Unraveling the genetic architecture of anti-nutritional factors in soybean (Glycine max.) for nutritional enhancement

Soybean [(Glycine max.), 2n = 40)] is a preferred crop for addressing nutritional deficiencies in developing countries due to its rich content of protein (40–50%), lipids (20–30%), carbohydrates (26–30%)^1,2,3,4, and micronutrients⁵. In addition to these primary metabolites, soybeans produce various secondary metabolites known for their biological roles such as enhancing stress resilience⁶, conferring disease resistance⁷. Despite their benefits in plants, secondary metabolites may exert anti-nutritional effects when consumed by monogastric animals depending on the concentrations. Anti-nutritional factors (ANFs) reduce soybean nutritional value by hindering nutrient digestion and absorption⁸, thereby affecting human and animal growth⁷. The most important ANFs in legumes include phytate, proteinase inhibitors, tannins, saponins, oligosaccharides, and antigenic factors like oxalate. Among these, proteinase inhibitors (trypsin inhibitors), metal chelates (such as phytate), oligosaccharides, and antigenic factors are typically the most abundant in soybean seeds⁹. Apart from the negative effect of ANFs, it has been reported reduction of nutrient intake and absorption may prevent development of certain diseases. For instance, chelating important cations for glucose transporters such Ca²⁺ ions, a co-factor of α-amylase, phytate (IP6) reduces the rate of starch digestion in humans and animals, preventing diabetes¹⁰ and cancer¹¹. The IP6 can also bind directly to starch or to proteins reducing its digestibility, bioavailability, and affect glycemic index value¹⁰. On the other hand, trypsin or chymotrypsin-inhibitors complexes with enzyme’s active site inhibiting their catalytic activity⁹, thus, preventing protein breakdown. The protease inhibitors reduce the function of all four classes of proteolytic enzymes, including, serine, cysteine, aspartyl, and metalloproteinases in the gastrointestinal tract of animals¹², affecting growth and triggering pancreas hypertrophy¹³. A study on gene regulatory network aiming to develop low and normal phytate soybean seeds revealed differentially expressed genes in the phytate biosynthetic pathways including Glyma.11G238800^14,15, Glyma.01G016700, Glyma.09G206100, Glyma.11G218500, Glyma.18G038800, Glyma.11G218500, Glyma.18G038800¹⁵. One QTL with a peak close to Gm08_44814503 in chromosome 8 was identified using IciMapping analysis. A QTL located between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) Gm08_44814503 and Gm08_45270892 was reported to confer low Kunitz trypsin inhibitor (KTI) concentration in soybean¹⁶.

Several processing methods have been employed to reduce or eliminate ANFs in crops due to their negative impact on animal nutrition. Among the methods, physical, chemical and enzymatic have largely been applied in soybean. Physical and chemical techniques include soaking, cooking, autoclaving, microwave cooking, extrusion, germination, irradiation¹⁷, debranning¹⁸ and dehulling¹⁶, roasting, sprouting¹⁰, whereas enzymatic methods involve fermentation and acetic acid—catalyzed processing¹⁹. These techniques may be used singly or in combination. Microwaving stands out as a quick, reliable, safe, effective, and environmentally friendly method of lowering ANFs. However, the intensity and length of microwave processing have a considerable impact on ANFs inactivation, and their use needs to be carefully considered¹⁷. Additionally, though these techniques have proved useful for long, they are costly, time-consuming²⁰, and some may require technical expertise or generate waste during processing¹⁷. To overcome these limitations, different breeding strategies are employed to develop soybean cultivars with low anti-nutritional content, including backcrossing²¹, mutation breeding²², molecular markers²³, and genome editing²⁴.

Traditional breeding systems are often time-consuming, lacks specificity, and ultimately delays variety release²⁵. To accelerate genetic gains, a paradigm shift in breeding strategies was necessary. Over the years, morphological and biochemical markers have been widely employed to select genotypes based on traits including yield and quality traits^26,27,28,29. Despite their utility, these markers often show instability due to environmental influences²⁶. As a result, molecular markers have opened new avenues for more effective genotype selection. Molecular markers serve as powerful tools for tracking and manipulating genes in both plant and animal breeding^30,31. More recently, marker-assisted selection (MAS) has gained prominence in soybean improvement programs, offering faster and more precise means of incorporating desirable traits. MAS has been successfully used to develop plants resistant to soybean cyst nematode³², transfer disease resistance alleles among individuals, and pyramiding resistance alleles³³. Additionally, MAS has proven useful in the genetic elimination of the Kunitz trypsin inhibitors (KTI) and lectin in soybean seeds³⁴. Globally, MAS has been employed in soybean breeding for traits such as sucrose content³⁵, salt tolerance, insect resistance, agronomic characteristics³⁶, and pod shattering resistance³⁷. Recent advances in gene editing have enabled the development of mutant alleles and molecular markers for KTI1 and KTI3 through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis, effectively reducing trypsin inhibitor content and activity in soybean seeds, with no observable difference regarding plant growth or maturity days of kti1/3 transgenic and wild type plants³⁸. Marker efficiency of discovering marker-trait associations has progressively improved from restriction fragment-length polymorphism (RFLP) to single-sequence repeat (SSR)³¹. SSR markers are relatively recent and they have been use to explore genetic diversity in soybean^35,36,37, and genotyping of Chinese cabbage varieties^13,39. Though SSRs have contributed to progress in trait diversity and mapping studies, they are regarded to be numerous and polymorphic⁹. Therefore, high-throughput SNP marker genotyping technologies are being extensively adopted to provide genome-wide markers that increase the precision of mapping quantitative trait loci (QTL)⁴⁰. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) has emerged as powerful tool for understanding the genetic basis of phenotypic variance and architecture in crops owing to its capability on the remarkable allele diversity present in natural populations and their historical recombination events. Historically recorded recombination events and rich allele diversity allow for better mapping resolution and causal gene discovery compared to genetic linkage mapping which relies on recent and artificial population with narrow gene pool and low recombination rate⁴¹. Single nucleotide polymorphism-based genome association study has helped to identify QTLs and genes linked to disease resistance^42,43 in Ugandan soybean accessions. However, no GWAS have been conducted to identify SNP markers linked to anti-nutritional factors (ANFs), despite their negative effect on soybean nutritional quality and contribution to high production costs of soybean meal. Against this background, the study aimed to understand the genetic architecture underlying ANF accumulation in 308 soybean accessions. Addressing this gap is crucial for developing molecular markers to support breeding programs for low-ANF soybean, thereby improving nutritional value and reducing processing costs for food and feed.

Variability of phytate and total trypsin inhibitors

There was significant variation regarding phytate and total trypsin inhibitors content among the genotypes (p < 0.001). Mean phytate content was 1756.9 mg/kg [min. 14.8 mg/kg (BSPS 48A-6-3) and max. 6928.8 mg/kg (NGDT 2.15–7)]. For total trypsin inhibitors (TTI) was 850.3 mg/kg [min. 10.9 (DN 16_N); max. 1538.5 mg/kg (Duiker)] (Table 1). The observed variation in the genotypes reflect the broad genetic variability of the evaluated population and suggest a genetic control of anti-nutritional factors.

