Skip to main content

Molecular cytogenetical and biochemical studies on some Lupinus species

Abstract

Background

Lupins are cultivated as human consumption grains and forage legumes. The chromosomes of lupins are too small to be karyotyped by conventional techniques, because they reveal a general lack of distinctive cytological features. In the current study, Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) was used to locate 5S and 45S ribosomal gene sites on the chromosomes of Lupinus albus ssp albus, Lupinus albus ssp graecus, Lupnus termis (all with 2n = 50), and Lupinus polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus (2n = 48), FISH together with seed storage protein electrophoretic patterns were used to find out the relationship among these species.

Results

The double-target FISH on the chromosomes of the studied species with rDNA probes revealed that the two types of rRNA genes are located on different chromosomes. The detected loci of rRNA genes partially reflected the taxonomical similarity among the two Lupinus albus subspecies and L. termis. Lupinus polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus was exception by having unique large chromosome mostly is covered by one signal of 45S rDNA, whereas its homologous chromosome seems to be normal-sized and have the other 45S rDNA locus. The similarity matrix among the Lupinus species as computed according to Jaccardʼs Coefficient from the SDS-PAGE, showed that L. albus ssp. Albus and L. albus ssp. Graecus are the most similar species (~ 97%), and then comes L. termis, and L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphylus has been placed in separate clade and still the most related species to it among the studied species is L. termis (~ 70%).

Conclusion

It could be postulated from FISH and seed storage protein electrophoretic patterns that the relationships among the studied species is as follows, Lupinus albus ssp albus, is the most related species to Lupinus albus ssp graecus then comes Lupnus termis and Lupinus polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus at a distal position.

Background

Leguminous plants are considered as essential protein supplements and other nutritious substances for animal and human in addition to fat content in the seed. Lupin is one of those crops that has biochemical and physiological traits for their ability to synthesize huge amount of protein, fats and other useful ingredients (Duranti and Morazzoni 2011; Lucas et al. 2015; Zhong et al. 2020). The number of Lupinus species is unclear, it ranges from 100 to more than 800 species. The distribution of lupins concentrated in two main regions: Mediterranean-African and American, the genus distributed also from the ocean level up to higher than 4500 m above the sea level. Twelve species of lupins are recorded in Africa and Mediterranean regions (Drummond et al. 2012; Mousavi-Derazmahalleh et al. 2018).

The commonly cultivated lupins species in several countries are Lupinus albus L., L. angustifolius L., L. cosentinii Guss, L. luteus L., L. pilosus Murr and L. atlaticus Gladstones. In Georgia L. albus was registered under the name hancholy, and in Egypt L. albus was described by Linnaeus as L. termis. In Palestine and ancient Egypt, L. albus was called thrums. Ecotypes of L. albus in Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt genotypes are early maturity, tolerant to drought and many have resistance to fusarium (Christiansen et al. 2000; Dwiviedi et al. 2006; Atnaf et al. 2017).

So far, not many chromosomal researches have been done on Lupinus, despite the phylogenetic trees which have built up by using the recent genomic and transcriptomic data (Mahé et al2011; Drummond et al. 2012; Cannon et al. 2015; Susek et al. 2017). Some primary genetic investigates have been done to measure the genome size to be 0.97–2.44 pg/2C DNA (Naganowska et al. 2003b; Susek et al. 2016). Other investigations estimated the chromosome numbers to be from 2n = 32 to 2n = 52, and the basic chromosome numbers to be x = 5–7, 9, or 13; therefore, Lupin species are supposed to be of polyploid origin, having interspecific variation (Conterato and Schifino-Wittmann 2006; Naganowska et al. 2006; Susek et al. 2019). Their small-sized chromosomes are difficult to be karyotyped by conventional techniques, because they exhibit a general lack of distinguishing cytological features (Naganowska and Zielinska 2002).

There are mainly two types of ribosomal RNA genes in eukaryotes, 5S and 45S (18S, 5.8S and 26S/28S), which are organized in tandem arrays in thousands of copies at one or more chromosomal loci. They involve in ribosome production, and their regions are essential elements of chromosomes of all cell types. The ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene loci were the first chromosome markers used for cytotaxonomic and karyotyping purposes analysis especially in species with many small and equal chromosome sizes, since they could be easily visualized aby double FISH with heterologous ribosomal probes, thus allowed the physical localizations of both rDNA genes in a single metaphase preparation (Fransz et al. 1998; Pita et al. 2014).

Molecular cytogenetic techniques like Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is one of the suitable tools for chromosome identification and analysis which has been applied to many plant genomes (Ali et al. 2005, 2009; Jiang and Gill 2006; Chiarin and Gauthier 2016; Ribeiro et al. 2016; She et al. 2017; Tan et al. 2017; Setiawan et al. 2018; Jiang 2019). FISH using BAC clones depending on the genome mapping was very effective tool to elucidate the comparative cytogenetics map in Lupin (Naganowska and Zielinska 2002, 2004; Hajdera et al. 2003; Wyrwa et al. 2016; Susek et al. 2019). rRNA genes have been used as FISH probes in a number of lupin species (Hajdera et al. 2003; Kong et al. 2009).

Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate-Poly Acrylamide Gel Electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) is a useful tool to investigate the protein pattens which could be used as an informative marker in the plant genetic diversity investigations. Two classes of plant storage proteins are known, vegetative storage proteins (a group of proteins which accumulate in stems, tubers, and leaves), and seed storage proteins (a group of proteins which highly accumulated during the seed development). SDS-PAGE by using seed storage proteins is considered a reliable tool, because such proteins are extremely independent from the environmental changes. Therefore, their electrophonic patterns could be used as a capable tool for species and cultivars identification (Ahmad and McNeil 1996; Sammour et al. 2007; Vivodík et al. 2016; Špalekova and Galova 2018). However, only a few studies indicated that cultivar identification was not possible with the SDS-PAGE method (De Vries 1996).

The current study focused on using FISH to find out the numbers and chromosomal positions of 5S and 45S rRNA genes, and seed storage protein patterns by SDS-PAGE as genetic markers for Lupinus species identification. In our study, we used two L. albus subspecies (L. albus ssp albus, L. albus ssp graecus), in addition to L. termis and L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus.

Methods

Plant material

The seeds of the Lupin species were obtained from the germplasm collection of the Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben, Germany. Two Lupinus albus subspecies L. albus ssp albus (accession no. LUP: 203), L. albus ssp graecus (accession no. LUP: 512) have (2n = 50), and L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus (accession no. LUP: 88), with 2n = 48 chromosomes, whereas L. termis L. (2n = 50) was obtained from Egyptian germplasm (store).

Chromosome preparation

Chromosomes were prepared from the root tips of the germinated seeds and FISH experiments were done according to Fransz et al. (1998) with minor modifications. Seeds were sown on two layers of moistened filter paper in a Petri dish and kept in the dark at 25 °C for two days or more. The young germinated root tips were cut and treated with 0.02% aqueous 8-hydroxyquinoline for 3 h at 15 °C and then washed three times with sterile water before fixation in freshly prepared Chloroform–ethanol–acetic acid (6:3:1) then in acetic acid–ethanol (1:3) and stored in 70% ethanol.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

The A. thaliana BAC clone T15P10 (AF167571) bearing the 45S rDNA sequence was labeled with digoxigenin by nick translation, and the 5S rDNA probe was amplified from genomic DNA of A. thaliana and labeled with biotin by PCR with primers specific for the coding region (Gottlob-McHugh et al. 1990). Digoxigenin-labeled probes were detected by mouse anti-digoxigenin (Jackson Immune Research Laboratories, United Kingdom) and goat anti-mouse antibodies conjugated with Alexa 488 (Molecular Probes, USA). The biotinylated 5S rDNA was detected by avidin ~ Texas Red (Vector Laboratories, USA) and amplified by biotinylated goat anti-avidin (Vector Laboratories, USA) and avidin ~ Texas Red. The chromosomes were counterstained with DAPI (2 µg/ml). The images were captured with a Zeiss Axioplan 2 epifluorescence microscope equipped with a Spot 2e CCD camera. Images were pseudo-colored and merged using Adobe Photoshop CS software (Adobe).

SDS-protein electrophoresis

SDS-PAGE was performed according to the method of Laemmli (1970), as modified by Studier (1973); 0.2 g of seed samples were ground from the examined Lupinus species (Lupinus albus ssp albus, Lupinus albus ssp graecus, Lupnus termis and Lupinus polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus), then mixed with 1 ml of extraction buffer (2X) in Eppendorf tube and left in refrigerator over-night, then vortexed for 15 s and centrifuged at 12,000 rpm at 4 °C for 20 min. The supernatants containing total seed storage proteins were transferred to new Eppendorf tubes and kept in deep-freeze until use for electrophoretic analysis. Extracted protein samples and protein marker (BLUltra Prestained Protein Ladder, GeneDirex, USA) were loaded on 10% Protein separating gel for running. Protein fractionations were performed exclusively on vertical slab gel (19.8 cm × 26.8 cm × 0.2 cm) using the electrophoresis apparatus manufactured by Claver UK.

The images were captured by a digital camera (Sony, Japan) and transferred directly to the computer, then the protein bands were analyzed by Total Lab program to detect the molecular weight of each protein. The protein analysis data were imported in Past program (Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis, Hammer et al. 2001) to find the similarity matrix and dendrogram (UPGMA, using Jaccardʼs coefficient) which reflect the relationships among the studied species.

Results

Ribosomal genes exist in many copies per genome and expressed in each cell. The double-target FISH on metaphase chromosome preparations with rDNA probes revealed that the two types of rRNA genes are located on different chromosomes.

Figure 1 shows the obtained loci of 45S rRNA genes (green) and 5SrRNA genes (red) in L. albus ssp albus, L. termis, L. albus ssp graecus, and L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus (Fig. 1a–d), respectively, while the same figure (a1, b1, c1 and d1) show the stained chromosomes with DAPI for more chromosome resolution.

