| Literature DB >> 29875605 |
Konana Arjun1, Major S Dhaliwal2, Salesh K Jindal1, Bashasab Fakrudin3.
Abstract
Fruit length in chilli is quantitatively inherited trait and selection based on phenotypic performance is tedious and time consuming. To detect QTLs determining fruit length in Capsicum spp., an interspecific F2 mapping population was developed from the cross of C. annuum L. cv. 'FL 201' with C. galapagoense Hunz. accession 'TC 07245'. Fruit length in this cross showed a quantitative inheritance with the population depicting a symmetric distribution in histogram. To map quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for fruit length 400 SSR markers were surveyed on the parental genotypes but only 28 markers were observed to be polymorphic indicating less genetic diversity between the two Capsicum species. Polymorphic markers were then analyzed in F2 population consisting of 210 plants and 24 of these markers were mapped on to three linkage groups (LGs): LG 1, LG 2 and LG 3. Two fruit length determining QTLs designated as paufl2.1 and paufl2.2 were identified and both the QTLs were mapped on to LG 2. The two QTLs together explained 21.78 per cent of the phenotypic variation. Apart from the two QTLs, positive alleles were detected in the small fruited parent 'TC 07245' which might be of potential use in chilli breeding programs.Entities:
Keywords: QTL mapping; chilli pepper; fruit length; molecular markers; paufl2.1; paufl2.2
Year: 2018 PMID: 29875605 PMCID: PMC5982179 DOI: 10.1270/jsbbs.17073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breed Sci ISSN: 1344-7610 Impact factor: 2.086
Scale used for classification of the fruit length in F2 population derived from the cross C. annuum ‘FL 201’× C. galapagoense ‘TC 07245’ chilli
| S.No. | Fruit length (cm) | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.80 to 4.79 | Very small fruit |
| 2 | 4.80 to 6.79 | Small fruit |
| 3 | 6.80 to 7.79 | Medium long fruit |
| 4 | 7.80 to 8.79 | Long fruit |
| 5 | 8.80 to 10.79 | Very long fruit |
| 6 | 10.80 and above | Extra-long fruit |
S.No. = Serial Number.
Fig. 1Phenotypic variability for fruit length between parental lines ‘FL 201’ and ‘TC 07245’.
Fig. 2Phenotypic variation for fruit length in F2 population derived from the cross C. annuum ‘FL 201’ × C. galapagoense ‘TC 07245’ chilli.
Fig. 3Frequency distribution for fruit length in 210 F2 population derived from the cross C. annuum. ‘FL 201’ × C. galapagoense ‘TC 07245’.
Test of significance for segregation of polymorphic SSR markers in the F2 population derived from the cross FL 201 × TC 07245
| SSR primer | Plant population scored | Observed frequency values | Expected frequency values | χ2 (1:2:1) | P-value at P ≤ 0.01 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| P1 allele | H allele | P2 allele | Not amplified | P1 allele | H allele | P2 allele | Ratio | ||||
| AF244121 | 210 | 48 | 110 | 52 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.628 | 0.730 | |
| AF130118 | 210 | 47 | 110 | 53 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.819 | 0.664 | |
| AVRDC | 210 | 54 | 113 | 43 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 2.372 | 0.305 | |
| AVRDC-PP231 | 210 | 47 | 112 | 51 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 1.086 | 0.581 | |
| AVRDC | 210 | 52 | 110 | 48 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.874 | 0.646 | |
| AVRDC-PP124 | 210 | 54 | 112 | 44 | 2 | 52 | 104 | 52 | 1:2:1 | 1.774 | 0.412 |
| CAMS 844 | 210 | 48 | 109 | 53 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.543 | 0.762 | |
| AVRDC-PP171 | 210 | 51 | 111 | 58 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.771 | 0.680 | |
| AVRDC-PP102 | 210 | 47 | 113 | 50 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 1.306 | 0.520 | |
| HpmsE063 | 210 | 49 | 111 | 50 | 2 | 52 | 104 | 52 | 1:2:1 | 0.600 | 0.740 |
| HpmsE028 | 210 | 52 | 108 | 50 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.210 | 0.900 | |
| HpmsE062 | 210 | 46 | 110 | 54 | 2 | 52 | 104 | 52 | 1:2:1 | 1.115 | 0.573 |
| CAMS 888 | 210 | 48 | 111 | 51 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.773 | 0.679 | |
| AVRDC-PP250 | 210 | 48 | 113 | 49 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 1.230 | 0.541 | |
| AVRDC-PP236 | 210 | 50 | 112 | 48 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.973 | 0.615 | |
| AVRDC | 210 | 48 | 109 | 53 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.542 | 0.763 | |
| GPMS 100 | 210 | 54 | 110 | 46 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.967 | 0.617 | |
| AVRDC | 210 | 43 | 112 | 53 | 2 | 52 | 104 | 52 | 1:2:1 | 2.250 | 0.325 |
| AVRDC | 210 | 51 | 110 | 49 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.514 | 0.773 | |
| CAMS 808 | 210 | 49 | 109 | 52 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.391 | 0.822 | |
| AVRDC-PP711 | 210 | 45 | 114 | 51 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 1.885 | 0.390 | |
| AVRDC-PP116 | 210 | 50 | 112 | 48 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.972 | 0.615 | |
| HpmsE119 | 210 | 53 | 113 | 44 | 2 | 52 | 104 | 52 | 1:2:1 | 1.643 | 0.440 |
| HpmsE010 | 210 | 52 | 109 | 49 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.390 | 0.823 | |
| Hpms 2–9 | 210 | 48 | 111 | 51 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.772 | 0.680 | |
| AVRDC-PP161 | 210 | 49 | 114 | 47 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 1.580 | 0.454 | |
| AVRDC | 210 | 53 | 112 | 45 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 1.543 | 0.462 | |
| CAMS 684 | 210 | 46 | 113 | 51 | 52.5 | 105 | 52.5 | 1:2:1 | 1.456 | 0.483 | |
Where: P1, allele from FL 201; H, Heterozygous allele; P2, allele from TC 07245.
Fig. 4(a) Segregation pattern of SSR marker GPMS100 on 4% agarose gel in F2 mapping population derived from the cross C. annuum ‘FL 201’ × C. galapagoense ‘TC 07245’. (b) Segregation pattern of AVRDC*MD782 marker on 6% PAGE in F2 mapping population derived from the cross C. annuum. ‘FL 201’ × C. galapagoense ‘TC 07245’.
Fig. 5Genetic linkage map derived from the cross C. annuum. ‘FL 201’ × C. galapagoense ‘TC 07245’ using Kosambi mapping function. Marker names and the map distances (cM) are indicated on the right and left of linkage groups, respectively. Red colored regions in the linkage map denotes the two fruit length related QTLs designated as paufl2.1 and paufl2.2.
Fig. 6QTL likelihood plots of LG-2 showing LOD peaks for fruit length in F2 population. Two peaks depict two fruit length related QTLs designated as paufl2.1 and paufl2.2 with LOD peak value of 5.53 and 5.26, respectively. The two QTLs together explained 21.8% of the phenotypic variation.