4.6 Article

Relationship between QTL for grain shape, grain weight, test weight, milling yield, and plant height in the spring wheat cross RL4452/'ACDomain'

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190681

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Triticum Advancement through Genomics (CTAG), a Genome Prairie project
  2. Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture
  3. Western Grains Research Foundation
  4. Genome Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kernel morphology characteristics of wheat are complex and quantitatively inherited. A doubled haploid (DH) population of the cross RL4452/'AC Domain' was used to study the genetic basis of seed shape. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) analyses were conducted on a total of 18 traits: 14 grain shape traits, flour yield (Fyd), and three agronomic traits (Plant height [Plht], 1000 Grain weight [Gwt], Test weight [Twt]), using data from trial locations at Glenlea, Brandon, and Morden in Manitoba, Canada, between 1999 and 2004. Kernel shape was studied through digital image analysis with an Acurum (R) grain analyzer. Plht, Gwt, Twt, Fyd, and grain shape QTL were correlated with each other and QTL analysis revealed that QTL for these traits often mapped to the same genetic locations. The most significant QTL for the grain shape traits were located on chromosomes 4B and 4D, each accounting for up to 24.4% and 53.3% of the total phenotypic variation, respectively. In addition, the most significant QTL for Plht, Gwt, and Twt were all detected on chromosome 4D at the Rht-D1 locus. Rht-D1b decreased Plht, Gwt, Twt, and kernel width relative to the RhtD1a allele. A narrow genetic interval on chromosome 4B contained significant QTL for grain shape, Gwt, and Plht. The 'AC Domain' allele reduced Plht, Gwt, kernel length and width traits, but had no detectable effect on Twt. The data indicated that this variation was inconsistent with segregation at Rht-B1. Numerous QTL were identified that control these traits in this population.

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

4.6
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