Fig. 1
figure1

Mitotic metaphase chromosomes of four Lupinus species after FISH with rDNA probes (blue color images), 45S rDNA probe was detected by FITC (green signals) and 5S rDNA probe by Texas red (red signals). The chromosomes were counterstained with DAPI (white images). a, a1 Lupinus albus ssp albus; b, b1 Lupinus termis; c, c1 Lupinus albus ssp graecus; d, d1 Lupinus polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus. Bar = 5.0 µm

Two signals of 5S rRNA genes were observed in L. albus ssp albus and L. termis, while four signals were found in L. albus ssp graecus, and L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus. L. albus ssp albus, L albus ssp graecus and L. termis showed four signals of 45S rRNA genes, whereas in L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus two 45s rRNA signals were detected, one of them covered almost the whole chromosome. The detected 45S and 5S rRNA gene loci using double-FISH experiment on the metaphase chromosomes of the studied species is as follows:

In Lupinus albus ssp albus (2n = 50), FISH exhibited two pairs of strong, large signals of 45S rDNA, one on the long arm of sub-telomeric chromosome, the other signals were extended to cover the major part of another chromosome, including its secondary constriction, whereas only one locus (two interstitial signals) of 5S rDNA was observed in this species (Fig. 1a).

Lupinus termis (2n = 50) exhibited two pairs of 45S rDNA sites (two gene loci) in its genome, one locus was transcriptionally active and gave stretched signals, while the other locus was tiny on small chromosome. Only one terminal 5SrDNA locus was observed in this species (Fig. 1b).

Lupinus albus ssp graecus (2n = 50) expressed two pairs of 45S rDNA loci, one almost covering the whole chromosome pair, and another of a small terminal locus, in addition to two terminal 5S rDNA loci, one medium size on one chromosome pair and the other appears as a minor locus on another small chromosome pair (Fig. 1c).

Lupinus polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus (2n = 48) was an exception with having one large chromosome. This species showed only one locus of 45S rDNA, one site of this locus (gene) is covering the large chromosome, and the other site of the same gene on another shorter chromosome (homologous chromosome), this species showed two normal loci of 5S rDNA on the terminal part of two chromosome pairs (Fig. 1d).

Seeds storage protein patterns

SDS-electrophoretic patterns of total seed storage protein fractions were used to identify and find the phylogenetic relationships among the studied Lupinus species.

The distribution of electrophoretic banding patterns of total seed storage proteins in Lupinus species is shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2. There was a total number of 37 bands in the different Lupinus species with molecular weight ranged from 240 to 12 Kilo Dalton (KD). A maximum number of 34 bands were detected in L. termis, whereas the minimum number was 29 bands in L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus. In L. albus ssp. graecus 31 bands were found, while 30 bands were detected in L. albus ssp. albus. The examined Lupinus species shared twenty major bands (monomorphic bands) at molecular weights of 140, 120, 103, 89, 73, 70, 65, 64, 62, 54, 48, 44, 42, 38, 34, 31, 29, 26, 17 and 15 KD. The UPGMA method was used to calculate the similarity coefficient among the studied species as shown in Table 2 and their average was used as an approximate threshold value for recognizing groups of species in dendrogram (Fig. 3). The description of bands in each species was as follows.

Table 1 Approximate molecular weight and intensity of total seed storage protein bands in Lupinus species
Fig. 2
figure2

Electrophoretic patterns of four Lupinus species for total seed proteins. M: Protein marker (245, 180, 135, 100, 75, 63, 48, 35, 25, 20 and 17 KD). (1) Lupinus albus ssp. Albus, (2) Lupinus albus ssp. graecus, (3) Lupinus polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus, (4) Lupinus termis

Table 2 Similarity matrix among studied Lupinus species as computed according to Jaccardʼs coefficient as revealed by protein markers
Fig. 3
figure3

The dendrogram of the four Lupinus species as constructed using protein patterns Unweighted Pair-group Arithmetic (UPGMA) and similarity matrices computed according to Jaccardʼs Coefficient

Lupinus albus ssp. albus

This species exhibits a total number of 30 bands, among them 5 bands were dark, 3 moderate and the rest were faint. The largest-size band was observed at molecular weight of 160 KD and the smallest band was detected at molecular weight of 15 KD. It shared with L. albus ssp. graecus and L. termis in the absence of 4 bands (240, 210, 60 and 25 KD), and exhibited one unique negative band at 12 KD.

Lupinus albus ssp. graecus

A total number of 31 bands was detected in this species, among them 5 bands were dark, 4 bands were moderate and the rest were faint. The highest molecular weight band was at 160 KD, whereas the lowest one was at 12 KD. As mentioned above this species shared with L. albus ssp. albus and L. termis in the absence of 4 bands, it shared L. termis in the absence of one band at 180 KD.

Lupinus polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus

This species exhibited the lowest number of bands (29 bands) among the examined species. The largest size band was at molecular weight of 240 KD and the smallest band was at 12 KD. Among the 29 bands, 2 bands were dark, 5 moderate and the rest were faint. This species was characterized by the present of unique band at 180 KD and the absence of 7 bands at 109, 96, 63, 36, 32, 28 and 19 KD.

