Abstract
The presence of epistasis in complex traits can be significant and affect the selection of segregating populations undesirably. The purpose of this study was to determine the epistatic genetic components that influence root and shoot traits of common bean and identify their effect on the performance of segregating populations. The field experiment consisted of 49 treatments (backcross progenies, parents and segregating populations in the F2 and F3 generations). The cross P1-BAF53 (Andean) × P2-IPR 88 Uirapuru (Mesoamerican) as reference. Six traits were taken into consideration: root distribution (%), first pod length (cm), number of grains (plot), plant height (cm), reproductive cycle (days) and number of basal branches (plot). For root distribution, first pod length and number of grains, the additive and additive × additive components were significant. On the contrary, for plant height, reproductive cycle and number of basal branches, no interaction component was observed. These results can be explained by the magnitude of variance determined for these traits. The additive × additive epistasis had a negative influence on the mean performance of segregating progenies. Contrariwise, transgressive segregation effects on plant height were observed as a function of genetic dominance deviation. Thus, additive × additive epistasis can hamper the success of a breeding program, for being associated with low-variability traits. This fact may be related with the number of crosses and/or the choice of genetically more distant parents for the program, and possibly with the presence of linked genes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Allard RW (1960) Principles of plant breeding. Wiley, New York
Araújo AP, Antunes IF, Teixeira MG (2005) Inheritance of root traits and phosphorus uptake in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under limited soil phosphorus supply. Euphytica 145:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-005-8772-1
Ariani A, Berny mier y Teran JC, Gepts P (2016) Genome-wide identification of SNPs and copy number variation in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS). Mol Breed. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-016-0512-9
Assefa T, Assibi Mahama A, Brown AV et al (2019) A review of breeding objectives, genomic resources, and marker-assisted methods in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Mol Breed. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-018-0920-0
Baldoni AB, Patto Ramalho MA, De Abreu Â, de FB, (2008) Allele frequency and selection efficiency in cross populations of Andean x Mesoamerican common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L. Fabales, Fabaceae). Genet Mol Biol 31:914–919. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-47572008000500019
Bernardo R (2002) Breeding for quantitative traits in plants. Woodbury, Minnesota
Bitocchi E, Bellucci E, Giardini A et al (2013) Molecular analysis of the parallel domestication of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in Mesoamerica and the Andes. New Phytol 197:300–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04377.x
Böhm W (1979) Methods of studying root systems. Springer, New York
Burridge JD, Jochua CN, Bucksch A, Lynch JP (2016) Legume shovelomics: High-Throughput phenotyping of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata subsp, unguiculata) root architecture in the field. F Crop Res 192:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.04.008
Burridge JD, Findeis JL, Jochua CN et al (2019) A case study on the efficacy of root phenotypic selection for edaphic stress tolerance in low-input agriculture: common bean breeding in Mozambique. F Crop Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107612
Ceccarelli S (2015) Efficiency of plant breeding. Crop Sci 55:87–97. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2014.02.0158
Cerutti PH, Grigolo S, de Melo RC et al (2020) Combining ability between common bean gene groups for root distribution trait. Cienc e Agrotecnologia 44:456. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-7054202044011520
Comstock RE, Robinson HF (1952) Estimation of the average dominance of genes. In: Heterosis. Iowa State College, Ames, pp 494–512
de Melo RC, Schmit R, Cerutti PH et al (2016) Genetic variation in the trait root distribution over segregating generations of common bean. Euphytica 207:665–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-015-1568-z
de Melo RC, Trevisani N, Corrêa SC et al (2018) Inheritance of root distribution in common bean and selection strategy. Crop Breed Appl Biotechnol 18:373–381. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-70332018V18N4A56
de Toledo JFF, Arias CAA, De Oliveira MF et al (2000) Genetical and environmental analyses of yield in six biparental soybean crosses. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 35:1783–1796. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-204x2000000900011
Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman
Fehr WR (1987) Principles of cultivar development. Macmillan Publishers Company, New York
