4.7 Article

Genome-wide study of an elite rice pedigree reveals a complex history of genetic architecture for breeding improvement

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep45685

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Program on Key Basic Research Project of China (973 Program) [2013CBA01402]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2012AA10A304, 2014AA10A602]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1031001, 31201277]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Improving breeding has been widely utilized in crop breeding and contributed to yield and quality improvement, yet few researches have been done to analyze genetic architecture underlying breeding improvement comprehensively. Here, we collected genotype and phenotype data of 99 cultivars from the complete pedigree including Huanghuazhan, an elite, high-quality, conventional indica rice that has been grown over 4.5 million hectares in southern China and from which more than 20 excellent cultivars have been derived. We identified 1,313 selective sweeps (SSWs) revealing four stage-specific selection patterns corresponding to improvement preference during 65 years, and 1113 conserved Huanghuazhan traceable blocks (cHTBs) introduced from different donors and conserved in > 3 breeding generations were the core genomic regions for superior performance of Huanghuazhan. Based on 151 quantitative trait loci (QTLs) identified for 13 improved traits in the pedigree, we reproduced their improvement process in silico, highlighting improving breeding works well for traits controlled by major/major + minor effect QTLs, but was inefficient for traits controlled by QTLs with complex interactions or explaining low levels of phenotypic variation. These results indicate long-term breeding improvement is efficient to construct superior genetic architecture for elite performance, yet molecular breeding with designed genotype of QTLs can facilitate complex traits improvement.

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