Figures
Abstract
Common bean diversity within and between Mesoamerican and Andean gene pools was compared in 89 landraces from America and 256 landraces from Europe, to elucidate the effects of bottleneck of introduction and selection for adaptation during the expansion of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Europe. Thirteen highly polymorphic nuclear microsatellite markers (nuSSRs) were used to complement chloroplast microsatellite (cpSSRs) and nuclear markers (phaseolin and Pv-shatterproof1) data from previous studies. To verify the extent of the introduction bottleneck, inter-gene pool hybrids were distinguished from “pure” accessions. Hybrids were identified on the basis of recombination of gene pool specific cpSSR, phaseolin and Pv-shatterproof1 markers with a Bayesian assignments based on nuSSRs, and with STRUCTURE admixture analysis. More hybrids were detected than previously, and their frequency was almost four times larger in Europe (40.2%) than in America (12.3%). The genetic bottleneck following the introduction into Europe was not evidenced in the analysis including all the accessions, but it was significant when estimated only with “pure” accessions, and five times larger for Mesoamerican than for Andean germplasm. The extensive inter-gene pool hybridization generated a large amount of genotypic diversity that mitigated the effects of the bottleneck that occurred when common bean was introduced in Europe. The implication for evolution and the advantages for common bean breeding are discussed.
Citation: Gioia T, Logozzo G, Attene G, Bellucci E, Benedettelli S, Negri V, et al. (2013) Evidence for Introduction Bottleneck and Extensive Inter-Gene Pool (Mesoamerica x Andes) Hybridization in the European Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Germplasm. PLoS ONE 8(10): e75974. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075974
Editor: Tongming Yin, Nanjing Forestry University, China
Received: May 24, 2013; Accepted: August 19, 2013; Published: October 1, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Gioia et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This study was supported by the Italian Government (MIUR) grant no. #2002075423, Project COFIN 2002: "Beans in Europe: structure of genetic diversity under the effect of colonization and breeding system". TG was supported by a student research fellowship from the Università degli Studi della Basilicata (Potenza, Italy). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., 2n = 2x = 22) is the most important edible food legume for direct human consumption in Europe and in the world as it represents a valuable source of proteins, vitamins, fibres, and minerals [1]. Genetic and archaeological studies have shown that domestication of P. vulgaris occurred as two distinct events in Mesoamerica and the Andes [2–5] resulting in two highly differentiated gene pools [3,6] that are characterized by geographical and partial reproductive barriers [7,8]. Evidence supporting the divergence of these two major domesticated gene pools was based on morphological characters [3,9,10], agronomic traits [10], seed proteins [11], allozymes [2], and a number of molecular markers, including RFLP [4], RAPD [12], AFLP [13,14], SSRs [15], cpSSRs [16], and DNA sequences [17]. The divergence between the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools has important implications for bean breeding. Despite their partial reproductive isolation [7,8], the two gene pools still belong to the same biological species. Viable and fertile progeny can be obtained by inter-gene pool crosses, and therefore, genes can be transferred between the two pools, although the transfer of quantitative traits appears to be problematic [18].
Common bean was brought to Europe after the first voyages of Columbus (1492) but historical and linguistic sources provide little evidence of the introduction and expansion of common bean in Europe. When phaseolin type is used to trace the origin of accessions to the Middle American or Andean domestication centers, their distribution patterns show that the two American gene pools were introduced into Europe at different times [18–21]: the Mesoamerican probably through Spain and Portugal in 1506 [22], and the Andean after the exploration of Peru by Pizarro in 1528 [23]. Both common bean gene pools spread widely in all parts of Europe with very complex pathways of dissemination that included several introductions from various regions of the Americas, combined with direct exchanges between European and other Mediterranean countries (see Papa et al. [24], for a review). In Europe the frequency of Andean phaseolin types (76%) was higher than Mesoamerican types (24%) [25], as it was confirmed by Lioi [26] (66%) in an analysis of a large collection from Italy, Greece and Cyprus, by Logozzo et al. [27] (76%) in a European core collection, by Rodinõ et al. [28] and Ocampo et al. [29] for Portuguese and Spanish samples, and by others at a regional scale [21,30–33]. During the five centuries since common beans were introduced into Europe, many landraces and varieties evolved under diverse environments and farmer preferences, to provide dry seed or fresh pods [20]. It was expected that introduction from America into Europe might have caused a loss of variation due to the introduction bottleneck and to selection for adaptation to new environments and consumer preferences [34]; but, recent studies using phaseolins, allozymes and morphological data [18,35], ISSRs and SSRs from both the chloroplast and nuclear genomes [16,32,36], have suggested that the reduction of variation might have been less than previously suspected and that hybridization that occurred in Europe between the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools probably had a significant impact on the maintenance of the overall level of genotypic diversity.
Logozzo et al. [27] first noted that European accessions with phaseolin “S” (Mesoamerican) showed a significantly larger seed size than those of the same phaseolin class in America while those with phaseolin “T” and “C” did not, suggesting a different contribution of the two gene pools to the genetic structure of the European germplasm, and the possible contribute of inter-gene pool hybridization. Recently, Angioi et al. [16], combining the information provided by six chloroplast (cpSSR) and two nuclear markers (phaseolin and Pv-shatterproof1) observed that 33.1% of the European bean germplasm was derived from Andean x Mesoamerican hybridization. Using a maximum likelihood approach, they also estimated that 11.2% of the European individuals might be “hidden” hybrids that are observed as “pure”, and thus they predicted that about 44% of the European bean germplasm is derived from inter-gene pool hybridization. Nevertheless, their hypothesis should be supported by using more nuclear data that discriminate between the two gene pools.
In common bean a large number of nuclear microsatellite markers (nuSSRs) have been already developed and mapped [37–42] that show relatively high levels of polymorphism, thus providing an attractive choice for describing population structure. However, to the best of our knowledge, population studies of the European common bean, using nuSSRs, so far have been performed with only a small number of landraces or a small number of samples from a few geographic regions [32,43–45].
The aim of the work was: (i) to study the patterns of diversity for nuSSR markers within a European “core collection” of P. vulgaris L. [27] that included both the Mesoamerican and Andean gene pools, and to compare the results with a representative sample of American landraces of the same gene pools; (ii) to identify the inter-gene pool hybrids combining Bayesian analysis of nuSSRs with gene pool recombination for three markers (cpSSR, phaseolin and Pv-shatterproof1) that are specific for each the two genepools; (iii) to estimate the effects of genetic bottleneck following the introduction into Europe, by distinguishing “pure” and hybrid accessions.
Materials and Methods
Plant material
A total of 345 common bean accessions were studied: 256 landraces from Europe and 89 from the Americas. These genotypes represent most of the germplasm formerly investigated with phaseolin and morphological seed traits [27] and with cpSSRs [16]. The European material represents a large proportion of 300 accessions of a common bean “core collection” [27] that includes all European countries, and was developed using a sampling strategy stratified by the logarithm of frequency of phaseolin types. The “core collection” was validated using seven morphological seed characters. The European accessions were compared with 89 American domesticated common bean entries from Central America and South America that are representative of the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools (Table S1).
In America, the geographic origin of individual accessions is not a reliable indicator of the origin of domestication, because of the exchange between the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools after domestication, and the subsequent dissemination across different regions [6,11]. Gene pool assignment in European germplasm was mostly based on phaseolin seed protein types, with “T” and “C” types belonging to the Andean gene pool and the “S” type belonging to the Mesoamerican gene pool [18,28]. Since recombination events appeared to be frequent, the assignment based on phaseolin type was likely unreliable thus, the gene pool designation was based on the highly reliable STRUCTURE analysis for K = 2 [46]. According to this information, the 256 European accessions were identified as 173 Andean and 83 Mesoamerican, while the 89 American accessions were 43 Andean and 46 Mesoamerican (Table S1).
