Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Genetic characterisation and population structure analysis of Anatolian figs (Ficus carica L.) by SSR markers Cover

Genetic characterisation and population structure analysis of Anatolian figs (Ficus carica L.) by SSR markers

Open Access
|Mar 2021

Full Article

INTRODUCTION

The common fig (Ficus carica L.; 2n = 2x = 26) is one of the earliest cultivated tree species from Moraceae, a family which is constituted by approximately 40 genera and over 1,400 species (Boudchicha et al., 2018). The fig was originated from a region in western Asia, between the Caspian Sea and Northeast Turkey, and has been spread through the Mediterranean basin (Stover et al., 2007; Caliskan et al., 2012; Gündeşli, 2020). Fig trees can be found throughout Turkey in the internal valleys of Central and Southeast Anatolia as well as in regions near the Black Sea, Marmara, the Aegean and the Mediterranean coast. The world fresh fig production in 2017 was more than 1 million tons and Turkey, with around 305,450 tons of annual fig production, was the top fig-producing country in the world. Turkey was followed by Algeria and Egypt with 131,798 tons and 167,622 tons of annual fig production, respectively (FAO, 2017). The fig tree has not been the subject of intensive breeding efforts. Therefore, in case of precise identification and classification, existed rich genetic diversity within the fig populations could be exploited (Perez-Jiménez et al., 2012).

Morphological characters and chemical properties are considered to be an option for the selection and classification of fruits’ germplasm (Polat et al., 2015; Gündeşli et al., 2020; Kafkas et al., 2020). The advent of DNA-based genetic characterisation methods of fruits germplasm, especially the simple sequence repeat (SSR) or microsatellite markers, have circumvented some of the limitations associated with the use of morphological traits and chemical properties in germplasm characterisation (Giraldo et al., 2004; Zavodna et al.; 2005, Bandelj et al., 2007; Chatti et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2011; Ikhsan et al., 2016; Güney et al., 2018; Güney et al., 2019; Yılmaz et al., 2020). SSRs have several advantages over morphological markers due to their co-dominant inheritance and transferability, hyper-variability and the ease of assessment (Xu et al., 2013; Zaloglu et al., 2015).

Indeed, SSRs were successfully used for genetic characterisation of figs procured from various regions of the world (Giraldo et al., 2008; Boudchicha et al., 2018; Saddoud et al., 2008; Do Val et al., 2013; Abou-Ellail et al., 2014; Ferrara et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2017). However, only a few studies using molecular markers were conducted previously on a limited number of Anatolian fig accessions. Akbulut et al. (2009) analysed 14 wild figs from the Çoruh valley located near the Black Sea coast of Turkey by RAPD markers. Similarly, Ikten et al. (2009) analysed the population structure of some female Anatolian fig accessions by DNA markers. The genetic diversity of fig accessions from the Hatay province of Turkey was evaluated through the SSR analysis by Caliskan et al. (2012). Further, Belttar et al. (2017) estimated genetic relationships among 86 fig accessions collected from Algeria and Turkey using 16 SSR primers.

In the current study, a total of 310 Anatolian fig accessions that included both male and female figs were analysed using 14 SSR markers. Possible associations between these fig accessions were examined using different structure analysis methods and a comprehensive SSR database was developed by identifying clones, synonymous (genetically similar accessions known by different names) and homonymous (genetically different accessions known by the same name) fig accessions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant material

We used 310 fig accessions which were collected from different eco-geographical sites (Figure 1) in Anatolia and deposited at the National Fig Germplasm Repository, Fig Research Institute, Erbeyli-Aydın, Turkey. The names, accession numbers, locations and the gender of the figs studied here are presented in Supplementary Table 1.

Figure 1

Eco-geographical sites of Anatolian fig accessions used in this study. The number of fig accessions collected from each different eco-geographical province is given in brackets.

DNA isolations

DNA was extracted from leaf tissue as described by Lefort et al. (1998) and its concentration was estimated spectrophotometrically as described in detail by Akçay et al. (2014) and Burak et al. (2014).

SSR analysis

Fourteen SSR markers, namely MFC1, MFC2, MFC3, MFC8 (Khadari et al., 2001), LMFC23, LMFC25, LMFC30 (Giraldo et al., 2005), FCUP068-1, FCUP038-6, FCUP008-2, FCUP070-2, FCUP027-4, FCUP066-7 (Bandelj et al., 2007) and FM4-70 (Zavodna et al., 2005) were used in this study (Supplementary Table 2). PCR amplifications were performed as previously described by Akçay et al. (2014). Briefly, 15–200 ng DNA, 0.5 mM dNTP, 5 pmol of labelled forward and reverse primers, 0.5 unit DNA polymerase (Promega) (containing 1.5 mM MgCl2) and 1 ml 10X buffer were used and a total of 10 ml of PCR reaction mixture was prepared. PCR program: 1 cycle (94°C for 3 min), 35 cycles (94°C for 1 min, 53–58°C depending on the primers for 1 min, 72°C for 2 min), followed by 72°C for 10 min and 4°C forever (Supplementary Table 2). The amplification control of PCR products was checked by 2% agarose gel electrophoresis.

Capillary electrophoresis conditions were previously described by Akçay et al. (2014) and Burak et al. (2014) in detail. A Beckman CEQ fragment analysis software was used to determine the allele size of each SSR locus. The analyses were repeated at least twice to ensure that the results are reproducible. In each run, ‘Sarılop’ and ‘Kadota’ cultivars were included as controls.

For each locus, the number of alleles (n), allele frequency, expected (He) and observed heterozygosity (Ho) and the probability of identity (PI) values were calculated as previously described (Akçay et al., 2014; Burak et al., 2014). The software IDENTITY was used to detect identical accessions; the proportion of shared alleles was calculated using Microsat (version 1.5) (Minch et al., 1995) and a dendrogram was constructed with the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) method (Sneath and Sokal, 1973), using the software NTSYS-pc (Numerical Taxonomy and Multiware Analysis System) (version 2.0) (Rohlf, 1988).

Excluding the Beyaz Bukele accession which showed tri allelic cases for SSR loci, the Arlequin software (Excoffier et al., 2005) was used to estimate the population genetic parameters of 309 diploid fig accessions. A neighbour-joining tree constructed from Nei's genetic distances was used (1972). Genetix 4 (Belkhir et al., 1996–1998) was used to perform factorial correspondence analysis (FCA) and gene flow estimates. We used the BAPS (Bayesian Analysis of Population Structure) software (version 6.0) (http://www.helsinki.fi/bsg/soft-ware/BAPS) (Corander et al., 2008) to analyse individual elements of data from each province to distinguish population structures. The STRUCTURE software (Pritchard et al., 2000) was employed to analyse population structures of fig accessions. In these analyses, the same computing parameters were used with the exception of measuring the K level for K:1-8 for unknown reconstructed panmictic populations (RPPs) with 25 replications as reported by Pereira-Lorenzo et al. (2018). Structure Harvester (Earl and von Holdt, 2012) was also used for the estimation of the best K value supported by the data (Evanno et al., 2005). We used Bayesian model-based clustering methods to identify RPPs. The number of accessions strongly assigned to each RPPs was determined based on the qI (probability of membership) probabilities greater than 80%.

For clone differentiation, the GenAlEx v6.5 program (Peakall and Smouse, 2012) was used to identify multilocus genotypes (MLGs) in populations. Using the same program, number of different alleles (Na), effective alleles (Ne), observed heterozygosity (Ho), Nei's (1978) unbiased expected heterozygosity (uHe) and private alleles summary (PAS) values for each population were determined.

In addition, a histogram of pairwise distances generated using the software GenoType v1.2 (Meirmans and van Tienderen, 2004) was used to determine whether somatic mutations are present. A possible number of clones (representing clone number) and Simpson's diversity based on multilocus lineages (MLLs) calculations was conducted using the GenoDive v1.1 program (Meirmans and van Tienderen, 2004). In addition, an effective number of genotypes (accessions) (eff), genotypic diversity (div), eveness (eve) and Shannon–Wiener (shw) diversity index values were calculated using the GenoDive v1.1 program. In the analysis of MLGs, different mutational threshold or T values (T shows the maximum distance allowed to identify a clone between two individuals with the same ‘MLG (accession)’ value) were tested (e.g. from threshold = 0 to threshold = 10) to minimise potential scoring errors and mutational problems. The groupings of MLGs within MLLs were considered, and the accessions with similar mutational threshold values were considered to represent the clones.

RESULTS

SSR analysis

In this study, a total of 310 fig accessions were analysed for 14 SSR loci and a total of 124 alleles were identified. The lowest number of alleles (2) was observed for the LMFC23 and the highest number of alleles (15) was found for the FCUP038-6 locus. The average allele number per locus was 7.75 and the mean He and Ho values were 0.652 and 0.685, respectively. The highest Ho values of 0.845 and 0.819 were observed for MFC1 and LMFC30, and the lowest values of 0.319 and 0.383 for MFC8 and LMFC23, respectively. FCUP038-6 with 15 alleles (PI: 0.093), FCUP070-2 with 11 alleles (PI: 0.094) and LMFC30 with 9 alleles (PI: 0.093) were the most informative loci. LMFC23 (PI: 0.600) with two alleles was the least informative locus (Table 1).

