4.7 Article

Mapping QTLs with epistatic effects and QTL x environment interactions for plant height using a doubled haploid population in cultivated wheat

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENETICS AND GENOMICS
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 119-127

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1673-8527(08)60017-X

关键词

doubled haploid population; epistatic effects; plant height; quantitative trait loci; QTLxenvironment interactions; wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for plant height in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) were studied using a set of 168 doubled haploid (DH) lines, which were derived from the cross Huapei 3/Yumai 57. A genetic linkage map was constructed using 283 SSR and 22 EST-SSR markers. The DH population and the parents were evaluated for wheat plant height in 2005 and 2006 in Tai'an and 2006 in Suzhou. QTL analyses were performed using the software of QTLNetwork version 2.0 based on the mixed linear model. Four additive QTLs and five pairs of epistatic effects were detected, which were distributed on chromosomes 3A, 4B, 4D, 5A, 6A, 7B, and 7D. Among them, three additive QTLs and three pairs of epistatic QTLs showed QTLxenvironment interactions (QEs). Two major QTLs, Qph4B and Qph4D, which accounted for 14.51% and 20.22% of the phenotypic variation, were located similar to the reported locations of the dwarfing genes Rht1 and Rht2, respectively. The Qph3A-2 with additive effect was not reported in previous linkage mapping studies. The total QTL effects detected for the plant height explained 85.04% of the phenotypic variation, with additive effects 46.07%, epistatic effects 19.89%, and QEs 19.09%. The results showed that both additive effects and epistatic effects were important genetic bases of wheat plant height, which were subjected to environmental modifications, and caused dramatic changes in phenotypic effects. The information obtained in this study will be useful for manipulating the QTLs for wheat plant height by molecular marker-assisted selection (MAS).

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