All the accessions were obtained from the Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Germany; Centro Internacional de Agricoltura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia; Centro per la Salvaguardia delle Risorse Genetiche Vegetali “Pierino Iannelli”, Università della Basilicata (CUB), Italy; the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), USA; the Department of Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali (SAPROV) of the Università Politecnica delle Marche (Univ. P.M.), Italy; the Nordic Gene Bank (NGB), Sweden; Plant Genetic Resources in Czech Republic (Evigez), Czech Republic; and the Department of Plant Science, UC, Davis, USA. A complete list of the accessions studied, along with information on their origins and with assigned gene pool and posterior membership coefficients as determined with STRUCTURE is available in Table S1.
Genomic DNA extraction and genotyping microsatellites
Genomic DNA was extracted from young trifoliate leaves of one individual 10-day-old greenhouse-grown plant per accession using the CTAB method [47] with minor modifications. Twenty nuSSRs from all 11 common bean linkage groups were chosen based on their dispersed map locations [37,40]. All of these were developed from genomic sequences, and were located on the consensus genetic map of P. vulgaris constructed using a RIL population obtained from the cross between the Mesoamerican cultivar BAT93 and the Andean cultivar Jalo EPP558 [37,40]. The primers were initially tested on a sub-sample of 20 accessions. Of the initially tested markers, 13 polymorphic nuSSRs that generated distinct amplification products were used to assay genetic diversity within the whole collection. More information about the nuSSR markers used, including the primer pair sequences and repeat motif can be found in Table 1.
| Linkage Group | Marker | GenBank entry | Reference | Ta (°C) | Expected product size | Primer sequence (5'–3') | Repeat motif | Number of alleles | Gene diversity | PIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BMd45 | AF293023 | Blair et al. 2003 | 47 | 129 | F: GGTTGGGAAGCCTCATACAG | (AG)5 | 3 | 0.491 | 0.373 |
| R: ATCTTCGACCCACCTTGCT | ||||||||||
| 2 | PVcct001 | X79722 | Yu et al. 2000 | 52 | 149 | F: CCAACCACATTCTTCCCTACGTC | (CCT)7 | 3 | 0.275 | 0.243 |
| R: GCGAGGCAGTTATCTTTAGGAGTG | ||||||||||
| 3 | BMd1 | X96999 | Blair et al. 2003 | 52 | 165 | F: CAAATCGCAACACCTCACAA | (AT)9 | 10 | 0.805 | 0.779 |
| R: GTCGGAGCCATCATCTGTTT | ||||||||||
| 4 | PVat003 | X60000 | Yu et al. 2000 | 50 | 163 | F: ACCTAGAGCCTAATCCTTCTGCGT | (AT)4 (T)2 (AT)6 | 3 | 0.536 | 0.430 |
| R: GAATGTGAATATCAGAAAGCAAATGG | ||||||||||
| 4 | PVag004 | X04660 | Yu et al. 2000 | 52 | 201 | F: TTGATGACGTGGATGCATTGC | (AG)8 | 13 | 0.780 | 0.755 |
| R: AAAGGGCTAGGGAGAGTAAGTTGG | ||||||||||
| 5 | PVat006 | X74919 | Yu et al. 2000 | 52 | 132 | F: CCGTTGCCTGTATTTCCCCAT | (AT)5 | 5 | 0.602 | 0.552 |
| R: CGTGTGAAGTCATCTGGAGTGGTC | ||||||||||
| 6 | BMd12 | AZ044945 | Blair et al. 2003 | 47 | 167 | F: CATCAACAAGGACAGCCTCA | (AGC)7 | 2 | 0.414 | 0.328 |
| R: GCAGCTGGCGGGTAAAACAG | ||||||||||
| 7 | PVatcc001 | J01263 | Yu et al. 2000 | 52 | 171 | F: ATGCATGTTCCAACCACCTTCTC | (ATCC)3 (AG)2 (TAC)3 | 3 | 0.051 | 0.050 |
| R: GGAGTGGAACCCTTGCTCTCATC | ||||||||||
| 8 | BMd44 | AZ301573 | Blair et al. 2003 | 47 | 135 | F: GGCAGCTTACTAACCCGAAA | (AG)5 | 2 | 0.499 | 0.374 |
| R: TTCCTTCCCCTTTCTTCTCC | ||||||||||
| 10 | BMd41 | AZ301561 | Blair et al. 2003 | 47 | 250 | F: CAGTAAATATTGGCGTGGATGA | (ATT)9 | 3 | 0.575 | 0.509 |
| R: TGAAAGTGCAGAGTGGTGGA | ||||||||||
| 10 | BMd42 | AZ301511 | Blair et al. 2003 | 47 | 149 | F: TCATAGAAGATTTGTGGAAGCA | (AT)5 | 5 | 0.703 | 0.656 |
| R: TGAGACACGTACGAGGCTGTAT | ||||||||||
| 11 | PVag001 | m75856 | Yu et al. 2000 | 50 | 157 | F: CAATCCTCTCTCTCTCATTTCCAATC | (CT)11 | 3 | 0.641 | 0.565 |
| R: GACCTTGAAGTCGGTGTCGTTT | ||||||||||
| 11 | BMd43 | AZ301513 | Blair et al. 2003 | 47 | 176 | F: CAGCATCAAGAAGACCCAAG | (CCT)5 | 4 | 0.501 | 0.381 |
| R: CAGCACCACTATGGGAGGAC | ||||||||||
| Mean | 4.54 | 0.529 | 0.461 |
Table 1. Primers sequence and characteristics of the 13 nuSSR markers used to study diversity in a germplasm collection of Andean and Mesoamerican common bean from Europe and America.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplifications were performed in a 25 µl reaction volume, containing 25 ng template DNA, 10 pmol of each primer, 20 µM dNTPs, PCR buffer 1X (200 mM Tris–HCl, pH 8.4, 500 mM KCl), 50 mM MgCl2 and 1U Taq polymerase (Invitrogen). The amplifications were carried out with a PerkinElmer GeneAmp 9700 thermocycler (Applied Biosystems), using different annealing temperature conditions depending on primer pair. For PVatcc001, PVcct001, PVag001, PVat003, PVag004, BMd1, and PVat006, amplifications were conducted under the following conditions: 15 min at 95°C; 35 cycles of 10 sec at 92°C, 10 sec at 50-52°C, 2 min at 72°C; 30 sec at 72°C. For the other 6 nuSSR loci (BMd44, BMd43, BMd42, BMd41, BMd12, and BMd45), the PCR cycle consisted of 15 min at 95°C; 35 cycles of 1 min at 92°C, 1 min at 47°C, 2 min at 72°C; 5 min at 72°C. DNA fragments were separated in 6% 8 M denaturing acrylamide:bisacrylamide (19:1) gels run at 70 W for 3 h in a vertical cell (Biorad Laboratories, Milan, Italy), and visualized using the silver staining method [48].
To obtain a better picture of the genetic variation observed in European P. vulgaris, and to verify the ability of different markers to identify putative inter-gene pool hybrids that probably have different degrees of introgression, six cpSSR markers and two unlinked nuclear loci (for phaseolin types and Pv-shatterproof1), available from Angioi et al. [16], were also used. By combining nuSSRs with the haploid cpSSRs, demographic processes acting on different time scales will be captured, because of the different modes of inheritance of nuclear markers, effective population size and mutation rate [49]. Information on typing chloroplast haplotypes, phaseolin type and Pv-shatterproof1 locus are accessible from Angioi et al. [16].
Statistical analysis
For each nuSSR locus, the total number of alleles detected, the gene diversity or unbiased expected heterozygosity (He [50]), and the polymorphism information content (PIC) were calculated using the program Power Marker 3.25 [51].
