| Literature DB >> 25914584 |
Naoya Yamaguchi1, Takashi Sayama2, Hiroyuki Yamazaki3, Tomoaki Miyoshi1, Masao Ishimoto2, Hideyuki Funatsuki4.
Abstract
Lodging tolerance (LT) is an important trait for high yield and combine-harvesting efficiency in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Many previous studies have investigated quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for lodging score (LS) in soybean. Most of the investigated QTLs were located in the proximal region of maturity or growth habit loci. The aim of this study was to identify genetic factors for LT not associated with maturity or growth habit. QTL analysis was performed using a recombinant inbred line (RIL) population derived from a cross between 'Toyoharuka' (TH), a lodging-tolerant cultivar, and 'Toyomusume' (TM). The genotypes of TH and TM were estimated as both e1e2E3E4 and dt1. The average LS over 4 years was used for QTL analysis, identifying a major and stable QTL, qLS19-1, on chromosome 19. The LS of the near-isogenic line (NIL) with the TH allele at Sat_099, the nearest marker to qLS19-1, was significantly lower than the NIL with the TM allele at that position. The TH allele at Sat_099 rarely had a negative influence on seed yield or other agronomic traits in both NILs and the TM-backcrossed lines. Our results suggest that marker-assisted selection for qLS19-1 is effective for improving LT in breeding programs.Entities:
Keywords: lodging; marker-assisted selection; quantitative trait loci; soybean
Year: 2014 PMID: 25914584 PMCID: PMC4267304 DOI: 10.1270/jsbbs.64.300
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breed Sci ISSN: 1344-7610 Impact factor: 2.086
Fig. 1Representative plants in the field. (A) Shape of the Toyoharuka (TH) and Toyomusume (TM) plants used to create RILs. The photograph was taken on 28th July 2011. (B) TH and TM at harvesting time. The photograph was taken on 5th October 2011. (C) TMBC2-2, a backcrossed line containing the TH genotype at Sat_099, and TM. The photograph was taken on 7th August 2012. (D) TMBC2-2 and TM at harvesting time. The photograph was taken on 12th October 2012.
Agronomic traits of the parents (25.0 plants m−2; average in 2008 to 2011)
| Cultivar | Lodging score | Main stem length (cm) | No. of main stem nodes | No. of branches (m−2) | Genotype | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Determinate | ||||||
| TH | 0.7 | 67 | 9.9 | 18.8 | ||
| TM | 2.2 | 68 | 9.9 | 53.6 | ||
| ns | ns | |||||
Significant at P < 0.01.
Lodging score: 0 (no lodging)–4 (completely lodged).
ns, non-significant at P < 0.05.
Correlation coefficients between lodging scores of RILs in each pair of years
| 2008 | 2009 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | – | 0.461 | 0.340 | 0.424 |
| 2009 | 0.461 | – | 0.440 | 0.268 |
| 2011 | 0.340 | 0.440 | – | 0.390 |
| 2012 | 0.424 | 0.268 | 0.390 | – |
Significant at P < 0.001.
Fig. 2Frequency distribution of the average lodging score over four years in the RILs. The lodging scores (LSs) of Toyoharuka (TH) and Toyomusume (TM) are shown in parentheses using a LS scale of 0 (no lodging)–4 (completely lodged).
QTL analysis of lodging score (four year average)
| Chr (LG) | Position (cM) | Nearest marker | LOD | R2 (%) | Additive effect | QTL name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 (L) | 110.9 | Sat_099 | 11.4 | 19.8 | –0.40 | |
| 13 (F) | 123.3 | Sat_313 | 3.7 | 10.9 | 0.29 |
Chr, chromosome; LG, linkage group.
LOD, logarithm of odds determined by composite interval mapping; The threshold LOD value at 5% probability level was calculated by a thousand-replicate permutation test. The value was 3.5.
Percentage phenotypic variance explained by the QTL.
The effect of the TH allele on the QTL. Lodging score: 0 (no lodging)– 4 (completely lodged).
Fig. 3LOD score plot of QTLs associated with lodging score in the RILs. (A) qLS19-1 located on Chr-19. (B) qLS13-1 located on Chr-13. The LOD threshold value at the 5% probability level was 3.5. Arrows show the location of the E3 and Dt1 loci.
Relationship between the marker genotype at qLS19-1 and agronomic traits in the RILs
| Year | Generation of RILs | Planting density (plants m−2) | Lodging score | Main stem length (cm) | Seed yield (kg 10a−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | F6:7 | 25.0 | TH | 1.6 | 74 | ND |
| TM | 2.6 | 75 | ND | |||
| ns | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 2009 | F6:8 | 25.0 | TH | 0.3 | 55 | 396 |
| TM | 0.6 | 60 | 400 | |||
| ns | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 2011 | F6:9 | 16.7 | TH | 1.3 | ND | 401 |
| TM | 2.2 | ND | 419 | |||
| ns | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 2012 | F6:10 | 16.7 | TH | 1.3 | 73 | 514 |
| TM | 2.0 | 73 | 492 | |||
| ns | ns | |||||
Significant at P < 0.01.
