| Literature DB >> 27007899 |
Valluri V Satyavathi1, V Manga1, Muktinutalapati V Subba Rao1, Malladi Chittibabu2.
Abstract
Reciprocal differences persist in nature because of the unequal contribution of cytoplasmic determinants from male and female gametes to the zygote. The inheritance of genetic differences is an important factor that influences various traits, including somatic embryogenesis and regeneration in vitro. In this report, we estimate the cytoplasmic and maternal effects in pearl millet and their adequacy in describing the observed reciprocal differences based on an in depth study of the parents, F2s and reciprocal backcross progenies needed for fitting genetical models. Our study revealed that of the two characters examined, embryogenic callus quantity and regeneration frequency, the former showed a greater proportion of cytoplasmic nuclear interaction whereas the latter showed a greater role of nuclear factors. Additive-maternal effects influenced total callus quantity and dominance-maternal effects influenced total callus quantity, embryogenic callus quantity and regeneration frequency. Dwarfing was associated with the production of large quantities of embryogenic callus that had visually recognizable characteristics. The phenotypic nature of dwarf parents (green dwarf with long narrow leaves) with a genetic basis for a given character controlled by nuclear and cytoplasmic determinants can be exploited for other breeding programs.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27007899 PMCID: PMC4807385 DOI: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2014-0380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Mol Biol ISSN: 1415-4757 Impact factor: 1.771
Figure 1Various developmental stages during somatic embryogenesis in pearl millet. (A) A single ovoid proembryoid, (B) Stalked globular embryoids, (C) Scanning electron micrograph of a stalked globular embryoid, (D) Heart-shaped somatic embryo, (E) Scanning electron micrograph of a somatic embryo with collar-like scutellum (200x), and (F) Somatic embryo with root and shoot primordia. Scale bar =10 μm.
Figure 2Differences in the quantities of embryogenic (A) and non-embryogenic (B) portions of callus and in the number of regenerated plantlets in the corresponding hybrid F1(P3xP4) (C) and reciprocal hybrid F1(P4xP3) (D) involving the P3 and P4 inbred lines. Scale bar =100 μm.
Hayman analyses of variance for the four in vitrocharacters obtained from a 5x5 diallel analysis.
| Mean squares | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Degrees of freedom | Total callus quantity | Embryogenic callus quantity | Callus growth rate | Regeneration frequency |
|
| 4 | 0.0209 | 155.5555 | 0.0394 | 6.6107 |
|
| 10 | 0.0078 | 61.6698 | 0.0151 | 4.6833 |
|
| 1 | 0.0006 | 1.5819 | 0.0505 | 3.0489 |
|
| 4 | 0.0185 | 61.4082 | 0.0214 | 5.6812 |
|
| 5 | 0.0074 | 73.8966 | 0.0029 | 4.2119 |
|
| 4 | 0.0134 | 78.6379 | 0.0023 | 0.4479 |
|
| 6 | 0.0057 | 13.0646 | 0.0075 | 0.7657 |
a – additive genetic variation, b – dominance variation, b – mean dominance deviation, i.e., the overall difference between the F1s compared to their mid-parent values,b – the variation in mean dominance deviations of the F1s from their mid-parent values within each array, over arrays, b – dominance deviations that are unique to individual F1s,c – average reciprocal differences,d – further reciprocal differences not accounted for by c. Each item was tested against its own block interaction.
p < 0.05.
Reciprocal differences for the four in vitro characters in the different crosses (F1s).
| Total callus quantity | Embryogenic callus quantity | Callus growth rate | Regeneration frequency | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross | t value | df | t value | df | t value | df | t value | df |
| P1xP2 vs P2xP1 | 1.1157 | 49.5 | 2.0040 | 55.9 | 0.8185 | 10 | 0.2199 | 55 |
| P1xP3 vs P3xP1 | 3.8631 | 66.9 | 2.9768 | 76.0 | 0.0207 | 11 | 0.8213 | 61 |
| P1xP4 vs P4xP1 | 1.1050 | 48.0 | 1.7026 | 72.0 | 1.6554 | 9 | 2.0053 | 61 |
| P1xP5 vs P5xP1 | 1.6678 | 78.5 | 0.9592 | 82.0 | 3.9175 | 9 | 0.9362 | 56 |
| P2xP3 vs P3xP2 | 2.4558 | 90.0 | 0.1107 | 71.3 | 1.0071 | 10 | 0.8820 | 66 |
| P2xP4 vs P4xP2 | 0.1946 | 56.7 | 0.4315 | 79.5 | 1.9092 | 10 | 0.3663 | 49 |
| P2xP5 vs P5xP2 | 2.0833 | 70.0 | 0.2652 | 66.0 | 0.8549 | 6.2 | 0.8589 | 67 |
| P3xP4 vs P4xP3 | 3.7678 | 68.7 | 4.0852 | 79.0 | 3.7583 | 9 | 2.0285 | 49 |
| P3xP5 vs P5xP3 | 6.2262 | 68.7 | 3.0623 | 63.5 | 1.5066 | 10 | 0.1634 | 48 |
| P4xP5 vs P5xP4 | 3.7778 | 58.0 | 0.6842 | 50.6 | 0.8956 | 10 | 0.5583 | 51 |
df calculated from Behren-Fisher's conversion.
p < 0.05.