The genetic diversity within continents (America and Europe), within the two gene pools (Andean and Mesoamerican), and within gene pools within continents (America Andean, America Mesoamerican, Europe Andean, and Europe Mesoamerican) was evaluated in terms of number of alleles per locus (Na), Shannon diversity index (I), and gene diversity or unbiased expected heterozygosity (He [50]). Number of private alleles was also computed using a threshold frequency of 5% to reduce the effects of sampling error [52]. All these indices were calculated using GenAlEx 6 [53]. As the number of alleles in a sample is highly dependent on the sample size, we also computed the allelic richness (Rs) using the generalized rarefaction method as implemented in HP-RARE [54]. HP-RARE uses the rarefaction approach of Kalinowski [55] to trim unequal accession number to the same standardized sample size, a number equal to the smallest across the populations. Relative loss of diversity in terms of alleles (ΔRs) and genetic diversity (ΔHe) was calculated according to Vigouroux et al. [56]. Differences between populations on the gene diversity estimates were assessed for significance using Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test as implemented in the software StatistiXL (http://www.statistixl.com).
To further investigate the genetic relationships between all pairs of accessions, an individual-by-individual (N x N) genetic distance matrix was computed and subsequently used as an input for principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) in the GenAlEx 6 program [53].
Pairwise FST metrics were calculated in GenAlEx 6 to estimate the divergence between groups according to the formula of Weir and Cockerham [57]. The value of FST varies from zero to one; when FST = 0, the groups are identical, while when FST = 1, they are completely differentiated in relation to the fixation of different alleles in each group.
To assess the distribution of genetic variations in the nuSSR dataset, a hierarchical analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) was also performed, using GenAlEx 6 [53]. This analysis allowed the partition of the total nuSSR variation into within and among groups variance components, and provided measures of intergroup genetic distance as a proportion of the total nuSSR variation residing between any two groups (Phi statistics [58]). Genetic variation was partitioned into three levels: between continents (America and Europe), between gene pools (Mesoamerican and Andean) within continent and within gene pool within continent. The significance of the variance components and the differentiation statistic were tested by nonparametric randomization tests using 10,000 permutations.
A Bayesian clustering approach, implemented in STRUCTURE 2.2 [46], was adopted to first assess the number of meaningful populations (K) and second to identify putative inter-gene pool hybrids within our collections, with no “a priori” information other than nuSSR genotype data. The STRUCTURE program was run with populations (K) set from one to ten. Twenty independent simulations were performed for each K setting using the admixture model, with each simulation set to a 5,000 burn-in period and 50,000 Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) repetitions. To determine the optimal number of clusters, STRUCTURE HARVESTER [59], available at http: //taylor0.biology. ucla.edu/struct_harvest/, was used to calculate the ΔK statistical test [60], in combination with the likelihoods (posterior probabilities) of each preset K. Results from simulations with the highest likelihood within each number of different K simulations were chosen to assign accessions to populations. Following the recommendation of Pritchard et al. [46], and previous useful analysis in common bean [15,44], accessions with population membership coefficient lower than 0.8 were identified as putative hybrids. A STRUCTURE graphical bar plot of membership coefficients was generated using Microsoft Excel.
Hybridization between the Mesoamerican and Andean gene pools in Europe and America was also investigated by combining the information provided by chloroplast (cpSSR) and nuclear (phaseolin, Pv-shatterproof1) markers with the Bayesian assignments based on nuSSRs. Genotypes were classified as hybrids if the chloroplast or any of the two nuclear markers did not agree with the STRUCTURE gene pool assignment (i.e. a genotype was attributed to the Andean gene pool but had Mesoamerican “S” phaseolin type). To validate the levels of genetic admixture in the common bean, we then compared our results with hybrid identification according to [16] as recombinant for chloroplast (cpSSR) and nuclear (phaseolin, Pv-shatterproof1) markers. In this approach, if the genetic patterns of variation in chloroplast and nuclear markers resulting from the analysis of recombinant were concordant (i.e. an individual is attributed to the Andean gene pool, or Mesoamerican gene pool by all of these marker types), then the accessions were classified as “pure”. On the contrary, accessions with a mismatch between their chloroplast and nuclear polymorphisms were classified as putative hybrids.
Results
Overall nuSSRs diversity
The amount of polymorphism in terms of mean number of observed alleles, expected heterozygosity, and PIC values for each of the 13 nuSSRs evaluated is reported in Table 1. A total of 59 alleles were observed across the full set of genotypes. The average number of alleles per microsatellite was 4.54, and ranged from 2 alleles (BMd12 and BMd44), to 13 alleles (PVag004). Gene diversity, or expected heterozygosity (He), across all the accessions was 0.529. The PIC values, a reflection of allele diversity and frequency, were 0.461 for all the microsatellites, and ranged from a low 0.050 (PVatcc001) to a high 0.779 (BMd1) (Table 1).
nuSSRs genetic diversity
Our primary objective was to provide an overview of genetic variation detected by nuSSR markers within and amongst the germplasm from Europe and the Americas for both the Andean and the Mesoamerican gene pools. STRUCTURE data analysis for K = 2 was used to identify the two major gene pools in the study sample (Table S1).
The intra-population genetic diversity measures are shown in Table 2a. A significantly higher (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.001) number of total alleles was observed in America (Na = 55), compared to Europe (Na = 48). Similarly, the allelic richness and the Shannon diversity index in America were significantly higher than those observed in Europe (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.001 for both allelic richness and Shannon diversity index, respectively). The relative deficit in allele number ΔRs was 0.16, meaning that European common bean has 16% fewer alleles than American common bean. In contrast with allelic richness, the gene diversity was not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P > 0.05) in America as compared to Europe (He = 0.52 vs. He = 0.51) (Table 2a). This leads to positive but small values of ΔHe (0.02). We also computed the number of private alleles, imposing the allele frequency threshold of 5%, in order to reduce chances of confounding allele classification with sampling error [52]. No private alleles were found in Europe, while America showed four private alleles.
| Gene pool | a) All European & American accessions | b) Only American & European “pure” accessions | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Na | Rs | ΔRs | I | He | ΔHe | n | Na | Rs | ΔRs | I | He | ΔHe | |
| American | ||||||||||||||
| Andean | 43 | 43 | 3.16 | 0.65 | 0.33 | 37 | 41 | 3.01 | 0.65 | 0.33 | ||||
| Mesoamerican | 46 | 36 | 2.61 | 0.56 | 0.31 | 41 | 36 | 2.61 | 0.56 | 0.31 | ||||
| America all | 89 | 55 | 4.07 | 0.97 | 0.52 | 78 | 52 | 3.94 | 0.94 | 0.52 | ||||
| European | ||||||||||||||
| Andean | 173 | 44 | 3.03 | 0.04 | 0.67 | 0.36 | -0.08 | 102 | 41 | 2.87 | 0.05 | 0.61 | 0.31 | 0.06 |
| Mesoamerican | 83 | 42 | 2.99 | -0.13 | 0.56 | 0.29 | 0.06 | 51 | 33 | 2.36 | 0.10 | 0.41 | 0.22 | 0.29 |
| Europe all | 256 | 48 | 3.41 | 0.16 | 0.89 | 0.51 | 0.02 | 153 | 47 | 3.43 | 0.13 | 0.90 | 0.51 | 0.02 |
| Andean all | 216 | 51 | 3.63 | 0.69 | 0.36 | 139 | 44 | 3.29 | 0.64 | 0.33 | ||||
| Mesoamerican all | 129 | 47 | 3.52 | 0.63 | 0.34 | 92 | 41 | 3.03 | 0.57 | 0.31 | ||||
| Total | 345 | 59 | – | 0.93 | 0.52 | 231 | 49 | – | 0.92 | 0.52 | ||||
Table 2. Summary statistics of diversity for 13 nuSSR markers in a) 345 Andean and Mesoamerican accessions of common bean from America and Europe and b) in ‘pure’ (not admixed) Andean and Mesoamerican common bean accessions as identified on the basis of both chloroplast and nuclear markers and by STRUCTURE analysis.