Lupinus termis

A total number of 34 bands were detected in this species, out of them 6 bands were dark, 4 bands were moderate and the rest were faint. The highest molecular weight band was at 240 KD, whereas the lowest one was at 12 KD. It was characterized by the presence of one unique band at 30 KD, and absence of two bands at 20 and 23 KD.

Discussion

The Lupinus species are characterized by a variation in their chromosome number (from n = 16 to n = 26) and the DNA content per haploid cell was found to be small (Weeden et al. 2000; Hajdera et al. 2003; Bennett and Leitch 2005; Naganowska et al. 2006). Compared to the other plant species, cytological work in genus Lupinus is quite limited because of the high number of chromosomes which ranges from 2n = 32 to 52, and small size of chromosomes, which made them difficult to be separated on the slide; subsequently, the karyotyping of the chromosomes by conventional techniques is complex, because they lack the general features, like centromere or secondary constriction positions. In addition, similarity in chromosome shape and size obstacles the chromosome pairs to be simply well-identified at the cytological level, which hampered the identification of individual species via chromosome size or arm ratios; therefore, the chromosome karyotyping in the species of this genus is very difficult. Nevertheless, chromosomes counting in lupins have been achieved for more than 60 years (Wolko et al. 2011).

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is mainly based on hybridization of a molecular probe to its complementary sequence on chromosomes, and detecting the signals directly under a fluorescence microscope (Pita et al. 2014; Jiang 2019). The highly repetitive rRNA genes were suitable chromosomal markers to study the physical map of plant genomes using FISH. In lupins, most of FISH studies were carried out on L. angustifolius to locate rDNA loci (Kaczmarek et al. 2007, 2009), or for comparative genome mapping to assign many linkage groups to special chromosomes (Kasprzak et al. 2006; Lesniewska et al. 2011; Książkiewicz et al. 2013; Wyrwa et al. 2016; Susek et al. 2019). Double-target FISH was applied in other Lupin species to determine the localization of genomic rDNA in new and old world Lupin species, (Naganowska and Zielinska 2002, 2004; Hajdera et al. 2003; Naganowska et al. 2003a; Naganowska and Kaczmarek 2005; Kong et al. 2009).

It was observed in the previous studies that the positions of rRNA genes (5S and 45S rDNA as probes) were on separate chromosomal regions, thus allowing the differentiation of only up to five different pairs of chromosomes, no relationship between numbers of rRNA gene sites and number of chromosomes has been recorded. This is in agreement with the results in the current study, where we observed that the loci of 5S and 45S rDNA are on separate chromosomes in the investigated species, and the 45S rDNA signals are large and cover almost half of the chromosome, the stretched signals reflected the nucleolar activity in L. albus ssp albus, L. albus ssp graecus, and L. termis. In general, the large size of the signals and low number of rDNA loci, support the commonly known idea of ancient origin of polyploidy in Lupinus, where some rDNA sites might be lost, translocated or fused with other rDNA sequences during the course of evolution and the long diploidization process. The high rate and fixation of chromosomal rearrangements in Lupin genomes through the diploidization process, resulted in cytogenetically stable, functional diploids plants in the long history of lupins (Thomas et al. 1997; Weiss and Maluszynska 2000; Kroc et al. 2014; Susek et al. 2019; Susek and Naganowska 2020). The same reduction in rDNA was observed in other polyploid plant species (Sakowicz and Olszewska 1997; Snowdon et al. 1997; Ali et al. 2005).

The DNA contents of three Lupinus sp. (L. albus ssp albus, L. albus ssp graecus, and L. termis) in the current investigation have been studied by Naganowska et al. (2003a), they found slight differences in measurements of the DNA content (C-value) in L. albus, L. graecus and L termis (1.16 ± 0.044, 1.13 ± 0.030 and 1.14 ± 0.032 (pg), respectively). Despite the similar chromosome number (2n = 50) in these three taxa, no previous investigations by FISH using 5S and 45S rDNA probes have been done on them.

This study was carried out to locate the loci of ribosomal genes on the metaphase chromosomes of four Lupinus species, the detected loci of rRNA genes in the current study partially reflected the similarity among them. FISH result revealed two of 45S rDNA in L. albus ssp albus, L. albus ssp graecus, and L. termis in which one of two loci of 45S rDNA was transcriptionally active and gave stretched intermediate signals. Concerning the loci of 5S rDNA, it was discovered one 5S rDNA in L. albus ssp albus, and one terminal 5SrDNA locus in L. termis, while L. albus ssp. graecus expressed two terminal 5S rDNA loci.