Marker distribution across chromosomes

The initial marker size was 17,300 SNPs. Upon SNP duplicates removal and filtering, 11,804 quality SNPs (68.2%) were retained for further analysis. SNPs were distributed fairly evenly along the 20 soybean chromosomes with chromosome 18 having the highest number of markers (824 SNPs) and 12, the lowest (422 SNPs). SNP markers across 20 chromosomes showed variable spacing, with average inter-marker distances ranging from ~ 40 kb (chromosome 16) to ~ 81 kb (chromosome 1). Maximum distances between adjacent SNPs ranged from ~ 951 kb to ~ 2.67 Mb. Chromosomes with greater number of SNPs, such as chromosomes 6, 8, 9, 13, and 18 in soybean, often reflect regions of higher historical recombination or genetic diversity. These regions are beneficial for GWAS as denser SNP coverage improves the ability to detect and fine-map trait-associated loci. In contrast, relatively SNP-poor regions (chromosomes 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19 and 20) are often less informative for association studies, though can be biologically important due to their conserved nature (Fig. 1).

(a): Number of SNPs per soybean chromosome. Chromosome 12 and 18 harbor the lowest and highest number of SNPs, respectively. Panel (b) shows the SNP density across soybean genome, where the vertical axis displays the chromosome number, horizontal axis displays chromosome length (1 Mb window), and the various colors represent SNP density or total number of SNPs per window. Chromosomes with high SNP density—such as Chr7, Chr9, Chr16, and Chr18—highlight regions of high genetic variation. These SNP-rich zones (in red) are useful for association mapping, diversity studies, and marker development. Conversely, SNP-poor chromosomes, including Chr2, Chr3, and Chr4, as well as relatively low-density regions on Chr1, Chr10, and Chr11 (green zones), suggest more conserved genomic segments. These regions may reflect low recombination or evolutionary conservation.

Full size image

Linkage disequilibrium, principal component analysis (PCA) and population statistics

Pairwise correlation estimates between filtered SNPs were performed to assess the rate of linkage disequilibrium (LD) decay. Average LD peaked at r² = 0.2 and then decayed gradually below r² = 0.1 at a genetic distance of 50-kb (Fig. 2 a and b), suggesting moderate recombination and genetic diversity in Ugandan germplasm, or the genotypes may have shared common ancestry at some point in time.

(a)- Average linkage disequilibrium rate. The x-axis shows the distance (kilo base pairs) between SNPs, and the y-axis, the LD value (r²). Panel (b) represents an amplified region from the averaged linkage disequilibrium (a) of ~ 1500 kb. LD decay is shown at around 50-kb at r² = 0.2 and the LD becomes obsolete at around 100-kb.

Full size image

The first two principal components (PC1 + PC2) cumulatively explain approximately 15% variation in the population, whereas the first 10 PCs explained up to 31.71% total variation (Fig. 3a). Hierarchical clustering analysis grouped the genotypes into four clusters, reflecting underlying genetic diversity within the soybean germplasm. Cluster 1 comprised 77 genotypes, cluster 2 had the highest representation with 107 genotypes, cluster 3 included 93 genotypes, and cluster 4 contained 31 genotypes. Genotype clusters show distinct geographic compositions. Cluster 1, is the smallest group with 77 genotypes, dominated by genotypes from the USA, accounting for 97.4%, with only one genotype each from Nigeria and Uganda. Cluster 2, the largest with 107 genotypes, is more diverse, including 33.6% from Uganda, 23.4% from Taiwan, 14% from Japan, 13.1% from Nigeria, 11.2% from Zimbabwe, and a small proportion (4.7%) from the USA. Cluster 3 consists mostly of Ugandan genotypes (90.3%), alongside small contributions from Nigeria, Japan, and Zimbabwe. Finally, cluster 4, with 31 genotypes, is primarily Ugandan (58.1%), followed by Nigerian genotypes at 25.8%, and minor representation from Japan and Taiwan (Fig. 3b). The population distribution reflects the genetic diversity and potential regional structuring within the germplasm, with some clusters dominated by specific sources, while others show more admixed origins, highlighting important considerations for breeding and conservation strategies.

Principal component analysis (PCA) showing trends of population distribution (a) and phylogenetic tree (b). The quadrants show a trend of stratification among the genotypes. Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent four distinct clusters in the population.

Full size image

The means for genetic diversity (GD), polymorphism information content (PIC), minor allele frequency (MAF), observed heterozygosity (Ho) and inbreeding coefficient (F) were 0.3, 0.25, 0.21 and 0.18, respectively (Table 2). The Ugandan soybean population shows moderate genetic diversity, favorable for breeding and association studies. Moderate PIC and MAF values indicate that the markers are informative. The low observed heterozygosity (Ho) and positive inbreeding coefficient (F) are consistent with soybean’s self-pollinating nature.

Marker-trait association

Manhattan plots show the significant SNPs associated with phytate and total trypsin inhibitors. The QQ plots reveal a good control of population parameters, and thus, minimum false positive and negative associations. SNPs above the threshold deviate significantly from the diagonal indicating true associations with the evaluated traits (Fig. 4a–d). Based on the FarmCPU model, phytate accumulation was found to be associated with SNPs located on chromosomes 3 (pos 218,818 bp), 4 (pos 45,462,019 bp), 13 (pos 23,167,455 bp, and 20 (pos 35,904,989 bp) (Fig. 4a). The CMLM model revealed SNPs significantly associated with total trypsin inhibitors on chromosomes 6 (pos 5,695,090 bp), 12 (pos 41,339,023 bp), and 14 (pos 43,649,238 bp) (Fig. 4c). The SNP marker validation performed using mrMLM confirmed hit for phytate on chromosome 3 (pos 241,209 bp) (Fig. 4b). SNP markers located on chromosomes 14 and 16 were detected by at least two methods including mrMLM and FASTmrMLM for phytate. For total trypsin inhibitors, the mrMLM and FASTmrEMMA methods detected SNPs on chromosome 13; mrMLM, pLARmEB and ISIS EM-BLASSO, on chromosome 18 (Fig. 4d). Markers detected by at least two methods were ranked as significantly associated with the trait. Therefore, markers such as Soy_14_48672982 (methods 1 and 2), Soy_16_26978144 (methods 1 and 2), Soy_13_14029215 (methods 1 and 3) and Soy_18_4301721 (methods 1, 4, and 6) were considered most significant and used for gene annotation (Table 3).

Manhattan and QQ plots for phytate and total trypsin inhibitors. Significant SNPs have hit the threshold and respective QQ-plot depicts the distribution of observed versus expected p-values and the genetic associations (a–d). Among the models tested in GAPIT, FarmCPU and CMLM were the most effective in detecting significant SNP markers for phytate and TTI, respectively. No common markers were identified between GAPIT models. To assess marker detection power and consistency, six mrMLM methods were also applied to the same dataset. From an inter-model perspective, in general, no overlapping SNPs were detected between GAPIT and mrMLM outputs. However, an intra-model comparison revealed that two SNPs were consistently identified by multiple mrMLM methods (SNPs Soy_14_48672982 and Soy_16_26978144 for phytate; and Soy_13_14029215 and Soy_18_4301721 for TTI) suggesting a higher detection consistency and potential sensitivity of mrMLM methods in capturing trait-associated loci compared to the GAPIT models.