Estimates of the number of total alleles, allelic richness and gene diversities for the American and European common bean within the Andean and the Mesoamerican gene pools are also presented in Table 2a. In the Andean gene pool, America displayed a significantly higher allelic richness per locus (Rs = 3.16) than Europe (Rs = 3.03) (ΔRs = 0.04). In contrast, the number of alleles, the Shannon diversity index and gene diversity were not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P > 0.05) in America (Na = 43, I = 0.65, He = 0.33) as compared to Europe (Na = 44, I = 0.67, He = 0.36) (ΔHe = -0.08) (Table 2a). Only 1 and 4 private alleles were found in the American and European Andean populations, respectively.
In the Mesoamerican gene pool, the number of alleles and the allelic richness per locus were slightly higher in Europe than in America (Table 2a). Therefore, the relative deficit in allele number ΔRs was negative (ΔRs = -0.13). In contrast, with allelic richness, the gene diversities was slightly higher but not significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P > 0.05) in America than in Europe (He = 0.31 vs. He = 0.29). This leads to positive but small value of ΔHe (0.04) (Table 2a).
nuSSRs genetic relationships within and between Europe and America
A visual representation of genetic relationships between common bean populations based on the principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) is reported in Figure 1. The first three principal coordinates accounted for 81.1% of the total variance detected, comprising 60.5% the first (PC1), 11.6% the second (PC2) and 9.0% the third (PC3) principal coordinate. In the scatter diagram using the first two components, the samples are color-coded according to STRUCTURE assignment. The Andean and the Mesoamerican gene pools are clearly distinct along the first axis (PC1). Furthermore, the separation between American and European accessions was stronger within the Mesoamerican than within the Andean gene pool cluster. Based on the placement of accessions along the first PCoA, a number of European accessions map in between the two major Andean and Mesoamerican groups, possibly showing inter-gene pool genetic admixture.
The samples are color coded according to their gene pool and the continent of origin as identified by Bayesian STRUCTURE analysis.
nuSSRs genetic differentiation between Europe and America
Overall, the differentiation between continents (America vs. Europe) based on FST was very low, but significant (FST = 0.049; P < 0.001) (Table 3a). As expected, a high significant genetic differentiation was detected between the Andean and the Mesoamerican gene pools (FST = 0.520; P < 0.001). The two gene pools also showed high divergence within each continent, with highly significant (P < 0.001) FST values in America (FST = 0.547) and Europe (FST = 0.540). The degree of differentiation between America and Europe was moderate for the Mesoamerican gene pool (FST = 0.186) and very small for the Andean gene pool (FST = 0.026).
| Gene pool | Differentiation level | SSR mean FST | |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) All accessions | b) Only “Pure” accessions | ||
| Overall | American vs. European | 0.049*** | 0.052*** |
| Overall gene pools | Andean vs. Mesoamerican | 0.520*** | 0.589*** |
| American | Andean America vs. Mesoamerican America | 0.547*** | 0.554*** |
| European | Andean Europe vs. Mesoamerican Europe | 0.540*** | 0.654*** |
| Andean | Andean America vs. Andean Europe | 0.026*** | 0.033*** |
| Mesoamerican | Mesoamerican America vs. Mesoamerican Europe | 0.186*** | 0.276*** |
Table 3. FST-based genetic differentiation for 13 nuSSR markers in a) 345 Andean and Mesoamerican accessions of common bean from America and Europe and b) in ‘pure’ (not admixed) Andean and Mesoamerican common bean accessions as identified on the basis of both chloroplast and nuclear markers and by STRUCTURE analysis.
The AMOVA results showed that variation within gene pool within continent accounted for most (54%) of the genetic variance at the nuSSR loci (Table 4), and variance components between gene pools accounted for 46% of the total genetic variance (P<0.0001). Variance component between continents (America vs. Europe) was not significant.
| Source of variation | df | Sum of squares | Variance components | Percentage of totalvariance | SSR - ϕ PT | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between continents (America vs. Europe) | 1 | 104.81 | 0.00 | 0 | -0.333 | n.s. |
| Between gene pools (Andean and Mesoamerican) within continent | 2 | 1644.68 | 10.39 | 54 | 0.542 | <0.0001 |
| Among accessions within gene pool within continent | 341 | 2994.18 | 8.78 | 46 | 0.389 | <0.0001 |
| Total | 344 | 4743.66 |
Table 4. Hierarchical analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) for 13 nuSSR markers in 345 Andean and Mesoamerican accessions of common bean from America and Europe.
Analysis of the genetic structure and admixture detection
Bayesian clustering of the information from the thirteen nuSSRs loci was used to identify distinct genetic populations, assign individuals to populations, and identify admixed individuals. The Evanno et al. [60] Delta K test suggested that our sample was made up of two main genetic groups (K = 2); cluster 1 included 216 accessions, while cluster 2 included 129 accessions. A bar graph of poster membership probabilities showed the two well-separated subgroups (Figure 2). A first inspection of the composition of the two clusters revealed a general correspondence with the gene pool of origin (Andean vs. Mesoamerican) based on cpSSR, phaseolin, and Pv-shatterproof1 data. Indeed, cluster 1 included 188 accessions, with Andean cpSSR alleles, while cluster 2 included 105 accessions, with Mesoamerican cpSSR alleles (Table 5). For phaseolin marker, cluster 1 contained 203 accessions with Andean “T” and “C” phaseolin type (Table 5), while cluster 2 included 115 accessions with Mesoamerican “S” phaseolin type. For Pv-shatterproof1 markers, cluster 1 contained 157 accessions with Andean alleles (Table 5), while cluster 2 included 120 accessions with Mesoamerican alleles (Table 5).
Each accession is represented by a vertical histogram with two colors segments that represent the individual’s membership fraction in two clusters. The symbols under individual accessions indicate that the cpSSR haplotype (star) and/or Pv-shatterproof1 allele (circle) and/or the Phaseolin type (square) are not in agreement with the Bayesian assignment to the gene pools (Andean vs. Mesoamerican) thus the accession is considered of hybrid origin.
| Type | All (n = 345) | America (n = 89) | Europe (n = 256) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marker | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | |
| (Andean) | (Meso) | (Andean) | (Meso) | (Andean) | (Meso) | ||
| CpSSR | Andean | 188 | 24 | 40 | 1 | 148 | 23 |
| Mesoamerican | 28 | 105 | 3 | 45 | 25 | 60 | |
| Phaseolin | "T" type | 93 | 6 | 15 | 2 | 78 | 4 |
| "C" type | 110 | 8 | 26 | 1 | 84 | 7 | |
| "S" type | 10 | 115 | 0 | 43 | 10 | 72 | |
| Not assigned | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Pv-shatterproof1 | Andean | 157 | 3 | 39 | 2 | 118 | 1 |
| Mesoamerican | 28 | 120 | 3 | 44 | 25 | 76 | |
| Not assigned | 31 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 30 | 6 | |
| Total | 216 | 129 | 43 | 46 | 173 | 83 | |
| Total hybrids | 56 | 34 | 5 | 5 | 51 | 29 | |
Table 5. CpSSR haplotype, phaseolin type and Pv-shatterproof1 allele assignment to the two nuSSR clusters (Cluster 1 and 2) identified by STRUCTURE analysis in 345 American and European accessions of the common bean germplasm.
Similarly to AMOVA and FST, the Bayesian model-based cluster analysis at K = 2 failed to identify distinct differentiation between European and American accessions. Even when the K settings were increased beyond two population clusters, the accessions were divided into subpopulations based on gene pools of origin (data not shown).
