P. B. 2003. Care and maintenance of oil palms. In The Oil Palm (4th edition), pp:287-326. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Danielsen, F. et al. 2009. Biofuel plantations on forested lands: double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conserv Biol 23: 348-58.
Devuyst, A. 1953. Selection of the oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) in Africa. Nature 172: 685-686.
Dinneny, J. R. and Yanofsky, M. F. 2005. Drawing lines and borders: how the dehiscent fruit of Arabidopsis is patterned. Bioessays 27: 42-9.
Donough, C. R. and Law, I. H. 1995. Breeding and selection for seed production at Pamol Plantations Sdn Bhd and early performance of Pamol D×P. Planter 71:513-530.
Doyle, J. J. and Doyle, J. L. 1990. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. FOCUS 12:13-15.
Ferrandiz, C., Liljegren, S. J. & Yanofsky, M. F. 2000. Negative regulation of the SHATTERPROOF genes by FRUITFULL during Arabidopsis fruit development. Science 289: 436-8.
Godding, R. 1930. Observation de la production de palmiers selectionnes a Mongana (Equateur). Bull Arig. Congo belge 21: 1263.
Gschwend, M. et al. 1996. A locus for Fanconi anemia on 16q determined by homozygosity mapping. Am J Hum Genet 59: 377-84.
Gu, Q., Ferrandiz, C., Yanofsky, M. F. & Martienssen, R. 1998. The FRUITFULL MADS-box gene mediates cell differentiation during Arabidopsis fruit development. Development 125: 1509-17.
Hardon, J. J., Rao, V., and Rajanaidu, N. 1985. A review of oil palm breeding. In Progress in Plant Breeding, ed G. E. Rusell, pp139-163, Butterworths, UK.
Hartley, C. W. S. 1988. The botany of oil palm. In The oil palm (3rd edition), pp:47-94, Longman, London.
Huang, H., Tudor, M., Su, T., Zhang, Y., Hu, Y., and Ma, H. 1996. DNA binding properties of two Arabidopsis MADS domain proteins: Binding Consensus and Dimer Formation. The Plant Cell 8: 81-94.
Immink, R. G., Kaufmann, K. & Angenent, G. C. 2010. The ‘ABC’ of MADS domain protein behaviour and interactions. Semin Cell Dev Biol 21: 87-93.
Jack, P. L., James, C., Price, Z., Rance, K., Groves, L., CorleY, R. H. V., Nelson, S and Rao, V. 1998. Application of DNA markers in oil palm breeding. In: 1998 International Oil Palm Congress-Commodity of the past, today and future, Sep. 23-25, 1998, Bali, Indonesia.
Krieger, U., Lippman, Z. B. & Zamir, D. 2010. The flowering gene SINGLE FLOWER TRUSS drives heterosis for yield in tomato. Nat Genet 42: 459-63.
Lander, E. S. and Botstein, D. 1987. Homozygosity mapping: a way to map human recessive traits with the DNA of inbred children. Science 236: 1567-70.
Latiff, A. 2000. The Biology of the Genus Elaeis. In: Advances in Oil Palm Research, Volume 1, ed. Y. Basiron, B. S. Jalani, and K. W. Chan, pp:19-38, Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB).
Liljegren, S. J., Ditta, G. S., Eshed, Y., Savidge, B., Bowman, J. L., Yanofsky, M. F. 2000. SHATTERPROOF MADS-box genes control seed dispersal in Arabidopsis. Nature 404: 766-770. Maria, M., Clyde, M. M. and Cheah, S. C. 1995. Cytological analysis of Elaeis guineensis (tenera) chromosomes. Elaeis 7:122-134. Mayes, S., Jack, P. L., Marshall, D. F. and Corley, R. H. V. 1997. Construction of a RFLP genetic linkage map for oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). Genome 40:116-122.
Moretzsohn, M. C., Nunes, C. D. M., Ferreira, M. E. and Grattapaglia, D. 2000. RAPD linkage mapping of the shell thickness locus in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 100:63-70.
Ooijen, J. W. V. 2006. JoinMap 4.0: Software for calculation of genetic linkage maps. In experimental populations. Kyazma B. V., Wageningen, Netherlands
Pinyopich, A. et al. 2003. Assessing the redundancy of MADS-box genes during carpel and ovule development. Nature 424: 85-8.
