4.7 Article

Introgression of qPE9-1 allele, conferring the panicle erectness, leads to the decrease of grain yield per plant in japonica rice (Oryza sativa L.)

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENETICS AND GENOMICS
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 217-223

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgg.2011.03.011

关键词

Rice; Erect panicle; Genetic analysis; qPE9-1

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [2006AA10Z118]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation [30771323, 30871501]
  3. Jiangsu Province Government of China [08KJA210002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Panicle architecture is closely related to yield formation. The qPE9-1 gene has been proved to be widely used in high-yield rice cultivar developments, conferring erect panicle character in japonica rice. Recently, qPE9-1 has been successfully cloned; however, the genetic effect on grain yield per plant of the erect panicle allele qPE9-1 is controversial yet. In the present study, a drooping panicle parent Nongken 57, carrying qpe9-1 allele, was used as recurrent parent to successively backcross to a typical erect panicle line from the double haploid (DH) population (Wuyunjing 8/Nongken 57), which was previously shown to carry qPE9-1 allele. Thus a pair of near-isogenic lines (NILs) was developed. The comparison of agronomic traits between the NILs showed that, when qpe9-1 was replaced by qPE9-1, the panicle architecture was changed from drooping to erect; moreover, the panicle length, plant height, 1000-grain weight and the tillers were significantly decreased, consequently resulting in the dramatic decrease of grain yield per plant by 30%. Therefore, we concluded that the qPE9-1 was a major factor controlling panicle architecture, and qPE9-1 had pleiotropic nature, with negative effects on grain yield per plant. This result strongly suggests that the erect panicle allele qPE9-1 should be used together with other favorable genes in the high-yield breeding practice. In addition, the effect of qPE9-1 on eating and cooking quality was also discussed in the present study.

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