Identification of inter-gene pool hybrids
First, inter-gene pools hybrid genotypes were identified as those whose assignment based on cpSSR and/or phaseolin type and/or Pv-shatterproof1 did not agree with the Andean vs. Mesoamerican Bayesian assignment based on 13 nuSSRs (i.e. genotype assigned by STRUCTURE to Andean gene pool but with Mesoamerica “S” phaseolin type).
As it is shown from the results of the STRUCTURE analysis (Figure 2) each accession is represented by a vertical histogram with two colors segments that represent the individual’s membership fraction in two clusters. The symbols under individual accessions indicate that the cpSSR haplotype (star) and/or the Phaseolin type (circle) and/or Pv-shatterproof1 allele (square) are not in agreement with the Bayesian assignment to the gene pools (Andean vs. Mesoamerican) thus the accession is considered of hybrid origin.
In cluster 1 (Andean) 28 accessions (13.0%) showed Mesoamerican cpSSRs alleles, 10 accessions (4.6%) Mesoamerican “S” phaseolin type and 28 accessions (13.0%) Mesoamerican Pv-shatterproof1 alleles (Figure 2). In cluster 2 (Mesoamerican) 24 accessions (11.1%) showed Andean cpSSRs alleles, 14 accessions (10.8%) Andean “T” or “C” phaseolin and 3 accessions (2.3%) Andean Pv-shatterproof1 allele (Figure 2). Overall, in the European germplasm cpSSRs introgression (18.7%) was almost 4.1-fold higher than in the Americas (4.5%), phaseolin introgression (8.2%) was almost 2.5-fold higher than in the Americas (3.4%), and Pv-shatterproof1 marker (10.2%) was almost 1.8-fold higher than that seen in the Americas (5.6%). Finally, using this approach, 90 out of 345 (26.1%) genotypes were identified that showed inter-gene pool admixture for at least one marker (cpSSR, phaseolin and/or Pv-shatterproof1) (Table 5).
Second, an interesting outcome from the model approach implemented in STRUCTURE software was also used: the admixture analysis interpreted based on the proportion of the genome of an individual originating from the different inferred clusters (genetic background matrix). We assumed that a genotype was only exclusively assigned to a particular genetic cluster if the population membership coefficient was higher than 0.80 (i.e. q ≥ 0.80); otherwise it was assumed to be jointly assigned to two clusters, probably due to admixture. Using this arbitrary threshold, 290 accessions out of 345 (84.1%) could be clearly divided into two distinct groups, while the other 55 accessions (15.9%) formed a mixed group (Figure 2). Admixture analyses of individual genotypes at the 0.8 cutoff identified 42 (19.4%) individuals that showed signals of hybridization (i.e. individuals with partial assignment to both clusters) among the Andean gene pool, and 13 (10.1%) among the Mesoamerican gene pool (Figure 2) (Table S1). Europe showed a higher proportion of putative hybrid individuals (n = 52, 20.3%) compared to the Americas (n = 3, 3.4%).
It was also observed that 31 out of 55 admixed genotypes had been already classified as hybrids because of mismatch of at least one of the three gene pool specific markers and the STRUCTURE assignment (Figure 2), while 24 new putative hybrid genotypes were detected only with the admixture analysis of nuSSRs. Thus, the total number of hybrids (n = 90) already identified should be increased by 24 putative hybrids that were identify with the Bayesian approach (Table S1).
Among the 256 European accessions, 153 accessions that were univocally attributed either to the Andean or to the Mesoamerican gene pool by all the three markers used and by the admixture analysis of simulated hybridization of STRUCTURE, were classified as “pure” (not hybrid); 103 accessions (69 Andean and 34 Mesoamerican) that showed mismatch between the chloroplast and the nuclear data were classified as putative hybrids. Thus, in Europe, the overall frequency of accessions derived from hybridization between the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools was 40.2% (n = 103), 3.3 fold higher to that observed in the Americas (12.3%) (n = 11). Furthermore, in Europe, the proportion of hybrid individuals identified in the Andean (27.7%) was much higher than in the Mesoamerican (12.5%) group supporting the hypothesis of a preferred gene flow.
To further confirm inter gene pool hybridization, according to a previous study [16] we did calculate the frequency of recombinants in a sub-set of 220 European common beans, for which all the markers types (cpSSRs, phaseolin, Pv-shatterproof1) were available. 72 (32.7%) European genotypes that did not show for all three characters alleles from the same gene pool were considered hybrids. Supporting our marker-Bayesian combined hybrid detection approach, within the same sub-set of 220 European accessions previously studied, 72 accessions out of 74 (45 Andean and 29 Mesoamerican) were also identified as hybrids because they were Andean x Mesoamerican recombinants for three marker types (cpSSRs, phaseolin, Pv-shatterproof1) [16]. The remaining two did show correspondence for all three markers but were classified in a not matching group by STRUCTURE analysis and also classified as admixed.
In addition, combining hybrids identified by nuSSR admixture analysis of simulated hybridization of STRUCTURE (n= 43), we were able to identify more hybrid accessions that were observed as merely “pure” by the cpSSR analysis of Angioi et al. (2010). Indeed, 27 out of the 74 (45 Andean and 29 Mesoamerican) European accessions identified as putative hybrids, were also confirmed as hybrids by the admixed analysis of STRUCTURE using the earlier mentioned q threshold values, while 16 that were classified as “pure” (14 Andean, and 2 Mesoamerican) by marker recombination analysis were recognized as hybrids by nuSSR admixture analysis of simulated hybridization of STRUCTURE. Thus, in this subset of European germplasm the hybrid accessions were in total 90, more than previously detected.
Finally, as far as geographic distribution is concerned, inter-gene pool hybrid accessions were detected all over Europe, with higher frequencies in Central and Eastern Europe and lower frequencies in Spain and Italy (Table S1).
Analysis of genetic diversity for “pure” accessions
To verify the effect of the presence of the hybrid accessions on the genetic structure of the European gene pools, 114 accessions out of 345 that were identified as inter-gene pool hybrid were discarded and the genetic diversity analyses were conducted using only the 231 “pure” accessions previously identified with the information provided by both chloroplast and nuclear markers and by STRUCTURE analysis. The summary statistics for the “pure” accessions were estimated (Table 2b) and compared with those obtained for the whole sample (Table 2a). When the putative hybrid accessions were excluded, and only the “pure” accessions were analyzed, the overall variation between the two continents for all calculated statistics remained substantially unchanged (no significant Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P >0.001 between whole sample and “pure” accessions). In contrast, differences between gene pools (Andean vs. Mesoamerican) within continent were more clear when only “pure” accessions were considered. Indeed, the relative deficit of allelic richness and gene diversity in Europe vs. America, calculated with the method defined by Vigouroux et al. [56], was always positive (Table 2b), with the Mesoamerican gene pool showing a five times larger loss of diversity (ΔHe = 0.29) compared to the Andean gene pool (ΔHe = 0.06). This shows that a genetic bottleneck did actually occur during common bean introduction in Europe and that it is made difficult to detect because of extensive inter-gene pool hybridization.
The FST-based genetic differentiations between all the groups using only “pure” accessions are also shown in Table 3b. Excluding the putative hybrid accessions, the pairwise FST estimates showed, as expected, higher significant genetic differentiation between all the groups, supporting the genetic diversity data.
Discussion
In this study diversity of the common bean within and between Mesoamerican and Andean gene pools was compared in landraces from America and from Europe, to elucidate the effects of bottleneck caused by its introduction into Europe, and of selection for adaptation during the subsequent spread of the common bean over the whole of Europe. The information obtained using nuSSR markers, along with phaseolin, cpSSR and Pv-shatterproof1 locus polymorphism data available from previous studies [16,27], allowed the following conclusion.
