4.7 Article

Refining the genetic architecture of flag leaf glaucousness in wheat

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 133, 期 3, 页码 981-991

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-019-03522-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [WU 658/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Key message The cuticle is the plant's barrier against abiotic and biotic stresses, and the deposition of epicuticular wax crystals results in the scattering of light, an effect termed glaucousness. Here, we dissect the genetic architecture of flag leaf glaucousness in wheat toward a future targeted design of the cuticle. The cuticle serves as a barrier that protects plants against abiotic and biotic stresses. Differences in cuticle composition can be detected by the scattering of light on epicuticular wax crystals, which causes a phenotype termed glaucousness. In this study, we dissected the genetic architecture of flag leaf glaucousness in a panel of 1106 wheat cultivars of global origin. We observed a large genotypic variation, but the geographic pattern suggests that other wax layer characteristics besides glaucousness may be important in conferring tolerance to abiotic stresses such as heat and drought. Genome-wide association mapping identified two major quantitative trait loci (QTL) on chromosomes 3A and 2B. The latter corresponds to the W1 locus, but further characterization revealed that it is likely to contain additional QTL. The same holds true for the major QTL on 3A, which was also found to show an epistatic interaction with another locus located a few centiMorgan distal to it. Genome-wide prediction and the identification of a few additional putative QTL revealed that small-effect QTL also contribute to the trait. Collectively, our results illustrate the complexity of the genetic control of flag leaf glaucousness, with additive effects and epistasis, and lay the foundation for the cloning of the underlying genes toward a more targeted design of the cuticle by plant breeding.

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