Full size image

Allelic effects of significant SNP markers on phytate and TTI expression

Contribution of phenotypic variation explained by significant SNP markers is illustrated in Figs. 5a–c and 6a–d. Marker–trait association analysis revealed that the expression of phytate and TTI is genotype-dependent. For phytate, SNP Soy_14_46872882 showed significant differences among genotypes (F(2, 283) = 16.72, p < 0.0001, η² = 0.11), with GA genotypes exhibiting the highest levels and GG, lowest. SNP Soy_16_26978144 also showed a significant effect (F(2, 293) = 8.27, p = 0.00032, η² = 0.05), where TT genotypes controlling higher phytate content than CC. Additionally, Soy_4_45462019 was significant (F(2, 296) = 6.74, p = 0.001, η² = 0.04), with TC and TT genotypes exhibiting higher phytate control than CC.

Allelic effects on SNPs for phytate and TTI accumulation. Marker effect evaluated based on the genotypes of each marker exhibiting significant p-values, as identified through GAPIT models are presented in the boxplot “a” for phytate, “b” and “c” for TTI traits.

Full size image

Allelic effects on SNPs for phytate and TTI accumulation for each marker exhibiting significant p-values, as identified by mrMLM methods are presented in boxplots “a” and “b” for phytate, whereas “c” and “d” for TTI traits.

Full size image

Another significant marker, Soy_14_43649238, showed a moderate genotype effect (F(2, 302) = 4.23, p = 0.015, η² = 0.03), where GG genotypes were associated with increased phytate compared to AA. Soy_12_41339023 also reached significance (F(2, 304) = 0.045, p = 0.045, η² = 0.02), with TC and TT genotypes having slightly higher phytate control than CC, suggesting a subtle allelic effect.

For TTI, SNP Soy_13_14025215 showed higher expression in CT genotypes compared to TT (F(2, 282) = 6.14, p = 0.002, η² = 0.04), and Soy_18_4301721 revealed increased TTI in GG over AA genotypes (F(2, 263) = 10.31, p < 0.0001, η² = 0.07). These findings confirm that allelic variation at specific SNP loci significantly influences phytate and TTI content in soybean.

Candidate genes identification

To investigate the genetic basis of phytate and trypsin inhibitors accumulation, significant SNP markers were identified through GWAS. Gene mining within the 100-kb genomic window revealed genes potentially linked to the targeted traits. The gene functions are classified into major categories including plant defense, gene regulation, substrate–substrate interactions. Glyma.03G001600 is potential candidate gene for SNP Soy_3_218818. The gene Glyma.03G001600 codes for acid phosphatases, which in gene ontology (GO) is categorized as molecular function. This class of enzyme is involved in several enzymatic activities transferring phosphate between groups. Phosphate groups can be attached to inositol forming phytate (myo-inositol hexakisphosphate or inositol hexaphosphate (IP6)). Phytate (IP6) can act as a precursor in the biosynthetic pathway of diphosphoinositol polyphosphates, a reaction controlled by the gene Glyma.14G213400 (GO: molecular function) which is linked to Soy_14_48672982. Diphosphoinositol is a precursor for phytate biosynthesis. The phytate six-carbon ring substrate can be supplied by hydrolysis of sugars mediated by glycosyl hydrolases family 38 C encoded by the gene Glyma.16G126400 (GO: molecular function) linked to the SNP Soy_16_26978144. SNP Soy_4_45462019 is linked to the gene Glyma.04G194600 coding for metallo-beta-lactamase superfamily (GO: molecular function) involved in hydrolysis of beta-lactam antibiotics. Both phytate and beta-lactamases play a role in plant health. On the other hand, gene Glyma.18G050400 (GO: molecular function) linked to Soy_18_430172, codes for cation efflux proteins, which are found to increase tolerance to divalent metal ions such as cadmium, zinc, and cobalt. The gene Glyma.13G128200 linked to Soy_13_23167455, codes for protein phosphorylation enzyme family (GO: biological process) involved in substrate phosphorylation. In such reactions, phytate can act as phosphorus donor, implying a switch of protein function. SNP Soy_20_35904989 is linked to the gene Glyma.20G118700 coding for glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase (GO: molecular function). These enzymes catalyze the hydrolysis of glycerophosphodiesters to produce free alcohol and glycerol 3-phosphate. Depending on the cellular state, glycerol 3-phosphate can be directed to inositol biosynthetic pathway. Trypsin inhibitors are proteins by nature. Gene Glyma.06G074700 (GO: molecular function) linked to Soy_6_5695090 codes for serine protease inhibitor domain. The domain inhibits serine proteases activity by slicing peptide bonds in proteins. Translation initiation factor 2D (EIF2D) is encoded by the gene Glyma.12G241600 (GO: molecular function) linked to the SNP Soy_12_41339023. The EIF2D is involved in the recruitment and delivery of aminoacyl-tRNAs to the P-site of the eukaryotic ribosome in a GTP-independent manner. Gene Glyma.14G176700 (GO: molecular function) linked to Soy_14_43649238 codes for protein kinase domain. The domain contains the catalytic function of protein kinases involved in phosphorylation reactions. Phosphorylation plays a crucial role in regulating transcription, cell cycle progression, and apoptosis. Another transcription factor (TFs), K-box region encoded by Glyma.13G052700 gene (GO: molecular function) linked to the SNP Soy_13_14029215, is a key component of gene regulation through protein–protein interactions. TFs control gene expression related to developmental processes, and the gene Glyma.13G052700 is expressed in seeds during seeds development (Table 4).

Anti-nutritional factors (ANFs) play crucial roles in plant defense⁷. These biologically active compounds are distributed across plant organs including grains, and nuts, leaves, roots, and fruits⁷⁹. However, ANFs may have either positive or negative effect in monogastric animals including humans^80,81 depending on their concentrations in food. ANFs negatively affect nutrient digestibility and absorption by binding to proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and minerals. This study aimed to unveil the genetic basis of two ANFs including phytate and trypsin inhibitors in Ugandan soybean accessions. The observed variability (p < 0.001) in ANFs content among the genotypes can be attributed to differences in their genetic background and geographical origin, providing a broad genetic diversity, ideal for selection in breeding programs. Similar studies have reported differences in ANFs in self-pollinated plants at F_3:5, commercial germplasm, and food-grade soybean lines^9,82.

Higher recombination events were detected on chromosome 18, whereas chromosome 12 exhibited greater conservativeness. A study carried out to reveal the genetic basis for resistance to Coniothyrium glycines in the same population (~ 10% difference in size) reported similar recombination patterns⁴². Genetic regions with high recombination rates offer potential opportunity for studies to disclose more biological functions associated with the region. High rates of recombination break down linkage disequilibrium (LD). Thus, genetic architecture of complex traits are better investigated using LD analysis⁸³. In this study, LD decay rate was estimated at r² = 0.10 for a genetic distance of 50-kb. For self-pollinated crops including soybean the LD decay rate is generally low at around r² = 0.10⁸⁴. However, LD decay at r² = 0.2 within approximately 200-kb has also been reported⁸⁵. The low LD in this study indicate a weak association between the markers, implying high recombination rate leading to independent segregation of alleles. This recombination rate may explain the separation of the population into distinct groups in the phylogenetic tree, which can be beneficial for breeding purposes.

