| Literature DB >> 26594055 |
Issa Faye1, Manish K Pandey2, Falalou Hamidou3, Abhishek Rathore2, Ousmane Ndoye1, Vincent Vadez2, Rajeev K Varshney2.
Abstract
Yield under drought stress is a highly complex trait with large influence to even a minor fluctuation in the environmental conditions. Genomics-assisted breeding holds great promise for improving such complex traits more efficiently in less time, but requires markers associated with the trait of interest. In this context, a recombinant inbred line mapping population (TAG 24 × ICGV 86031) was used to identify markers associated with quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for yield and yield related traits at two important locations of West Africa under well watered and water stress conditions. Among the traits analyzed under WS condition, the harvest index (HI) and the haulm yield (HYLD) were positively correlated with the pod yield (PYLD) and showed intermediate broad sense heritability. QTL analysis using phenotyping and genotyping data resulted in identification of 52 QTLs. These QTLs had low phenotypic variance (<12 %) for all the nine traits namely plant height, primary branching, SPAD chlorophyll meter reading, percentage of sound mature kernels, 100 kernel weight, shelling percentage, HI, HYLD and PYLD. Interestingly, few QTLs identified in this study were also overlapped with previously reported QTLs detected for drought tolerance related traits identified earlier in Indian environmental conditions using the same mapping population. Accumulating these many small-effect QTLs into a single genetic background is nearly impossible through marker-assisted backcrossing and even marker-assisted recurrent selection. Under such circumstances, the deployment of genomic selection is the most appropriate approach for improving such complex traits with more precision and in less time.Entities:
Keywords: Drought tolerance; Epistatic QTLs; Main-effect QTLs; Pod yield; Quantitative trait locus
Year: 2015 PMID: 26594055 PMCID: PMC4643859 DOI: 10.1007/s10681-015-1472-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Euphytica ISSN: 0014-2336 Impact factor: 1.895
Fig. 1Environmental conditions at Bambey and Sadore during the period of experimentation. This figure shows the variation in (a) relative humidity in the air and (b) temperature during the crop period at Sadore and Bambey
Grand mean, variation within the RIL and broad sense heritability (H 2) of each trait under well watered and water stress conditions in the different site
| Site | Trait | Grand mean | Variation in RILs | Broad-sense heritability ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WW | WS | WW | WS | WW | WS | ||
| Bambey 2009 | PYLD (g−2) | 349.3 | 289.1 | 245.8–530.1 | 248.2–331.7 | 0.50 | 0.20 |
| HYLD (g−2) | 425.5 | 341.4 | 227.8–765.8 | 238.4–448.9 | 0.72 | 0.37 | |
| HI | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.33–0.55 | 0.39–0.51 | 0.65 | 0.23 | |
| SCMR | 45.5 | 44.3 | 41.36–49.97 | 40.51–47.65 | 0.33 | 0.20 | |
| SP (%) | 70.1 | 71.9 | 62.19–72.36 | 62.49–76.76 | 0.16 | 0.45 | |
| SMK (%) | 61.1 | 74.4 | 49.19–70.32 | 51.84–84.94 | 0.13 | 0.30 | |
| 100 KW (g) | 68.7 | 69.3 | 62.45–121.00 | 53.46–84.33 | 0.11 | 0.40 | |
| PH (cm) | 14.72 | 7.20–22.15 | – | 0.73 | – | ||
| PBr | 6.86 | 4.86–9.51 | – | 0.47 | – | ||
| Sadore 2009 | PYLD (g−2) | 342.2 | 199.7 | 268.7–442.6 | 126.6–256.9 | 0.25 | 0.37 |
| HYLD (g−2) | 412.9 | 394.7 | 234.4–682.5 | 231.5–554.4 | 0.62 | 0.48 | |
| HI | 0.57 | 0.45 | 0.41–0.70 | 0.18–0.66 | 0.57 | 0.59 | |
| SCMR | 38.3 | 38.9 | 31.7–42.4 | 31.7–38.9 | 0.33 | 0.25 | |
| Sadore 2010 | PYLD (g−2) | 303.1 | 190.8 | 203.8–456.7 | 112.8–320.1 | 0.22 | 0.30 |
| HYLD (g−2) | 245.3 | 189.8 | 119.9–453.1 | 70.26–396.40 | 0.37 | 0.45 | |
| HI | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.53–0.75 | 0.44–0.74 | 0.39 | 0.44 | |
| SCMR | 40.6 | 43.8 | 36.2–46.41 | 39.51–48.04 | 0.26 | 0.27 | |
Fig. 2PC1 versus PC2 scatter plot of the pod yield under WS conditions at Bambey 2009 and Sadore 2009. This figure shows the comparison between two locations during the same year of experiment in pod yield
Fig. 3PC1 versus PC2 scatter plot of the pod yield under WS conditions at Sadore 2009 and Sadore 2010. This figure shows the comparison between two different year of experiment at a single location in pod yield
Pearson correlation coefficients between the different traits under well watered and water stress conditions at Bambey (CNRA 2009)
| Water regime/Trait | Well watered (WW) | Water stress (WS) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PYLD | HYLD | HI | 100 (KW) | SM (K %) | SCMR | SP | PH | PBr | PYLD | HYLD | HI | 100 (KW) | SM (K %) | SCMR | SP | ||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
| PYLD | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| HYLD | 0.49*** | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| HI | ns | –0.71 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 100 KW | ns | 0.11 | ns | 1 | |||||||||||||
| SMK % | ns | –0.43*** | 0.36*** | ns | 1 | ||||||||||||
| SCMR | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | |||||||||||
| SP | ns | ns | 0.49*** | ns | 0.30** | ns | 1 | ||||||||||
| PH | 0.20* | 0.46*** | −0.42*** | 0.19* | ns | ns | −0.25** | 1 | |||||||||
| PBr | 0.25** | 0.27** | ns | ns | −0.24* | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
| PYLD | 0.27** | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.21* | 1 | |||||||
| HYLD | 0.24* | 0.60*** | −0.51*** | ns | −0.31** | ns | −0.24* | 0.35*** | 0.25** | 0.24* | 1 | ||||||
| HI | ns | −0.45*** | 0.49*** | ns | 0.22* | ns | 0.27** | −0.38*** | ns | 0.41*** | −0.73*** | 1 | |||||
| 100 KW | 0.20* | ns | ns | 0.38*** | −0.25** | ns | ns | 0.19* | ns | ns | 0.22* | ns | 1 | ||||
| SMK % | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | −0.21* | ns | ns | 1 | |||
| SCMR | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.31** | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||
| SP | ns | −0.45*** | 0.45*** | ns | 0.26** | ns | 0.49*** | −0.32** | ns | ns | −0.40*** | 0.43*** | ns | ns | ns | 1 | |
*, **, ***, significant at probability P ≤ 0.05; P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.001, respectively
Pearson correlation coefficients between the different traits under well watered and water stress conditions at Sadore (ICRISAT) during 2009 and 2010
| Water regime | Trait | Well watered (WW) | Water stress (WS) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PYLD | HYLD | HI | SCMR | PYLD | HYLD | HI | SCMR | |||
| WW 2009 | PYLD | 1 | ||||||||
| HYLD | 0.29** | 1 | ||||||||
| HI | 0.25** | −0.78*** | 1 | |||||||
| SCMR | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||
| WS 2009 | PYLD | 0.47*** | ns | 0.33 | ns | |||||
| 1 | ||||||||||
| HYLD | ns | 0.58*** | −0.59*** | ns | ns | 1 | ||||
| HI | 0.33*** | −0.71*** | 0.86*** | ns | 0.42*** | −0.64*** | 1 | |||
| SCMR | ns | ns | ns | 0.61*** | ns | ns | −0.65*** | 1 | ||
| WW 2010 | PYLD | 1 | ||||||||
| HYLD | 0.69*** | 1 | ||||||||
| HI | ns | −0.47*** | 1 | |||||||
| SCMR | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||
| WS 2010 | PYLD | 0.52*** | 0.40*** | ns | ns | 1 | ||||
| HYLD | 0.45*** | 0.71*** | −0.52*** | ns | 0.65*** | 1 | ||||
| HI | ns | −0.42*** | 0.61*** | ns | ns | −0.45*** | 1 | |||
| SCMR | ns | ns | ns | 0.48*** | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||
*, **, ***, significant at probability P ≤ 0.05; P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.001, respectively
Main-effect QTLs (M-QTLs) identified under well watered and water stress conditions at Bambey and Sadore
| Location and year | Trait | Well watered (WW) | Water stress (WS) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of QTLs | Range of PVE (R2 %) | No. of QTLs | Range of PVE (R2 %) | |||
| Bambey 2009 | PYLD | – | – | 1 | 7.51 | |
| HYLD | 3 | 3.74–6.96 | 3 | 5.33–10.00 | ||
| HI | 3 | 3.50–8.28 | – | – | ||
| SCMR | 1 | 4.96 | 7 | 2.96–8.11 | ||
| SP | – | – | 2 | 5.74–6.97 | ||
| SMK % | 4 | 3.50–7.41 | 2 | 3.30–3.85 | ||
| 100 KW | 1 | 8.78 | 1 | 11.56 | ||
| PH | 5 | 4.04–8.16 | NA | |||
| PBr | 5 | 0.04–8.58 | NA | |||
| Sadore 2009 | PYLD | – | – | 4 | 5.16–11.38 | |
| HYLD | – | – | 2 | 7.70–8.20 | ||
| HI | 1 | 3.77 | – | – | ||
| SCMR | 1 | 3.98 | 1 | 9.59 | ||
| Sadore 2010 | PYLD | – | – | 1 | 4.27 | |
| HYLD | – | – | 1 | 6.12 | ||
| HI | – | – | – | – | ||
| SCMR | – | – | 2 | 6.51–10.40 | ||
Fig. 4Genomic locations of main-effect QTLs (M-QTLs) identified in Sadore and Bambey for yield and yield related traits under well watered and water stress conditions. This figure shows the location of the mapped SSR loci on the genetic map of TAG 24 × ICGV 86031. The location of the M-QTLs identified by WinQTL Cartographer for different traits under well watered and water stress conditions at Bambey and Sadore were identified on the genetic map
Fig. 5Epistasic QTLs (E-QTLs) for the pod yield detected at Sadore in 2009 using genotyping mapping matrix program. This figure shows the three-loci interaction detected for pod yield at Sadore in 2009. a Linkage groups are arranged tandemly as a circle and triangles in the circle represent interaction of three loci combination. b Graphical presentation of interacting loci and allele type by genotype matrices (GMs) and a genotype matrix network (GMN). Significant locus/allele combinations of three interacting loci are shown by GMs and GMN. Matrices and connecting lines indicate GMs and GMNs, respectively