Table 1

Genetic parameters of Anatolian fig accessions examined in this study.

Locus noLocus nameNHeHoPI
L1MFC160.5920.8450.362
L2MFC290.7060.6800.198
L3MFC380.5540.4090.373
L4MFC860.3390.3190.505
L5FCUP008-2110.7630.7610.161
L6FCUP027-490.7780.7320.135
L7FCUP038-6150.8050.6960.093
L8FCUP066-780.7010.7540.240
L9FCUP068-1110.7260.7480.189
L10FCUP070-2110.8310.7640.094
L11LMFC2320.4130.3830.600
L12LMFC2550.5210.5320.424
L13LMFC3090.8330.8190.093
L14FM4-7060.7360.6580.212
Mean7.750.6520.685–

[i] Allele numbers (N), expected heterozygosity (He), observed heterozygosity (Ho) and probability of identity (PI) values for the SSR loci are shown.

Genetic relationships of fig accession groups

Various genetic parameters, such as Ho and He, polymorphic loci and the mean number of alleles per locus, estimated for six fig accession groups, are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2

Expected and observed heterozygosities, polymorphic locus at both 95% and 99% probability levels and the mean number of alleles per locus in six Anatolian fig populations (sample size of each population).

Populations (sample size of each population)HeterozygosityPolymorphic locusMean of alleles/loci
HexpHobsP(0.95)P(0.99)
Aegean (157)0.624 ± 0.1460.625 ± 0.1601.0001.0006.86
Central Anatolia (11)0.625 ± 0.1540.623 ± 0.2141.0001.0004.79
Mediterranean (42)0.658 ± 0.1760.668 ± 0.1921.0001.0006.36
Marmara (53)0.655 ± 0.1930.685 ± 0.2191.0001.0006.36
Black Sea (34)0.641 ± 0.1690.687 ± 0.2091.0001.0005.50
Southeast Anatolia (13)0.638 ± 0.1850.687 ± 0.2211.0001.0005.50

[i] Genetic differentiation (Fst) values are shown in Table 3. Based on the Fst values, some accession groups were significantly different from others (Table 3).

The highest gene flow (Nm) (31.23) was found between Central Anatolia and Marmara accession groups and the lowest gene flow (2.94) was found between Aegean and Black Sea accession groups (Table 3). Genetic similarity between the accessions was estimated using the coefficient for Nei's standard genetic distance (1972) (Supplementary Table 3), which showed relatively high genetic similarities. The tree constructed using neighbour-joining analysis was consistent with the findings from genetic distance analyses (Supplementary Figure 1).

Table 3

Pairwise population differentiation (Fst) and gene flow (Nm) between Anatolian fig populations.

Populations (Fst/Nm)AegeanCentral AnatoliaMediterraneanMarmaraBlack Sea
Aegean–
Central Anatolia0.035***/6.92–
Mediterranean0.067***/3.500.067***/3.47–
Marmara0.024***/10.160.007ns/31.230.048***/4.92–
Black Sea0.078***/2.940.043***/5.400.068***/3.410.037***/6.40–
Southeast Anatolia0.71***/3.260.069***/3.390.028**/8.700.048***/4.900.054***/4.28

Ns, not significant.

** p < 0.01.

*** p < 0.001.

Marmara accessions showed relatively high similarity to the geographically close Aegean and Central Anatolian accessions with high gene flow rates (10.16 and 31.23, respectively) between these accession groups (Supplementary Figure 1, Table 3 and Supplementary Table 3). Southeast Anatolian accessions showed relatively low similarity to the accessions from other regions, especially to Aegean and Central Anatolia groups, as evidenced by high genetic distance and low gene flow values. Overall, genetic distance and adjacent joining analyses revealed that genetic similarities between the groups were high.

The FCA (Figure 2) showed partial sub-structuring of fig accession groups. Mediterranean and Black Sea accessions were grouped separately and showed relatively little overlap with other accession groups. Southeast Anatolian accessions were similar to Mediterranean and Black Sea accessions and showed a partial overlap with these two groups (Figure 2). In contrast, Aegean and Marmara accessions showed a strong overlap with accessions from Central Anatolia, most likely due to potential gene flows occurring between these populations (Table 3).

Figure 2

FCA of six fig populations. Different colours indicate different geographical regions where different fig accessions are originated from. The first axis of the FCA accounts for 38.76% of the variation within the data whereas the second axis accounts for an additional 28.63%. Both axes together account for 67.39% of the variability in the dataset. FCA, factorial correspondence analysis.

Southeast Anatolian accessions, which showed relatively high genetic distance from the accessions of other regions, displayed a homogenous (monocoloured) BAPS structure (Supplementary Table 3 and Supplementary Figure 2). Central Anatolia, which showed overlap with other regions in the FCA, formed a homogenous structure according to the BAPS analysis. Marmara accessions, which showed the low genetic distance to other populations with a significant overlap in the FCA, displayed an admixture BAPS structure (Figure 2; Supplementary Figure 2).

Genetic relationships of Anatolian fig accessions

In this study, we identified 22 homonymous (genetically different accessions known by the same name), 36 synonymous (genetically same accessions known by the different name) and 7 identical accession groups (Supplementary Tables 4–6).

A maximum K value at K = 2 corresponding to the two main RPPs (Figure 3; Supplementary Figure 3; Supplementary Tables 1 and 2) (RPP1 and RPP2) was identified using STRUCTURE analyses of diploid fig populations. Furthermore, RPP analyses showed that 87% (271) of accessions could be assigned to individual RPPs with at least 80% probability whereas 13% of accessions either could not be assigned or could be assigned only with a low probability value to a representative RPP (Figure 3).

RPP1 contained 81% of the Aegean population, followed by Central Anatolia (55%) and Marmara (51%) populations. In RPP1, 127 out of 165 accessions (77%) were observed with a probability of membership ratio qI (>80%), whereas a total of 38 accessions (23%) of different populations were identified as <80%. In RPP1, the highest number of accessions (126) was found in the Aegean population whereas the lowest number of accessions (4) was found in the Mediterranean population (Figure 3, Supplementary Table 1).

Figure 3

A: Illustration of two RPPs (RPP1 and RPP2) (K = 2, ql = 100–0%) B: Distribution of fig accessions by RPPs; accession no (population no: (1): Aegean, (2): Central Anatolia, (3): Mediterranean, (4): Marmara, (5): Black Sea, (6): Southeast Anatolia). See Supplementary Table 1 for corresponding accession numbers. RPPs, reconstructed panmictic populations.

In RPP2, the populations with the highest numbers of accessions were Southeast Anatolia (100%), Mediterranean (93%) and Black Sea (79%). In RPP2, the qI (>80%) value of 72% was similar to that of RPP1. In RPP2 populations, the highest number of entries was found in the Mediterranean (39 accessions) and the lowest number of accessions (5 accessions) was found in Central Anatolia. In addition, the qI value was <80% for 40 accessions (28%), which included 4 accessions from the Black Sea, 3 accessions from Southeast Anatolia, 10 accessions from Marmara, 4 accessions from the Mediterranean, 2 accessions from Central Anatolia and 17 accessions from Aegean populations.

In both RPPs, RPP1 and RPP2, a total of 70 accessions were identified as admixed accessions (qI < 80%). The populations with the highest number of admixed accessions for both groups were Aegean (35 accessions) and Marmara (22 genotypes) (Figure 3; Supplementary Table 1).

When male–female distribution was examined in RPP analyses, female figs were distributed in two RPPs, whereas 40 out of 45 male (caprifig) figs originating from Aegean-Aydın and Aegean-İzmir, respectively, were found in RPP1, and the remaining 5 in RPP2.

Clonal analysis

In MLG analyses, a total of 96 different MLGs (accessions) and 213 unique accessions were identified. In line with the number of populations, the highest number of MLGs was 38 and these were found in the Aegean population; on the other hand, the lowest number of MLGs was 3 and these were found in the Central Anatolia population. The mean number of different alleles (Na) and effective alleles (Ne), which were 5.87 and 3.35, respectively, were similar in all 6 populations. Observed heterozygosity (Ho) values were 0.68 in Marmara, Black Sea and Southeast Anatolia populations. These Ho values were higher than the uHe values of the same populations. However, in the Aegean population, Ho and uHe values were identical. The lowest PAS value with 4 alleles at 2 different loci was found in the Black Sea and Southeast Anatolia populations, whereas the highest PAS value with 12 alleles at 5 different loci was found in Aegean and Mediterranean populations (Table 4).

Table 4

Multilocus genotypes (MLG), number of different alleles (Na), effective alleles (Ne), observed heterozygosity (Ho), unbiased expected heterozygosity (uHe) and PAS values found in different fig populations studied.

