4.7 Article

Production and genetic analysis of partial hybrids in intertribal crosses between Brassica species (B-rapa, B-napus) and Capsella bursa-pastoris

期刊

PLANT CELL REPORTS
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 1791-1800

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00299-007-0392-x

关键词

Brassica species; Capsella bursa-pastoris; GISH; AFLP; introgression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic (2n = 4x = 32) is a natural double-low (erucic acid < 1%, glucosinolates < 30 mu mol/g) germplasm and shows high degree of resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Hybridizations were carried out between two Brassica species viz. B. rapa (2n = 20) and B. napus (2n = 38) as female and C. bursa-pastoris as male parent to introduce these desirable traits into cultivated Brassica species. Majority of F-1 plants resembled female parents in morphology and only a few expressed some characters of male parent, including the white petals. Based on cytological observation of somatic cells, the F-1 plants were classified into five types: two types from the cross with B. rapa, type I had 2n = 27-29; type II had 2n = 20; three types from the crosses with B. napus, type III was haploids with 2n = 19; type IV had 2n = 29; type V had 2n = 38. One to two chromosomes of C. bursa-pastoris were detected in pollen mother cells (PMCs) of type I plant by genomic in situ hybridization (GISH), together with chromosomal segments in ovary cells and PMCs of some F-1 plants. Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) bands specific for the male parent, novel for two parents and absent bands in Brassica parents were generated in majority of F-1 plants, even in Brassica-types and haploids, indicating the introgressions at various levels from C. bursa-pastoris and genomic alterations following hybridization. Some Brassica-type progeny plants had reduced contents of erucic acid and glucosinolates associated with improved resistance to S. sclerotiorum. The cytological and molecular mechanisms behind these results are discussed.

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