4.6 Article

Natural Variation of the RICE FLOWERING LOCUS T 1 Contributes to Flowering Time Divergence in Rice

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075959

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery [IP1001]
  2. Genomics for Agricultural Innovation [GPN0001, QTL5003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In rice (Oryza sativa L.), there is a diversity in flowering time that is strictly genetically regulated. Some indica cultivars show extremely late flowering under long-day conditions, but little is known about the gene(s) involved. Here, we demonstrate that functional defects in the florigen gene RFT1 are the main cause of late flowering in an indica cultivar, Nona Bokra. Mapping and complementation studies revealed that sequence polymorphisms in the RFT1 regulatory and coding regions are likely to cause late flowering under long-day conditions. We detected polymorphisms in the promoter region that lead to reduced expression levels of RFT1. We also identified an amino acid substitution (E105K) that leads to a functional defect in Nona Bokra RFT1. Sequencing of the RFT1 region in rice accessions from a global collection showed that the E105K mutation is found only in indica, and indicated a strong association between the RFT1 haplotype and extremely late flowering in a functional Hd1 background. Furthermore, SNPs in the regulatory region of RFT1 and the E105K substitution in 1,397 accessions show strong linkage disequilibrium with a flowering time-associated SNP. Although the defective E105K allele of RFT1 (but not of another florigen gene, Hd3a) is found in many cultivars, relative rate tests revealed no evidence for differential rate of evolution of these genes. The ratios of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitutions suggest that the E105K mutation resulting in the defect in RFT1 occurred relatively recently. These findings indicate that natural mutations in RFT1 provide flowering time divergence under long-day conditions.

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