Molecular markers are more powerful tools for assessing genetic diversity (GD) compared to phenotypic markers. The genetic diversity value of 0.3 and a polymorphism information content (PIC) value of 0.25 suggest moderate genetic variability and marker informativeness in the population. Similar GD and PIC values of 0.34 and 0.27, respectively, has been reported in soybean cultivars and advanced breeding lines from the U.S. and China⁸⁶. Conversely, a slightly lower PIC of 0.22 was reported in a study using Korea, Japan, China, and the U.S populations⁸⁷, whereas, studies in soybean novel germplasm, advanced lines and cultivars released for commercial cultivation in Sub-Saharan Africa detected higher PIC = 0.38⁴⁰, GD of 0.70 and PIC of 0.71⁸⁸. These differences may be explained by the population size and background, continuous selection for specific trait in breeding programs, along with the number and diversity index of markers, and geographic dispersion of accessions⁸⁷.

The smaller minor allele frequency (MAF) captured in this study suggest that most of the loci are nearly fixed, different from the higher MAF (MAF = 0.29) reported in the same population (with smaller size)⁴².

Unlike in this study, quantitative trait loci (QTL) for Kunitz trypsin inhibitor (KTI) have been reported on chromosome 8⁹, whereas SNP markers for phytate was identified on chromosomes 1, 9, 11, and 18 in soybean¹⁵. These discrepancies in SNP markers detection can be attributed to differences in phenotyping, population type and association tools.

Gene mining within the 100-kb range revealed 45 genes potentially linked to the targeted traits. The genes are associated with plant defense, gene regulation, and substrate–substrate interactions. For instance, phytate is linked to biosynthesis of abscisic acid (ABA) and gibberellins, two phytohormones involved in seed germination⁸⁹. Resistance to disease has been associated with chromosome 13⁴², resistance to abiotic stress to chromosome 1⁹⁰. Genes on chromosome 19 has been associated with gene regulation⁴², and PHD finger transcription factors were reported to be located on chromosome 12⁹¹. Transcription factors regulate gene expression during protein biosynthesis. Trypsin inhibitors, which are proteins by nature, play a critical role in plant defense and overall metabolism. Post-translational regulation can occur through phosphorylation or dephosphorylation of enzymes. The gene Glyma.03G001600 encodes acid phosphatases involved in breaking down adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to release phosphate groups as sub-product^44,45. Phosphate kinases (encoded by Glyma.14G214700) can be involved in phytate biosynthesis by incorporating phosphate groups into inositol in the 1L-myo-inositol-1,2,3,4,5,6-hexakis (dihydrogen phosphate)⁹², whereas the Glyma.16G126400, a glycosyl hydrolases gene, supply sugar backbone for inositol biosynthesis. These metabolic pathways are interconnected and together contribute to phytate biosynthesis in plants. On the other hand, metallo-beta-lactamase superfamily encoded by the gene Glyma.04G194600⁴⁹ is involved in plant immunological responses, suggesting its connection with phytate role. Protein kinases encoded by Glyma.13G128200 gene are alternatively involved in phytate biosynthetic, whereas Glyma.20G118700 encodes glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase involved in glycerol esters hydrolysis⁵⁶. This pathway provides glycerol to the inositol biosynthesis⁹². Protein kinase domain encoded by Glyma.14G176700 plays a pivotal role in cellular regulation of phosphorus⁴⁷. Thus, the interplay between phosphorylation and dephosphorylation determine the levels of phytate or inositol available in plants cells.

Protein inhibitors are classes of serine proteases encoded by the gene Glyma.06G074700. Protein biosynthesis can be regulated by K-box domain, encoded by Glyma.13G052700 or translation initiation factor 2D encoded by Glyma.12G241600⁶⁴. These domains ensure accurate tRNA placement during translation or post-translational modifications. Cation efflux family encoded by Glyma.18G050400 export or redistribute positively charged ions across the cell membrane determining protein biosynthesis efficiency. Protease inhibitors block digestive enzyme activity by competing with substrates for the active site. This enzyme-inhibitor complex affects the ability of animals to break down ingested proteins. Undigested proteins are unable to be absorbed by the intestinal tract, thereby affecting animal growth.

Among the GAPIT models tested, FarmCPU⁹³ and CMLM⁹⁴ were most effective for detecting significant SNPs. The power of FarmCPU has previously been reported in a study comparing multiple GWAS models in soybean and maize. FarmCPU performed better than single-locus models by reducing false positives and false negatives⁹⁵. The mrMLM methods showed higher detection consistency and potential sensitivity in capturing trait-associated loci compared to the GAPIT models. The potential of mrMLM methods was also reported applying 3VmrMLM (Three Variance components multi-locus random-SNP-effect Mixed Linear Model) aiming to dissect the genetic mechanism in rice⁹⁶.

To support these findings for MAS, further studies with larger populations across environments are needed to fully validate the discovered SNP markers. Following proteomic studies to validate the marker expression, the annotated genes can be used for achieving faster genetic progress for low anti-nutritional.

Plant materials

A set of 308 soybean germplasm was obtained from the Makerere University Centre for Soybean Improvement and Development (MAKCSID) program. The collection is composed of lines sourced from Uganda (136), the United States (80), Taiwan (27), Japan (19), Zimbabwe (13), and Nigeria (33). To standardize the conditions and ensure consistent seed multiplication in this exploratory assay, genotypes were planted in 2023B at Makerere University Agricultural Research Institute Kabanyolo (MUARIK). Kabanyolo is geographically located in the Central Region of Uganda at the coordinates 0° 28′ N, 32° 36′ E, altitude of 1180 m above sea level. The mean annual temperature is 21.4 °C, and the mean annual rainfall is 1234 mm⁹⁷.The experiment was laid out in an augmented design with 31 blocks, each containing 10 plots consisting of three rows. Surfaces of young and apparently healthy leaves were cleaned with 70% ethanol and eight leaf discs obtained using a punch gun. Samples were incubated under 37 °C until they were sent to SEQART AFRICA located at International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi for genotyping.

DNA extraction and diversity arrays technology “genotyping-by-sequencing” (DArTseq)

DNA extraction was performed using Nucleomag plant Kit, with concentrations of genomic DNA in the range of 50–100 ng/µl. DNA quality and quantity were checked on 0.8% gel agarose⁹⁸. The DArTSeq complexity reduction method was used through the digestion of genomic DNA using a combination of PstI and MseI enzymes and ligation of barcoded adapters and common adapter followed by PCR amplification of adapter-ligated fragments⁹⁹. Libraries were constructed through Single Read sequencing runs for 77 bases. Next-generation sequencing was carried out using Illumina the HiSeq 2500 platform (Illumina, Inc., Model HiSeq 2500, Rapid Run Mode). Genome profiling was conducted by Genotyping by Sequencing (GBS) DArTseq™ technology (Canberra, ACT, Australia). DArTseq markers scoring was achieved using DArTsoft14 which is an in-house marker scoring pipeline based on algorithms. Two types of DArTseq markers were scored, SilicoDArT markers and SNP markers which were both scored as binary 1 for presence and 0 absence of the restriction fragment with the marker sequence in the genomic representation of the sample. Both SilicoDArT markers and SNP markers were aligned to soybean- Wm82-a1-v4 reference genome to identify chromosome positions^99,100,101.

