4.7 Article

Development and molecular-genetic characterization of a stable Brassica allohexaploid

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 129, 期 11, 页码 2085-2100

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-016-2759-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India under Indo Australia biotechnology fund [AISRF06520]
  2. Indian Council of Agricultural Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report first-time synthesis of a stable Brassica allohexaploid. It may evolve into a new species and also advance our understanding of pairing regulation and genome evolution in complex allopolyploids. Crop Brassicas include both monogenomic and digenomic species. A trigenomic Brassica (AABBCC) is not known to exist in nature. Past attempts to synthesize a stable allohexaploid were not successful due to aberrant meiosis and very high proportion of aneuploid plants in the selfed progenies. We report the development of a stable allohexaploid Brassica (2n = 54; AABBCC). Genomic in situ hybridization confirmed the complete assemblage of three genomes. Only allohexaploids involving B. rapa cv. R01 (2n = 20; AA) as pollinator with a set of B. carinata (2n = 34; BBCC) were stable. These exhibited a high proportion (0.78-0.94) of pollen mother cells with normal meiosis and an excellent hexaploid ratio (0.80-0.94) in the selfed progenies. Stability of two allohexaploid combinations was demonstrated from H-1 to H-4 generations at two very diverse locations in India. Graphical genotyping of allohexaploids allowed detection of chromosome fragment exchanges among three genomes. These were much smaller for meiotically stable allohexaploids as compared to unstable ones. The putative hexaploids were morphologically closer to the female donor, B. carinata, for leaf morphology, inflorescence structure and flower shape. The newly formed allohexaploid may also provide unique opportunities to investigate the immediate genetic and genomic consequences of a Brassica allohexaploid with three resident genomes.

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