4.6 Article

QTL mapping of aroma compounds analysed by headspace solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography in the apple progeny 'Discovery' x 'Prima'

期刊

MOLECULAR BREEDING
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 501-521

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11032-008-9252-9

关键词

Malus; Volatile; Inheritance; Linkage map; Quantitative trait locus; Candidate gene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Improving fruit quality of apple varieties is an important but complex breeding goal. Flavour is among the key factors of apple fruit quality but in spite of the analytical and biochemical knowledge about volatiles little is known about the genetic and molecular bases of apple aroma. The aim of this study was to use a saturated molecular linkage map of apple to identify QTLs for aroma compounds such as alcohols, esters and terpenes, but also for a number of unidentified volatile compounds (non-targeted analysis approach). Two parental genetic maps were constructed for the apple cultivars 'Discovery' and 'Prima' by using mainly AFLP and SSR markers. 'Discovery' and 'Prima' showed very different volatile patterns, and 'Discovery' mostly had the higher volatile concentrations in comparison with the Vf-scab resistant 'Prima' which has its origin in the small-fruited apple species Malus floribunda. About 50 putative QTLs for a total of 27 different apple fruit volatiles were detected through interval mapping by using genotypic data of 150 F-1 individuals of the mapping population 'C3' together with phenotypic data obtained by head-space solid phase microextraction gas chromatography. QTLs for volatile compounds putatively involved in apple aroma were found on 12 out of the 17 apple chromosomes, but they were not evenly dispersed. QTLs were mainly clustered on linkage groups LG 2, 3 and 9. In a first attempt, a LOX (lipoxygenase) candidate gene, putatively involved in volatile metabolism, was mapped on LG 9, genetically associated with a cluster of QTLs for ester-type volatiles. Implications for aroma breeding in apple are discussed.

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

4.6
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