Male and female inheritance patterns in tetraploid 'Moncada' mandarin.
Citrus
Disomic inheritance
SSR and SNP markers
Tetraploid
Tetrasomic inheritance
Triploid
Journal
Plant cell reports
ISSN: 1432-203X
Titre abrégé: Plant Cell Rep
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9880970
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
01
10
2019
accepted:
20
11
2019
pubmed:
30
11
2019
medline:
18
9
2020
entrez:
30
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tetraploid `Moncada´ mandarin, used as male and female in interploidy hybridizations, displays mainly tetrasomic inheritance for most LGs, with slight variations according to the direction of the crossing. Triploid-breeding programs in citrus are key tool to develop seedless cultivars. Obtaining triploid citrus hybrids may be achieved through different strategies, such as the exploitation of female unreduced gamete in crosses between diploid parents and diploid by tetraploid sexual hybridizations, in which tetraploid genotypes can be used as male or female parents. Genetic configuration of triploid populations from interploid crosses greatly depends on the chromosomic segregation mode of the tetraploid parent used. Here, we have analyzed the inheritance of the tetraploid 'Moncada' mandarin and compared the genetic structures of the resulting gametes when used as male and as female parent. The preferential chromosome pairing rate is calculated from the parental heterozygosity restitution (PHR) of codominant molecular markers, indicating the proportion between disomic and tetrasomic segregation. Tetraploid 'Moncada' both as female and male parent largely exhibited tetrasomic segregation. However, as female parent, one linkage group (LG8) showed intermediate segregation with tendency towards tetrasomic inheritance, while another linkage group (LG4) evidenced a clear intermediate segregation. On the other hand, when used as male parent two linkage groups (LG5 and LG6) showed values that fit an intermediate inheritance model with tetrasomic tendency. Significant doubled reduction (DR) rates were observed in five linkage groups as female parent, and in six linkage groups as male parent. The new knowledge generated here will serve to define crossing strategies in citrus improvement programs to efficiently obtain new varieties of interest in the global fresh consumption market.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31781856
doi: 10.1007/s00299-019-02494-y
pii: 10.1007/s00299-019-02494-y
pmc: PMC7018676
doi:
Substances chimiques
Genetic Markers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
335-349Subventions
Organisme : Agencia Estatal de Investigación
ID : RTA2015-00069-00-00
Organisme : Consejo Directivo of Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
ID : Programa de Perfeccionamiento resolution 1177/14
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 6;97(12):6608-13
pubmed: 10823890
Theor Appl Genet. 1993 Feb;85(6-7):857-62
pubmed: 24196060
Ann Bot. 2013 Jan;111(1):1-19
pubmed: 23104641
Genome. 1996 Dec;39(6):1176-84
pubmed: 18469964
Plant Cell Rep. 2011 Aug;30(8):1415-25
pubmed: 21409551
Annu Rev Genet. 2000;34:401-437
pubmed: 11092833
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 5;12(10):e0185618
pubmed: 28982157
Ann Bot. 2011 Jul;108(1):37-50
pubmed: 21586529
BMC Genomics. 2012 Nov 05;13:593
pubmed: 23126659
Heredity (Edinb). 2011 Oct;107(5):462-70
pubmed: 21587302
BMC Genet. 2014 Dec 29;15:152
pubmed: 25544367
Genetics. 1998 Oct;150(2):921-30
pubmed: 9755220
Mol Genet Genomics. 2012 Jan;287(1):77-94
pubmed: 22160318
Plant Cell Rep. 2009 Dec;28(12):1837-46
pubmed: 19834711
CSH Protoc. 2007 Sep 01;2007:pdb.prot4841
pubmed: 21357174
Genetics. 1989 Jan;121(1):185-99
pubmed: 2563713
Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Jul;32(7):656-62
pubmed: 24908277
Ann Bot. 2013 Apr;111(4):731-42
pubmed: 23422023
Plant Cell Rep. 2010 Sep;29(9):1023-34
pubmed: 20607244
Ann Bot. 2018 Mar 5;121(3):571-585
pubmed: 29293884
BMC Genomics. 2012 Jan 10;13:13
pubmed: 22233093
Genetics. 1997 Apr;145(4):1083-92
pubmed: 9093860
Mol Biol Evol. 1987 Jul;4(4):406-25
pubmed: 3447015
Heredity (Edinb). 2007 Mar;98(3):143-50
pubmed: 17091127
Adv Genet. 1947;1:403-29
pubmed: 20259289
Mol Ecol Resour. 2008 Jan;8(1):119-22
pubmed: 21585732
Appl Plant Sci. 2013 Mar 22;1(4):
pubmed: 25202535
New Phytol. 2014 Jun;202(4):1105-17
pubmed: 24754325
Nat Rev Genet. 2017 Jul;18(7):411-424
pubmed: 28502977
Ann Bot. 2012 Dec;110(8):1593-606
pubmed: 23087127
Plant Cell Rep. 2016 Aug;35(8):1573-86
pubmed: 27038940
Sci Rep. 2015 Apr 20;5:9897
pubmed: 25894579
Ann Bot. 2016 Apr;117(4):565-83
pubmed: 26944784
BMC Plant Biol. 2015 Mar 08;15:80
pubmed: 25848689
Nature. 2018 Feb 15;554(7692):311-316
pubmed: 29414943
PLoS One. 2015 May 14;10(5):e0125628
pubmed: 25973611
New Phytol. 2013 May;198(3):670-84
pubmed: 23421646
Nat Genet. 2013 Jan;45(1):59-66
pubmed: 23179022
Genetics. 2001 Oct;159(2):869-82
pubmed: 11606559
New Phytol. 2019 Jan;221(1):565-576
pubmed: 30030969
Genetics. 2015 Nov;201(3):853-63
pubmed: 26377683
Front Plant Sci. 2018 Nov 02;9:1557
pubmed: 30450106
Front Plant Sci. 2016 May 25;7:701
pubmed: 27252717
Stat Med. 2014 May 20;33(11):1946-78
pubmed: 24399688
Am J Bot. 2010 Nov;97(11):e124-9
pubmed: 21616814
Plant Cell Rep. 2012 Sep;31(9):1723-35
pubmed: 22614256
Genetics. 1962 Apr;47(4):367-96
pubmed: 17248092
Genetics. 2008 Aug;179(4):2113-23
pubmed: 18689891