| Literature DB >> 24222435 |
A Niedziela1, P T Bednarek, M Labudda, D R Mańkowski, A Anioł.
Abstract
Triticale (x Triticosecale Wittmack) is a relatively new cereal crop. In Poland, triticale is grown on 12 % of arable land ( http://www.stat.gov.pl ). There is an increasing interest in its cultivation due to lowered production costs and increased adaptation to adverse environmental conditions. However, it has an insufficient tolerance to the presence of aluminum ions (Al(3+)) in the soil. The number of genes controlling aluminum tolerance in triticale and their chromosomal location is not known. Two F2 mapping biparental populations (MP1 and MP15) segregating for aluminum (Al) tolerance were tested with AFLP, SSR, DArT, and specific PCR markers. Genetic mapping enabled the construction of linkage groups representing chromosomes 7R, 5R and 2B. Obtained linkage groups were common for both mapping populations and mostly included the same markers. Composite interval mapping (CIM) allowed identification of a single QTL that mapped to the 7R chromosome and explained 25 % (MP1) and 36 % (MP15) of phenotypic variation. The B1, B26 and Xscm150 markers were 0.04 cM and 0.02 cM from the maximum of the LOD function in the MP1 and MP15, respectively and were highly associated with aluminum tolerance as indicated by Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test. Moreover, the molecular markers B1, B26, Xrems1162 and Xscm92, previously associated with the Alt4 locus that encoded an aluminum-activated malate transporter (ScALMT1) that was involved in Al tolerance in rye (Secale cereale) also mapped within QTL. Biochemical analysis of plants represented MP1 and MP15 mapping populations confirmed that the QTL located on 7R chromosome in both mapping populations is responsible for Al tolerance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24222435 PMCID: PMC3909619 DOI: 10.1007/s13353-013-0170-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Genet ISSN: 1234-1983 Impact factor: 3.240
AFLP-selective primers used for analysis: the number of generated bands, the number of polymorphic signals, and their size (bp)
| No. | Selective primers | Marker name | MP1 population | MP15 population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of signals | No. of polymorphic signals | Allele size (bp) | No. of signals | No. of polymorphic signals | Allele size (bp) | |||
| 1 | E-AAT/M-CTC | EM1 | 61 | 0 | – | 86 | 1 | 255 |
| 2 | E-ACA/M-CGC | EM2 | 48 | 2 | 109; 89 | 57 | 2 | 109; 85 |
| 3 | E-ACC/M-CGG | EM3 | 52 | 1 | 143 | 48 | 0 | – |
| 4 | E-ACG/M-CAC | EM4 | 44 | 1 | 225 | 47 | 1 | 225 |
| 5 | E-ACG/M-CTG | EM5 | 57 | 4 | 156;154;121;119 | 57 | 4 | 156; 154; 121; 119 |
| 6 | E-ACT/M-CAC | EM6 | 53 | 2 | 210; 164 | 53 | 2 | 210;164 |
| 7 | E-AGC/M-CAG | EM7 | 47 | 1 | 154 | 47 | 1 | 154 |
| 8 | E-AGC/M-CCG | EM8 | 40 | 1 | 257 | 40 | 1 | 265 |
| 9 | E-ATC/M-CCA | EM9 | 59 | 0 | – | 62 | 1 | 104 |
| 10 | E-ATG/M-CCC | EM10 | 54 | 3 | 173;121;114 | 33 | 0 | – |
| 11 | E-ACG/M-CTC | EM11 | 44 | 0 | – | 47 | 1 | 140 |
| 12 | E-AAG/M-CCG | EM12 | 42 | 0 | – | 44 | 0 | – |
| 13 | E-ATC/M-CAA | EM13 | 66 | 0 | – | 62 | 0 | – |
| 14 | E-AGA/M-CGA | EM14 | 39 | 0 | – | 36 | 0 | – |
| 15 | E-ACT/M-CGA | EM15 | 59 | 0 | – | 60 | 0 | – |
| 16 | E-AGG/M-CTA | EM16 | 55 | 0 | – | 50 | 0 | – |
| 17 | E-AAC/M-CCG | EM17 | 65 | 0 | – | 65 | 0 | – |
| 18 | E-AGT/M-CAC | EM18 | 58 | 0 | – | 54 | 0 | – |
| 19 | E-AAA/M-CAA | EM19 | 75 | 0 | – | 58 | 0 | – |
| 20 | E-AAG/M-CTC | EM20 | 59 | 0 | – | 54 | 0 | – |
Arrangement of marker data used for profiling the F2 mapping populations
| Type of markers | DArT | AFLP | SSRs | aSpecific PCR markers | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | REMS | GWM | |||||
| Number of primers/DArTs tested | ±14,000 | 20 | 177 | 36 | 46 | 7 | |