Purseglove, J. W. 1972. Tropical Crops. Monocotyledons. Longman, London. pp:607.
Rajanaidu, N., Rao, V., Abdul Halim, H. & A. S. H., O. 1989. Genetic resources: New developments in Oil Palm breeding. Elaeis 1: 1-10.
Rajanaidu, N. 1990. Major developments in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) breeding. In Proceedings of the 12th Plenary Meeting of AETFAT, pp: 39-52. Hamburg, Germany.
Rajanaidu, N. et al. 2000. in Advances in Oil Palm Research (eds. Basiron, Y., Jalani, B. S. & Chan, K. W.) 171-237 (Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), Bangi, Selangor).
Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F. and Maniatis, T. 1989. Molecular cloning: A Laboratory manual, (2nd edition). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
Singh R, Tan S G, Panandam J M, Rahman R A, Ooi L C L, Low E T L, Sharma M, Jansen J and Cheah S C. 2009. Mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for fatty acid composition in an interspecific cross of oil palm. BMC Plant Biology 9: 114.
Sousa, J., Barata, A. V., Sousa, C., Casanova, C. C. and Vicente, L. 2011. Chimpanzee oil-palm use in southern Cantanhez National Park, Guinea-Bissau. Am J Primatol 73: 485-97.
Tani, E., Polidoros, A. N. & Tsaftaris, A. S. Characterization and expression analysis of FRUITFULL- and SHATTERPROOF-like genes from peach (Prunus persica) and their role in split-pit formation. 2007. Tree Physiol 27: 649-59.
Vrebalov, J., Pan, I. L., Arroyo, A. J. M., McQuinn, R., Chung, M., Poole, M., Rose, J., Seymour, G., Grandillo, S., Giovannoni, J., and Irish, V. F. 2009. Fleshy fruit expansion and ripening are regulated by the tomato SHATTERPROOF gene TAGL1. The Plant Cell 21: 3041-3062.
Whitmore, T. C. 1973. The Palms of Malaya. Longmans, Malaysia, pp:56-58.
The term “a” or “an” is intended to mean “one or more.” The term “comprise” and variations thereof such as “comprises” and “comprising,” when preceding the recitation of a step or an element, are intended to mean that the addition of further steps or elements is optional and not excluded. All patents, patent applications, and other published reference materials cited in this specification are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
K
AYELSVLCDAEVALIVFSS
AYELSVLCDAEVALIVFSS
KKAYELSVLCDAEVALIVFSS
The present patent application is a Divisional application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/800,652, filed Mar. 13, 2013, which claims benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/612,885, filed Mar. 19, 2012, which is incorporated by reference for all purposes.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5310893 | Erlich et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5451512 | Apple et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5468613 | Erlich et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5604099 | Erlich et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 6307123 | Kriz et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6646264 | Modiano et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6880771 | Deppermann | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 7367155 | Kotyk et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7402731 | Penner et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7454989 | Deppermann | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7600642 | Deppermann | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7673572 | Deppermann et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7685768 | Deppermann | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7909276 | Deppermann et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7998669 | Deppermann et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8076076 | Osborn et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8221968 | Becker et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8237016 | Ye et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8241914 | Durack et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8281935 | Deppermann | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8312672 | Deppermann et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8362317 | Calabotta et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8401271 | Deppermann et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8443545 | Deppermann et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
| 20040110142 | Bennett et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20080000815 | Deppermann | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080289061 | Penner et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090070891 | Foley et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090070899 | Apuya et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090144847 | Shaikh et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20100143906 | Becker et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20110079544 | Hunger et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110132721 | Kevin et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110195866 | Deppermann et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20120117865 | Deppermann et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120180386 | Deppermann et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20130079917 | Deppermann et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130104454 | Deppermann et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 235726 | Sep 1987 | EP |
