| Literature DB >> 27833097 |
Yajun Tao1, Jinyan Zhu2, Jianjun Xu1, Liujun Wang1, Houwen Gu1, Ronghua Zhou1, Zefeng Yang1, Yong Zhou1, Guohua Liang1.
Abstract
We constructed 128 chromosome segment substitution lines (CSSLs), derived from a cross between indica rice (Oryza sativa L.) 9311 and japonica rice Nipponbare, to investigate the genetic mechanism of heterosis. Three photo-thermo-sensitive-genic male sterile lines (Guangzhan63-4s, 036s, and Lian99s) were selected to cross with each CSSL to produce testcross populations (TCs). Field experiments were carried out in 2009, 2011, and 2015 to evaluate yield and yield-related traits in the CSSLs and TCs. Four traits (plant height, spikelet per panicle, thousand-grain weight, and grain yield per plant) were significantly related between CSSLs and TCs. In the TCs, plant height, panicle length, seed setting rate, thousand-grain weight, and grain yield per plant showed partial dominance, indicating that dominance largely contributes to heterosis of these five traits. While overdominance may be more important for heterosis of panicles per plant and spikelet per panicle. Based on the bin-maps of CSSLs and TCs, we detected 62 quantitative trait loci (QTLs) and 97 heterotic loci (HLs) using multiple linear regression analyses. Some of these loci were clustered together. The identification of QTLs and HLs for yield and yield-related traits provide useful information for hybrid rice breeding, and help to uncover the genetic basis of rice heterosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27833097 PMCID: PMC5105071 DOI: 10.1038/srep36802
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Means and ranges of yield-related traits measured in CSSLs, TC 1 in 2009, and TC 2 in 2011.
(*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, NS not significant).
Figure 2Means and ranges of yield-related traits measured in CSSLs, and TC 3 and TC 4 in 2015.
(*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, NS not significant).
Correlation coefficients between seven traits in CSSLs and TC 1 in 2009.
| Traits | Population | PH | PL | PPP | SPP | SSR | GYPP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PL | CSSLs | 0.564 | |||||
| TC 1 | 0.401 | ||||||
| PPP | CSSLs | −0.232 | −0.173 | ||||
| TC 1 | −0.245 | −0.101 | |||||
| SPP | CSSLs | 0.469 | 0.396 | −0.135 | |||
| TC 1 | 0.514 | 0.737 | −0.152 | ||||
| SSR | CSSLs | 0.518 | 0.201 | −0.110 | 0.143 | ||
| TC 1 | 0.202 | 0.398 | −0.240 | 0.391 | |||
| GYPP | CSSLs | 0.596 | 0.480 | 0.184 | 0.553 | 0.495 | |
| TC 1 | 0.521 | 0.631 | −0.012 | 0.665 | 0.581 | ||
| TGW | CSSLs | 0.204 | −0.201 | 0.047 | −0.161 | 0.033 | −0.071 |
| TC 1 | 0.077 | 0.105 | −0.146 | 0.102 | 0.270 | 0.185 |
*Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
**Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Correlation coefficients between seven traits in CSSLs and TC 2 in 2011.
| Traits | Population | PH | PL | PPP | SPP | SSR | GYPP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PL | CSSLs | 0.187 | |||||
| TC 2 | 0.523 | ||||||
| PPP | CSSLs | −0.172 | −0.275 | ||||
| TC 2 | 0.039 | 0.163 | |||||
| SPP | CSSLs | −0.041 | 0.125 | −0.067 | |||
| TC 2 | 0.372 | 0.284 | 0.348 | ||||
| SSR | CSSLs | 0.005 | 0.100 | −0.111 | −0.353 | ||
| TC 2 | 0.324 | 0.374 | −0.168 | 0.263 | |||
| GYPP | CSSLs | 0.191 | −0.006 | 0.220 | 0.047 | 0.044 | |
| TC 2 | 0.218 | 0.240 | 0.459 | −0.013 | 0.257 | ||
| TGW | CSSLs | −0.037 | −0.080 | 0.116 | −0.084 | −0.031 | 0.362 |
| TC 2 | 0.014 | −0.071 | 0.196 | 0.015 | 0.052 | 0.301 |
*Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
**Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Correlation coefficients between seven traits in CSSLs, TC 3 and TC 4 in 2015.
| Traits | Population | PH | PL | PPP | SPP | SSR | GYPP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PL | CSSLs | 0.507 | |||||
| TC 3 | 0.373 | ||||||
| TC 4 | 0.189 | ||||||
| PPP | CSSLs | −0.278 | 0.051 | ||||
| TC 3 | −0.066 | 0.208 | |||||
| TC 4 | −0.061 | 0.326 | |||||
| SPP | CSSLs | 0.448 | −0.153 | −0.214 | |||
| TC 3 | −0.129 | 0.022 | 0.302 | ||||
| TC 4 | 0.405 | 0.059 | 0.059 | ||||
| SSR | CSSLs | 0.155 | 0.045 | −0.173 | 0.002 | ||
| TC 3 | 0.369 | 0.179 | 0.015 | −0.151 | |||
| TC 4 | 0.083 | −0.022 | −0.075 | 0.064 | |||
| GYPP | CSSLs | 0.179 | −0.058 | 0.259 | 0.234 | 0.210 | |
| TC 3 | −0.060 | −0.088 | −0.002 | −0.066 | −0.010 | ||
| TC 4 | 0.268 | 0.159 | 0.222 | 0.322 | 0.122 | ||
| TGW | CSSLs | 0.100 | 0.058 | −0.110 | −0.067 | 0.048 | 0.248 |
| TC 3 | 0.037 | 0.003 | −0.314 | −0.303 | 0.020 | −0.130 | |
| TC 4 | 0.132 | 0.347 | −0.107 | −0.149 | 0.133 | 0.310 |
*Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
**Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Correlation coefficients between seven traits in each CSSL and its corresponding TC.
| CSSLs – TC 1 | 0.761 | 0.464 | −0.113 | 0.421 | 0.077 | 0.448 | 0.513 |
| CSSLs – TC 2 | 0.836 | 0.092 | −0.119 | 0.832 | 0.049 | 0.288 | 0.397 |
| CSSLs – TC 3 | 0.666 | 0.062 | 0.022 | 0.048 | 0.051 | 0.252 | 0.470 |
| CSSLs – TC 4 | 0.561 | 0.146 | 0.023 | 0.264 | 0.022 | −0.020 | 0.327 |
*Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
**Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Genetic parameters estimates for seven traits.
| PH | 79.85 | 63.29 | 63.29 | 16.56 | 0.51 |
| PL | 51.22 | 33.95 | 33.95 | 17.27 | 0.71 |
| SPP | 43.49 | 9.72 | 9.72 | 33.77 | 1.86 |
| PPP | 21.47 | 5.21 | 5.21 | 16.26 | 1.77 |
| SSR | 44.91 | 29.38 | 29.38 | 15.53 | 0.73 |
| GYPP | 75.50 | 60.66 | 60.66 | 14.84 | 0.51 |
| TGW | 76.75 | 61.42 | 61.42 | 15.33 | 0.53 |
Figure 3Phenotypic variation of GYPP in 9311, CSSLs, and their F1 hybrids.
(a) Phenotypic variation of GYPP in 9311, C043, and their F1 hybrids; (b) Phenotypic variation of GYPP in 9311, C046, and their F1 hybrids; phenotypic variation of GYPP in 9311, C052, and their F1 hybrids. Different letters following mean values indicate significant difference (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s honestly significant difference test. GZ63-4s, Guangzhan 63-4s.
Figure 4