Schafer, R. J. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2020

Genetic Architecture of Maize Rind Strength Revealed by the Analysis of Divergently Selected Populations

Stalk lodging, breakage of the stalk at or below the ear, causes substantial yield losses in maize. The strength of the stalk rind, commonly measured as rind penetrometer resistance (RPR), is an important contributor to stalk lodging resistance. To enhance RPR genetic architecture, we conducted selection mapping on populations developed by 15 cycles of divergent selection for high (C15-H) and low (C15-L) RPR. We also performed time-course transcriptome and metabolic analyses on developing stalks of high (Hrpr1) and low (Lrpr1) RPR inbred lines derived from the C15-H and C15-L populations, respectively. Divergent selection significantly altered allele frequencies at 3,656 and 3,412 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in the C15-H and C15-L populations, respectively. While the majority of the SNPs under selection were unique, 110 SNPs were common in both populations indicating the fixation of alleles with alternative effects. Remarkably, preferential selection on the genomic regions associated with lignin and polysaccharide biosynthesis genes was observed in C15-H and C15-L populations, respectively. This observation was supported by higher lignification and lower extractability of cell wall-bound sugars in Hrpr1 compared to Lrpr1. Tricin, a monolignol important for incorporation of lignin in grass cell walls, emerged as a key determinant of the different cell wall properties of Hrpr1 and Lrpr1. Integration of selection mapping with transcriptomics and previous genetic studies on RPR identified 40 novel candidate genes including ZmMYB31, ZmNAC25, ZmMADS1, two PAL paralogues, two lichenases, ZmEXPA2, ZmIAA41, and Caleosin. Enhanced mechanistic and genetic understanding of RPR provides a foundation for improved stalk lodging resistance.

genetics↗

bioRxiv2020

Separable influences of reward value on visual processing and choice

Primate vision is characterized by constant, sequential processing and selection of visual targets to fixate. Although expected reward is known to influence both processing and selection of visual targets, similarities and differences between these effects remains unclear mainly because they have been measured in separate tasks. Using a novel paradigm, we simultaneously measured the effects of reward outcomes and expected reward on target selection and sensitivity to visual motion in monkeys. Monkeys freely chose between two visual targets and received a juice reward with varying probability for eye movements made to either of them. Targets were stationary apertures of drifting gratings, causing the endpoints of eye movements to these targets to be systematically biased in the direction of motion. We used this motion-induced bias as a measure of sensitivity to visual motion on each trial. We then performed different analyses to explore effects of objective and subjective reward values on choice and sensitivity to visual motion in order to find similarities and differences between reward effects on these two processes. Specifically, we used different reinforcement learning models to fit choice behavior and estimate subjective reward values based on the integration of reward outcomes over multiple trials. Moreover, to compare the effects of subjective reward value on choice and sensitivity to motion directly, we considered correlations between each of these variables and integrated reward outcomes on a wide range of timescales. We found that in addition to choice, sensitivity to visual motion was also influenced by subjective reward value, even though the motion was irrelevant for receiving reward. Unlike choice, however, sensitivity to visual motion was not affected by objective measures of reward value. Moreover, choice was determined by the difference in subjective reward values of the two options whereas sensitivity to motion was influenced by the sum of values. Finally, models that best predicted visual processing and choice used sets of estimated reward values based on different types of reward integration and timescales. Together, our results demonstrate separable influences of reward on visual processing and choice, and point to the presence of multiple brain circuits for integration of reward outcomes.

neuroscience↗