| 8911548 | Nov 1989 | WO |
| 9500119 | Jan 1995 | WO |
| 2003040369 | May 2003 | WO |
| WO 2010039750 | Apr 2010 | WO |
| 2010056107 | May 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010056107 | May 2010 | WO |
| 2010146357 | Dec 2010 | WO |
| 2011119390 | Sep 2011 | WO |
| 2011119394 | Sep 2011 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Supplementary European Search Report from EP Application No. 13763862.3 dated Nov. 5, 2015, 4 pages. |
| Cheng-Li, et al., “SNP Markers for Genetic Studies and Prediction of Monogenic Traits in Oil Palm,” MPOB Information Series, Jun. 2011, retrieved from Internet: URL:http://palmoilis.mpob.gov.my/publications/TOT/TT-482.pdf. |
| Sathish, D. K., et al., “RAPD Markers for Identifying Oil Palm (Elaeis Guineensis Jacq.) Parental Varieties (dura & pisifera) and the Hybrid Tenera,” Indian Journal of Biotechnology, National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources, New Delhi, IN, vol. 6, No. 3, Jul. 2007, pp. 354-358. |
| Adam et al.; “MADS Box Genes in Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis): Patterns in the Evolution of the Squamosa, Deficiens, Globosa, Agamous and Sepallata Subfamilies”; J. Mol. Evol.; 62:15-31 (2006). |
| Arias, “Genetic Similarity Among Commercial Oil Palm Materials Based on Microsatellite Markers”, Agronomia Colombiana, vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 188-195 (2012). Retrieved from http://www.bdigital.unai.edu.co/30352/1/29152-156322-2-PB.pdf. |
| Barcelos et al., “Genetic diversity and relationship in American and African oil palm as revealed by RFLP and AFLP molecular markers”, Pesq. agropec. bras., Brasilia, v. 37, n. 8,, 2002, pp. 1105-1114. |
| Billotte et al.; “Microsatellite-based high density linkage map in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.)”; Theor. Appl. Genet.; 110(4):754-765 (2005). |
| Billotte et al.; “QTL detection by multi-parent linkage mapping in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.)”; Theor. Appl. Genet.; 120:1673-7687 (2010). |
| Conner et al., “Detection of sickle cell beta S-globin allele by hybridization with synthetic oligonucleotides”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 80:278-282 (1983). |
| Gill et al., “Nucleic Acid Isothermal Amplification Technologies—A Review”, Nucleosides, Nucleotides, and Nucleic Acids, 27: 224-43 (2008). |
| Mayes et al., “The use of Molecular Markers to Investigate the Genetic Structure of an Oil Palm Breeding Programme”, Heredity (edinb) vol. 85, Part 3, pp. 288-293, PMID: 11012733 (2000). |
| Moertzsohn et al.; “RAPD linkage mapping of the shell thickness locus in palm oil (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.)”; Theor. Appl. Genet.; 100:63-70 (2000). |
| Notomi et al., “Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA”, Nucleic Acids Research, 28(12), e63 i-vii, (2000). |
| Saiki et al., “Analysis of enzymatically amplified beta-globin and HLA-DQ alpha DNA with allele-specific oligonucleotide probes”, Nature 324: 163-166, (1986). |
| Seng et al., “Genetic Linkage Map of a High Yielding FELDS Deli x Yangambi Oil Palm Cross”, Plos One, vol. 6, No. 11, e26593 (2011). |
| Singh et al.; “Identification of cDNA-RFLP Markers and Their Use for Molecular Mapping Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis)”; Asia Pacific Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology; 16(3):53-63 (2008). |
| Singh et al., “Mapping Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs) for Fatty Acid Composition in an Interspecific Cross of Oil Palm”, BMC Plant Biol., vol. 9, pp. 114 (2009). |
| Stoneking et al., “Population variation of human mtDNA control region sequences detected by enzymatic amplification and sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes”, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48:370-382, 1991. |
| Walbot, Genomic Sequences Found Using Engineered RescueMu Transpson, National Center for Biotechnology Infomration, Genbank accession BH891314 (2001). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.him.nih/gov/nucgss/222227?report=genbank. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Dec. 12, 2014 for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/047171, 11 pages. |
| Copy of the International Search Report and Written Opinion from PCT/US2013/030803, dated Jun. 14, 2013. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20160376669 A1 | Dec 2016 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61612885 | Mar 2012 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13800652 | Mar 2013 | US |
| Child | 15264344 | US |