Biochemical analysis

Soybean seeds were ground using a food processor grinder (FOSS, Brook Crompton Laboratory mill, type 2-TDAB03J, England, 2014) at the Nutritional and Biochemical Laboratory of the National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) in Uganda. The fine ground samples were further used to determine phytate and total trypsin inhibitors content.

Phytate phenotyping

Phytate extraction followed an acidic method as described by Israel¹⁰², with slight modifications on the sample initial volume and refrigeration during centrifugation. Briefly, 20 ml of 0.5 M HCl was added to 0.5 g of finely powdered soybean sample. The mixture was vortexed and shaken for 1 h at room temperature, then centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 30 min at 4 °C using a HERMLE 300 K centrifuge (Germany). For each sample, 5 ml of the supernatant containing the soluble fraction was transferred into three new 50 ml Falcon tubes, and the pH was adjusted by adding an equal volume of 0.5 M NaOH. To stop the reaction, equal volume 5 ml of NaCl was added to the system. Samples were filtered, and 2 ml of a chromogenic solution (ferric chloride III, FeCl₃) was added for spectrophotometric reading at 492 nm absorbance (Ledetect96 Microplate Reader, 2017, A-5020, EU). The optical densities (OD) from the readings were used to calculate the concentration of phytate in the samples, using a linear regression curve obtained from serial dilutions of standard solution of sodium phytate. The controls were similarly prepared, except addition of the analyte and used as subtraction term to obtain final concentration (mg/kg) of phytate in the sample.

Total trypsin inhibitor phenotyping

Total trypsin inhibitors (TTI) were extracted using a neutral method with slight modifications on the sample size, volume and refrigeration during centrifugation¹⁰³. Briefly, 0.05 g of powdered soybean sample was placed in a clean centrifuge tube and homogenized with 5 ml of phosphate buffered saline (PBS). The mixture was vortexed and shaken on an orbital shaker for 1 h, then centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C using a HERMLE 300 K centrifuge (Germany). A 0.1 ml aliquot of the supernatant was transferred into micro centrifuge tubes and mixed with equal volume of 1 mg/ml trypsin solution, followed by incubation at 0 °C for 10 min. Then, 0.3 ml of 2% casein substrate was added, and mixture was incubated in a water bath for 20 min at 37 °C^103,104. The reaction was stopped by adding 0.2 ml of 10% trichloroacetic acid (TCA), and centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 5 min to remove undigested casein, larger inhibitor fragments, and enzyme protein. All extraction steps were performed in triplicate. Two control samples were set, one without any inhibitor addition (Blank 1), other with addition casein only (Blank 2). Sample readings were performed using a spectrophotometer at 410 nm absorbance (Ledetect96 Microplate Reader, 2017, A-5020, EU). Trypsin inhibition activity (TIA) was calculated¹⁰³ and the inhibitory activity percentage was converted into concentration of total trypsin inhibitor (TTI) expressed in mg/kg:

Data analysis

Best Linear Unbiased predictions (BLUPs) were computed using lme4 R package¹⁰⁵ considering genotype as fixed and block as random effects as follow: (Yij=mu + Bi + Gj + G:Bij + varepsilon ij); where: where Yij = phenotypic observation for a trait, µ = grand mean, B = random effect of block (j), G = fixed effect of genotype (i), G:B = interaction effect between genotype (i), and ε (ij) = random residual term. The resulting BLUPs were then used for association analysis¹⁰⁶. Heritability was calculated for phytate and trypsin inhibitors as follow: H² = V_g/(V_g + V_e); where: H² is the broad sense heritability, V_g is the genotypic variance, and V_e is the error (residual) variance.

Linkage disequilibrium (LD)

The extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) was determined as the pairwise correlations between each pair of SNPs using LDcorSV package in R version 4.3.0 (Zhang et al., 2023). Pairwise correlation coefficients among markers were then plotted against genetic distances in kilobases (kb). The genetic distance at which average LD decayed below r² = 0.1 was taken as the window for searching of putative genes within 100-kb genomic region of significant SNP markers on Phytozome database, version 13.0 (https://phytozome-next.jgi.doe.gov/) accessed on 11 June, 2024, using soybean-Wm82-a4.v1 as reference genome. Gene functions were found using InterPro database hosted by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).

Principal component analysis

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and hierarchical clustering were performed using tidyverse, factoextra, and ggtree R packages. SNP data were cleaned and imputed using the dplyr package, replacing missing values with marker-wise means. PCA was executed using prcomp, with scaling and centering applied. The proportion of variance explained by PC1 and PC2 was extracted and used for axis labeling. Euclidean distances among genotypes were calculated, and hierarchical clustering was conducted using the Ward.D2 method via hclust. A circular dendrogram was constructed using ggtree, and genotype clusters were colored accordingly. These visualizations revealed population structure and genetic diversity patterns.

GWAS analysis, linkage disequilibrium and candidate genes identification

Data filtration was performed with a threshold of 95% reproducibility and 95% call rate, 0.05 minor allele frequencies (MAF < 0.05) and imputation through k-nearest neighbor imputation (knni) using snpReady package in R version 4.3.0. Duplicates were removed from filtered SNP data using the duplicated function of dplyr package in R. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed using Genome Association and Prediction Integrated Tool (GAPIT) models, including Fixed and random model Circulating Probability Unification (FarmCPU) for phytate and compressed mixed linear model (CMLM)^93,94 for TTI. Furthermore, to assess models robustness in detecting SNP markers, multi-locus random-SNP-effect mixed linear model (mrMLM) methods including mrMLM¹⁰⁷, FASTmrMLM¹⁰⁸, FASTmrEMMA¹⁰⁹, pLARmEB¹¹⁰, pKWmEB¹¹¹ and ISIS EM-BLASSO¹¹² were used for marker-trait association using mrMLM package in R¹¹³. These methods are reported to maintain computational advantage and increases statistical power. The GAPIT models were fitted with varying numbers of PCs and without any PC to teste for correction of spurious associations which could potentially arise due to population structure. Correction for kinship was performed using the VanRaden method, andManhattan and quantile–quantile (QQ) plots were generated to visualize outputs of the analysis. Boxplots were generated to visualize the allelic effects. The ggpubr package was used to display group comparisons, with Holm-adjusted p-values and 95% confidence intervals annotated on the plots.

1. Gibbs, B. F., Zougman, A., Masse, R. & Mulligan, C. Production and characterization of bioactive peptides from soy hydrolysate and soy-fermented food. Food Res. Int. 37, 123–131 (2004).

   Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

2. Murithi, H. M., Beed, F., Tukamuhabwa, P., Thomma, B. P. H. J. & Joosten, M. H. A. J. Soybean production in eastern and southern Africa and threat of yield loss due to soybean rust caused by Phakopsora pachyrhizi. Plant Pathol. 65, 176–188 (2016).

   Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

3. Rui, X. et al. Optimization of soy solid-state fermentation with selected lactic acid bacteria and the effect on the anti-nutritional components. J. Food Process. Preserv. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13290 (2017).

   Article  Google Scholar 

4. Guo, B. et al. Soybean genetic resources contributing to sustainable protein production. Theor. Appl. Genet. 135, 4095–4121 (2022).

   Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5. Malle, S., Morrison, M. & Belzile, F. Identification of loci controlling mineral element concentration in soybean seeds. BMC Plant Biol. 20, 1–14 (2020).

   Article  Google Scholar 

6. Kumar Sharma, R. Production of secondary metabolites in plants under abiotic stress: An overview. Signif. Bioeng. Biosci. 2, 196–200 (2018).

   Google Scholar 

7. Sinha, K., Khare, V., Scientist, J. & Bharti, L. Review on: Antinutritional factors in vegetable crops. Pharma Innov. J. 6, 353–358 (2017).

   CAS  Google Scholar 

8. Mohapatra, D., Patel, A. S., Kar, A., Deshpande, S. S. & Tripathi, M. K. Effect of different processing conditions on proximate composition, anti-oxidants, anti-nutrients and amino acid profile of grain sorghum. Food Chem. 271, 129–135 (2019).

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

9. Rosso, M. L. et al. Development of breeder-friendly KASP markers for low concentration of kunitz trypsin inhibitor in soybean seeds. Int. J. Mol. Sci 2675, 1–16 (2021).

   Google Scholar 

10. Duraiswamy, A. et al. Genetic manipulation of anti- nutritional factors in major crops for a sustainable diet in future. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 1–26 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Vucenik, I. & Shamsuddin, A. M. Protection against cancer by dietary IP6 and inositol. Nutr. Cancer 55, 109–125 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12. Haq, S. K., Atif, S. M. & Khan, R. H. Protein proteinase inhibitor genes in combat against insects, pests, and pathogens: Natural and engineered phytoprotection. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 431, 145–159 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

13. Miladinović, J., Burton, J. W., Tubić, S. B. & Miladinović, D. Soybean breeding: Comparison of the efficiency of different. Turk J Agric 35, 469–480 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

14. Jin, H., Yu, X., Yang, Q., Fu, X. & Yuan, F. Transcriptome analysis identifies differentially expressed genes in the progenies of a cross between two low phytic acid soybean mutants. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–14 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

15. DeMers, L. C., Raboy, V., Li, S. & Saghai Maroof, M. A. Network inference of transcriptional regulation in germinating low phytic acid soybean seeds. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 1–17 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

16. Zhong, Y., Wang, Z. & Zhao, Y. Impact of radio frequency, microwaving, and high hydrostatic pressure at elevated temperature on the nutritional and antinutritional components in black soybeans. J. Food Sci. 80, C2732–C2739 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

17. Suhag, R. et al. Microwave processing: A way to reduce the anti-nutritional factors (ANFs) in food grains. LWT 150, 111960 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

18. Samtiya, M., Aluko, R. E. & Dhewa, T. Plant food anti-nutritional factors and their reduction strategies: An overview. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 5, 1–14 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

19. Huang, L. & Xu, Y. Effective reduction of antinutritional factors in soybean meal by acetic acid-catalyzed processing. J. Food Process. Preserv. 42, 1–8 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

20. Zubko, V. et al. Inactivation of anti-nutrients in soybeans via micronisation. Res. Agric. Eng. 68, 157–167 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

21. Kumar, V., Rani, A., Rawal, R. & Mourya, V. Marker assisted accelerated introgression of null allele of kunitz trypsin inhibitor in soybean. Breed. Sci. 65, 447–452 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

22. Clarke, E. J. & Wiseman, J. Developments in plant breeding for improved nutritional quality of soya beans II. Anti-nutritional factors. J. Agric. Sci. 134, 125–136 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

23. Kumar, V., Rani, A., Shukla, S. & Jha, P. Development of Kunitz Trypsin inhibitor free vegetable soybean genotypes through marker-assisted selection. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 27, 364–377 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

24. Songstad, D. D., Petolino, J. F., Voytas, D. F. & Reichert, N. A. Genome editing of plants. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 36, 1–23 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

25. Lamichhane, S. & Thapa, S. Advances from conventional to modern plant breeding methodologies. Plant Breed. Biotech 2022, 1–14 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

26. Tazeb, A. Molecular marker techniques and their novel applications in crop improvement: A review article. Glob. J. Mol. Sci. 13, 1–16 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

27. Sarker, A., Masuda, M. S., Mushrat, Z. & Khan, M. K. Selection of superior genotypes using morpho-biochemical traits and crossability among them in cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Discov. Plants https://doi.org/10.1007/s44372-025-00162-y (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

28. Ibrahim, E. A. et al. Morphological, biochemical, and molecular diversity assessment of Egyptian bottle gourd cultivars. Genet. Res. (Camb.) 2024, 1–15 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. Ghonaim, M. M., Attya, A. M., Aly, H. G., Mohamed, H. I. & Omran, A. A. Agro-morphological, biochemical, and molecular markers of barley genotypes grown under salinity stress conditions. BMC Plant Biol. 23, 1–19 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

30. Liu, Z. J. & Cordes, J. F. DNA marker technologies and their applications in aquaculture genetics. Aquaculture 238, 1–37 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

31. Nadeem, M. A. et al. DNA molecular markers in plant breeding: Current status and recent advancements in genomic selection and genome editing. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 32, 261–285 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

32. Santana, F. A., Freire, M., Kellen, J., Guimarães, F. & Flores, M. Marker-assisted selection strategies for developing resistant soybean plants to cyst nematode. Crop Breed. Appl. Biotechnol. 14, 180–186 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

33. Alzate-marin, A. L., Cervigni, G. D. L., Moreira, M. A. & Barros, E. G. Seleção Assistida por Marcadores Moleculares Visando ao Desenvolvimento de Plantas Resistentes a Doenças, com Ênfase em Feijoeiro e Soja. Fitopatol 30, 333–342 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Maria, R. et al. Assisted selection by specific DNA markers for genetic elimination of the kunitz trypsin inhibitor and lectin in soybean seeds. Euphytica 149, 221–226 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

35. Clever, M. et al. Genetic diversity analysis among soybean genotypes using SSR markers in Uganda. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 19, 439–448 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

36. Guo, Y. et al. SSR marker development, linkage mapping, and QTL analysis for establishment rate in common bermudagrass. Plant Genome 10, 1–11 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

37. Fan, M., Gao, Y., Wu, Z. & Zhang, Q. Linkage map development by EST-SSR markers and QTL analysis for inflorescence and leaf traits in. Plants 9, 1–15 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

38. Wang, Z. et al. Development of new mutant alleles and markers for KTI1 and KTI3 via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis to reduce trypsin inhibitor content and activity in soybean seeds. Frontiers (Boulder). 14, 1–13 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

39. Shavrukov, Y., Hinrichsen, P. & Watanabe, S. Editorial: Plant genotyping: From traditional markers to modern technologies. Front. Plant Sci. 15, 1–4 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

40. Chander, S. et al. Genetic diversity and population structure of soybean lines adapted to sub-Saharan Africa using single nucleotide polymorphism (Snp) markers. Agronomy 11, 604 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

41. Mercier, R., Solier, V., Lian, Q. & Loudet, O. Enhanced recombination empowers the detection and mapping of Quantitative Trait Loci. Commun. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06530-w (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

42. Lukanda, M. M. et al. Genome-wide association analysis for resistance to Coniothyrium glycines causing red leaf blotch disease in soybean. Genes (Basel). 14, 1–23 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

