4.7 Article

QTL analysis of frost damage in pea suggests different mechanisms involved in frost tolerance

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 127, 期 6, 页码 1319-1330

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-014-2299-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Avoidance mechanisms and intrinsic resistance are complementary strategies to improve winter frost tolerance and yield potential in field pea. The development of the winter pea crop represents a major challenge to expand plant protein production in temperate areas. Breeding winter cultivars requires the combination of freezing tolerance as well as high seed productivity and quality. In this context, we investigated the genetic determinism of winter frost tolerance and assessed its genetic relationship with yield and developmental traits. Using a newly identified source of frost resistance, we developed a population of recombinant inbred lines and evaluated it in six environments in Dijon and Clermont-Ferrand between 2005 and 2010. We developed a genetic map comprising 679 markers distributed over seven linkage groups and covering 947.1 cM. One hundred sixty-one quantitative trait loci (QTL) explaining 9-71 % of the phenotypic variation were detected across the six environments for all traits measured. Two clusters of QTL mapped on the linkage groups III and one cluster on LGVI reveal the genetic links between phenology, morphology, yield-related traits and frost tolerance in winter pea. QTL clusters on LGIII highlighted major developmental gene loci (Hr and Le) and the QTL cluster on LGVI explained up to 71 % of the winter frost damage variation. This suggests that a specific architecture and flowering ideotype defines frost tolerance in winter pea. However, two consistent frost tolerance QTL on LGV were independent of phenology and morphology traits, showing that different protective mechanisms are involved in frost tolerance. Finally, these results suggest that frost tolerance can be bred independently to seed productivity and quality.

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