L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus (2n = 48) was an exception by having large chromosome bearing one site of 45S rDNA covering most of the chromosome, whereas its homologous chromosome seems smaller in size and have the other 45S rDNA locus (gene). Therefore, it has been postulated the presence of satellite jumping from one of the chromosomes which bears the 45S rDNA to its homologous chromosome in this species. Such phenomenon is rare and has been observed by Sato (1981) and Sato et al. (1981) in their studies on Allium cepa with two chromosomes bear satellites, where it was found one of the homologues with a distinct satellite, while the other with a very weakly stained region at the end of the short arm. The observation of Schubert and Wobus (1985) by Ag-NOR patterns strongly supported that NORs can jump between terminal heterochromatin regions of different chromosomes of the parental species in Allium cepa and in their interspecific hybrids as well. In another cytological study by silver staining and C-banding (Georgiev and Topouzova 1998), it was recorded in the chromosome complement of Allium cepa bulbs the occurrence of a single, two, three and four chromosomes with satellites, the satellites were highly polymorphic in their staining intensity and size and they detected only on the subtelocentric and the shortest metacentric chromosomes. The authors concluded from their study that both deletions and translocation might have occurred which led to a variation in the number and size of the satellited chromosomes and consequently in the polymorphism of the subtelocentric and the metacentric chromosomes.

Seed storage protein gel electrophoresis in the different Lupinus have been Examined in several investigations (Tai and Bush 1997; El-Shazly et al. 2006; Marzouk and El-Darier 2008; Mahfouze et al. 2018). Among the Lupinus species, L. albus L. and L. angustifolius L. are the most intensively studied species by using seed protein electrophoresis (Yu et al. 1987; Melo et al. 1994; Magni et al. 2007; Foley et al. 2011; Islam et al. 2012; Czubinski and Feder 2019).

The total seed protein profiles have been used in the present investigation to elucidate the taxonomic relationships among L. albus ssp. Albus, L. albus ssp. Graecus, L. termis and L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus. In addition, to compare the L. albus ssp albus with its related relatives. As revealed by analysis of current study data depending on the variation in electrophoretic seed storage protein patterns, and with regard to their UPGMA tree building method (Table 2), it has been postulated that L. albus ssp. Albus and L. albus ssp. Graecus are the most similar species (~ 97%) which support their taxonomic criteria, and L. termis is more related to L. albus ssp. Graecus (~ 81%) than to L. albus ssp. Albus (~ 78%), and finally L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphylus has been placed in separate clade and still the most related species to it among the studied species is L. termis (~ 70%).

Conclusion

Three of the analyzed Lupinus species in the current investigation (L. albus ssp albus, L albus ssp graecus and L. termis) are closely related at the taxonomical level. The observed number of rDNA loci by FISH partially reflected the relationship among them. Two signals of 5S rRNA genes were observed in L. albus ssp albus and L. termis, while four signals were found in L. albus ssp graecus, and L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus. L. albus ssp albus, L albus ssp graecus and L. termis showed four signals of 45S rRNA genes, while in L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus.one of the two detected 45s rRNA signals covered almost the whole chromosome.

The current studied postulated the satellite jumping in L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus (2n = 48), which was an exception by having a big single chromosome bearing one site of 45S rDNA covering it, whereas its homologous chromosome seems normal and have the other 45S rDNA locus. It has been assumed from the seed storage protein SDS-PAGE patterns that L. albus ssp. Albus and L. albus ssp. Graecus are the most similar species to each other, and L. albus ssp. Graecus is more related to L. termis, and finally L. polyphyllus lindl var. polyphyllus has been placed in separate clade and L. termis the most related species to. It could be concluded that SDS-PAGE of seed storage proteins can reveal the similarity among the Lupinus species, which support their taxonomic criteria in an attempt to obtain information useful for breeders.

Availability of data and materials

Authors declare that all generated and analyzed data are included in the article. All plant materials (three Lupinus species seeds) were identified and collected in Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben, Germany. And one species L. termes is from Egypt germplasm (store).

Abbreviations

FISH:

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

SDS-PAGE:

Sodium dodecyl sulfate-poly acrylamide gel electrophoretic

rDNA:

Ribosomal DNA

rRNA:

Ribosomal RNA

DAPI:

4′,6-Diamidin-2-phenylindol

Past:

Paleontological statistics software package

(UPGMA):

Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic

NORs:

Nucleolar organizing regions

References

  1. Ahmad M, McNeil DL (1996) Comparison of crossability, RAPD, SDS-PAGE and morphological markers for revealing genetic relationships within and among Lens species. Theor Appl Genet 93:788–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00224077

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ali HB, Lysak MA, Schubert I (2005) Chromosomal localization of rDNA in the Brassicaceae. Genome 48(2):341–346. https://doi.org/10.1139/g04-116

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ali HB, El- Khodary SE, El-Ashry ZM, Osman SA (2009) rDNA loci and DAPI bands reflect the phylogenetic distance between Vicia species. Cytologia 74:467–472. https://doi.org/10.1508/cytologia.74.467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Atnaf M, Yao N, Martina K, Dagne K, Wegary D, Tesfaye K (2017) Molecular genetic diversity and population structure of Ethiopian white lupin landraces: implications for breeding and conservation. PLoS ONE 12(11):e0188696. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188696

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bennett MD, Leitch IJ (2005) Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms: progress, problems and prospects. Ann Bot 95:45–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci003

