| Literature DB >> 28952045 |
Shaohong Zhang1,2, Xiuying He1,2, Junliang Zhao1,2, Yongsheng Cheng1,2, Zhimei Xie3,4, Yuehan Chen1,2, Tifeng Yang1,2, Jingfang Dong1,2, Xiaofei Wang1,2, Qing Liu1,2, Wei Liu1,2, Xingxue Mao1,2, Hua Fu1,2, Zhaoming Chen1,2, Yaoping Liao1,2, Bin Liu5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Harvest index (HI) in rice is defined as the ratio of grain yield (GY) to biomass (BM). Although it has been demonstrated that HI is significantly related to yield and is considered as one of the most important traits in high-yielding rice breeding, HI-based high-yielding rice breeding is difficult due to its polygenic nature and insufficient knowledge on the genetic basis of HI. Therefore, searching for rice varieties with high HI and mapping genes associated with high HI can facilitate marker-assisted breeding for high HI in rice.Entities:
Keywords: Biomass; Grain yield; Harvest index; Mapping; Quantitative trait locus (QTL); Rice (Oryza sativa L.); Validation
Year: 2017 PMID: 28952045 PMCID: PMC5615080 DOI: 10.1186/s12284-017-0183-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rice (N Y) ISSN: 1939-8425 Impact factor: 4.783
The harvest index of YXZ, SBSM and their derived RIL population in the two-year experiments
| Year | Parent | RIL population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YXZ (Mean ± SD) | SBSM (Mean ± SD) | Mean ± SD | Range | Skewness | Kurtosis | |
| 2010 | 0.555 ± 0.001**** | 0.472 ± 0.001 | 0.515 ± 0.020 | 0.486–0.568 | 0.768 | −0.437 |
| 2011 | 0.618 ± 0.009*** | 0.531 ± 0.007 | 0.563 ± 0.032 | 0.471–0.642 | −0.625 | 0.089 |
*** and ****represent the significance of difference between the two parents at p < 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively based on t-test
Fig. 1Distribution of harvest index in RIL population derived from YXZ and SBSM in two years (2010 and 2011). A and B indicate the harvest index of YXZ and SBSM, respectively
The QTLs for harvest index, grain yield and biomass identified in RIL population derived from YXZ and SBSM in two years
| Traita | QTL | Chr | 2010 | 2011 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interval | Interval distance (cM) | LOD | Additive effectb | Variation explained (%) | Interval | Interval distance (cM) | LOD | Additive effect | Variation explained (%) | |||
| HI |
| 1 | RM488-RM237 | 10.4 (6.0)c | 3.8 | 0.0069 | 4.6 | |||||
|
| 3 | RM15857-RM520 | 7.7 (6.0) | 5.8 | 0.0089 | 7.4 | ||||||
|
| 7 | RM427-RM7217 | 31.6 (10.0) | 3.2 | 0.0053 | 7.3 | ||||||
|
| 8 | RM447-RM6845 | 2.6 (0) | 25.1 | 0.0129 | 42.8 | RM447-RM6845 | 2.6 (0) | 29.2 | 0.0216 | 44.5 | |
|
| 12 | RM28172-RM463 | 19.4 (10.0) | 4.0 | 0.0082 | 6.3 | ||||||
| GY |
| 3 | RM282-RM6676 | 15.0 (8.0) | 11.6 | −2.4719 | 28.0 | |||||
|
| 3 | RM6676-RM6283 | 11.4 (2.0) | 5.8 | −1.3457 | 12.9 | ||||||
|
| 8 | RM447-RM6845 | 2.6 (2.0) | 6.5 | 1.5962 | 12.1 | ||||||
| BM |
| 2 | RM290-RM7413 | 16.7 (7.4) | 3.5 | −2.2656 | 9.2 | |||||
|
| 3 | RM282-RM6676 | 15.0 (8.0) | 11.0 | −4.1157 | 28.9 | ||||||
|
| 3 | RM6676-RM6283 | 11.4 (8.0) | 4.6 | −2.4995 | 10.9 | ||||||
|
| 3 | RM15857-RM520 | 7.7 (6.0) | 3.2 | −2.1424 | 7.2 | ||||||
|
| 3 | RM3867-RM571 | 9.1 (0) | 3.5 | −1.9126 | 6.3 | ||||||
|
| 12 | RM7102-RM28172 | 4.4 (2.0) | 3.0 | −1.8650 | 6.0 | ||||||
a HI Harvest index, GY Grain yield, BM Biomass
bPositive values indicate effects of allele from YXZ, negative values indicate effects of allele from SBSM
cNumbers in parenthesis indicate genetic distance from the LOD peak position to the left marker on the interval
Fig. 2Chromosomal locations of QTLs for harvest index, grain yield and biomass identified in two years (2010 and 2011)
Estimation of the relative effect of qHI-8 on harvest index using two sets of contrasting NILs
| NILs | Lines |
| Harvest index | Average of harvest index | Differenceb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NIL15-YXZ | 15–2 | + | 0.565 ± 0.006 | ||
| 15–27 | + | 0.572 ± 0.007 | 0.570 | ||
| 15–183 | + | 0.574 ± 0.006 | |||
| 0.071**** | |||||
| NIL15-SBSM | 15–193 | – | 0.494 ± 0.010 | ||
| 15–307 | – | 0.508 ± 0.004 | 0.499 | ||
| 15–398 | – | 0.494 ± 0.005 |
a+ and - indicate the presence and absence of qHI-8 in the lines, respectively
bDifference in the average HI between NIL15-YXZ and NIL15-SBSM
****represents the significance of difference in the average HI between NIL15-YXZ and NIL15-SBSM at p < 0.0001 based on t-test
Fig. 3Delimitation of qHI-8 using the homozygous recombinants. The qHI-8 was delimited to a 1070 kb interval defined by markers RM502 and RM6845. G1 to G6 indicate the recombinants used in this study, consist of six genotypes according to their positions of recombinant breakpoints and allelic composition. Values in the right side are the HI phenotypes of each recombinant and the controls, CK1 and CK2 (mean ± SD). The values with the same letter indicate no significant difference in HI at p = 0.05 based on Duncan’s multiple range test. * The physical position (Mb) of markers on the chromosome