| Literature DB >> 33986999 |
Junmei Wang1, Xiaojian Wu1, Wenhao Yue1, Chenchen Zhao2, Jianming Yang1, Meixue Zhou2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Barley grain size is one of the key factors determining storage capacity during grain filling. Large, well-filled grains also have a high malt extract potential. Grain size is a complex quantitative trait and can be easily affected by environmental factors thus the identification of genes controlling the trait and the use of molecular markers linked to the genes in breeding program is the most effective way of improving grain size.Entities:
Keywords: Grain size; Molecular marker; Quantitative trait loci; Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)
Year: 2021 PMID: 33986999 PMCID: PMC8088763 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Mean and range of grain size traits tested in different environments.
| Trait | Environment | TX | NN | DH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Range | ||||
| GL (mm) | HZ07 | 8.14 | 7.87 | 8.16 ± 0.22 | 7.67–8.74 |
| HZ08 | 8.42 | 8.07 | 8.43 ± 0.26 | 7.645–9.31 | |
| HZ11 | 8.43 | 8.14 | 8.58 ± 0.25 | 7.61–9.31 | |
| YC07 | 8.47 | 8.13 | 8.55 ± 0.28 | 7.71–9.29 | |
| YC08 | 8.54 | 8.23 | 8.68 ± 0.27 | 7.83–9.39 | |
| YC11 | 8.81 | 8.02 | 8.81 ± 0.28 | 7.81–9.46 | |
| BS07 | 8.73 | 8.51 | 8.79 ± 0.28 | 7.98–9.42 | |
| BS08 | 8.57 | 8.35 | 8.75 ± 0.22 | 8.01–9.3 | |
| GW (mm) | HZ07 | 3.72 | 3.82 | 3.79 ± 0.08 | 3.55–4.05 |
| HZ08 | 3.56 | 3.73 | 3.66 ± 0.08 | 3.22–3.88 | |
| HZ11 | 3.68 | 3.75 | 3.71 ± 0.09 | 3.51–4.02 | |
| YC07 | 3.62 | 3.85 | 3.67 ± 0.09 | 3.42–3.96 | |
| YC08 | 3.64 | 3.83 | 3.7 ± 0.08 | 3.48–3.99 | |
| YC11 | 3.77 | 3.87 | 3.78 ± 0.08 | 3.57–4.02 | |
| BS07 | 3.65 | 3.76 | 3.72 ± 0.08 | 3.52–3.94 | |
| BS08 | 3.74 | 3.79 | 3.78 ± 0.18 | 3.49–4.13 | |
Notes.
standard deviation
a Chinese feed barley variety TX9425
a Japanese malting barley variety Naso Nijo
double-haploid
grain length
grain width
represent different locations (Hangzhou, Yancheng and Baoshan, respectively) and the number after locations are the year of harvest
Analysis of variance on grain size traits in DH population lines from Naso Nijo × TX9425 ( F values).
| Source of variation | GL | GW |
|---|---|---|
| Block | 8.136 | 3.0 |
| Genotype(G) | 12.53 | 8.3 |
| Location(L) | 1215.95 | 186.89 |
| Year(Y) | 208.15 | 44.5 |
| Y ×L | 109.74 | 483.38 |
| G ×Y | 1.53 | 2.11 |
| G ×L | 1.59 | 2.39 |
| G ×L ×Y | 1.65 | 2.2 |
Notes.
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
grain length
grain width
Figure 1QTL associated with grain size in barley.
QTL for barley grain size traits in the DH population of Naso Nijo × TX9425.
| Trait | Linkage group | QTL name | Nearest marker | Position (cM) | Two LOD support intervals | LOD | Source of positive effect | Additive effect | Malt extract as covariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GL | 1H | 3255878S1 | 66.29 | 54.98–72.38 | 10.64 | 11.9 | NN | 0.073 | NC | NC | |
| 2H | 3256205S2 | 10.02 | 9.56–15.44 | 21.95 | 29.8 | TX | −0.111 | 23.0 | NC | ||
| 3H | 6283018S3 | 58.43 | 57.51–60.84 | 17.46 | 21.9 | NN | 0.259 | NC | 11.6 | ||
| 5H | 3264393S5 | 47.19 | 40.34–47.01 | 6.25 | 6.2 | TX | 0.044 | NC | NC | ||
| GW | 1H | 4170979D1 | 65.7 | 54.98–66.00 | 4.13 | 9.5 | NN | 0.02 | NC | NC | |
| 2H | 5258068D2 | 15.44 | 9.24–18.91 | 7.69 | 18.5 | TX | −0.025 | 15.7 | NC | ||
| 5H | 3430425D5 | 44.24 | 29.10–59.58 | 3.73 | 8.5 | NN | 0.018 | NC | NC |
Notes.
The position is that of the nearest marker; R2 means percentage genetic variance explained by the nearest marker; Two LOD support intervals were used to indicate the 95% confidence intervals (van Ooijen, 1992); NC means no significant changes.
Figure 2Grain length (B) and grain width (A) of near isogenic lines.
The pair of NIL were selected from F8 recombinant inbred lines from the cross of TX9425 and Naso Nijo. The markers linked to malt extract was used to select heterozygous individuals and then selfed. Homozygous lines from the next generation (F9) were selected as NIL pairs. These pairs were genotyped with high density markers and evaluated for malt extract. The pair we used here (one line with high malt extract and three lines with low malt extract) showed significant difference in malting quality and the whole genome marker screening showed only differences in the QTL region for malting extract (14 –18 cM, Fig. 1).