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cannon SB, McKain MR, Harkess A et al (2015) Multiple polyploidy events in the early radiation of modulating and nonnodulating legumes. Mol Biol Evol 32(1):193–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu296

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chiarin FE, Gauthier MJ (2016) Chromosome differentiation in three species of Leptostemonum (Solanum, Solanaceae) endemic to oceanic islands. Bol Soc Argent Bot 51:331–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Christiansen J, Raza S, Jørnsgård B et al (2000) Potential of landrace germplasm for genetic enhancement of white lupin in Egypt. Genet Resour Crop Evol 47:425–430. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008728530116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Conterato IF, Schifino-Wittmann MT (2006) New chromosome numbers, meiotic behaviour and pollen fertility in American Taxa of Lupinus (Leguminosae): contributions to taxonomic and evolutionary studies. Bot J Linn Soc 150:229–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2006.00443.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Czubinski J, Feder S (2019) Lupin seeds storage protein composition and their interactions with native flavonoids. J Sci Food Agric 99(8):4011–4018. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9627

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De Vries IM (1996) Characterisation and identification of Lactuca sativa cultivars and wild relatives with SDS electrophoresis (Lactuca sect. Lactuca, Compositae). Genet Resour Crop Evol 43(3):193–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Drummond CS, Eastwood RJ, Miotto STS, Hughes CE (2012) Multiple continental radiations and correlates of diversification in Lupinus (Leguminosae): testing for key innovation with incomplete taxon sampling. Syst Biol 61:443–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr126

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Duranti M, Morazzoni P (2011) Nutraceutical properties of lupin seed proteins. A great potential still waiting for full exploitation. Agro Food Ind Hi Technol 22:20–23

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dwivedi SL, Upadhyaya HD, Jayashree B, Buhariwalla HK, Blair MW, Ortiz R, Crouch JH, Serraj R (2006) Using genomics to exploit grain legume biodiversity in crop improvement. Plant Breed Rev 26:171–357 (ISBN 0-471-73215-X)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. El-Shazly HH, Badr SF, Badr A (2006) Relationships of Lupinus species based on variation in seed protein electrophoretic profiles. Taeckholmia 26(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.21608/TAEC.2006.12278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Foley RC, Gao LL, Spriggs A, Soo LYC, Goggin DE, Smith PMC et al (2011) Identification and characterisation of seed storage protein transcripts from Lupinus angustifolius. BMC Plant Biol 11:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-11-59

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Fransz P, Armstrong S, Alonso-Blanco C, Fischer TC, Torres-Ruiz RA, Jones G (1998) Cytogenetics for the model system Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 13:867–876. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1998.00086.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Georgiev S, Topouzova T (1998) Cytogenetical polymorphism of the nucleolus organizer region (Nors) in Allium cepa L. Biot Biot Equip 12(2):27–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.1998.10818983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gottlob-McHugh SG, Lévesque M, MacKenzie K, Olson M, Yarosh O, Johnson DA (1990) Organization of the 5S rRNA genes in the soybean Glycine max (L.) Merrill and conservation of the 5S rDNA repeat structure in higher plants. Genome 33:486–494. https://doi.org/10.1139/g90-072

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hajdera I, Siwinska D, Hasterok R, Maluszynska J (2003) Molecular cytogenetic analysis of genome structure in Lupinus angustifolius and Lupinus cosentinii. Theor Appl Genet 107:988–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-003-1303-3

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Paleontol Electrón 4(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  22. Islam S, Ma W, Buirchell BJ, Appels R, Yan G (2012) Genetic and environment interactions of seed storage proteins in narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius). Crop Pasture Sci 63(12):1066. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP12268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jiang J (2019) Fluorescence in situ hybridization in plants: recent developments and future applications. Chromosome Res 27:153–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-019-09607-z

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jiang J, Gill BS (2006) Current status and the future of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in plant genome research. Genome 49:1057–1068. https://doi.org/10.1139/g06-076

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaczmarek A, Naganowska B, Wolko B (2007) PRINS and C-PRINS: promising tools for physical mapping of the lupin genome. Cell Mol Biol Lett 12:16–24. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11658-006-0056-9

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaczmarek A, Naganowska B, Wolko B (2009) Karyotyping of the narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angusti.folius) by using FISH, PRINS and computer measurements of chromosomes. J Appl Genet 50:77–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195657

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kasprzak A, Šafář J, Janda J, Doležel J, Wolko B, Naganowska B (2006) The bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library of the narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.). Cell Mol Biol Lett 11:396–407. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11658-006-0033-3

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kong F, Rudloff E, Snowdon RJ, Wang YP (2009) Chromosomal distribution of 18S–25S rDNA in four Lupinus species visualized by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genetika 45:1148–1152

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kroc M, Koczyk G, Święcicki W et al (2014) New evidence of ancestral polyploidy in the Genistoid legume Lupinus angustifolius L. (narrow-leafed lupin). Theor Appl Genet 127:1237–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-014-2294-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Książkiewicz M, Wyrwa K, Szczepaniak A et al (2013) Comparative genomics of Lupinus angustifolius gene-rich regions: BAC library exploration, genetic mapping and cytogenetics. BMC Genomics 14:79. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-79

