4.1 Article

Cytogenetic studies on two F1 hybrids of autotetraploid rice varieties showing extremely high level of heterosis

期刊

PLANT SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 267, 期 1-4, 页码 205-213

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00606-007-0577-3

关键词

autotetraploid rice; F1 hybrids; heterosis; meiosis; chromosome pairing; seed set

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mechanisms of two F1 hybrids (D46A x DTP-4 and D46A x Dminghui63) of autotetraploid rice (2n = 4x = 48) showing extremely high pollen fertility 87.40% and 85.97%, respectively, seed set 82.00% and 79.00%, respectively and extremely high level of heterosis were analyzed cytologically. The chromosome pairing of D46A x DTP-4 and D46A x Dminghui63 was normal at metaphase I(MI), and had almost no I or III, with an average of 0.020I +14.36 II 6.44rod+7.91ring) +0.01III + 4.80 IV + 0.01VIII and 0.06 I + 17.67 II (11.01rod + 6.67ring)] + 0.06 III +3.10IV+0.01VI, respectively. The most frequent chromosome configurations were 10II+7IV and 12II+bIV. The bivalent frequency was less frequent in hybrids than that in restoring parents, and the same results were gained from univalents, trivalent and multivalents. However, the quadrivalent frequency was significantly higher in hybrids than that in restoring parents at MI. The other meiotic phases progressed normally, except for low percentages of PMCs with lagging chromosomes at AI and low percentages of PMCs with micronuclei at telophaseI (TI) and telophaseII (TII). PMCs with lagging chromosomes at AI and PMCs with micronuclei at TI and TII showed negative correlation between pollen fertility and seed set. Above 90% of the PMCs could form normal microspores, which resulted in the production of viable pollen grains, abnormal microspores were observed including penta-fission and hexa-fission. Based on these results we suggest that the two F1 hybrids had better behaviors of chromosome pairing and genetic stability than autotetraploid rice and other autotetraploid plants ever studied.

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

4.1
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