PopulationMLGNaNeHouHePAS (Locus no: alleles (bp))
Aegean386.853.070.620.62L3:137, L6:246, L8:142, L10:155–159–179, L11:176
Central Anatolia34.783.030.620.65L4:156, L12:124
Mediterranean196.353.600.660.66L3:141, L6:160, L7:190, L9:153, L15:196
Marmara156.353.670.680.66L6:148–168, L7:158, L8:186, L14:249
Black Sea155.423.350.680.64L2:160, L8:144
Southeast Anatolia65.503.400.680.66L2:186, L11:152
Total9635.2520.123.943.89–

[i] PAS, private alleles summary.

In MLLs analyses performed using different threshold values, some minor differences were observed in the number of different MLLs. There was no difference in the number of MLLs between threshold = 2 and threshold = 3 values. Therefore, threshold = 2 is considered as the threshold value.

Based on clonal diversity values, all populations except Central Anatolia and one accession of Southeast Anatolia were found to contain unique accessions (Table 5).

Table 5

Number of genotypes (accessions) (gen)/clonality, effective number of genotypes (accessions) (eff), genotypic diversity (div), eveness (eve) and Shannon-Wiener (shw) values (for threshold = 2) determined in MLLs analysis.

PopulationNumber of genotypes (accessions) (gen)/ClonalityEffective number of genotypes (accessions) (eff)Genotypic diversity (div)Eveness (eve)Shannon-wiener (shw)
Aegean124/33870.9940.7022.035
Central Anatolia11/0111.0001.0001.041
Mediterranean33/9260.9860.8091.479
Marmara46/7410.9940.9111.644
Black Sea29/4260.9920.9151.445
Southeast Anatolia12/1110.9870.9381.067

[i] MLLs, multilocus lineages.

The genotypic diversity (div) value, also known as expected heterozygosity, was similarly found to be high in all populations (mean 0.991). The lowest eveness (eve) value, which shows distribution status of accessions within a population, was 0.702 in the Aegean population, whereas the highest eveness value, which was the same as the number of effective number of genotypes (accessions) (eff), was 1.000 in the Central Anatolia population. This indicates that all accessions of the Central Anatolia population have the same frequency. The higher Shannon–Wiener (shw) value (2.035) which was observed in the Aegean population as compared with other populations, was consistent with the high-diversity features of this population (Table 5).

Among accessions, 54 clones/multilocus accessions were found for threshold = 2. Especially in Aegean (33 clones) and Mediterranean (9 clones) populations, accession-clone matches were found to occur mostly within the same population. Detailed information (accession name, accession no, geographical region and province) on clones determined based on threshold = 2 value is given in Supplementary Table 7.

It has been observed that the clone matching groups determined in the MLL analysis are partially similar to the groups determined in the RPP analysis.

DISCUSSION

To date, Anatolian figs have been identified mostly based on their morphological features and current accessions have been often named by individual collectors/curators of such germplasms. Therefore, it is suspected that due to the lack of a reliable genetic characterisation system, a number of homonymous and synonymous fig accessions from Anatolia have remained uncharacterised. In this study, we used SSR markers, which have been used extensively for genetic diversity, linkage mapping and population genetic studies (Verma et al., 2013), for the characterisation of Anatolian figs. The database constructed for Anatolian figs in this study will be a useful national and international reference for future studies.

SSR analysis

Based on the PI values, the most informative locus was FCUP038-6 (PI: 0.093; 15 alleles), and the least informative locus was LMFC23 (PI: 0.600; 2 alleles). The FCUP038-6 locus has also been identified as the locus which demonstrates the highest number of alleles in previous investigations (Bandelj et al., 2007; Caliskan et al., 2012; Ferrara et al., 2016; Caliskan et al., 2018). The number of alleles per locus ranged from 2 for LMFC23 to 15 for FCUP038-6 and the allele sizes ranged from 121bp for MFC3 to 261bp for LMFC30. Similarly, the LMFC23 locus displayed low polymorphism in other studies (Giraldo et al. 2005; Giraldo et al., 2008; Ferrara et al., 2016). The MFC and LMF group loci (Khadari et al., 2003; Saddoud et al., 2008; Achtak et al., 2009; Aradhya et al., 2010; Do Val et al., 2013; Caliskan et al., 2018; Ganopoulos et al., 2015; Teoman et al., 2017) and the FM4-70 locus (Zavodna et al., 2005; Caliskan et al., 2012; Ikten et al., 2018) have also been used by other workers for genetic identification of figs and, overall, our results are in accordance with these previous studies. In a study by Teoman et al. (2017), 24 LMF loci were studied on 45 caprifigs (F. carica var. caprificus) and 2 female figs from the Marmara and Aegean regions of Turkey, and the LMF-30 locus was found to have the highest number of alleles per locus (9 alleles). Similar results were also obtained by Achtak et al. (2009) and Aradhya et al. (2010).

Genetic relationships of fig accession groups

Estimates of genetic similarity were obtained from SSR markers data. The genetic distance matrix varied between 0.055 and 0.232 suggesting that fig accessions analysed had relatively high genetic diversity. The lowest similarity value was found between the accessions from Southeast and Central Anatolia whereas the maximum similarity was found between Marmara and Aegean accessions. Additionally, high similarities between accessions from Marmara and other regions were found (Supplementary Table 3). The Marmara region is known for having the highest rate of human commute due to its historical past (the former capital of Turkey throughout history), and this genetic similarity of Marmara accessions and other regions can be due to the comparatively high level of genetic material exchange with these regions throughout history.

Based on SSR analyses, 310 accessions were classified into six accession groups (dendrogram not shown). Similarly, Caliskan et al. (2018) divided 90 caprifig accessions from the Eastern Mediterranean into five groups. In our study, reference accessions from geographically distant Aegean region clustered separately from eastern accessions. The most significant genetic differentiation value (0.078) was found between Aegean and Black Sea fig accession groups whereas the lowest FST value (0.007) was identified between Marmara and Central Anatolian fig populations. Similarly, significant genetic differentiation values were found within Anatolian fig populations, with the highest and lowest FST values being 0.182 and 0.007, respectively (Caliskan et al., 2018). The results of gene flow analyses revealed that the accessions from geographically distant regions had lower levels of gene flow, whereas the accessions originated from closer geographical locations had higher levels of gene flow.

The observed heterozygosity values, which were higher than expected heterozygosity for all groups except for those from Central Anatolia, indicated a high level of cross-pollination in different F. carica populations. This finding agrees with that of Aradhya et al. (2010), who studied fig samples from Europe, Asia and North America. According to the BAPS structure analysis, fig accessions from Southeast Anatolia displayed a homogeneous structure which is consistent with the FCA analysis. In addition, Southeast Anatolian accessions showed the highest genetic distance among the remaining regions studied (Supplementary Table 3). Central Anatolian accessions showed a homogeneous structure. Based on genetic distance and the rate of gene flow analyses, genetic similarity between accessions from this region and those of Marmara indicated gene flow from Central Anatolia to the Marmara region. Marmara and Aegean accessions with an admixture (heterogeneous) structure had some overlap with other accessions (Figure 2; Supplementary Figure 2), suggesting that gene flows to these regions from other regions had been also occurred.

The RPP analyses confirmed the results of structuring by other population analyses (FCA, BAPS structure, gene flow, etc.). RPP1 included 81% of the Aegean population, half of the Marmara population and 50% of the Central Anatolia population. As a result, these three populations overlapped in FCA, showing high gene flow and low genetic distance to one another.

RPP2 was the most diverse RPP and consisted of accessions from all populations. In particular, the Mediterranean and Southeast Anatolia, which showed high similarity to each other, were included in this group (Figure 3; Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).

In MLG analysis carried out in our research, 96 MLGs that showed correspondence to 31% of the total population were distinguished. In similar MLG analyses performed on different plants, this rate was 78% in Halophila ovalis population (Xu et al., 2019), 48% in olive population (Barazani et al., 2014) and 14% in wild population of Ziziphus celata (Rhamnaceae) (Gitzendanner et al., 2012). The rate of MLGs in a population may vary significantly depending on the total population number, the number of SSR markers used and discrimination power (Hamadeh et al., 2018). Accordingly, about 56% of 96 MLGs determined in MLG analysis were distinguished as clone in MLL analysis (threshold = 2) (Table 5) and proved that the discrimination power of SSR markers used in the clonal analysis is sufficient.

As it is known, heterozygosity values (unbiased expected heterozygosity (uHe) and observed heterozygosity) determined in MLG analysis provide information about genetic diversity and kinship relations between MLGs (Harris and DeGiorgio, 2017). In MLG analysis performed on 1,747 Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. var. lobata (also known as kudzu) plants belonging to 87 different locations in the United States, the average number of samples for 87 locations was 20, and based on the unbiased expected heterozygosity (uHe) value (0.398) and observed heterozygosity value (Ho) (0.444), it was clear that kudzu plant had high genetic diversity and it was explained that this situation was caused by high clonal reproduction (Bentley and Maurıcıo, 2016). In addition, in MLG analysis based on SSR markers in 429 genotypes belonging to 22 different populations of the perennial tree Platanus orientalis living in the Mediterranean region, unbiased expected heterozygosity (uHe) was found between 0.267 and 0.607, and observed heterozygosity (Ho) was found between 0.207 and 0.564, and despite the high number of analysed population, low heterozygosity values observed at the clonal level were attributed to geographic isolation and low gene flow (Rinaldi et al., 2019).