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Laemmli UK (1970) Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227:680–685. https://doi.org/10.1038/227680a0

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lesniewska K, Ksiazkiewicz M, Nelson MN, Mahe F, Ainouche A, Wolko B, Naganowska B (2011) Assignment of 3 genetic linkage groups to 3 chromosomes of narrow-leafed lupin. J Hered 102:228–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esq107

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lucas MM, Stoddard FL, Annicchiarico P, Frías J, Martínez-Villaluenga C, Sussmann D, Duranti M, Seger A, Zander PM, Pueyo JJ (2015) The future of lupin as a protein crop. Eur Front Plant Sci 6:705. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Magni C, Scarafoni A, Herndl A, Sessa F, Prinsi B, Espen L, Duranti M (2007) Combined 2D electrophoretic approaches for the study of white lupin mature seed storage proteome. Phytochemistry 68:997–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2007.01.003

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mahé F, Pascual H, Coriton O et al (2011) New data and phylogenetic placement of the enigmatic old-world lupin: Lupinus mariaejosephi H. Pascual Genet Resour Crop Evol 58:101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-010-9580-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mahfouze SA, Mahfouze HA, Mubarak DMF, Esmail RM (2018) Evaluation of six imported accessions of Lupinus albus for nutritional and molecular characterizations under Egyptian conditions. Jordan J Biol Sci 11(1):47–56 (ISSN 1995-6673)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Marzouk RI, El-Darier SM (2008) Diversity of four Lupinus L. Taxa based on seed protein electrophoresis. CATRINA 3(2):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  38. Melo TS, Ferreira RB, Teixeira AN (1994) The seed storage proteins from Lupinus albus. Phytochemistry 37(3):641–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(00)90331-5

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mousavi-Derazmahalleh M, Bayer PE, Nevado B et al (2018) Exploring the genetic and adaptive diversity of a pan-Mediterranean crop wild relative: narrow-leafed lupin. Theor Appl Genet 131:887–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-017-3045-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Naganowska B, Kaczmarek A (2005) Repetitive DNA sequences in cytogenetic studies of the Lupinus genome. In: van Santen E, Hill GD (eds) Mexico, Where Old and New World lupins meet. Proceedings of the 11th international Lupin conference, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, May 4–9. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand, 2005, pp 27–29. ISBN 0-86476-165-1

  41. Naganowska B, Zielinska A (2002) Physical mapping of 18S–25S rDNA and 5S rDNA in Lupinus by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Cell Mol Biol Lett 7:665–670

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Naganowska B, Zielińska A (2004) Localization of rDNA in the Lupinus genome during the cell cycle. J Appl Genet 45:189–193

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Naganowska B, Doležel J, Święcicki WK (2003a) Development of molecular cytogenetics and physical mapping of ribosomal RNA genes in Lupinus. Biol Plant 46:211–215. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022846526246

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Naganowska B, Wolko B, Sliwińska E, Kaczmarek Z (2003b) Nuclear DNA content variation and species relationships in the genus Lupinus (Fabaceae). Ann Bot 92(3):349–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcg145

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Naganowska B, Wolko B, Śliwińska E, Kaczmarek Z, Schifino-Wittmann MT (2006) 2C DNA variation and relationships among New World species of the genus Lupinus (Fabaceae). Plant Syst Evol 256:147–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-005-0364-y

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pita M, Orellana J, Martínez-Rodríguez P, Martínez-Ramírez Á, Fernández-Calvín B, Bella JL (2014) FISH methods in cytogenetic studies. In: Stockert J, Espada J, Blázquez-Castro A (eds) Functional analysis of DNA and chromatin. Methods in molecular biology (methods and protocols), vol 1094. Humana Press, Totowa. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-706-8_10

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ribeiro T, Barrela RM, Bergès H, Marques C, Loureiro J, Morais-Cecílio L, Paiva JAP (2016) Advancing eucalyptus genomics: cytogenomics reveals conservation of eucalyptus genomes. Front Plant Sci 7:510. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00510

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Sakowicz T, Olszewska MJ (1997) DNA content, interphase AgNOR-area, number of 3H rDNA hybridization signals and the methylation level in coding rDNA sequence in different organs of Lupinus luteus L. Genetica 99:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02259499

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sammour R, Radwan S, El-Kholy A (2007) Genetic variability in Phaseolus spp. as revealed by SDS-PAGE markers. Seed Technol 29(1):50–59

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sato S (1981) Cytological studies on the satellited chromosomes of Allium cepa. Caryologia 34(4):431–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087114.1981.10796911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sato S, Matsumoto E, Kuroki Y (1981) Satellite association of the nucleolar chromosomes in a plant. Protoplasma 108(1):139–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01276888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schubert I, Wobus U (1985) In situ hybridization confirms jumping nucleolus organizing regions in Allium. Chromosoma 92:143–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00328466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Setiawan AB, Teo CH, Kikuchi S, Sassa H, Koba T (2018) An improved method for inducing prometaphase chromosomes in plants. Mol Cytogenet 10:11–32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-018-0380-6

