4.7 Article

Genetic analysis of multi-environmental spring wheat trials identifies genomic regions for locus-specific trade-offs for grain weight and grain number

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 131, 期 4, 页码 985-998

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-017-3037-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. SAGARPA
  2. IWYP
  3. ARCADIA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

GWAS on multi-environment data identified genomic regions associated with trade-offs for grain weight and grain number. Grain yield (GY) can be dissected into its components thousand grain weight (TGW) and grain number (GN), but little has been achieved in assessing the trade-off between them in spring wheat. In the present study, the Wheat Association Mapping Initiative (WAMI) panel of 287 elite spring bread wheat lines was phenotyped for GY, GN, and TGW in ten environments across different wheat growing regions in Mexico, South Asia, and North Africa. The panel genotyped with the 90 K Illumina Infinitum SNP array resulted in 26,814 SNPs for genome-wide association study (GWAS). Statistical analysis of the multi-environmental data for GY, GN, and TGW observed repeatability estimates of 0.76, 0.62, and 0.95, respectively. GWAS on BLUPs of combined environment analysis identified 38 loci associated with the traits. Among them four loci-6A (85 cM), 5A (98 cM), 3B (99 cM), and 2B (96 cM)-were associated with multiple traits. The study identified two loci that showed positive association between GY and TGW, with allelic substitution effects of 4% (GY) and 1.7% (TGW) for 6A locus and 0.2% (GY) and 7.2% (TGW) for 2B locus. The locus in chromosome 6A (79-85 cM) harbored a gene TaGW2-6A. We also identified that a combination of markers associated with GY, TGW, and GN together explained higher variation for GY (32%), than the markers associated with GY alone (27%). The marker-trait associations from the present study can be used for marker-assisted selection (MAS) and to discover the underlying genes for these traits in spring wheat.

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