In MLG analysis of our study, it was interestingly revealed that expected heterozygosity (uHe) and observed heterozygosity (Ho) values were quite close to each other in all six populations, and values of both heterozygosities were observed to be 0.620 and higher. This situation reveals the possible genetic variation among MLGs in each population (Harris and DeGiorgio, 2017).

Genetic relationships of fig accessions

As explained in detail later, in this study, 36 synonymous, 22 homonymous and 7 identical fig accessions were identified (Supplementary Tables 4–6).

Homonymous groups

The accessions named ‘Siyah’ (e.g. accessions 105, 106, 214, 215, 251 and 252) and ‘Siyah İncir’ (e.g. accessions 216, 241 and 295) are most likely homonymous. A similar situation can also be seen in the case of ‘Beyaz’ (203) and ‘Beyaz incir’ accessions. It should be noted that the words/adjectives used in accession names such as ‘Siyah’ (meaning ‘black’ in Turkish), ‘Beyaz’ (meaning ‘white’ in Turkish) and ‘Mor’ (meaning ‘purple’ in Turkish) all refer to the colour of the fruit. The accessions called ‘Datça 1’ (145), ‘Datça 2’ (146), ‘Datça 3’ (147), ‘Datça 4’ (148) and ‘Datça 5’ (157) formed a homonymous group with <70% genetic similarity. Despite having the same name, the homonymous group accessions Halebi (298) and Halebi (299) showed only 56.7% similarity to each other whereas Halebi (298) and Halebi (299) showed 86.7% similarity to ‘Armut sapı’ (178) and 66.7% similarity to ‘Mor özer’ (297) accessions, respectively (Supplementary Table 4).

Synonymous groups

The two ‘Kadota’ accessions (134 and 168) originated from Italia and a Turkish accession called ‘Lop Yemiş’ (132) formed a synonymous group. ‘Lop Yemiş’ was not similar to other similarly called accessions (i.e. ‘Lop Figs’) and, therefore, it is likely that ‘Lop Yemiş’ (132) is a ‘Kadota’ accession. Of the fig accessions from the Aydın province, three accessions, namely ‘Bağcılar’ (41), an ‘unnamed’ accession (45) and ‘Sarılop’ (46), were found to be synonymous (Supplementary Table 5). It is likely that ‘Bağcılar’ (41) and the ‘unnamed’ accession (46) may, in fact, be ‘Sarılop’ (46), which is a widely grown fig accession in the Aegean region.

Our results also indicated the synonymous 306 (unnamed) is a ‘Lop’ (229) accession whereas 210 (unnamed) is a ‘Siyah İncir’ (149) accession. ‘Bektaşi’ (40) and ‘Mor İncir’ (107) were found to be synonymous to ‘Mor Güz’ (5) and ‘Mor Güz’ (95) and because of low similarities between ‘Mor İncir’ (107) and other members of the ‘Mor İncir’ accessions, it is likely that ‘Bektaşi’ (40) and ‘Mor İncir’ (107) were misnamed. These accessions are likely to be the same as ‘Mor Güz’ accessions (Supplementary Table 5).

Similarly, since ‘Datça 1’ (145) was found to be synonymous with ‘Siyah Güz’ (9), it is likely that ‘Siyah Güz’ (9) was misnamed. ‘Yediveren’ (30) formed a synonymous group with accessions 1, 28, 33, 223 and 244 but had only 36.7% similarity to another accession also, called ‘Yediveren’ (115), forming a homonymous group with it. This indicates that accession 30 was not ‘Yediveren’ but had the same genetic background with its synonymous accessions.

The synonymous accession ‘unnamed’ (125) seems to be a ‘Izmir Bardacık’ accession and ‘unnamed’ 141 in case 7 is a ‘Mor 4’ accession. Similarly, ‘unnamed’ (262) is an accession of ‘Yediveren’. ‘Unnamed’ synonymous 259 and 260, showing the same similarities to all other accessions, were similar to 104 ‘Aydın İnciri’ and may be originated from 104. Besides, because ‘Mor İncir’ (107) showed low similarities to other members of the ‘Mor İncir’ group, this accession is likely to be the same as ‘Mor Güz’ accessions.

Identical groups

In this study, seven identical groups including ‘Yanako 1’ (60) – ‘Yanako 2’ (61), ‘Siyah’ (215) – ‘Siyah İncir’ (216), ‘Tarak’ (183) – ‘Tarak İnciri’ (191), ‘Morgüz’ (5) – ‘Morgüz’ (95), ‘Kırmızı İncir’ (174) – ‘Kırmızı İncir’ (187), ‘Siyah’ (242) – ‘Siyah İncir’ (295) and ‘Kadota’ (134) – ‘Kadota’ (168) were identified (Supplementary Table 6).

Clonal similarity

As proposed by Ordidge et al. (2018), 16 clonal cases with 90–100% similarity required for clonality were found. Of these, nine accession groups that showed one allelic difference (or 96.9% similarity), three accession groups that showed two allelic differences (or 93.8% similarity) as well as four groups that showed three allelic differences (90.6% similarity) were identified. The number of clones determined in MLL analyzes (Supplementary Table 7) is higher than the number of clones determined by the genetic similarity index (UPGMA). However, it was determined that the accessions belonging to the clone groups in both analyses showed high similarity with each other.

Our analyses also revealed extensive clonal relationships among accession. ‘Devetabanı’ (34) and ‘Sakız’ (35) were found to be 96.7% and 93.3% similar, respectively, to six synonymous accessions (1, 28, 30, 33, 223 and 244). ‘Devetabanı’ (34) differed from these six synonymous accessions by only one allele found at the MFC4 locus and ‘Sakız’ (35) differed by two homozygous alleles at the LMFC25 locus.

Similarly, of the three synonymous fig accessions identified here, ‘Sarılop Kim’ (92) and ‘Ak Sarılop’ (99) from İzmir and another ‘unnamed’ accession (138) from Manisa showed 96.7% similarity to ‘Sarılop’ (46) from Aydın. In MLLs analysis, unnamed accession (138) and ‘Ak Sarılop’ (99) were identified as the clone of ‘Bağcılar’ (41) from the same population. The clonal variation shown by ‘Sarılop’ in the Aegean region is already known (Cabrita et al., 2001) and accordingly it is possible that accessions 41, 92, 99 and 138 are all different ‘Sarılop’ clones. Besides, unknown (309) accession seems to be a ‘Siyah Orak’ (21) clone (Supplementary Table 7).

Unique synonymous-clonal structure and sex distribution of Anatolian figs

In general, the ecotypic variation due to somaclonal variations of fig cultivars appears to be high. Ecotypes here are defined both within and between geographical regions and provinces. Especially in Aegean, Marmara and Mediterranean ecotypes, different accessions were found homonymous (e.g. ‘Datça 1’ (145) – ‘Datça 3’ (147) – ‘Datça 4’ (148) – ‘Datça 5’ (157)), whereas similar accessions (‘Bektaşi’ (40) – ‘Mor Güz’ (95) – ‘Mor İncir’ (107), etc.) were found synonymous (Supplementary Tables 4 and 5).

Clones may be different in MLGs for reasons such as allele scoring error and somatic mutations. Somatic mutations, especially in perennial plants, can lead to differences between individuals with the same clonal genotype (Coughlan et al., 2017). Clonal variations were mostly detected in different varieties that do not form ecotypes within and between geographical regions/provinces. Clonal diversity detected among non-ecotype varieties is thought to be caused either by variations found in each geographical region/province accessions (‘Mor Armudi’ (172-Mediterranean, Adana), ‘Kırmızı İncir’ (174-Mediterranean, Adana), ‘Kırmızı İncir’ (187-Mediterranean, Adana)) or by the emergence of new clones, especially in case of other Aegean and/or Marmara varieties (‘Hamri’ (182-Mediterranean, Adana), ‘Siyah’ (215-Marmara, Balıkesir), ‘Siyah İncir’ (216-Marmara, Balıkesir)) grown in other ecologies (Black Sea, Mediterranean, etc.) (Supplementary Table 7).

In recent years, RPP analyses have been used by various researchers in figs for population structure groupings (Belttar et al., 2017; Teoman et al., 2017; Ikten et al., 2018).

In our study, overall RPP-based groupings showed correlations with genetic similarity relationships of the 310 accessions examined. Regardless of the geographical region/province, almost all 36 synonymous, 7 identical accession cases were included in the same RPP (RPP1 or RPP2) (Supplementary Tables 1, 5 and 6).