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. She CW, Wei L, Jiang XH (2017) Molecular cytogenetic characterization and comparison of the two cultivated Canavalia species (Fabaceae). Comp Cytogenet 11(4):579–600. https://doi.org/10.3897/CompCytogen.v11i4.13604

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Snowdon RJ, Kőhler W, Kőhler A (1997) Chromosomal localization and characterization of rDNA loci in the Brassica A and C genomes. Genome 40:582–587. https://doi.org/10.1139/g97-076

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Špalekova A, Galova Z (2018) Comparison of American and European maize (Zea mays L.) protein profiles. J Cent Eur Agric 19(2):453–465. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/19.2.2147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Studier FW (1973) Analysis of bacteriophage T1 early RNAs and proteins of slab gels. J Mol Biol 79:237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(73)90003-X

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Susek K, Naganowska B (2020) Cytomolecular insight into Lupinus genomes. In: Kamphuis L, Nelson M, Nelson M (eds) The lupin genome. Compendium of plant genomes. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21270-4_4

    Google Scholar 

  59. Susek K, Bielski WK, Hasterok R, Naganowska B, Wolko B (2016) A First glimpse of wild lupin karyotype variation as revealed by comparative cytogenetic mapping. Front Plant Sci 7:1152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01152

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Susek K, Braszewska-Zalewska A, Bewick AJ, Hasterok R, Schmitz RJ, Naganowska B (2017) Epigenomic diversification within the genus Lupinus. PLoS ONE 12(6):e0179821. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179821

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Susek K, Bielski W, Czyż KB, Hasterok R, Jackson SA, Wolko B, Naganowska B (2019) Impact of chromosomal rearrangements on the interpretation of lupin karyotype evolution. Genes (Basel) 10(4):259. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10040259

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tai HH, Bush RS (1997) Analysis of lupin seed protein digestibility using gel electrophoresis and immunoblots. J Anim Sci 75(7):1934–1940. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.7571934x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tan J, Wang J, Luo L et al (2017) Genetic relationships and evolution of old Chinese garden roses based on SSRs and chromosome diversity. Sci Rep 7:15437. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15815-6

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Thomas HM, Harper JA, Meredith MR, Morgan WG, King IP (1997) Physical mapping of ribosomal DNA sites in Festuca arundinacea and related species by in situ hybridization. Genome 40:406–410. https://doi.org/10.1139/g97-054

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Vivodík M, Gálová Z, Balážová Ž, Petrovičová L, Kuťka Hlozáková T (2016) Genetic variation and relationships of old maize genotypes (Zea mays L.) detected using SDS-page. Potravinarstvo Slovak J Food Sci 10(1):532–536. https://doi.org/10.5219/661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Weeden NF, Ellis THN, Timmerman-Vaughan GM., Simon CJ, Torres AM, Wolko B (2000) How similar are the genomes of the cool season food legumes? In: Knight R (ed) Linking research and marketing opportunities for pulses in the 21st century. Proceedings of the 3rd international food legumes research conference. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4385-1_37

  67. Weiss H, Maluszynska J (2000) Chromosomal rearrangement in autotetraploid plants of Arabidopsis thaliana. Hereditas 133:255–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.2000.00255.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wolko B, Clements JC, Naganowska B, Nelson MN, Yang H (2011) Lupinus. In: Kole C (ed) Wild crop relatives: genomic and breeding resources. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14387-8_9

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wyrwa K, Książkiewicz M, Szczepaniak A, Susek K, Naganowska B (2016) Integration of Lupinus angustifolius L. (narrow-leafed lupin) genome maps and comparative mapping within legumes. Chromosome Res 24:355–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-016-9526-8

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Yu RST, Kyle WSA, Hung TV, Zeckler R (1987) Characterization of aqueous extracts of seed proteins of Lupinus albus and Lupinus angustifolius. J Sci Food Agric 41(3):205–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740410303

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Zhong L, Ali H, Fang Z, Wahlqvist ML, Hodgson JM, Johnson SK (2020) Lupin seed coat as a promising food ingredient: physicochemical, nutritional, antioxidant properties, and effect of genotype and environment. Int J Food Sci Technol 55:1816–1824. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14460

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Genetics and Cytology department, National Research Centre, Dokki, Giza, Egypt, for performing all experiment in its laboratory. The authors are grateful to all the researchers whom we cited in this review for their significant and valuable research.

Funding

The Research experiment was partially sponsored by Department of Genetics and Cytology, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt (offered pinch and instruments).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

HA performed the FISH experiment part. SH performed the seed storage protein electrophoresis part. HA and SH wrote the manuscript, participated in the data discussion, data analyses, and drafting of the manuscript. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hoda B. M. Ali.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali, H.B.M., Heiba, S.A.A. Molecular cytogenetical and biochemical studies on some Lupinus species. Bull Natl Res Cent 45, 31 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-021-00493-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Lupinus
  • 5S and 45S rRNA genes
  • FISH
  • Jumping satellite
  • Seed storage protein electrophoresis