4.7 Article

Viability and bar expression are negatively correlated in Oregon Wolfe Barley Dominant hybrids

期刊

PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 381-388

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00247.x

关键词

bar; Hordeum vulgare L.; phosphinothricin acetyltransferase; transgenic barley

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The expression level of bar, which encodes phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT), was correlated with the inviability of barley hybrids between 20 Golden Promise-derived transgenic lines (Ds-bar lines) and a specialized genetic marker stock, Oregon Wolfe Barley Dominant (OWBD). Each Ds-bar line was homozygous for a modified maize Ds element that encoded bar and that had been delivered via transposition to a unique location. All Ds-bar lines were viable and morphologically similar. Only four of the 20 hybrid populations were viable. The remaining populations died prior to producing seed. Phenotypic, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction analyses of these lines, and of lines from unrelated transformation events that also expressed bar, showed that viability was negatively correlated with bar expression. Analysis of crosses of a high-bar-expressing line with the OWB mapping population showed that the sensitivity of OWBD to PAT segregated as a single locus on chromosome 6HL. No sensitivity to PAT could be detected in several other lines and cultivars. OWBD has been shown to be genetically divergent from other germplasm groups within cultivated barley; therefore, the observed sensitivity may be peculiar to OWBD and thus would not impact generally on the utility of bar as a selectable marker or source of herbicide resistance in barley. Nevertheless, these results demonstrate the extent of allelic variability present in Hordeum vulgare, and suggest an additional variable for consideration when devising protocols for the transformation of Hordeum cultivars or landraces that are not known to be tolerant to PAT.

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