In addition, the finding that synonymous, identical accession are grouped with the same RPPs is an indication of their unique structures. Clonal cases except for a few clone groups (unnamed (306) – Sarı Bardak (227); Yediveren (249) – Dumanı Kara (218) and Mor İncir (200) – Kilis inciri (194)) have been found to be in the same RPPs groups (Supplementary Tables 5–7).

Common fig is a gynodioecious species where female and hermaphroditic trees are found together within a population. Male fig trees produce syconia containing both male and female flowers. In contrast, the syconia produced by female fig trees contain only female flowers. Because only male trees can produce pollen, the common fig is considered to be functionally dioecious (Boudchicha et al., 2018).

A total of 45 male accessions from Aegean-Aydın (37) and Aegean-İzmir (8) were included in this study. So far, the number of studies conducted on the structure distribution of male and female accessions in fig accessions has been limited. Teoman et al. (2017) reported that the structure analysis of 47 fig genotypes produced 2 RPPs without any clear male–female separation.

In contrast, in our study, caprifigs showed a distinct structure and mostly located in RPP1, although only five male accessions from the Aegean-Aydin male group (‘Siyah İlek 48’ (48), ‘Kizilay 1’ (58), ‘ Şeytan 1’ (64), ‘Taşlık’ (73), ‘Kızılburun’ (74)) were also found in RRP2.

One of the reasons for these five male accessions to differ from the others could be due to their different genetic structures. Another reason why these five male accessions differed from others would be related to plant genetics as well as gender phenotype. An orthologue of RAN1 gene loci was reported to be associated with sex determination in fig (Mori et al., 2017). Mori et al. (2017) reported that mutational variations of the two SNP regions in RAN1, which is associated with sex determination in figs, caused heterozygous accessions in the 18 male fig accessions. In the current study, five accessions previously reported to be female (Ikten and Yilmaz, 2019) were identified as male based on RAN1-associated cleaved amplified polymorphic sequences (CAPS) marker screenings. These heterozygous genome variations may be another reason for the fact that 5 of the 45 caprifigs accessions were found in different RPPs.

CONCLUSIONS

SSR primers used herein generated a significant number of alleles that enabled genetic characterisation of Anatolian figs and the identification of potentially redundant germplasm. Our findings presented here also suggest that cross-fertilisation might have played a significant role as a source of variability not only in wild fig populations but also in cultivated forms leading to homonymous accessions while the lack of phenotypic descriptions together with misnaming of accessions have resulted in synonymous and identical fig accessions. Another source of variation could be the clonal differences resulting from somaclonal variations among fig accessions. Together, these forces might have led to the development of a rich fig germplasm in Anatolia. Molecular characterisation of this germplasm will facilitate the utilisation and preservation of unique Anatolian fig accessions while generating useful data for future evolutionary studies on global figs populations.

Notes

[8] FUNDING

This study was supported by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) (Grant No. 105 G 078).

[9] Contributed by AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

AE designed and outlined the research. BPB, NA, SSA and CYÖ conducted the experiments. KK, NH, FY, CYÖ and MB analysed the data and drafted and edited the manuscript. NT, MÖ, İK and FÇ provided plant collections. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

[10] Conflicts of interest CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Figure S1

The UPGMA tree showing genetic relationships of six fig populations from Anatolia based on Nei's (1972) genetic distance.

Figure S2

Bayesian analysis of population structure of fig accessions. The structure where fig populations are shown in their heterogeneous, homogeneous or admixtured state is constructed based on their allele frequencies, using the BAPS software. In this figure, vertical bars correspond to individual genotypes. Black vertical lines are used to separate different populations.

Figure S3

A: The best K value (2) is shown in the graph, B: Population structure of fig populations based on K = 1–8. The best K value was calculated according to Evanno et al. (2005) and was K = 2.

Table S1

Collection cites, accession no, accession name of fig cultivars used in the study.

