4.7 Article

Novel insights into the composition, variation, organization, and expression of the low-molecular-weight glutenin subunit gene family in common wheat

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 64, 期 7, 页码 2027-2040

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ert070

关键词

Allele; common wheat; composition; low-molecular-weight glutenin subunits

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2009CB118300]
  2. Ministry of Agriculture of China [2013ZX08009-003-004, 2013ZX08002-004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-molecular-weight glutenin subunits (LMW-GS), encoded by a complex multigene family, play an important role in the processing quality of wheat flour. Although members of this gene family have been identified in several wheat varieties, the allelic variation and composition of LMW-GS genes in common wheat are not well understood. In the present study, using the LMW-GS gene molecular marker system and the full-length gene cloning method, a comprehensive molecular analysis of LMW-GS genes was conducted in a representative population, the micro-core collections (MCC) of Chinese wheat germplasm. Generally, > 15 LMW-GS genes were identified from individual MCC accessions, of which 46 were located at the Glu-A3 locus, 35 at the Glu-B3 locus, and eight at the Glu-D3 locus. LMW-GS genes at the Glu-A3 locus showed the highest allelic diversity, followed by the Glu-B3 genes, while the Glu-D3 genes were extremely conserved among MCC accessions. Expression and sequence analysis showed that 913 active LMW-GS genes were present in each accession. Sequence identity analysis showed that all i-type genes present at the Glu-A3 locus formed a single group, the s-type genes located at Glu-B3 and Glu-D3 loci comprised a unique group, while high-diversity m-type genes were classified into four groups and detected in all Glu-3 loci. These results contribute to the functional analysis of LMW-GS genes and facilitate improvement of bread-making quality by wheat molecular breeding programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据