4.7 Article

Mapping and validation of chromosome regions conferring boron toxicity tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum)

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 101, 期 5-6, 页码 767-777

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s001220051542

关键词

boron toxicity; boron tolerance; mapping; wheat; marker-assisted selection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Boron is an essential plant micro-nutrient which can be phytotoxic to plants if present in soils in high concentration. Boron toxicity has been recognised as an important problem limiting production in the low rainfall areas of southern Australia, West Asia and North Africa. Genetic variation for boron toxicity tolerance in wheat has been well-characterised. The efficiency of breeding for baron toxicity tolerance could be greatly enhanced by the development of molecular markers associated with QTLs for tolerance in wheat. A population of 161 doubled haploids from a cross between the tolerant cultivar Halberd and the moderately sensitive cultivar Cranbrook was used to identify chromosomal regions involved in boron tolerance. A combined RFLP and AFLP linkage map of the Cranbrook x Halberd population was used to identify chromosomal regions involved in the boron tolerance traits measured. Regions on chromosome 7B and 7D were associated with leaf symptom expression. The region on chromosome 7B was also associated with the control of baron uptake and with a reduction in the effect of boron toxicity on root-growth suppression. RFLP markers at the chromosome 7B and 7D loci were shown to be effective in selecting for improved boron tolerance in an alternative genetic background. Halberd alleles at the chromosome 7B locus were associated with the concentration of boron in whole shoots and grain. The concentration of boron in whole shoots and in grain were both related to grain yield in a field trial conducted on soil containing toxic levels of boron. Implications relating to marker-assisted selection for boron toxicity tolerance in wheat 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