First, the nuSSR results confirmed the genetic structure of the European common bean germplasm, and specifically that both the Andean and the Mesoamerican gene pools are present in Europe, as described earlier by various authors using different markers [16,27]. The separation of European common bean landraces into the two recognized gene pools was confirmed in this study by PCoA, where the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools are clearly distinct along the first axis (PC1), and by STRUCTURE analysis, which revealed that 216 landraces (62.6%) were present in group 1, and 129 (37.4%) in group 2, recognized respectively as the Andean group and the Mesoamerican group.
Second, the overall genetic diversity (He) was 0.529, indicating that the common bean landraces used in this study displayed a substantial genetic diversity. Since estimates of genetic diversity are not affected by differences in sample size, direct comparison between different studies that also include different accessions are possible. Our findings were in accordance with the results of an earlier study on nuSSRs diversity in the common bean (He=0.527) [61], but larger than estimates based on cpSSRs (He=0.45) [16]. These results can be explained by considering the contrasted patterns of inheritance and the different ploidy level of nuclear and chloroplast markers [62].
Third, the amount of genetic diversity was not different between America (He = 0.52) and Europe (He = 0.51), as was also observed for cpSSR markers [16] (America He = 0.46 and Europe He = 0.45), apparently in contrast with the hypothesis of significant bottleneck [18]. But, in disagreement what was observed for cpSSRs, where diversity within gene pool in America (Andean He = 0.32 and Mesoamerican He = 0.34) was almost the same as in Europe (Andean He = 0.36 and Mesoamerican He = 0.34) [16], nuSSRs showed similar values in America (Andean He = 0.33 and Mesoamerican He = 0.31), but much larger values in Europe (Andean He = 0.36 and Mesoamerican He = 0.29). Thus, the analysis of the overall genetic diversity not only supported the hypothesis of an overall not significant bottleneck both for nuSSRs and cpSSRs but surprisingly, when the two gene pools were analyzed separately, nuSSRs actually showed a significant increase of diversity in Europe.
Fourth, the genetic differentiation between continents was low for both nuSSRs (FST = 0.049; P < 0.001) and cpSSRs (FST = 0.024; P < 0.001), with nuSSRs FST two times larger than cpSSR FST. One possible interpretation for this observation has been proposed by Petit et al. [63]: cpSSR is effectively haploid, and its effective population size is smaller than the one for nuclear gene. Hence, FST values at cpSSR markers will reach equilibrium faster than FST values at nuclear genes, resulting in transient situations where FST of maternally inherited markers is lower than FST of nuclear gene.
Fifth, to estimate the amount of hybridization that occurred in Europe between the two common bean gene pools, the analysis of recombinant frequency based on cpSSRs, phaseolin, and Pv-shatterproof1 vs. nuSSRs STRUCTURE assignment, and the admixture analysis of simulated hybridization, were combined to distinguish between “pure” and hybrid genotypes. Our results clearly demonstrate the presence of a larger percentage of intermediate genotypes (hybrids) in Europe (40.2%) than in the Americas (12.3%), emphasizing the power of this approach.
Using merely the Bayesian assignments based on nuSSRs, we could confirm only 25 (34.7%) of the European hybrid genotypes previously identified by [16], whereas combining the previously used marker systems (cpSSR, phaseolin, and Pv-shatterproof1) with the nuSSR data, we were able to identify a number of intermediate genotypes very close to what was previously only estimated by [16]. Combining the nuclear SSRs, which are more polymorphic and bi-parentally inherited, with the haploid cpSSRs, which are non-recombinant and usually maternally inherited, permits access to different parts of the history of populations: nuclear SSRs are suitable for studying recent and local evolutionary processes, while cpSSRs are effective indicators of population subdivision and differentiation for tracing ancient divergences [64]. The use of only nuSSR data is more likely to underestimate genetic admixture, because introgressed markers may be counted as part of the normal gene pool of either group. Thus, the estimation of the actual rate of hybridization proved to depend highly on the markers used. For instance, in this study, when all the available information was used, 103 inter-gene pool hybrid genotypes (40.2%) were detected in the European core collection, while the number of hybrids detected using each marker or analysis separately was: a) 21 using only phaseolin (8.2%); b) 26 based on Pv-shatterproof1 analysis (10.1%); c) 48 based only on cpSSRs (18.7%); and d) 52 based on STRUCTURE analysis (20.3%). The estimated number of hybrids thus ranges from 8.2% to 40.2%, which is a five-fold difference between estimates, depending on markers and/or method used. Thus, the disagreements among markers or method observed in our data confirm the necessity of multi-marker approaches to the study of hybridization.
Sixth, compared to America, where the frequency of inter-gene pool hybrids is 12.3%, almost all of which reside within the Mesoamerican germplasm, in the European common bean germplasm, 40.2% of the accessions show evidence of introgression, and the frequency is higher in the Andean gene pool (27.7%) than in the Mesoamerican gene pool (about 12.5%) supporting the hypothesis of a preferred gene flow.
Hybridization among gene pools has also been described in common bean germplasm from various secondary centers of diversity. In Brazil, comparing nuSSRs to phaseolins, Burle et al. [65] found very limited introgression (4%) in spite of the widespread sympatry between the two gene pools. In Ethiopia and Rwanda [66,67], only 1 and 10% of hybrids, respectively, were found (considered as individuals intermediate among gene pools in the neighbor-joining tree), while, in a collection of Chinese landraces, Zhang et al. [68] found 5% hybrids, and noted that average seed weight of the Andean types was lower than that of the American Andean beans, with the opposite for the Mesoamerican Chinese bean.
Seventh, hybridization between the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools in Europe has had a significant impact on the maintenance of the overall amount of genotypic diversity. This view was largely supported in the present study by findings that “pure” European common bean landraces harbored lower genetic diversity (in terms of total number of alleles, allelic richness, Shannon’s information index, and gene diversity) than American common bean. Thus introgression appears to be responsible for much of the genetic diversity observed in the European germplasm. When only the “pure” accessions were considered, the reduction of genetic variation following the introduction of common bean into Europe was statistically significant as a whole, and also for the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools when analyzed separately.
Indeed, our results indicate that, when the two “pure” gene pools were considered as a whole, the genetic bottleneck that followed the introduction of common bean into Europe was 16% (ΔRs) in terms of relative loss of alleles and 2% (ΔHe) for reduction of genetic diversity, whereas, when the two “pure” gene pools were considered separately, the deficit in the European germplasm was 5% (ΔRs) and 6% (ΔHe) for the Andean gene pool, and 10% (ΔRs) and 29% (ΔHe) for the Mesoamerican. Therefore, loss of diversity in Europe was higher for the Mesoamerican gene pool than for the Andean gene pool. This suggests that not all the variation available in America for Mesoamerican common bean was introduced into Europe or, if introduced, was selected against during the adaptation to the new environmental conditions. This result is in agreement with what was suggested by Logozzo et al. [27] for a European “core collection”, where the mean seed size and weight was larger in Europe than in America for the Mesoamerican germplasm.
The implication of the foregoing is that introgression among gene pools did influence the evolution of common bean of the European gene pool. This is very important since breeders and geneticists always search for genotype with unique genes or gene combinations. Unfortunately, despite the fact that inter-gene pool crosses could provide increased level of genetic variation, when American germplasm was used, incompatibility caused by lethal genes was observed [2] and recombinants have proven not successful, phenotypic abnormalities and poor performance in the progeny were observed [7] perhaps due to the disruption of co-adapted sets of genes. The high frequency of European inter-gene pool hybrids demonstrates that introduction in Europe was an exceptional evolutive opportunity for common bean, where a large number of landraces were differentiated to adapt to a highly variable environment and to fulfill the highly diversified needs of European farmers.