43. Msiska, U. M. et al. Biochemicals associated with Callosobruchus Chinensis resistance in soybean. Int. J. Adv. Res. 6, 292–305 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

44. Bull, H., Murray, P. G., Thomas, D., Fraser, A. M. & Nelson, P. N. Acid phosphatases. J. Clin. Pathol. Mol. Pathol. 55, 65–72 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

45. Plaxton, W. C. & Tran, H. T. Update on metabolic adaptations metabolic adaptations of phosphate-starved plants. Plant Physiol. 1(156), 1006–1015 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

46. Raboy, V. Myo-inositol-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-hexakisphosphate. Phytochemistry 64, 1033–1043 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

47. Cohen, P. et al. Phosphorylation on the. Trends Biochem. Sci. 25, 596–601 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

48. Davies, G. & Henrissat, B. Structures and mechanisms of glycosyl hydrolases. Structure 3, 853–859 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

49. Palzkill, T. Metallo-β-lactamase structure and function. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1277, 91–104 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

50. Francis, X. et al. Functional analysis of the B and E lycopene cyclase enzymes of arabidopsis reveals a mechanism for control of cyclic carotenoid formation. Plant Cell 8, 1613–1626 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

51. Loijens, J. C. & Anderson, R. A. Type I phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate 5-kinases are distinct members of this novel lipid kinase family*. J. Biol. Chem. 271, 32937–32943 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

52. Zhang, D. & Zhang, D. homology between dUF784, dUF1278 domains and the plant prolamin superfamily typifies evolutionary changes of disulfide bonding patterns. Cell Cycle 8, 3428–3430 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

53. Hartung, W., Sauter, A. & Hose, E. Abscisic acid in the xylem: Where does it come from, where does it go to?. J. Exp. Bot. 53, 27–32 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

54. Sher, R. et al. Plant defensins: Types, mechanism of action and prospects of genetic engineering for enhanced disease resistance in plants. Biotech 9, 1–12 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

55. Skowyra, D., Craig, K. L., Tyers, M., Elledge, S. J. & Harper, J. W. F-box proteins are receptors that recruit phosphorylated substrates to the SCF ubiquitin-ligase complex. Cell 91, 209–219 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56. Hanks, S. K. Genomic analysis of the eukaryotic protein kinase superfamily: A perspective. Genome Biol. 4, 111 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57. Xie, H. et al. Large-scale protein annotation through gene ontology. Genome Res. 12, 785–794 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

58. Cooperman, B. S., Baykov, A. A. & Lahti, R. Evolutionary conservation of the active site of soluble inorganic pyrophosphatase. Elsevier Sci. 17, 262 (1992).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

59. Agarwal, P. K. & Jha, B. Transcription factors in plants and ABA dependent and independent abiotic stress signalling. Biol. Plantarun 54, 201–212 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

60. Gamsjaeger, R., Liew, C. K., Loughlin, F. E., Crossley, M. & Mackay, J. P. Sticky fingers: Zinc-fingers as protein-recognition motifs. TRENDS Biochem. Sci. 32, 63 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

61. Bakshi, M. & Oelmüller, R. Jack of many trades in plants WRKY transcription factors jack of many trades in plants. Plant Signal. Behav. 9, 1–18 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

62. Martins, L., Trujillo-hernandez, J. A. & Reichheld, J. Thiol based redox signaling in plant nucleus. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1–9 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

63. Riechmann, V., Criichten, I. Van & Sablitzky, F. The expression pattern of Id4, a novel dominant negative helix-loop-helix protein, is distinct from Id1, 162 and Id3. 22, (1994).

64. Fields, A. C. & D., M. fields1994 (1).pdf. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 198, 288–291 (1994).

65. Dehghan, M., Akhtar-Danesh, N. & Merchant, A. T. Childhood obesity, prevalence and prevention. Nutr. J. 4, 1–8 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

66. Saurin, A. J., Borden, K. L. B., Boddy, M. N. & Freemont, P. S. Does this have a familiar RING?. Elsevier Sci. 0004, 208–214 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

67. Kupke, T., Caparrós-Martín, J. A., Malquichagua Salazar, K. J. & Culiáñez-Macià, F. A. Biochemical and physiological characterization of Arabidopsis thaliana AtCoAse: A Nudix CoA hydrolyzing protein that improves plant development. Physiol. Plant. 135, 365–378 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

68. Russo, A. A., Jeffrey, P. D. & Pavletich, N. P. © 199 6 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/nsmb. Nature 3, 696–700 (1996).

69. Henrissat, B. Glycosidase families. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 26, 153–156 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

70. Ehsan, H., Reichheld, J. P., Durfee, T. & Roe, J. L. TOUSLED kinase activity oscillates during the cell cycle and interacts with chromatin regulators. Plant Physiol. 134, 1488–1499 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

71. Goto, K., Pi, T., Words, K., March, R. & Genetics, M. Function and regulation of the Arabidopsis floral homeotic gene PISTILLATA. Genes Dev. 8, 1548–1560 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

72. Khan, H. et al. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of U-box gene family in Juglans regia L. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 70, 2337–2352 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

73. Aravind, L. & Ponting, C. P. Homologues of 26S proteasome subunits are regulators of transcription and translation. Protein Sci. 7, 1250–1254 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

74. Xiong, A. & Jayaswal, R. K. Molecular characterization of a chromosomal determinant conferring resistance to zinc and cobalt ions in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol. 180, 4024–4029 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

75. Balaji, S., Madan Babu, M., Iyer, L. M. & Aravind, L. Discovery of the principal specific transcription factors of Apicomplexa and their implication for the evolution of the AP2-integrase DNA binding domains. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 3994–4006 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

76. Skirpan, A. L. et al. Isolation and characterization of kinase interacting protein 1, a pollen protein that interacts with the kinase domain of PRK1, a receptor-like kinase of petunia. Plant Physiol. 126, 1480–1492 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

77. Beuck, C. et al. Structure of the GLD-1 homodimerization domain: Insights into STAR protein-mediated translational regulation. Structure 18, 377–389 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

78. Ramakrishnan, V. & Moore, P. B. Atomic structures at last: The ribosome in 2000. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 11, 144–154 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

79. Salim, R. et al. A review on anti-nutritional factors: Unraveling the natural gateways to human health. Front. Nutr. 10, 1215873 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

80. Coelho, S. E. dos A. C., Vianna, R. P. de T., Segall-Correa, A. M., Perez-Escamilla, R. & Gubert, M. B. Insegurança alimentar entre adolescentes Brasileiros: Um estudo de validação da Escala Curta de Insegurança Alimentar. Rev. Nutr. 28, 385–395 (2015).

81. Nieto-Veloza, A. et al. Lunasin protease inhibitor concentrate decreases pro-inflammatory cytokines and improves histopathological markers in dextran sodium sulfate-induced ulcerative colitis. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 11, 1508–1514 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

82. Rosso, M. L., Shang, C., Correa, E. & Zhang, B. An efficient HPLC approach to quantify kunitz trypsin inhibitor in soybean seeds. Crop Sci. 58, 1616–1623 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

83. Zhang, R. et al. GWLD : An R package for genome-wide linkage disequilibrium analysis. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 13, 1–8 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

84. Flint-garcia, S. A., Thornsberry, J. M. & Iv, E. S. B. Tructure of. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.54.031902.134907 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

85. Kim, S., Tayade, R., Kang, B., Hahn, B. & Ha, B. Genome-Wide Association Studies of Seven Root Traits in Soybean (Glycine max L.) Landraces. (2023).

