4.7 Article

Comparison between Germinated Seed and Isolated Microspore EMS Mutagenesis in Chinese Cabbage (Brassica rapa L. ssp. pekinensis)

期刊

HORTICULTURAE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae8030232

关键词

Chinese cabbage; EMS; mutagenesis; isolated microspore culture; mutants

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31972405]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of EMS mutagenesis on generating mutants in Chinese cabbage using two approaches. It was found that seed EMS mutagenesis had a higher mutation frequency and was more suitable for generating a large-scale mutant library, while microspore EMS mutagenesis was conducive to rapidly obtaining homozygous mutants.
Mutagenesis is an important tool for breeding and genomic research. In this study, the germinated seeds and isolated microspores of a double haploid line 'FT' were treated with EMS, respectively, with the aim of comparing the effects of the two approaches on generating mutants in Chinese cabbage. For microspore EMS mutagenesis, the isolated microspores were treated with 0.12% EMS for 20 min, a total of 1268 plantlets were obtained, and 15 M-1 mutants were screened with a mutation frequency of 1.2%. For seed EMS mutagenesis, 7800 germinated seeds were treated with 0.8% EMS for 12 h, and a total of 701 M-2 mutants were screened, with a mutation frequency of 18.78%. In total, 716 mutants with heritable morphological variation including leaf color, leaf shape, leafy head, bolting, and fertility, were obtained from the EMS mutagenesis experiments. Homozygous mutant plants could be screened from M-1 lines by microspore mutagenesis, and M-2 lines by seed mutagenesis. The mutation frequency was higher in seed mutagenesis than in microspore mutagenesis. Based on these results, we propose that seed EMS mutagenesis is more suitable to generate a large-scale mutant library, and the microspore EMS mutagenesis is conducive to rapidly obtaining homozygous mutants.

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