Lodging score: 0 (no lodging)–4 (completely lodged).
ns, non-significant at P < 0.05.
ND, no data.
Relationship between the marker genotype at qLS13-1 and agronomic traits in the RILs
| Year | Generation of RILs | Planting density (plants m−2) | Lodging score | Main stem length (cm) | Seed yield (kg 10a−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | F6:7 | 25.0 | TH | 2.4 | 77 | ND |
| TM | 2.0 | 73 | ND | |||
| ns | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 2009 | F6:8 | 25.0 | TH | 0.5 | 60 | 418 |
| TM | 0.4 | 56 | 390 | |||
| ns | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 2011 | F6:9 | 16.7 | TH | 1.8 | ND | 424 |
| TM | 1.6 | ND | 401 | |||
| ns | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 2012 | F6:10 | 16.7 | TH | 1.8 | 76 | 493 |
| TM | 1.4 | 71 | 521 | |||
| ns | ||||||
Significant at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.
Lodging score: 0 (no lodging)–4 (completely lodged).
ns, non-significant at P < 0.05.
ND, no data.
Relationship between the marker genotype at qLS19-1 and agronomic traits in the NILs (25.0 plants m−2; average in 2010 and 2011)
| Cultivar or line | Lodging score | Flowering time (days) | Maturing time (days) | Main stem length (cm) | No. of main stem nodes | No. of branches (plant−1) | Seed yield (kg 10a−1) | 100-seed weight (g) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TH | TH | 0.7 d | 57 a | 133 a | 68 a | 10.1 a | 0.9 c | 393 b | 38.2 c |
| TM | TM | 2.6 a | 57 a | 136 a | 71 a | 10.1 a | 2.0 a | 431 ab | 38.6 c |
| NIL-TH | TH | 1.3 c | 56 a | 131 a | 68 a | 9.9 a | 1.5 b | 427 ab | 43.0 a |
| NIL-TM | TM | 1.9 b | 55 a | 131 a | 66 a | 9.9 a | 1.9 ab | 443 a | 40.7 b |
Lodging score: 0 (no lodging)–4 (completely lodged).
Values within a trait with the same letters were not significantly different at P < 0.05 (Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison test).
Relationship between the marker genotype at qLS19-1 and agronomic traits in the backcrossed lines (16.7 plants m−2; average in 2012 and 2013)
| Cultivar or line | Lodging score | Flowering time (days) | Maturing time (days) | Main stem length (cm) | No. of main stem nodes | No. of branches (plant−1) | Seed yield (kg 10a−1) | 100-seed weight (g) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TH | TH | 2.0 b | 55 a | 130 b | 82 a | 11.5 a | 1.6 b | 407 a | 43.0 b |
| TM | TM | 3.6 a | 54 a | 135 a | 78 ab | 10.6 b | 2.8 a | 338 b | 43.1 b |
| TMBC2-1 | TH | 1.7 b | 54 a | 133 ab | 69 c | 9.8 c | 2.3 a | 349 b | 47.5 a |
| TMBC2-2 | TH | 1.3 b | 54 a | 131 b | 71 bc | 9.7 c | 2.3 a | 380 ab | 42.7 b |
Lodging score: 0 (no lodging)–4 (completely lodged).
Values within a trait with the same letters were not significantly different at P < 0.05 (Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison test).
Fig. 4The effect of qLS19-1 on lodging tolerance in the Toiku 248 background. Frequency distribution of the lodging score (LS) in F3 lines derived from a Toiku 248 (T248) × Toyoharuka (TH) cross in 2011. LSs of the parental lines are shown in parentheses. LS scale: 0 (no lodging)–4 (completely lodged). The average LS of lines with either TH or T248 alleles was 1.3 or 2.3, respectively (P < 0.01). Shaded bars: lines with the TH allele at Sat_099 (n = 18). White bars: lines with the T248 allele at Sat_099 (n = 22). The plant population density was 25.0 plants m−2.
Agronomic traits of the F4 lines derived from the Toiku 248 (T248) × Toyoharuka (TH) cross (16.7 plants m−2; 2012)
| Cultivar or line | Lodging score | Flowering time (days) | Maturing time (days) | Main stem length (cm) | Seed yield (kg 10a−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T248 | T248 | 4.0 | 65 | 140 | 82 | 348 |
| TH | TH | 1.8 | 62 | 137 | 77 | 473 |
| 2129-1 | TH | 1.8 | 62 | 136 | 78 | 451 |
| 2129-2 | TH | 1.8 | 60 | 135 | 90 | 465 |
| 2129-3 | TH | 2.8 | 63 | 136 | 85 | 489 |
| 2129-4 | TH | 1.0 | 62 | 136 | 76 | 444 |
| 2129-5 | TH | 1.5 | 61 | 135 | 72 | 485 |
| 2129-6 | TH | 2.8 | 64 | 138 | 88 | 450 |
| 2129-7 | TH | 2.0 | 65 | 135 | 91 | 476 |
| 2129-8 | TH | 1.8 | 64 | 134 | 79 | 435 |
Lodging score: 0 (no lodging)–4 (completely lodged).
Significant at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively. Dunnett’s test was performed for each agronomic trait using T248 as the reference.