| Number of markers (total number of polymorphic signals) | MP1 | 153 | 8 (15) | 14 (27) | 8 (19) | 5 (7) | 2 (5) |
| MP15 | 130 | 9 (14) | 14 (26) | 9 (17) | 4 (8) | 2 (5) | |
aRye primers were developed from the rice BAC sequence according to Miftahudin et al. (2005) and Benito et al. (2010)
Characteristic of linkage groups obtained for MP1 and MP2: assignment of linkage groups to chromosomes, number of markers in linkage group (in brackets: number of markers including their redundant counterparts), size of group (cM) and QTL presence
| F2 population | Number of linkage groups | Chromosomal localization | Number of markers in linkage group | Size of group (cM) | QTL presence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MP1 | 3 | 7R | 37(63) | 84.6 | + |
| 5R | 2(4) | 10.0 | − | ||
| 2B | 5(9) | 11.1 | − | ||
| MP15 | 3 | 7R | 39 (62) | 117.8 | + |
| 5R | 2(4) | 10.0 | − | ||
| 2B | 5(9) | 9.0 | − |
Fig. 1The alignment of the 5R linkages of the MP1 and MP15 mapping populations and 5R chromosome map published by Alheit et al. (2011). Common markers are indicated in red
Fig. 2The alignment of the 2B linkages of the MP1 and MP15 mapping populations 2B chromosome map published by Alheit et al. (2011). Common markers are indicated in red
Fig. 3The alignment of the 7R linkages of the MP1 and MP15 mapping populations 7R chromosome map published by Tyrka et al. (2011) and Alheit et al. (2011). Markers located in the Al tolerance QTL region are surrounded by green ellipse. Common markers are indicated in red
Fig. 4QTL composite interval mapping (CIM) profile of the 7R linkage group for the average length of root regrowth in the MP1 population. The LOD threshold is that obtained in R/qtl package (R-CRAN) after 1000 permutations (PT). CIM-LOD(max)) states for LOD maximum while QTL maximum reflects its position on genetic map
Fig. 5QTL composite interval mapping (CIM) profile of the 7R linkage group for the average length of root regrowth in the MP15 population. The LOD threshold is that obtained in R/qtl package (R-CRAN) after 1000 permutations (PT). CIM-LOD(max)) states for LOD maximum while QTL maximum reflects its position on genetic map
Characteristics of QTL located on chromosome 7R for the F2 mapping populations. Flanking markers and their positions relative to the aluminum tolerance QTL, logarithm of odd (LOD) values, marker effect, and explained phenotyping variance (% var.) are given
| F2 population | Nearest markers | Allele size (bp) | Position on the map (cM) | cM to the LOD maximum | Maximum LOD value | Markers effect | % var. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additive | Dominance | |||||||
| MP1 | B1 | 265 | 39.96 | 0.04 | 6.11 | 0.278 | −0.565 | 25.3 |
| B26 | 287 | |||||||
|
| 295 | |||||||
|
| 213 | |||||||
|
| 231 | 40.53 | 0.5 | – | – | |||
|
| 315 | 39.41 | 0.59 | – | – | |||
| EM5 | 156 | – | – | |||||
|
| 278 | – | – | |||||
| MP15 | B1 | 265 | 59.02 | 0.02 | 9.01 | 0.174 | −0.322 | 35.9 |
| B26 | 287 | |||||||
|
| 213 | – | – | |||||
|
| 231 | 58.39 | 0.39 | – | – | |||
| EM5 | 156 | 59.55 | 1.55 | – | – | |||
|
| 315 | 60.09 | 2.09 | – | – | |||
|
| 325 | – | – | |||||
|
| 278 | – | – | |||||
|
| 177 | – | – | |||||
|
| 187 | – | – | |||||
Results of Kruskal–Wallis test showing the association between markers and Al tolerance
| Population | Marker |
| Test statistics (K) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MP1 |
| 1 | 23.26 | ******* |
| B1_299; B26_287; | 1 | 22.23 | ******* | |
|
| 1 | 22.03 | ******* | |
| MP15 |
| 1 | 32.022 | ******* |
|
| 1 | 31.622 | ******* | |
| B1_299; B26_287; | 1 | 31.288 | ******* | |
| EM5_156 | 1 | 31.231 | ******* |
df degrees of freedom
Significant at *P: 0.05, **P: 0.01, ***P: 0.001, ****P: 0.005, *****P: 0.001, ******P: 0.0005, *******P: 0.0001