Molecular evidence for a single evolutionary origin of domesticated rice

Abstract

Asian rice, Oryza sativa, is one of world's oldest and most important crop species. Rice is believed to have been domesticated ∼9,000 y ago, although debate on its origin remains contentious. A single-origin model suggests that two main subspecies of Asian rice, indica and japonica, were domesticated from the wild rice O. rufipogon. In contrast, the multiple independent domestication model proposes that these two major rice types were domesticated separately and in different parts of the species range of wild rice. This latter view has gained much support from the observation of strong genetic differentiation between indica and japonica as well as several phylogenetic studies of rice domestication. We reexamine the evolutionary history of domesticated rice by resequencing 630 gene fragments on chromosomes 8, 10, and 12 from a diverse set of wild and domesticated rice accessions. Using patterns of SNPs, we identify 20 putative selective sweeps on these chromosomes in cultivated rice. Demographic modeling based on these SNP data and a diffusion-based approach provide the strongest support for a single domestication origin of rice. Bayesian phylogenetic analyses implementing the multispecies coalescent and using previously published phylogenetic sequence datasets also point to a single origin of Asian domesticated rice. Finally, we date the origin of domestication at ∼8,200-13,500 y ago, depending on the molecular clock estimate that is used, which is consistent with known archaeological data that suggests rice was first cultivated at around this time in the Yangtze Valley of China.

A map of rice genome variation reveals the origin of cultivated rice

“…Despite the fact that rice is a major cereal and a model system for plant biology, the evolutionary origins and domestication processes of cultivated rice have long been debated. The puzzles about rice domestication include: (1) where the geographic origin of cultivated rice was, (2) which types of O. rufipogon served as its direct wild progenitor, and (3) whether the two subspecies of cultivated rice, indica and japonica, are derived from a single or multiple domestications.A wide range of genetic and archaeological studies have been carried out to examine the phylogenetic relationships of rice, and investigate the demographic history of rice domestication [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] . Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicated that indica and japonica originated independently 3,10,20 .…”

“…A wide range of genetic and archaeological studies have been carried out to examine the phylogenetic relationships of rice, and investigate the demographic history of rice domestication [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] . Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicated that indica and japonica originated independently 3,10,20 .…”

“…However, the well-characterized domestication genes in rice were found to be fixed in both subspecies with the same alleles, thus supporting a single domestication origin [6][7][8][9]16 . Recently, a demographic analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) detected from 630 gene fragments suggested a single domestication origin of rice 17 . Meanwhile, population genetics analyses of genome-wide data of cultivated and wild rice have tended to suggest that indica and japonica genomes generally appear to be of independent origin 18,19 , but many genomic segments bearing domestication alleles may have originated only once 18 .…”

Rice in Thailand: The Archaeobotanical Contribution

“…2000 BCE (Fuller 2007). The single-origin model considers indica to be a hybrid of japonica rice and therefore, the origin lies in China even though its development or expansion occurred in India (Molina et al 2011). The archaeobotanical evidence in Thailand does not corroborate one or the other.…”

“…Genetic studies remain divided as to whether rice domestication had a single origin or multiple origins (He et al 2011;Molina et al 2011;Sang and Ge 2007). The multiple-origins model proposes two centres of domestication, one in China ca.…”