Collection cites (Geographical region-Provinces-Fig plant sex)Accession noAccession codeAccession nameRPP grouping (red: RPP1) (green: RPP2)
Aegean-Aydın-Female11001Göklop
21002Bardakçı
31004Kuşadası Bardakçı
41111Mor Bardakçı
51006Mor Güz
61007Beyaz Güz
71106Ak Güz
81008Yeşil Güz
91039Siyah Güz
101009Mor 1
111020Mor 2
121021Mor 3
131022Mor 4
141005Şeker inciri
151011Kış İnciri
161023Kuş İnciri
171026Siyah İncir
181003Karahönü
191010Kara Yaprak
201019Karabakunya
211012Siyah Orak
221013Beyaz Orak
231014Akça 1
241015Akça 2
251016Akça 3
261017Bardak
271027Asıl Bardak
281036Löp
291037Lop
301018Yediveren
311025Şaranpol
321028Kaya
331031Alaca
341032Devetabanı
351034Sakız
361038Lebi; Uzun
371040Siyilli
381041Sarı Dizilik
391042Koca Ana
401043Bektaşi
411044Bağcılar
421104Patlıcan
431098Sarı Zeybek
441118Unnamed
451100Unnamed
461029Sarı Lop
Aegean-Aydın-Male4728Kara İlek
488Siyah İlek
4924Ak İlek
5036Mor İlek
5154Sarı İlek
5229Kavun İlek
5325Elma İlek
5453Kaba İlek(Bozdoğan)
551Kabaİlek(Ömerbeyli)
5661Körpe İlek
5716Hamza İlek
5810Kızılay 1
5932Kızılay-2
6057Yanako 1
6159Yanako 2
6234Büyük Konkur
6338Küçük Konkur
6418Şeytan 1
6519Şeytan 2
6621aÇakın 1
6721bÇakın 2
6860Adalı
6923Kıbrıslı
7013Gabalı
7115Abalı
7222Damarlı
7350Taşlık
7452Kızılburun
7556Frenk
7635Afyoncu
7737Karabulut
7817aMordemirtaş
7917bÇaçaron
8012Derviş Ali
8114Hacı Yusuf
824Bostancı
837Kuyucak
Aegean-İzmir-Male8439Hacı Abdullah
8540Kara Erkek
8641Ak Erkek 1
8743Ak Erkek 2
8842Çiçekli 2
8944Conkurt
9046Ayardolduran
9149Armut İlek
Aegean-İzmir-Female92TUR1081Sarılop kim
93TUR1082Akça kim
94TUR1047Morgüz
95TUR1045Morgüz
96TUR1035Sarı çiçek
97TUR1046Mor
98TUR1064Mor
99TUR1048Ak sarılop
100TUR1086Mor lop
101TUR1087Unnamed
102TUR1050Boğmalı
103TUR1051Langav
104TUR1053Aydın inciri
105TUR1054Siyah
106TUR1068Siyah
107TUR1055Mor incir
108TUR1056Bardak lopu
109TUR1057Unnamed
110TUR1059Unnamed
111TUR1060Sarıca
112TUR1061Bal inciri
113TUR1062Eyyam bahur
114TUR1065Arap inciri
115TUR1066Yediveren
116TUR1067Gökçe
117TUR1069Kızgıt
118TUR1070Kasaba
119TUR1071Karabakunya
120TUR1073Beyaz Karabakunya
121TUR1072Unnamed
122TUR1074Midilli
123TUR1058Yeşil midilli 1
124TUR1077Yeşil midilli 2
125TUR1075Unnamed
126TUR1076Unnamed
127TUR1078Dibala
128TUR1079Yörük inciri
129TUR1080İzmir Bardacık 2
130TUR1083Unnamed
131TUR1084Unnamed
132TUR1085Lop yemiş
Aegean-Manisa-Female133TUR1049Unnamed
134TUR1107Kadota
135TUR1088Siyah kış
136TUR1089Ufak yeşil
137TUR1090Esmer bal
138TUR1091Unnamed
139TUR1092Unnamed
140TUR1093Unnamed
141TUR1094Unnamed
142TUR1095Unnamed
143TUR1096Unnamed
144TUR1097Unnamed
145TUR1108Datça 1
146TUR1110Datça 2
147TUR1112Datça 3
148TUR1114Datça 4
149TUR1102Siyah incir
150TUR1103Beyaz incir
151TUR1119Unnamed
152TUR1099Unnamed
153TUR1109Şeker
154TUR1113Beyaz incir
155TUR1115Gökçe
156TUR1116Ada
157TUR1117Datça 5
Central Anatolia-Eskişehir-Female158TUR708Darpak
159TUR709Kızıl mor
160TUR710Ekşi incir
161TUR711Beyaz incir
162TUR712Siyah incir
163TUR701Yabani(Mor)
164TUR702Yabani f
165TUR704Yabani f
166TUR705K.formu
167TUR706Çilci
168TUR801Kadota
Mediterranean-Adana-Female169TUR 321Mor Seyhan
170TUR 322Beyaz Seyhan
171TUR 318Mor İncir
172TUR 311Mor Armudi
173TUR 312Kızıl Mor
174TUR 313Kırmızı İncir
175TUR 317Aşı İnciri
176TUR 314Meyem İnciri
177TUR 315Kış İnciri
178TUR 310Armut Sapı
179TUR 316Yayladağ
180TUR 323Fahli
181TUR 324Şetvi
182TUR 325Hamri
183TUR 326Tarak
184TUR 327Lebi
185TUR01I-01Lop İnciri
186TUR31-İ-08Lop İnciri
187TUR31-İ-04Kırmızı İncir
188TUR31-İ-02Beyaz İncir
189TUR31-İ-03Siyah İncir
190TUR31-İ-09Kışlık İncir
191TUR31-İ-06Tarak İnciri
192TUR31-İ-07Fetike İnciri
193TUR31-İ-11Frenk İnciri
194TUR31-İ-12Kilis İnciri
195TUR31-İ-10Gök İncir
196TUR31-İ-05Kandamik
Mediterranean-İçel (Mersin)-Female197TUR33-İ-01Gök İncir
198TUR 33-İ-02Güzlük Mor İncir
199TUR33-İ-03Haziran İnciri
200TUR33-İ-04Mor İncir
201TUR 306Bodrum İnciri
202TUR 307Kalın Kabuk
203TUR 308Beyaz
Mediterranean-Osmaniye-Female204TUR 319Osmaniyeli
205TUR 320Unnamed
Mediterranean-Antalya-Female206TUR 302Mor İncir
207TUR 305Mor İncir
208TUR 309Mor İncir
209TUR 301Sarı İncir
210TUR 303Unnamed
Marmara-Adapazarı-Female211TUR 249Kavak
Marmara-Balıkesir-Female212TUR 209Mor İncir
213TUR 210Mor İncir
214TUR 202Siyah
215TUR 255Siyah
216TUR 208Siyah İncir
217TUR 254Midilli
218TUR 220Dumanlı Kara
219TUR 205Sarı Dizilik
220TUR 206Boğmalı Dizilik
221TUR 207Yemişi Lop
222TUR 256Yediveren
223TUR 201Istanbul
Marmara-Bursa-Female224TUR 237Bursa Siyahı
225TUR 236Bardak
226TUR 238Beyaz Bardak
227TUR 242Sarı Bardak
228TUR 241Gök Bardak
229TUR 240Lop
230TUR 245Sarı Yemiş
231TUR 246Gelin Yanağı
232TUR 243Susak
233TUR 244Kavak
234TUR 247Mor İncir
235TUR 248Siyah İncir
236TUR 252Löp İnciri
Marmara-Çanakkale-Female237TUR 223Yediveren
238TUR 222Kavak Yediveren
239TUR 224Beyaz İncir
240TUR 213Kara Yemiş
241TUR 216Siyah İncir
242TUR 218Siyah
243TUR 225Kabak Yemişi
244TUR 212Çiçek İncir
245TUR 215Midilli
246TUR 214Unnamed
247TUR 219Unnamed
Marmara-İstanbul-Female248TUR 235Yediveren
249TUR 250Yediveren
250TUR 227Yediveren
251TUR 234Siyah
252TUR 230Siyah
253TUR 251Dereköy
254TUR 226Kasım İnciri
255TUR 228İpek İnciri
256TUR 231Tüylü İncir
257TUR 232Koca Yemiş
258TUR 253Sultan Selim
259TUR 233Unnamed
260TUR 229Unnamed
261TUR 211Unnamed
262TUR 203Unnamed
263TUR 204Unnamed
Black Sea-Artvin-Female264TUR 536Beyaz İncir
265TUR 542Siyah Bukele
266TUR 541Sarı Kilis
267TUR 540Kilis İnciri
Black Sea-Bartın-Female268TUR 505Kara Sultani
269TUR 506Beyaz Sultani
Black Sea-Giresun-Female270TUR 530İpek İnciri
271TUR 532Kepek İnciri
272TUR 531Değirmen İnciri
273TUR 534Sarı İncir
274TUR 533Ağarsak
Black Sea-Kastamonu-Female275TUR 507Balduzdın
276TUR 508Baldıran
Black Sea-Ordu-Female277TUR 528Kara İncir
278TUR 529Könüs İnciri
279TUR 523Dilaver
280TUR 524Ham İncir
281TUR 525Ak İncir 1
Black Sea-Sinop-Female282TUR 511Şalgam İnciri
283TUR 512Istanbul İnciri
284TUR 514Deniz İnciri
285TUR 515Tabak İnciri
286TUR 513Filestos
Black Sea-Samsun-Female287TUR 517Mor İncir
288TUR 522Turna Boyu
289TUR 519Şeker İnciri
Black Sea-Trabzon-Female290TUR 537Kara İncir
291TUR 538Kabak İnciri
292TUR 535Horasan
Black Sea-Zonguldak-Female293TUR 503Ak İncir
294TUR 501Sarı İncir
295TUR 504Siyah İncir
296TUR 502Istanbul İnciri
Southeast Anatolia297TUR 401Mor Özer
298TUR 402Halebi
299TUR 407Halebi
300TUR 403Sultani
301TUR 405Kalazi
302TUR 408Azezi
303TUR 404Kış Hayrı
304TUR 221Yeşil İncir
305TUR 217Unnamed
306TUR 239Unnamed
307TUR 304Unnamed
308TUR 07-I-0P5Kızıl Yemiş
309TUR 01-I-04Unnamed
Black Sea-Artvin-Female310TUR 539Beyaz Bukele
Table S2

SSR loci information (locus no, locus name, primer sequence, repeat motif, expected range (bp), amplification temperatures and GenBank accession number).

Locus noLocus namePrimer sequence (5′ to 3′)Repeat motifExpected range (bp)Amplification temperatures (Tm)GenBank accession numbers
L1MFC1f: ctagactgaaaaaacattgc, r:tgagattgaaaggaaacgag(ct)13174–19255AF333703
L2MFC2f: gcttccgatgctgctctta, r:tcggagacttttgttcaat(ac)18(at)7158–17255AF333697
L3MFC3f:gatattttcatgtttagtttg, r:gaggatagaccaacaacaac(ac)15(tc)(ac)8(at)7122–13655AF333698
L4MFC8f:gtggcgtcgtctctaataat, r:tattctatgctgtcttatgtca(ca)9ta(ca)14(ta)6170–17457AF333703
L5FCUP008-2f: catacactttcatggagcacaaa, r: cccagatgtttggtgaagg(tg)22158–18453EF198054
L6FCUP027-4f: aaccttttagtatgcctttggaa, r: tccaccatcaaatccttctg(ac)19202–22055EF198058
L7FCUP038-6f:caatgtatcatttcatctcacgaa, r: agttcccatgtttggttactga(tg)23t(ag)11170–19358EF198059
L8FCUP066-7f: ccctctcgaagaagaagca, r: ctacaggaaatgggcctcaa(ca)14162–18258EF198065
L9FCUP068-1f:ggaattaccgtccatggcta, r: cgccactctctctctccact(ag)14(gagagag)4178–20658EF198066
L10FCUP070-2f:ttcaacttcaaccttcaccaa, r:tttgtctaaggaggcttattgtca(ag)15183–19558EF198068
L11LMFC23f: tttcgtgtctaacgatcaaaaa, r: ctcccatctccaactccatc(ag)2013253AY545936
L12LMFC25f: gattctgattaaagggtattt, r: gctttccaaatctaaagtaac(tc)1121655AY545938
L13LMFC30f: ttgtccgtttcttatacaat, r: tctttttaggcagatgttag(ct)18(ca)625358AY545942
L14FM4-70f:cagatgaggttgacgatgttattg, r: taaaccctcttcaaattcactctc(gaa)20−1202–23255AJ854076

[i] SSR, simple sequence repeat.

Table S3

Genetic distance/genetic similarity (%) between fig populations based on Nei's (1972) genetic distance.

PopulationsAegeanCentral AnatoliaMediterraneanMarmaraBlack Sea
Aegean–
Central Anatolia0.107/89.3–
Mediterranean0.149/85.10.206/79.4–
Marmara0.055/94.50.065/93.50.126/87.4–
Black Sea0.175/82.50.144/85.60.177/82.30.099/90.1–
Southeast Anatolia0.181/81.90.232/76.80.106/89.40.149/85.10.164/83.6
Table S4

Reconstructed panmictic population (RPP) grouping of homonymous identified based on SSR analysis.

