4.7 Article

Genetic dissection of a major QTL for kernel weight spanning the Rht-B1 locus in bread wheat

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 132, 期 11, 页码 3191-3200

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-019-03418-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Programs of China [2016YFD0101802]
  2. National Key Technology R&D Program of China [2014BAD01B05]
  3. CAAS Science and Technology Innovation Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies identified quantitative trait loci (QTL) for thousand kernel weight (TKW) in the region spanning the Rht-B1 locus in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). We recently mapped a major QTL QTKW.caas-4BS for TKW spanning the Rht-B1 locus in a recombinant inbred line (RIL) population derived from Doumai/Shi 4185 using the wheat 90K array. The allele from Doumai at QTKW.caas-4BS significantly increased TKW and kernel number per spike, and conferred semi-dwarf trait, which was beneficial to improve grain yield without a penalty to lodging. To further dissect QTKW.caas-4BS, we firstly re-investigated the genotypes and phenotypes of the RILs and confirmed the QTL using cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence (CAPS) markers developed from flanking SNP markers IWA102 and IWB54814. The target sequences of the CAPS markers were used as queries to BLAST the wheat reference genome RefSeq v1.0 and hit an approximate 10.4 Mb genomic region. Based on genomic mining and SNP loci from the wheat 660K SNP array in the above genomic region, we developed eight new markers and narrowed QTKW.caas-4BS to a genetic interval of 1.5 cM. A 483 kb deletion in Doumai corresponded with QTKW.caas-4BS genetically, including three genes ZnF, EamA and Rht-B1. The other 15 genes with either differential expressions and/or sequence variations between parents were also potential candidate genes for QTKW.caas-4BS. The findings not only provide a toolkit for marker-assisted selection of QTKW.caas-4BS but also defined candidate genes for further functional analysis.

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