4.7 Article

Linkage mapping and QTL analysis of growth traits in Rhopilema esculentum

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-04431-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Liaoning Provincial Natural Science Foundation [20180551158]
  2. Liaoning Science and Technology Plan Projects [2020JH2/10200021]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31302173]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilized the 2b-RAD method to sequence R. esculentum and constructed a linkage map. Several quantitative trait loci associated with umbrella diameter and body weight were identified. Additionally, candidate growth-related genes were found in QTL regions, with one gene potentially playing a significant role in controlling the growth of R. esculentum.
R. esculentum is a popular seafood in Asian countries and an economic marine fishery resource in China. However, the genetic linkage map and growth-related molecular markers are still lacking, hindering marker assisted selection (MAS) for genetic improvement of R. esculentum. Therefore, we firstly used 2b-restriction site-associated DNA (2b-RAD) method to sequence 152 R. esculentum specimens and obtained 9100 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. A 1456.34 cM linkage map was constructed using 2508 SNP markers with an average interval of 0.58 cM. Then, six quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for umbrella diameter and body weight were detected by QTL analysis based on the new linkage map. The six QTLs are located on four linkage groups (LGs), LG4, LG13, LG14 and LG15, explaining 9.4% to 13.4% of the phenotypic variation. Finally, 27 candidate genes in QTLs regions of LG 14 and 15 were found associated with growth and one gene named RE13670 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type A, EGF and pentraxin domain-containing protein 1-like) may play an important role in controlling the growth of R. esculentum. This study provides valuable information for investigating the growth mechanism and MAS breeding in R. esculentum.

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