4.7 Article

Haplotype variation in structure and expression of a gene cluster associated with a quantitative trait locus for improved yield in rice

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 618-626

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.4814006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By constructing nearly isogenic lines (NILs) that differ only at a single quantitative trait locus (QTL), we fine-mapped the yield-improving QTL qGY2-1 to a 102.9-kb region on rice chromosome 2. Comparison analysis of the genomic sequences in the mapped QTL region between the donor (Dongxiang wild rice, Oryza rufipogon Griff.) and recurrent (Guichao2, Oryza sativa ssp. indica) parents used for the development of NILs identified the haplotypes of a leucine-rich repeat receptor kinase gene cluster, which showed extensive allelic variation. The sequences between genes in the cluster had a very high rate of divergence. More importantly, the genes themselves also differed between two haplotypes: Only 92% identity was observed for one allele, and another allele was found to have completely lost its allelic counterpart in Guichao2. The other six shared genes all showed > 98% identity, and four of these exhibited obvious regulatory variation. The same haplotype segments also differed in length (43.9-kb in Guichao2 vs. 52.6-kb in Dongxiang wild rice). Such extensive sequence variation was also observed between orthologous regions of indica (cv. 93-11) and japonica (cv. Nipponbare) subspecies of Oryza sativa. Different rates of sequence divergence within the cluster have resulted in haplotype variability in 13 rice accessions. We also detected allelic expression variation in this gene cluster, in which some genes gave unequal expression of alleles in hybrids. These allelic variations in structure and expression suggest that the leucine-rich repeat receptor kinase gene cluster identified in our study should be a particularly good candidate for the source of the yield QTL.

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