| Literature DB >> 32321422 |
Zhen-Qing Zhao1, Xiao-Guang Sheng1, Hui-Fang Yu1, Jian-Sheng Wang1, Yu-Sen Shen1, Hong-Hui Gu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Curd architecture is one of the most important characters determining the curd morphology of cauliflower. However, the genetic mechanism dissection of this complex trait at molecular level is lacking. Genes/QTLs responsible for the morphological differences between present-day loose-curd and compact-curd cauliflower haven't been well revealed.Entities:
Keywords: Cauliflower; Curd architecture; Genetic map; Linkage analysis; QTL mapping
Year: 2020 PMID: 32321422 PMCID: PMC7178959 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-020-02377-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1The linkage groups of cauliflower constructed using SSR and SRAP markers. The figures on the left of each linkage group indicate marker positions (cM)
Putative QTL for curd-traits in ‘ID’ DH population
| QTL | Linkage group | Confience interval (cM) | Environment 1 (sowing in July) | Environment 2 (sowing in August) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOD | A | PVE (%) | LOD | A | PVE (%) | |||
| qBD.C3–1 | C3 | 21.9–28.3 | 2.63 | 1.07 | 11.35 | |||
| qBD.C3–2 | C3 | 31.9–38.6 | 3.06 | −1.75 | 16.68 | |||
| qSL.C6–1 | C6 | 23.1–35.2 | 3.51 | −0.77 | 18.95 | 2.87 | −0.41 | 10.80 |
| qSL.C8 | C8 | 29.2–41.2 | 2.77 | 0.51 | 11.81 | |||
| qSA.C1–1 | C1 | 0.0–4.7 | 3.37 | −0.06 | 15.39 | |||
| qSA.C1–2 | C1 | 21.7–23.3 | 2.87 | 0.07 | 13.03 | |||
| qSA.C6–1 | C6 | 12.1–25.0 | 2.73 | −0.06 | 12.40 | |||
| qCS.C3 | C3 | 78.9–89.5 | 4.28 | −0.39 | 14.17 | |||
| qCS.C5 | C5 | 22.7–29.5 | 3.44 | −0.30 | 9.86 | |||
| qCS.C6–1 | C6 | 18.5–31.8 | 2.85 | 0.31 | 7.69 | 3.63 | 0.36 | 13.04 |
| qCS.C6–2 | C6 | 37.7–47.3 | 8.38 | −0.54 | 25.10 | 6.88 | −0.46 | 22.98 |
| qCS.C6–3 | C6 | 54.9–71.6 | 6.01 | −0.40 | 16.15 | |||
a C followed by a number designates the linkage group where the QTL was detected
b The LOD value detected at peak position
c Additive effect: positive additivity indicate that the QTL allele originated from the parental line ‘IL4305’; negative additivity means that the QTL allele originated from the parental line ‘DL3203-61’
Putative QTL for curd-traits in ‘IZ’ DH population
| QTL | Linkage group | Chromosome ID (bp) | Environment 1 (sowing in July) | Environment 2 (sowing in August) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOD | A | PVE (%) | LOD | A | PVE (%) | |||
| qBD.C1 | C1 | 34,508,010-37,176,977 | 4.45 | 1.22 | 21.53 | |||
| qBD.C5 | C5 | 30,400,023-31,040,767 | 5.53 | −0.82 | 21.79 | |||
| qSL.C1 | C1 | 33,237,634-37,176,977 | 4.48 | 0.64 | 22.13 | |||
| qSL.C4 | C4 | 14,667,883-18,832,527 | 3.49 | 0.30 | 11.60 | |||
| qSL.C6–2 | C6 | 30,128,973-34,650,103 | 6.99 | 0.56 | 25.06 | 6.65 | 0.61 | 24.07 |
| qSA.C6–2 | C6 | 7,318,888-9,408,197 | 4.96 | 0.02 | 21.98 | |||
| qCS.C1 | C1 | 34,508,010-37,176,977 | 5.11 | −0.65 | 24.28 | |||
| qCS.C6–4 | C6 | 31,839,763-34,650,103 | 4.50 | −0.495 | 17.11 | |||
Fig. 2The synteny of the co-localization interval on chrosome C6 among the ‘ID’ map, ‘IZ’ map and reference genome. The length of the bar in the “” symbol with different shading indicates the confidence interval of corresponding QTL
Fig. 3The three parents used in this study. a, ‘4305’; b, ‘DL3203–61’; c, ‘ZN198’
Fig. 4A diagrammatic drawing to illustrate the decomposition of curd architecture