4.7 Article

Fodder beet is a reservoir of drought tolerance alleles for sugar beet breeding

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 120-131

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.10.031

关键词

Double haploid; Drought; Beet; Genetic distance; Osmoprotection; ROS; Selection

资金

  1. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Poland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drought leads to serious yield losses and followed by increasing food prices. Thereby, drought tolerance is one of most important, pivotal issues for plant breeding and is determined by the very complex genetic architecture, which involves a lot of genes engaged in many cell processes. Within genomes of currently cultivated sugar beet forms, the number of favourable allelic variants is limited. However, there is a potential to identify genes related to drought tolerance deposited in genomes of wild or fodder relatives. Therefore, the goal of our study, was to identify the source of allelic variants involved in drought tolerance using a large spectrum of sugar or fodder beets and their wild relatives for analyses. Based on the drought tolerance index, calculated for morphophy-siological traits, it was demonstrated that some of selected fodder beets showed the highest level of drought tolerance. The most drought tolerant fodder beet genotype did not show differences in the level of expression of genes engaged in osmoprotection and the antioxidative system, between control and drought condition, compared to sugar and wild beets. The genetic distance between selected beet forms was broad and ranged from 18 to 87%, however the most drought tolerant sugar, fodder and wild beets showed high genetic similarity and formed the common Glade. Based on obtained results we propose that an adequate broad source of genes related to drought tolerance occurs in fodder beets, the crossing with which is easier, less time-consuming and more cost-effective than with wild forms of beets.

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