4.7 Article

Quality control genotyping for assessment of genetic identity and purity in diverse tropical maize inbred lines

Journal

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
Volume 125, Issue 7, Pages 1487-1501

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-012-1928-1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Quality control (QC) genotyping is an important component in breeding, but to our knowledge there are not well established protocols for its implementation in practical breeding programs. The objectives of our study were to (a) ascertain genetic identity among 2-4 seed sources of the same inbred line, (b) evaluate the extent of genetic homogeneity within inbred lines, and (c) identify a subset of highly informative single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers for routine and low-cost QC genotyping and suggest guidelines for data interpretation. We used a total of 28 maize inbred lines to study genetic identity among different seed sources by genotyping them with 532 and 1,065 SNPs using the KASPar and GoldenGate platforms, respectively. An additional set of 544 inbred lines was used for studying genetic homogeneity. The proportion of alleles that differed between seed sources of the same inbred line varied from 0.1 to 42.3 %. Seed sources exhibiting high levels of genetic distance are mis-labeled, while those with lower levels of difference are contaminated or still segregating. Genetic homogeneity varied from 68.7 to 100 % with 71.3 % of the inbred lines considered to be homogenous. Based on the data sets obtained for a wide range of sample sizes and diverse genetic backgrounds, we recommended a subset of 50-100 SNPs for routine and low-cost QC genotyping, verified them in a different set of double haploid and inbred lines, and outlined a protocol that could be used to minimize errors in genetic analyses and breeding.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available