86. Liu, Z. et al. Comparison of genetic diversity between Chinese and american soybean (Glycine max (L.)) accessions revealed by. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1–13 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

87. Jo, H. et al. Genetic diversity of soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr) with black seed coats and green cotyledons in Korean germplasm. Agronomy 11, 581 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

88. Yoon, M. S. et al. DNA profiling and genetic diversity of Korean soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) landraces by SSR markers. Euphytica 165(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-008-9757-7 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

89. Rao, V. S., Srinivas, K., Sujini, G. N. & Kumar, G. N. S. Protein-protein interaction detection: Methods and analysis. Int. J. Proteom. 2014, 1–12 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

90. Sharmin, R. A. et al. Genome-wide association study uncovers major genetic loci associated with seed flooding tolerance in soybean. BMC Plant Biol. 21, 1–17 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

91. Ravelombola, W. et al. Genome-wide association study and genomic selection for yield and related traits in soybean. PLoS ONE 16, 1–21 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

92. Martins, V., Ferrari, F. & White, P. J. Plant physiology and biochemistry phytic acid accumulation in plants: Biosynthesis pathway regulation and role in human diet. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 164, 132–146 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

93. Tang, Y. et al. GAPIT Version 2: An enhanced integrated tool for genomic association and prediction. Plant Genome 9, (2016).

94. Li, M. et al. Enrichment of statistical power for genome-wide association studies. BMC Biol. 12, 1–10 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

95. Kaler, A. S., Gillman, J. D., Beissinger, T. & Purcell, L. C. Comparing different statistical models and multiple testing corrections for association mapping in soybean and maize. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 1–13 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

96. He, L., Wang, H., Sui, Y. & Miao, Y. Genome-wide association studies of five free amino acid levels in rice. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 1–17 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

97. Obua, T. et al. Yield stability of tropical soybean genotypes in selected agro-ecologies in Uganda. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 37, 168–173 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

98. Macherey-Nagel. Genomic DNA from plant – User manual (NucleoSpin® Plant II, -Midi, -Maxi). 36 at (2018).

99. Kilian, A. et al. Diversity arrays technology: A generic genome profiling technology on open platforms. Methods Mol. Biol. 888, 67–89 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

100. Egea, L. A., Mérida-García, R., Kilian, A., Hernandez, P. & Dorado, G. Assessment of genetic diversity and structure of large garlic (Allium sativum) germplasm bank, by diversity arrays technology ‘genotyping-by-sequencing’ platform (DArTseq). Front. Genet. 8, 1–9 (2017).

     Article  Google Scholar 

101. Baloch, F. S. et al. A whole genome DArTseq and SNP analysis for genetic diversity assessment in durum wheat from central fertile crescent. PLoS ONE 12, 1–18 (2017).

     Article  Google Scholar 

102. Israel, D. W. Genetic variability for phytic acid phosphorus and inorgaic phosphorus in seeds of soybeans in maturity groups V, VI, and VII. 46, 67–71 (2013).

103. Anozie, A. N., Salami, O. A., Babatunde, D. E. & Babatunde, O. E. Comparative evaluation of processes for production of soybean meal for poultry feed in Nigeria Evaluación comparativa de procesos para la producción de harina. Anim. Sci. 52, 193–202 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

104. Kakade, M. L., Rackis, J. J., Mcghee, J. E. & Pusk, G. Determination of trypsin inhibitor activity of soy products: A collaborative analysis of an improved procedure. Cereal Chem. 51, 376–382 (1974).

     CAS  Google Scholar 

105. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).

     Article  Google Scholar 

106. Henderson, C. R. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model published by: International biometric society stable. Biometrics 31, 423–447 (1975).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

107. Wang, S. B. et al. Improving power and accuracy of genome-wide association studies via a multi-locus mixed linear model methodology. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–10 (2016).

     Google Scholar 

108. Zhang, Y. et al. Multi-locus genome-wide association study reveals the genetic architecture of stalk lodging resistance-related traits in maize. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1–12 (2018).

     ADS  Google Scholar 

109. Wen, Y. J. et al. Methodological implementation of mixed linear models in multi-locus genome-wide association studies. Brief. Bioinform. 19, 700–712 (2018).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

110. Zhang, J. et al. PLARmEB: Integration of least angle regression with empirical Bayes for multilocus genome-wide association studies. Heredity (Edinb). 118, 517–524 (2017).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

111. Ren, W. L., Wen, Y. J., Dunwell, J. M. & Zhang, Y. M. PKWmEB: Integration of Kruskal–Wallis test with empirical Bayes under polygenic background control for multi-locus genome-wide association study. Heredity (Edinb). 120, 208–218 (2018).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

112. Tamba, C. L., Ni, Y. L. & Zhang, Y. M. Iterative sure independence screening EM-Bayesian LASSO algorithm for multi-locus genome-wide association studies. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, 1–20 (2017).

     Article  Google Scholar 

113. Zhang, Y. W. et al. mrMLM v4.0.2: An R platform for multi-locus genome-wide association studies. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 18, 481–487 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Crop Science and Horticulture, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CAES), Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda

   Norberto Jose Palange, Tonny Obua, Mildred Ochwo-Ssemakula, Isaac Onziga Dramadri, Richard Edema & Phinehas Tukamuhabwa

2. Makerere Regional Centre for Crop Improvement, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science (CAES), Makerere University, P. O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda

   Norberto Jose Palange, Isaac Onziga Dramadri, Richard Edema, Sharon Valerie Kweyu, Arfang Badji & Ephraim Nuwamanya

3. Faculty of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Rovuma University, P. O. Box 544, Nampula, Mozambique

   Norberto Jose Palange

4. National Agricultural Research Organization, National Livestock Resources Research Institute (NaLIRRI), P.O. Box 5704, Kampala, Uganda

   Julius Pyton Sserumaga & Moses Matovu

5. National Agricultural Research Organization, National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), P. O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda

   Enoch Wembabazi & Ephraim Nuwamanya

6. CSIR–Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box TL 52, Tamale, Ghana

   Emmanuel Amponsah Adjei

Contributions

Conceptualized the experiment: N.J.P, T.O and P.T; Methodology: N.J.P, E.N and E.W. Project administration: M.O.S, I.O.D and R.E; Data collection: N.J.P; Data curation: N.J.P, EAA and E.W; Formal analysis: N.J.P, E.W, S.V.K; Software analysis: N.J.P and E.W; Visualization: N.J.P and E.W; Supervision: P.T, T.O, M.M, J.P.S and E.N; Writing – original draft: N.J.P; Writing – review & editing, validation of analyzed data: N.J.P, A.B, J.P.S, S.V.K.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Norberto Jose Palange or Julius Pyton Sserumaga.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The seeds used in the study are owned by the Makerere University Centre for Soybean Improvement and Development (MAKCSID) led by Senior Soybean Breeder in Uganda, Prof. Phinehas Tukamuhabwa. Therefore, the collection of the seeds used in the study complies with local or national guidelines with no need for further affirmation.

Consent for publication

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Publisher’s note

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

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions