4.7 Article

Inheritance of Fruit Red-Flesh Patterns in Peach

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants12020394

关键词

Prunus; anthocyanins; QTLs; marker-assisted breeding; fruit quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study described previously undescribed peach flesh color patterns in commercial cultivars and investigated the genetic inheritance of red dots in the flesh (RDF) and red color around the stone (CAS). The findings will contribute to better characterization of peach plant materials and the development of a molecular marker system for selecting these traits.
Fruit color is an important trait in peach from the point of view of consumer preference, nutritional content, and diversification of fruit typologies. Several genes and phenotypes have been described for peach flesh and skin color, and although peach color knowledge has increased in the last few years, some fruit color patterns observed in peach breeding programs have not been carefully described. In this work, we first describe some peach mesocarp color patterns that have not yet been described in a collection of commercial peach cultivars, and we also study the genetic inheritance of the red dots present in the flesh (RDF) and red color around the stone (CAS) in several intra- and interspecific segregating populations for both traits. For RDF, we identified a QTL at the beginning of G5 in two intraspecific populations, and for CAS we identified a major QTL in G4 in both an intraspecific and an interspecific population between almond and peach. Finally, we discuss the interaction between these QTLs and some other genes previously identified in peach, such as dominant blood flesh (DBF), color around the stone (Cs), subacid (D) and the maturity date (MD), and the implications for peach breeding. The results obtained here will help peach germplasm curators and breeders to better characterize their plant materials and to develop an integrated system of molecular markers to select these traits.

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