4.3 Article

Genome selection in fruit breeding: application to table grapes

期刊

SCIENTIA AGRICOLA
卷 73, 期 2, 页码 142-149

出版社

UNIV SAO PAOLO
DOI: 10.1590/0103-9016-2014-0323

关键词

MAS; SSR markers; linkage disequilibrium; genomic selection

资金

  1. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genomic selection (GS) has recently been proposed as a new selection strategy which represents an innovative paradigm in crop improvement, now widely adopted in animal breeding. Genomic selection relies on phenotyping and high-density genotyping of a sufficiently large and representative sample of the target breeding population, so that the majority of loci that regulate a quantitative trait are in linkage disequilibrium with one or more molecular markers and can thus be captured by selection. In this study we address genomic selection in a practical fruit breeding context applying it to a breeding population of table grape obtained from a cross between the hybrid genotype D8909-15 (Vitis rupestris x Vitis arizonica/girdiana), which is resistant to dagger nematode and Pierce's disease (PD), and 'B90-116', a susceptible Vitis vinifera cultivar with desirable fruit characteristics. Our aim was to enhance the knowledge on the genomic variation of agronomical traits in table grape populations for future use in marker-assisted selection (MAS) and GS, by discovering a set of molecular markers associated with genomic regions involved in this variation. A number of Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) were discovered but this method is inaccurate and the genetic architecture of the studied population was better captured by the BLasso method of genomic selection, which allowed for efficient inference about the genetic contribution of the various marker loci. The technology of genomic selection afforded greater efficiency than QTL analysis and can be very useful in speeding up the selection procedures for agronomic traits in table grapes.

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

4.3
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