4.6 Article

Genotypic and phenotypic characterization of isogenic doubled haploid exotic introgression lines in maize

Journal

MOLECULAR BREEDING
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 1001-1016

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11032-011-9684-5

Keywords

Germplasm Enhancement of maize; Double haploids; Cell wall digestibility; Genotypic and phenotypic characterization

Funding

  1. RF Baker Center for Plant Breeding at Iowa State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We characterized the genotypic and phenotypic variation in cell wall digestibility (CWD) and other agronomic traits of 50 backcross 1 generation doubled haploid (BC1DH) lines developed from the Germplasm Enhancement of Maize project. These lines were generated by introgressing 31 exotic unadapted maize races into PHZ51 and PHB47, temperate inbred lines with expired Plant Variety Protection. The 50 BC1DH lines and five check lines were genotyped with 199 single nucleotide polymorphism markers distributed across the genome. We identified, on average, 11.8% of markers with exotic donor parent alleles. This likely underestimates the proportion of donor introgressions, since we cannot discriminate monomorphic alleles from donor and recurrent parents. The potential roles of natural selection and the doubled haploid process in favouring selection of the recurrent genome are discussed. Although the proportion of donor parent genome was underestimated, donor fragments evaluated across the 50 BC1DH lines covered 92.9% of the recurrent parent genome. The evaluation of BC1DH lines for CWD revealed promising lines with CWD not differing significantly (alpha = 0.05) from forage quality lines used as checks. The introgression of exotic genome segments, however, was generally associated with higher ears, lodging, and late flowering. Even with limited power, our association analysis revealed quantitative trait polymorphisms associated with CWD, flowering date, and lodging.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available