4.7 Article

Dissection of genetic architecture for glucosinolate accumulations in leaves and seeds of Brassica napus by genome-wide association study

Journal

PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 1472-1484

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pbi.13314

Keywords

rapeseed (Brassica napus); metabolism; glucosinolates; GWAS; MYB28

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2017YFE0104800, 2015CB150200]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31671725]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Glucosinolates (GSLs), whose degradation products have been shown to be increasingly important for human health and plant defence, compose important secondary metabolites found in the order Brassicales. It is highly desired to enhance pest and disease resistance by increasing the leaf GSL content while keeping the content low in seeds of Brassica napus, one of the most important oil crops worldwide. Little is known about the regulation of GSL accumulation in the leaves. We quantified the levels of 9 different GSLs and 15 related traits in the leaves of 366 accessions and found that the seed and leaf GSL content were highly correlated (r = 0.79). A total of 78 loci were associated with GSL traits, and five common and eleven tissue-specific associated loci were related to total leaf and seed GSL content. Thirty-six candidate genes were inferred to be involved in GSL biosynthesis. The candidate gene BnaA03g40190D (BnaA3.MYB28) was validated by DNA polymorphisms and gene expression analysis. This gene was responsible for high leaf/low seed GSL content and could explain 30.62% of the total leaf GSL variation in the low seed GSL panel and was not fixed during double-low rapeseed breeding. Our results provide new insights into the genetic basis of GSL variation in leaves and seeds and may facilitate the metabolic engineering of GSLs and the breeding of high leaf/low seed GSL content in B. napus.

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