NoHomonymous-accession name (accession no-geographical region, provinces)
RPP1RPP2
1Kızılay 2 (59-Aegean, Aydın)Kızılay 1 (58-Aegean, Aydın)
2Şeytan 2 (65-Aegean, Aydın)Şeytan 1 (64-Aegean, Aydın)
3Çakın 1 (66-Aegean, Aydın) – Çakın 2 (67-Aegean, Aydın)–
4Datça1 (145-Aegean, Manisa) – Datça 3 (147-Aegean, Manisa) – Datça 4 (148-Aegean, Manisa) – Datça 5 (157-Aegean, Manisa)Datça 2 (146-Aegean, Manisa)
5Ak Erkek 1 (86-Aegean, İzmir) – Ak Erkek 2 (87-Aegean, İzmir)–
6Morgüz (95-Aegean, İzmir) – Morgüz (5-Aegean, Aydın)Morgüz (94-Aegean, Aydın)
7Siyah (105-Aegean, İzmir) – Siyah (106-Aegean, İzmir) – Siyah (214-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Siyah (252-Marmara, İstanbul) – Siyah İncir (17-Aegean, Aydın) – Siyah İncir (241-Marmara, Çanakkale)–Siyah (215-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Siyah İncir (216-Marmara, Balıkesir)Siyah (251-Marmara, İstanbul) – Siyah İncir (149-Aegean, Manisa) – Siyah İncir (162-Central Anatolia, Eskişehir) – Siyah İncir (189-Mediterranean, Adana) – Siyah İncir (235-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Siyah (242-Marmara, Çanakkale) – Siyah İncir (295-Black Sea, Zonguldak)
8Beyaz İncir (154-Aegean, Manisa) – Beyaz İncir (187-Mediterranean, Adana) – Beyaz İncir (238-Marmara, Çanakkale) – Beyaz İncir (263-Marmara, İstanbul)Beyaz (203-Mediterranean, İçel) – Beyaz İncir (150-Aegean, Manisa) – Beyaz İncir (161-Central Anatolia)
9Akça 1 (23-Aegean, Aydın) – Akça 2 (24-Aegean, Aydın) – Akça 3 (25-Aegean, Aydın)–
10Mor 1 (10-Aegean, Aydın) – Mor 2 (11-Aegean, Aydın) – Mor 3 (12-Aegean, Aydın) – Mor 4 (13-Aegean, Aydın) – Mor (97-Aegean, İzmir) – Mor (98-Aegean, İzmir) – Mor İncir (107-Aegean, İzmir) – Mor İncir (206-Mediterranean, Antalya) – Mor İncir (207-Mediterranean, Antalya) – Mor İncir (234-Marmara, Bursa)Mor İncir (171-Mediterranean, Adana) – Güzlük Mor İncir (198-Mediterranean, İçel) – Mor İncir (200-Mediterranean, İçel) – Mor İncir (208-Mediterranean, Antalya) – Mor İncir (212-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Mor İncir (213-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Mor İncir (287-Black Sea, Samsun)
11Midilli (122-Aegean, İzmir) – Midilli (217-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Midilli (245-Marmara, Çanakkale) – Yeşil Midilli 2 (124-Aegean, İzmir)Yeşil Midilli 1 (123-Aegean, İzmir)
12Yabani F (165-Central Anatolia-Eskişehir)Yabani F (164-Central Anatolia, Eskişehir) – Yabani (Mor) (163-Central Anatolia, Eskişehir)
13–Karabakunya (20-Aegean, Aydın) – Karabakunya (119-Aegean, İzmir) – Beyaz karabakunya (120-Aegean, İzmir)
14Bardakçı (2-Aegean, Aydın) – Kuşadası Bardakçı (3-Aegean, Aydın) – Morbardakçı (4-Aegean, Aydın) – Bardak (26-Aegean, Aydın) – Bardak (225-Marmara, Bursa) – Gök Bardak (228-Marmara, Bursa)Asıl Bardak (27-Aegean, Aydın) – Beyaz Bardak (226-Marmara, Bursa) – Sarı Bardak (227-Marmara, Bursa)
15Yediveren (30-Aegean, Aydın) – Yediveren (115-Aegean, İzmir) – Yediveren (222-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Yediveren (248-Marmara, İstanbul)Yediveren (237-Marmara, Çanakkale) – Kavak Yediveren (238-Marmara, Çanakkale) – Yediveren (249-Marmara, İstanbul) – Yediveren (250-Marmara, İstanbul)
16Şeker (153-Aegean, Manisa) – Şeker İnciri (14-Aegean, Aydın)Şeker İnciri (289-Black Sea, Samsun)
17Löp (28-Aegean, Aydın) – Lop (29-Aegean, Aydın) – Löp İnciri (236-Marmara, Bursa)Lop İnciri (185-Mediterranean, Adana) – Lop İnciri (186-Mediterranean, Adana) – Lop (229-Marmara, Bursa)
18Kaba İlek (Bozdoğan) (54-Aegean, Aydın) – Kaba İlek (Ömerbeyli) (55-Aegean, Aydın)–
19Büyük Konkur (62-Aegean, Aydın) – Küçük Konkur (63-Aegean, Aydın)–
20Frenk (75-Aegean, Aydın)Frenk İnciri (193-Mediterranean, Adana)
21–Kış İnciri (15-Aegean, Aydın) – Kış İnciri (177-Mediterranean, Adana) – Kışlık İncir (190-Mediterranean, Adana)
22–Halebi (298-Southeast Anatolia) – Halebi (299-Southeast Anatolia)

[i] SSR, simple sequence repeat.

Table S5

RPP grouping of synonymous identified based on SSR analysis.

NoSynonymous-accession name (accession no-geographical region, provinces)
RPP1RPP2
1Gök Lop (1-Aegean, Aydın) – Löp (28-Aegean, Aydın) – Yediveren (30-Aegean, Aydın) – Alaca (33-Aegean, Aydın) – İstanbul (223-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Çiçek İncir (244-Marmara, Çanakkale)–
2Mor (98-Aegean, İzmir) – Dibala (127-Aegean, İzmir)–
3Ada (156-Aegean, Manisa) – Yemişi Lop (221-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Balduzdın (275-Black Sea, Kastamonu) – Könüş İnciri (278-Southeast Anatolia)–
4Bağcılar (41-Aegean, Aydın) – Unnamed (45-Aegean, Aydın) – Sarı Lop (46-Aegean, Aydın)–
5Sarılop Kim (92-Aegean, İzmir) – Ak Sarılop (99-Aegean, İzmir) – Unnamed (138-Aegean, Manisa)–
6Unnamed (126-Aegean, İzmir) – İzmir Bardacık 2 (129-Aegean, İzmir)–
7Mor 4 (13-Aegean, Aydın) – Unnamed (142-Aegean, Manisa)–
8Sarı Zeybek (43-Aegean, Aydın) – Siyah (252-Marmara, İstanbul)–
9Kara İlek (47-Aegean, Aydın) – Kavun İlek (52-Aegean, Aydın)–
10Lop Yemiş (132-Aegean, İzmir) – Kadota (134-Aegean, Manisa) – Kadota (168-Central Anatolia, Eskişehir)–
11Darpak (158-Central Anatolia, Eskişehir) – Löp İncir (236-Marmara, Balıkesir)–
12Beyaz Güz (6-Aegean, Aydın) – Ak Güz (7-Aegean, Aydın)–
13Siyah Güz (9-Aegean, Aydın) – Datça (145-Aegean, Manisa)–
14Yediveren (222-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Unnamed (263-Marmara, İstanbul)–
15Unnamed (259-Marmara, İstanbul)Unnamed (260-Marmara, İstanbul)
16Mor Güz (5-Aegean, Aydın) – Bektaşi (40-Aegean, Aydın) – Mor Güz (95-Aegean, İzmir) – Mor İncir (107-Aegean, İzmir)–
17Lop (29-Aegean, Aydın) – Sarıca (111-Aegean, İzmir) – Unnamed (133-Aegean, Manisa) – Esmer Bal (137-Aegean, Manisa)–
18Gökçe (116-Aegean, İzmir) – Kızgıt (117-Aegean, İzmir)–
19Boğmalı (102-Aegean, İzmir) – Langav (103-Aegean, İzmir)–
20Şeker (153-Aegean, Manisa) – Beyaz İncir (154-Aegean, Manisa)–
21Siyah İncir (17-Aegean, Aydın) – Fahli (180-Mediterranean, Adana)–
22–Mor Armudi (172-Mediterranean, Adana) – Kırmızı İncir (174-Mediterranean, Adana) – Kırmızı İncir (187-Mediterranean, Adana)
23–Kara Yaprak (19-Aegean, Aydın) – Patlıcan (42-Aegean, Aydın)
24–Beyaz (203-Mediterranean, İçel) – Unnamed (205-Mediterranean, Osmaniye) – Kara Yemiş (240-Marmara, Çanakkale) – Kış Hayrı (303-Southeast Anatolia)
25–Asıl Bardak (27-Aegean, Aydın) – Gök İncir (197-Mediterranean, Adana)
26–Beyaz İncir (188-Mediterranean, Adana) – Mor İncir (200-Mediterranean, İçel)
27–Meyem İncir (176-Mediterranean, Adana) – Fetike İnciri (192-Mediterranean, Adana)
28–Kışlık İncir (190-Mediterranean, Adana) – Kandamik (196-Mediterranean, Adana)
29–Lop (229-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Unnamed (306-Southeast Anatolia)
30–İpek İnciri (270-Black Sea, Giresun) – Sarı İncir (273-Black Sea, Giresun)
31Siyah (242-Marmara, Çanakkale)Beyaz İncir (239-Marmara, Çanakkale)-Siyah İncir (295-Black Sea, Zonguldak)
32Ekşi İncir (160-Central Anatolia, Eskişehir) – Dereköy (253-Marmara, İstanbul) – Sarı Kilis (266-Black Sea, Artvin) – Kilis İnciri (267-Black Sea, Artvin)–
33–Siyah İncir (149-Aegean, Manisa) – Unnamed (210-Mediterranean, Antalya)
34Yediveren (115-Aegean, İzmir) – Karabakunya (119-Aegean, İzmir)Kış İnciri (15-Aegean, Aydın)
35–Haziran İnciri (199-Mediterranean, İçel) – Beyaz Sultani (269-Black Sea, Bartın)
36–Lop İnciri (185-Mediterranean, Adana) – Kilis İnciri (194-Mediterranean, Adana)

[i] SSR, simple sequence repeat.