Comparison of the average values of the two parents and corresponding reciprocal populations of F1s, F2s and backcrosses.
| Total callus quantity | Embryogenic callus quantity | Callus growth rate | Regeneration frequency | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | t value | df | t value | df | t value | df | t value | df |
| Parents P3 vs P4 | 7.1459 | 10 | 9.4947 | 10 | 9.9550 | 10 | 8.6273 | 10 |
| F1(P3xP4) vs F1 (P4xP3) | 3.1727 | 9 | 2.4650 | 6.7 | 3.2509 | 5.2 | 2.9635 | 9 |
| F2(P3xP4) x (P3xP4) vs (P4xP3) x (P4xP3) | 1.1015 | 198 | 1.8707 | 198 | 1.2970 | 192 | 1.0463 | 197 |
| F2(P3xP4) x (P4xP3) vs (P4xP3) x (P3xP4) | 0.7636 | 187 | 0.9143 | 185 | 1.0214 | 146.3 | 0.5181 | 173 |
| BC1(P3x(P3xP4) vs (P3xP4)xP3) | 0.1773 | 83 | 0.3511 | 83 | 2.7090 | 50.2 | 0.5573 | 81 |
| BC1(P3xP4xP3) vs (P4xP3)xP3) | 0.3147 | 96 | 0.6032 | 96 | 3.4493 | 52.1 | 1.9679 | 93 |
| BC2P4x(P3xP4) vs (P3xP4)xP4 | 2.5505 | 72.8 | 1.3323 | 75 | 1.8129 | 64.7 | 0.5853 | 74 |
| BC2P4x(P4xP3) vs (P4xP3)xP4 | 2.6741 | 63.6 | 2.7113 | 63.4 | 0.0010 | 65 | 1.5185 | 65 |
df calculated from Behren-Fisher's conversion.
p < 0.05.
Estimates of the genetic parameters for nuclear and cytoplasmic components and chi-square values for the four in vitro characters
| Total callus quantity | Embryogenic callus quantity | Callus growth rate | Regeneration frequency | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Estimate | t value | Estimate | t value | Estimate | t value | Estimates | t value |
|
| 1.4784 ±0.2777 | 5.3227 | 15.6168 ± 4.7491 | 3.2884 | 1.1903 ±0.1914 | 6.2183 | 0.1903 ± 0.3327 | 0.5720 |
|
| 0.7655 ±0.2403 | 3.1847 | 21.0579 ± 4.5716 | 4.6063 | −0.5212 ± 0.1520 | −3.4281 | −0.7862 ± 0.2229 | −3.5268 |
|
| 1.7179 ±0.4257 | 4.0336 | 9.3529 ± 7.5090 | 1.2455 | −0.8066 ± 0.3155 | −2.5565 | 1.9158 ± 0.5298 | 3.6163 |
|
| 0.5156 ±0.2522 | 2.0447 | 4.0013 ± 4.1421 | 0.9660 | 0.0381 ±0.1981 | 0.2024 | 1.0831 ± 0.3054 | 3.5467 |
|
| −1.0542 ± 0.4326 | −2.4370 | −24.0144 ± 8.4691 | −2.8355 | 0.5554 ±0.2704 | 2.0539 | 1.5378 ± 0.3229 | 4.7611 |
|
| −0.7715 ± 0.2064 | −3.7374 | −3.1369 ±4.1760 | −0.7511 | 1.0253 ±0.1751 | 5.8563 | −0.7404 ± 0.2583 | −2.8666 |
|
| 0.3394 ±0.1711 | 1.9837 | 6.9015 ± 3.6373 | 1.8974 | −0.0755 ± 0.1276 | −0.5918 | −0.2864 ± 0.1416 | −2.0229 |
|
| 0.2090 ±0.1045 | 1.9989 | −4.1908 ± 1.7173 | −2.4403 | 0.2051 ±0.0743 | 2.7596 | 0.0032 ± 0.1539 | 0.0206 |
|
| −0.6605 ± 0.3354 | −1.9694 | −14.4373 ± 7.2165 | −2.0006 | 0.2627 ± 0.2499 | 1.0510 | 0.5399 ± 0.2716 | 1.9879 |
|
| 0.1751 ±0.0937 | 1.8689 | −1.2915 ± 1.4846 | −0.8699 | −0.0779 ± 0.0535 | −1.4556 | −0.0626 ± 0.1029 | −0.6077 |
|
| 0.1218 ±0.0987 | 1.2340 | 1.3071 ± 1.6663 | 0.7844 | −0.1851 ± 0.0571 | −3.2379 | 0.1472 ± 0.1235 | 1.1917 |
| χ2(5) | 24.8797 | 13.9496 | 35.2062 | 14.8993 | ||||
cd – interaction between cytoplasm and the additive (d) nuclear-determined effect, ch – interaction between cytoplasm and the dominance (h) nuclear-determined effect,d – additive genetic component, dm– maternal effects traceable to the additive genetic component,h – dominance, hm – dominance effects of the maternal genotype, i – additive by additive interaction, j – additive by dominance interaction, l – dominance by dominance interaction,m – population mean. Chi-square test for the goodness of fit was not significant (p > 0.01).
p < 0.01.