Along with possible proximity within the farm field that favored the high frequency of inter-gene pool crossing, the partial reproductive isolation that was present in the American germplasm might have been mitigated by the significantly large introduction bottleneck for Mesoamerican germplasm. This possibly suggests that some American races were less represented in the germplasm introduced in Europe. The European germplasm is therefore more complex than previously thought, and contains additional molecular diversity that remains to be explored for genetic and breeding proposes.
Conclusions
The genetic data presented here confirmed the occurrence of extensive hybridization between the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools in Europe. Combining two different approaches we have shown at the molecular level, that 103 common bean genotypes from different European germplasm accessions contain detectable admixture. The frequent inter-gene pool hybridization in the European common bean, as a result of adaptation to the new environmental conditions, might have mitigated the effects of the bottleneck of introduction in Europe that was significant and affected the Mesoamerican gene pool five times more than the Andean. Furthermore, introgressions between the gene pools might have created new interesting combinations of traits, such as higher adaptability to environmental stresses, diseases or insects [69], and might have helped to break the negative associations between seed weight and yield potential [70]. For these reasons, the European germplasm of the common bean appears to be of great importance for breeding, which often aims to recombine Andean and Mesoamerican traits, as it may circumvent some of the difficulties in transferring traits between the two gene pools.
Supporting Information
Table S1.
Accessions used in this study and Structure membership coefficient for K=2.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075974.s001
(XLSX)
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: GA VN SB RP PSZ. Performed the experiments: GL EB SB. Analyzed the data: TG GL PSZ. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: GA VN SB RP PSZ. Wrote the manuscript: TG.
References
- 1.
Singh SP (1999) Common Bean Improvement in the Twenty-First Century. Kluwer: Dordrech.
- 2. Koenig R, Gepts P (1989) Allozyme diversity in wild Phaseolus vulgaris: further evidence for two major centers of diversity. Theor Appl Genet 78: 809-817.
- 3.
Gepts P, Debouck DG (1991) Origin, domestication, and evolution of the common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. In: O. VoysestA. van Schoonhoven. Common beans: research for crop improvement. CAB, Oxon: UK. pp. 7-53.
- 4. Velasquez VL, Gepts P (1994) RFLP diversity of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in its centres of origin. Genome 37: 256-263. doi:https://doi.org/10.1139/g94-036. PubMed: 18470075.
- 5. Tohme J, Gonzalez DO, Beebe S, Duque MC (1996) AFLP analysis of gene pools of a wild bean core collection. Crop Sci 36: 1375-1384. doi:https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1996.0011183X003600050048x.
- 6. Gepts P (1998) Origin and evolution of common bean: past events and recent trends. Hortscience 33: 1124-1130.
- 7. Gepts P, Bliss FA (1985) F1 hybrid weakness in the common bean: differential geographic origin suggests two gene pools in cultivated bean germplasm. J Hered 76: 447-450.
- 8. Koinange EMK, Gepts P (1992) Hybrid weakness in wild Phaseolus vulgaris L. J Hered 83: 135-139.
- 9.
Delgado-Salinas A, Bonet A, Gepts P (1988) The wild relative of Phaseolus vulgaris in Middle America. In: P. Gepts. Genetic resources of Phaseolus beans. Kluwer: Dordrecht. pp. 163-184.
- 10. Singh SP, Gutiérrez JA, Molina A, Urrea C, Gepts P (1991) Genetic diversity in cultivated common bean. II. Markerbased analysis of morphological and agronomic traits. Crop Sci 31: 23-29. doi:https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100010005x.
- 11. Gepts P, Osborn TC, Rashka K, Bliss FA (1986) Phaseolin protein variability in wild forms and landraces of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris): evidence for multiple centers of domestication. Econ Bot 40: 451-468. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02859659.
- 12. Freyre R, Ríos R, Guzmán L, Debouck D, Gepts P (1996) Ecogeographic distribution of Phaseolus spp. (Fabaceae) in Bolivia. Econ Bot 50: 195-215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02861451.
- 13. Papa R, Gepts P (2003) Asymmetry of gene flow and differential geographical structure of molecular diversity in wild and domesticated common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Mesoamerica. Theor Appl Genet 106: 239-250.
- 14. Rossi M, Bitocchi E, Bellucci E, Nanni L, Rau D et al. (2009) Linkage disequilibrium and population structure in wild and domesticated populations of Phaseolus vulgarisL. Evol appl.. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2009.00082.x.
- 15. Kwak M, Gepts P (2009) Structure of genetic diversity in the two major gene pools of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., Fabaceae). Theor Appl Genet 118: 979-992..
- 16. Angioi SA, Rau D, Attene G, Nanni L, Bellucci E et al. (2010) Beans in Europe: origin and structure of the European landraces of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Theor Appl Genet 121: 829-843. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-010-1353-2. PubMed: 20490446.
- 17. Bitocchi E, Bellucci E, Giardini A, Rau D, Rodriguez M et al. (2013) Molecular analysis of the parallel domestication of the common bean in Mesoamerica and the Andes. New Phytol 197: 300-313. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04377.x. PubMed: 23126683.
- 18. Santalla M, Rodiño A, de Ron AM (2002) Allozyme evidence supporting southwestern Europe as a secondary center of genetic diversity for common bean. Theor Appl Genet 104: 934-944. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-001-0844-6. PubMed: 12582598.
- 19.
Gepts P (1988) A Middle American and an Andean common bean gene pool. In: P. Gepts. Genetic resources of Phaseolus beans. Kluwer: Dordrecht. pp. 375-407.
- 20. Zeven AC (1997) The introduction of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) into Western Europe and the phenotypic variation of dry beans collected in the Netherlands in 1946. Euphytica 94: 319-328. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002940220241.
- 21. Escribano MR, Santalla M, Casquero PM, de Ron AM (1998) Patterns of genetic diversity in landraces of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Galicia. Plant breed 117: 49-56.
- 22.
Ortwin-Sauer C (1966) The early Spanish man. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp 51-298.
- 23. Berglund-Brücher B, Brücher H (1976) The South American wild bean (Phaseolus aborigenus Burk.) as an ancestor of the common bean. Econ Bot 30: 257-272. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02909734.
- 24.
Papa R, Nanni L, Sicard D, Rau D, Attene G (2006) The evolution of genetic diversity in Phaseolus vulgaris L. In: TJ MotleyN. ZeregaH. Cross. New approaches to the origins, evolution and conservation of crops. Darwin’s harvest. USA: Columbia University Press.
- 25. Gepts P, Bliss FA (1988) Dissemination pathways of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, Fabaceae) deduced from phaseolin electrophoretic variability. II Europe and Africa. Econ Bot 42: 86-104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02859038.
- 26. Lioi L (1989) Geographical variation of phaseolin patterns in an old world collection of Phaseolus vulgaris. Seed Sci Technol 17: 317-324.
- 27. Logozzo G, Donnoli R, Macaluso L, Papa R, Knüpffer H, Zeuli Spagnoletti P (2007) Analysis of the contribution of Mesoamerican and Andean gene pools to European common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) germplasm and strategies to establish a core collection. Genet Resour Crop Evol 54: 1763-1779. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-006-9185-2.
- 28. Rodiño AP, Santalla M, De Ron AM, Singh SP (2003) A core collection of common bean from the Iberian peninsula. Euphytica 131: 165-175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023973309788.
- 29. Ocampo CH, Martin JP, Ortiz JM, Sanchez-Yelamo MD, Toro O, Debouck D (2002) Possible origins of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivated in Spain in relation to the wild genetic pools of Americas. Annu Rep Bean Improv Coop 45: 236-237.
- 30. Limongelli G, Laghetti G, Perrino PPiergiovanni AR (1996) Variation of seed storage protein in landraces of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Basilicata, southern Italy. Plant Breed 119: 513-516. PubMed: 9064990.
