Heterotic quantitative trait loci analysis and genomic prediction of seedling biomass-related traits in maize triple testcross populations.
Genomic prediction
Heterotic quantitative trait loci
Maize
Seedling biomass-related traits
Triple testcross
Journal
Plant methods
ISSN: 1746-4811
Titre abrégé: Plant Methods
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245798
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Jul 2021
30 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
23
09
2020
accepted:
23
07
2021
entrez:
31
7
2021
pubmed:
1
8
2021
medline:
1
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Heterosis has been widely used in maize breeding. However, we know little about the heterotic quantitative trait loci and their roles in genomic prediction. In this study, we sought to identify heterotic quantitative trait loci for seedling biomass-related traits using triple testcross design and compare their prediction accuracies by fitting molecular markers and heterotic quantitative trait loci. A triple testcross population comprised of 366 genotypes was constructed by crossing each of 122 intermated B73 × Mo17 genotypes with B73, Mo17, and B73 × Mo17. The mid-parent heterosis of seedling biomass-related traits involved in leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, and seedling dry weight displayed a large range, from less than 50 to ~ 150%. Relationships between heterosis of seedling biomass-related traits showed congruency with that between performances. Based on a linkage map comprised of 1631 markers, 14 augmented additive, two augmented dominance, and three dominance × additive epistatic quantitative trait loci for heterosis of seedling biomass-related traits were identified, with each individually explaining 4.1-20.5% of the phenotypic variation. All modes of gene action, i.e., additive, partially dominant, dominant, and overdominant modes were observed. In addition, ten additive × additive and six dominance × dominance epistatic interactions were identified. By implementing the general and special combining ability model, we found that prediction accuracy ranged from 0.29 for leaf length to 0.56 for leaf width. Different number of marker analysis showed that ~ 800 markers almost capture the largest prediction accuracies. When incorporating the heterotic quantitative trait loci into the model, we did not find the significant change of prediction accuracy, with only leaf length showing the marginal improvement by 1.7%. Our results demonstrated that the triple testcross design is suitable for detecting heterotic quantitative trait loci and evaluating the prediction accuracy. Seedling leaf width can be used as the representative trait for seedling prediction. The heterotic quantitative trait loci are not necessary for genomic prediction of seedling biomass-related traits.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Heterosis has been widely used in maize breeding. However, we know little about the heterotic quantitative trait loci and their roles in genomic prediction. In this study, we sought to identify heterotic quantitative trait loci for seedling biomass-related traits using triple testcross design and compare their prediction accuracies by fitting molecular markers and heterotic quantitative trait loci.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A triple testcross population comprised of 366 genotypes was constructed by crossing each of 122 intermated B73 × Mo17 genotypes with B73, Mo17, and B73 × Mo17. The mid-parent heterosis of seedling biomass-related traits involved in leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, and seedling dry weight displayed a large range, from less than 50 to ~ 150%. Relationships between heterosis of seedling biomass-related traits showed congruency with that between performances. Based on a linkage map comprised of 1631 markers, 14 augmented additive, two augmented dominance, and three dominance × additive epistatic quantitative trait loci for heterosis of seedling biomass-related traits were identified, with each individually explaining 4.1-20.5% of the phenotypic variation. All modes of gene action, i.e., additive, partially dominant, dominant, and overdominant modes were observed. In addition, ten additive × additive and six dominance × dominance epistatic interactions were identified. By implementing the general and special combining ability model, we found that prediction accuracy ranged from 0.29 for leaf length to 0.56 for leaf width. Different number of marker analysis showed that ~ 800 markers almost capture the largest prediction accuracies. When incorporating the heterotic quantitative trait loci into the model, we did not find the significant change of prediction accuracy, with only leaf length showing the marginal improvement by 1.7%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results demonstrated that the triple testcross design is suitable for detecting heterotic quantitative trait loci and evaluating the prediction accuracy. Seedling leaf width can be used as the representative trait for seedling prediction. The heterotic quantitative trait loci are not necessary for genomic prediction of seedling biomass-related traits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34330310
doi: 10.1186/s13007-021-00785-8
pii: 10.1186/s13007-021-00785-8
pmc: PMC8325263
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
85Subventions
Organisme : jiangsu agricultural science and technology innovation fund
ID : CX(21)1003
Organisme : major science and technology special project of anhui province
ID : 202003a06020004
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 31671760
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 31301391
Organisme : Major Independent Research Project of Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Agrobiology
ID : JKLA2021-ZD03
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Plant Physiol. 2010 Dec;154(4):1753-65
pubmed: 20971858
Theor Appl Genet. 2017 Sep;130(9):1927-1939
pubmed: 28647896
Genetics. 2008 Nov;180(3):1707-24
pubmed: 18791260
Genetics. 2001 Aug;158(4):1737-53
pubmed: 11514459
Genetics. 2013 Feb;193(2):621-31
pubmed: 23267052
Genome Biol. 2020 Jun 17;21(1):146
pubmed: 32552725
Theor Appl Genet. 2016 Dec;129(12):2413-2427
pubmed: 27586153
Nat Genet. 2012 Jan 15;44(2):217-20
pubmed: 22246502
G3 (Bethesda). 2014 Apr 11;4(6):1027-46
pubmed: 24727289
Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Mar-Apr;48(5-6):453-61
pubmed: 11999829
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 24;9(3):e93017
pubmed: 24663104
Theor Appl Genet. 2013 Jan;126(1):13-22
pubmed: 22886355
BMC Genet. 2017 Apr 17;18(1):36
pubmed: 28415964
Theor Appl Genet. 2015 Oct;128(10):1957-68
pubmed: 26152570
Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Jan;2(1):69-74
pubmed: 11253074
Genetics. 2014 Aug;197(4):1343-55
pubmed: 24850820
Genetics. 2010 Jul;185(3):1021-31
pubmed: 20407128
G3 (Bethesda). 2016 Nov 8;6(11):3443-3453
pubmed: 27646704
Theor Appl Genet. 2016 Feb;129(2):431-44
pubmed: 26660464
Plant Biotechnol J. 2019 Oct;17(10):2011-2020
pubmed: 30950198
Nat Genet. 2017 Dec;49(12):1741-1746
pubmed: 29038596
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 28;10(4):e0124779
pubmed: 25919458
Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 05;6:38205
pubmed: 27917917
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 06;11(6):e0156744
pubmed: 27271781
Genetics. 2008 Apr;178(4):2265-74
pubmed: 18430948
Genetics. 2009 Jan;181(1):247-57
pubmed: 18984574
Genetics. 2007 May;176(1):625-44
pubmed: 17339211
Trends Plant Sci. 2017 Nov;22(11):961-975
pubmed: 28965742
BMC Genomics. 2016 Mar 29;17:262
pubmed: 27025377
Theor Appl Genet. 2019 Jan;132(1):273-288
pubmed: 30382311
Heredity (Edinb). 1968 Aug;23(3):403-9
pubmed: 5250122
Genetics. 2007 Nov;177(3):1815-25
pubmed: 18039883
Nat Genet. 2019 Jun;51(6):952-956
pubmed: 31110353
Theor Appl Genet. 2015 May;128(5):875-91
pubmed: 25758357
G3 (Bethesda). 2020 Aug 5;10(8):2619-2628
pubmed: 32499222
Genetics. 2015 Oct;201(2):759-68
pubmed: 26219298
Plant Cell. 2020 Jan;32(1):139-151
pubmed: 31641024
Theor Appl Genet. 1996 Nov;93(7):1098-102
pubmed: 24162487
Genetics. 1995 Jun;140(2):745-54
pubmed: 7498751