Table S6

RPP grouping of identical identified based on SSR analysis.

NoIdentical-accession name (accession no-geographical region, provinces)
RPP1RPP2
1Yanako 1 (60-Aegean, Aydın) – Yanako 2 (61-Aegean, Aydın)–
2Siyah (215-Marmara, Balıkesir) – Siyah İncir (216-Marmara, Balıkesir)–
3–Tarak (183-Mediterranean, Adana) – Tarak İnciri (191-Mediterranean, Adana)
4Morgüz (5-Aegean, Aydın) – Morgüz (95-Aegean, İzmir)–
5–Kırmızı İncir (174-Mediterranean, Adana) – Kırmızı İncir (187-Mediterranean, Adana)
6–Siyah (242-Marmara Çanakkale) – Siyah İncir (295-Black Sea, Zonguldak)
7Kadota (134-Aegean, Manisa) – Kadota (168-Central Anatolia, Eskişehir)–

[i] SSR, simple sequence repeat.

Table S7

Accessions and individuals assigned to different accession at T = 2 threshold value based on MLLs analyses.

Matched numberAccession name (accession no-geographical region, province)Matches at T = 2
(accession no-geographical region, province)
1Ak Güz (7-Aegean-Aydın)Beyaz Güz (6-Aegean-Aydın)
2Karabakunya (20-Aegean-Aydın), Yediveren (115-Aegean-İzmir), Karabakunya (119-Aegean),Kış İnciri (15 Aegean-Aydın)
3Löp (28 Aegean-Aydın), Yediveren (30-Aegean-Aydın), Alaca (33-Aegean-Aydın), Devetabanı (34-Aegean-Aydın), Istanbul (223-Marmara-Balıkesir), Çiçek İncir (244-Marmara-Bursa)Göklop (1-Aegean-Aydın)
4Sakız (35-Aegean-Aydın)Göklop (1-Aegean-Aydın)
5Bektaşi (40-Aegean-Aydın), Morgüz (95-Aegean-İzmir)Mor Güz (5-Aegean-Aydın)
6Patlıcan (42-Aegean-Aydın)Karayaprak (19-Aegean-Aydın)
7Unnamed (45-Aegean-Aydın), Unnamed (46-Aegean-Aydın)Bektaşi (41-Aegean-Aydın)
8Kavun İlek (52-Aegean-Aydın)Kara İlek (47-Aegean-Aydın)
9Yanako 2 (61-Aegean-Aydın)Yanako 1 (60-Aegean-Aydın)
10Ak sarılop (99-Aegean-İzmir), Unnamed (138-Aegean-Manisa)Bağcılar (41-Aegean-Aydın)
11Boğmalı (102-Aegean,İzmir), Langav (103-Aegean,İzmir)Siyilli (37-Aegean-Aydın)
12Mor İncir (107-Aegean-İzmir)Mor Güz (5-Aegean-Aydın)
13Sarıca (111-Aegean-İzmir), Unnamed (133-Aegean-Manisa), Esmer Bal (137-Aegean-Manisa)Lop (29-Aegean-Aydın)
14Kızgıt (117-Aegean-İzmir)Gökçe (116-Aegean-İzmir)
15Beyaz Karabakunya (120-Aegean-İzmir)Beyaz Orak (22-Aegean-Aydın)
16Dibala (127-Aegean-İzmir)Beyaz Orak (22-Aegean-Aydın)
17İzmir Bardacık 2 (129-Aegean-İzmir)Unnamed (126-Aegean-İzmir)
18Kadota (134-Aegean-Manisa)Lop Yemiş (132-Aegean-İzmir)
19Unnamed (142-Aegean-Manisa)Mor 4 (13-Aegean-Aydın)
20Datça 1 (145-Aegean-Manisa)Siyah Güz (9-Aegean-Aydın)
21Beyaz İncir (154-Aegean-Manisa)Şeker (153-Aegean-Manisa)
22Şeker (153-Aegean, Manisa)Kadota (134-Aegean-Manisa)
23Kırmızı İncir (174-Mediterranean-Adana), Kırmızı İncir (187-Mediterranean-Adana)Mor Armudi (172-Mediterranean-Adana)
24Fahli (180-Mediterranean-Adana)Siyah İncir (17-Aegean-Aydın)
25Tarak inciri (191-Mediterranean-Adana)Tarak (15-Mediterranean-Adana)
26Fetike İnciri (192-Mediterranean-Adana)Meyem İnciri (176-Mediterranean-Adana)
27Kilis İnciri (194-Mediterranean-Adana)Lop İnciri (185-Mediterranean-Adana)
28Kandamik (196-Mediterranean-Adana)Kışlık İncir (190-Mediterranean-Adana)
29Gök İncir (197-Mediterranean-İçel)Asıl Bardak (27-Aegean-Aydın)
30Mor İncir (200-Mediterranean-İçel)Kilis inciri (194-Mediterranean-Adana)
31Unnamed (205-Mediterranean-Osmaniye)Beyaz (203-Mediterranean-İçel)
32Unnamed (210-Mediterranean-Antalya)Siyah incir (149-Aegean-Manisa)
33Sarı Kilis (266-Black Sea-Artvin), Kilis İnciri (267-Black Sea-Artvin), Dereköy (253-Marmara-İstanbul)Asıl Bardak (27-Aegean-Aydın)
34Beyaz Sultani (269-Black Sea-Bartın)Dumanı Kara (218-Marmara-Balıkesir)
35Sarı İncir (273-Black Sea-Giresun)İpek İnciri (270-Black Sea-Giresun)
36Siyah (242-Marmara Çanakkale)Siyah İncir (295-Black Sea, Zonguldak)
37İpek İnciri (270-Black Sea, Giresun)Sarı İncir (273-Black Sea, Giresun)
38Yemişi Lop (221-Marmara, Balıkesir)Balduzdın (275-Black Sea, Kastamonu)
39Balduzdın (275-Black Sea-Kastamonu), Könüs İnciri (278-Black Sea-Ordu)Ada (156-Aegean-Manisa)
40Siyah İncir (295-Black Sea-Zonguldak)Beyaz İncir (239-Marmara-Çanakkale)
41Siyah (215-Marmara-Balıkesir), Siyah İncir (216-Marmara-Balıkesir)Hamri (182-Mediterranean-Adana)
42Yemişi Lop (11-Aegean-Aydın)Ada (156-Aegean-Manisa)
43Kara Yemiş (240-Marmara-Çanakkale)Dumanı Kara (218-Marmara-Balıkesir)
44Löp İnciri (236-Marmara-Bursa)Siyah Orak (21-Aegean-Aydın)
45Yediveren (249-Marmara-İstanbul)Dumanı Kara (218-Marmara-Balıkesir)
46Siyah (252-Marmara-İstanbul)Sarı Zeybek (43-Aegean-Aydın)
47İpek İnciri (255-Marmara-İstanbul)Siyah Orak (21-Aegean-Aydın)
48Unnamed (260-Marmara-İstanbul)Unnamed (259-Marmara-İstanbul)
49Unnamed (261-Marmara-İstanbul)Beyaz Karabakunya (120-Aegean-İzmir)
50Unnamed (263-Marmara-İstanbul)Yediveren (222-Marmara-Balıkesir)
51Kalazi (301-Southeast Anatolia)Mor Özer (297-Southeast Anatolia)
52Kış Hayrı (303-Southeast Anatolia)Unnamed (205-Mediterranean-Osmaniye)
53Unnamed (306-Southeast Anatolia)Sarı Bardak (227-Marmara-Bursa)
54Unnamed (309-Southeast Anatolia)Siyah Orak (21-Aegean-Aydın)

[i] MLLs, multilocus lineages.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2021-0005 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761
Language: English
Page range: 49 - 78
Submitted on: Dec 13, 2020
Accepted on: Feb 13, 2021
Published on: Mar 26, 2021
Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Related subjects:

© 2021 Ali Ergül, Burcu Pelin Büyük, Nahid Hazrati, Funda Yılmaz, Kemal Kazan, Nur Arslan, Canan Yüksel Özmen, Semra Soydam Aydın, Melike Bakır, Nilgün Tan, İlknur Kösoğlu, Ferit Çobanoğlu, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.