4.7 Review

Strategies for utilization of crop wild relatives in plant breeding programs

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 135, 期 12, 页码 4151-4167

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-022-04220-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. DST-SERB [ECR/2017/002858]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crop wild relatives are wild relatives of cultivated crops that can contribute to crop improvement through their rich diversity. However, there are challenges in using them directly in breeding programs due to crossing barriers and undesirable genetics. Solutions are needed to harness the potential of these wild relatives effectively.
Crop wild relatives (CWRs) are weedy and wild relatives of the domesticated and cultivated crops, which usually occur and are maintained in natural forms in their centres of origin. These include the ancestors or progenitors of all cultivated species and comprise rich sources of diversity for many important traits useful in plant breeding. CWRs can play an important role in broadening genetic bases and introgression of economical traits into crops, but their direct use by breeders for varietal improvement program is usually not advantageous due to the presence of crossing or chromosome introgression barriers with cultivated species as well as their high frequencies of agronomically undesirable alleles. Linkage drag may subsequently result in unfavourable traits in the subsequent progeny when segments of the genome linked with quantitative trait loci (QTL), or a phenotype, are introgressed from wild germplasm. Here, we first present an overview in regards to the contribution that wild species have made to improve biotic, abiotic stress tolerances and yield-related traits in crop varieties, and secondly summarise the various challenges which are experienced in interspecific hybridization along with their probable solutions. We subsequently suggest techniques for readily harnessing these wild relatives for fast and effective introgression of exotic alleles in pre-breeding research programs.

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