- 31. Piergiovanni AR, Cerbino D, Brandi M (2000) The common bean populations from Basilicata (southern Italy). An evaluation of their variation. Genet Resour Crop Evol 47: 489-495. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008719105895.
- 32. Sicard D, Nanni L, Porfiri O, Bulfon D, Papa R (2005) Genetic diversity of Phaseolus vulgaris L and P. coccineusL. landraces in central Italy. Plant Breed 124: 464-472. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2005.01137.x.
- 33. Angioi SA, Rau D, Rodriguez M, Logozzo G, Desiderio F et al. (2009) Nuclear and chloroplast microsatellite diversity in Phaseolus vulgaris L. from Sardinia (Italy). Mol Breed 23: 413-429. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-008-9245-8.
- 34.
Gepts P (1999) Development of an integrated genetic linkage map in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and its use. In: S. Singh. Bean breeding for the 21st century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishing House. pp. 389-91. pp.
- 35. Rodiño AP, Santalla M, González AM, De Ron AM, Singh SP (2006) Novel genetic variation in common bean from the Iberian peninsula. Crop Sci 46: 2540-2546. doi:https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.02.0104.
- 36.
Masi P (2001) Analysis of the genetic structure of Phaseolus vulgaris L. landraces in Basilicata, Italy. PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy.
- 37. Yu K, Park J, Poysa V, Gepts P (2000) Integration of Simple Sequence Repeats (SSR) markers into a molecular linkage map of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). J Hered 91: 429-434. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/91.6.429. PubMed: 11218079.
- 38. Gaitàn-Solìs E, Duque MC, Edwards KJ, Tohme J (2002) Microsatellite repeats in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris): isolation, characterization, and cross-species amplification in Phaseolus ssp. Crop Sci 42: 2128-2136. doi:https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.2128.
- 39. Métais I, Hamon B, Jalouzot R, Peltier D (2002) Structure and level of genetic diversity in various bean types evidenced with microsatellite markers isolated from a genomic enriched library. Theor Appl Genet 104: 1346-1352. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-002-0901-9. PubMed: 12582590.
- 40. Blair MW, Pedraza F, Buendia HF, Gaitàn-Solìs E, Beebe SE et al. (2003) Development of a genome-wide anchored microsatellite map for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Theor Appl Genet 107: 1362-1374.
- 41. Yaish MWF, Perez de la Vega M (2003) Isolation of (GA)n microsatellite sequences and description of a predicted MADS-box sequence isolated from common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Genet Mol Biol 26: 337-342.
- 42. Guerra-Sanz JM (2004) New SSR markers of Phaseolus vulgaris from sequence databases. Plant Breed 123: 87-89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0179-9541.2003.00929.x.
- 43. Masi P, Logozzo G, Donini P, Spagnoletti Zeuli PL (2009) Analysis of genetic structure in widely distributed common bean landraces with different plant growth habits using SSR and ALFP markers. Crop Sci 49: 187-199. doi:https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.05.0265.
- 44. Santalla M, De Ron AM, De La Fuente M (2010) Integration of genome and phenotypic scanning gives evidence of genetic structure in Mesoamerican common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) landraces from the southwest of Europe. Theor Appl Genet 120: 1635-1651. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-010-1282-0. PubMed: 20143041.
- 45. Mercati F, Leone M, Lupini A, Sorgonà A, Bacchi M et al. (2012) Genetic diversity and population structure of a common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) collection from Calabria (Italy). Genet Resour Crop Evol. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-012-9879-6.
- 46. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155: 945-959. PubMed: 10835412.
- 47. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure from small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem Bull 19: 11-15.
- 48. Bassam BJ, Caetano-Anollés G, Gresshoff PM (1991) Fast and sensitive silver staining of DNA in polyacrylamide gels. Anal Biochem 196: 80-83. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(91). PubMed: 1716076 90120-I.
- 49. Semerikov VL, Lascoux M (2003) Nuclear and cytoplasmic variation within and between Eurasian Larix (Pinaceae) species. Am J Bot 90: 1113-1123. doi:https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.90.8.1113. PubMed: 21659211.
- 50. Nei M (1978) Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89: 583-590. PubMed: 17248844.
- 51. Liu KJ, Muse SV (2005) PowerMarker: an integrated analysis environment for genetic marker analysis. Bioinformatics 21: 2128-2129. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti282. PubMed: 15705655.
- 52.
Mohammad A, Al-Rabab . AH, Williams CG (2004) An ancient bottleneck in the Lost Pines of central Texas. Mol Ecol 13: 1075-1084.
- 53. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6: 288-295. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005.01155.x.
- 54. Kalinowski ST (2005) HP-RARE 1.0: a computer program for performing rarefaction on measures of allelic richness. Mol Ecol 5: 187-189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00845.x.
- 55. Kalinowski ST (2004) Counting alleles with rarefaction: private alleles and hierarchical sampling designs. Conserv Genet 5: 539-543. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COGE.0000041021.91777.1a.
- 56. Vigouroux Y, McMullen M, Hittinger CT, Houchins K, Schulz L et al. (2002) Identifying genes of agronomic importance in maize by screening microsatellites for evidence of selection during domestication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 9650-9655. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.112324299. PubMed: 12105270.
- 57. Weir B, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolutiom 38: 1358-1370. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2408641.
- 58. Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: Application to human mitocondrial DNA restriction sites. Genetics 131: 479-491. PubMed: 1644282.
- 59. Earl DA, von Holdt BM (2011) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour, 3: 429–431. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7.
- 60. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software SRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14: 2611-2620. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x. PubMed: 15969739.
- 61. Blair MW, Giraldo MC, Buendia HF, Tovar E, Duque MC et al. (2006) Microsatellite marker diversity in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Theor Appl Genet 113: 100-109.
- 62. Petit RJ, Duminil J, Fineschi S, Hampe A, Salvini D et al. (2005) Comparative organization of chloroplast, mitochondrial and nuclear diversity in plant populations. Mol Ecol 14: 689-701. PubMed: 15723661.
- 63. Petit RJ, Kremer A, Wagner DB (1993) Finite island model for organelle and nuclear genes in plants. Heredity 71: 630-641. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1993.188.
- 64. Roullier C, Rossel G, Tay D, Mckey D, Lebot V (2011) Combining chloroplast and nuclear microsatellites to investigate origin and dispersal of New World sweet potato landraces. Mol Ecol 20: 3963-3977. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05229.x. PubMed: 21880085.
- 65. Burle ML, Fonseca JR, Kami JA, Gepts P (2010) Microsatellite diversity and genetic structure among common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) landraces in Brazil, a secondary center of diversity. Theor Appl Genet 121: 801-813.
- 66. Asfaw A, Blair MW, Almekinders C (2009) Genetic diversity and population structure of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) landraces from the East African highlands. Theor Appl Genet 120: 1-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-009-1154-7. PubMed: 19756469.
- 67. Blair MW, González LF, Kimani M, Butare L (2010) Genetic diversity, inter-gene pool introgression and nutritional quality of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Central Africa. Theor Appl Genet 121: 237-248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-010-1305-x. PubMed: 20224891.
- 68. Zhang X, Blair MW, Wang S (2008) Genetic diversity of Chinese common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) landraces assessed with simple sequence repeats markers. Theor Appl Genet 117: 629-640. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-008-0807-2. PubMed: 18548226.
- 69. Guzmán P, Gilbertson RL, Nodari R, Johnson WC, Temple SR et al. (1995) Characterization of variability in the fungus Phaeoisariopsis griseola subbests coevolution with the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Phytopathol 85: 600-607. doi:https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-85-600.
- 70. Johnson WC, Gepts P (1999) Segregation for performance in recombinant inbred populations resulting from inter-gene pool crosses of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Euphytica 106: 5-56.