Fu YB, Ritland K (1996) Marker-based inferences about epistasis for genes influencing inbreeding depression. Genetics 144:339–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/144.1.339
Gepts P, Bliss FA (1985) F1 hybrid weakness in the common bean. J Hered 76:447–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a110142
Graner EA (1950) Elementos de genética: Bases para o melhoramento de plantas e animais, 4th edn. Edições Melhoramentos
Grigolo S, de Melo RC, da Fioreze AC et al (2021) Heterosis for the root distribution trait in common bean. Acta Sci Agron 43:1–8. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v43i1.46712
Hill WG (1982) Dominance and epistasis as components of heterosis. Z Tierzuecht Zuechtungsbiol 99:161–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.1982.tb00375.x
Holland JB (2001) Epistasis and plant breeding. Plant Breed Rev 21:27–92
Jiménez OR (2019) Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) breeding. In: Al-Khayri J, Jain S, Johnson D (eds) Advances in plant breeding strategies: legumes. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–200
Johnson HW, Bernard RL (1962) Soybean genetics and breeding. Adv Agron 14:149–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60438-1
Johnson WC, Gepts P (2002) The role of epistasis in controlling seed yield and other agronomic traits in an Andean x Mesoamerican cross of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Euphytica 125:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015775822132
Kashiwagi J, Krishnamurthy L, Gaur PM et al (2008) Estimation of gene effects of the drought avoidance root characteristics in chickpea (C. arietinum L.). F Crop Res 105:64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.07.007
Kearsey MJ, Jinks JL (1968) A general method of detecting additive, dominance and epistatic variation for metrical traits. Heredity (edinb) 23:403–409
Kearsey MJ, Pooni HS (1996) The genetical analysis of quantitative traits. Chapman & Hall
Lanna AC, Mitsuzono ST, Gledson T et al (2016) Physiological characterization of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes, water-stress induced with contrasting response towards drought. AJCS 10:1–6
Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW et al (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary
Mather K, Jinks JL (1971) Biometrical genetics. Cornell University, Ithaca
McLean RA, Sanders WL, Stroup WW (1991) A unified approach to mixed linear models. Am Stat 45:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1991.10475767
Moreto AL, Ramalho MAP, Bruzi AT (2012) Epistasis in an Andean × Mesoamerican cross of common bean. Euphytica 186:755–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-011-0578-8
Phillips PC (1998) Anectdotal, historical and critical commentaries on genetics the language of gene interaction. Genetics 149:1167–1171
Poehlman JM (1979) Breeding field crops, 2nd edn. Avi, Westport
Polania J, Poschenrieder C, Rao I, Beebe S (2017) Root traits and their potential links to plant ideotypes to improve drought resistance in common bean. Theor Exp Plant Physiol 29:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40626-017-0090-1
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org
Rocha F, Coan MMD, Coimbra JLM et al (2010) Root distribution in common bean populations used in breeding programs. Crop Breed Appl Biotechnol 10:40–47. https://doi.org/10.12702/1984-7033.v10n01a06
Schmutz J, McClean PE, Mamidi S et al (2014) A reference genome for common bean and genome-wide analysis of dual domestications. Nat Genet 46:707–713. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3008
Toaldo D, de Morais PPP, Battilana J et al (2013) Selection in early generations and the occurrence of heterosis for the character root distribution. Euphytica 190:335–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-012-0746-5
Tracy SR, Nagel KA, Postma JA et al (2020) Crop improvement from phenotyping roots: highlights reveal expanding opportunities. Trends Plant Sci 25:105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2019.10.015
Van Ginkel M, Ortiz R (2018) Cross the best with the best, and select the best: HELP in breeding selfing crops. Crop Sci 58:17–30. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2017.05.0270
Velho LPS, de Melo RC, Bernardy JPF et al (2018) Root distribution and its association with bean growth habit. An Acad Bras Cienc. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170341
Vencovsky R, Barriga P (1992) Genética Biométrica no Fitomelhoramento. Sociedade Brasileira de Genética, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo
Vernetti FJ (1983) Soja: Genética e Melhoramento. Fundação Cargil, Campinas
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to the State University of Santa Catarina (UDESC), Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) and Foundation for the Support of the Scientific and Technological Research of Santa Catarina (FAPESC) for granting scholarships, funding and support for the development of this publication.
Funding
This work was supported by Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) and Foundation for the Support of the Scientific and Technological Research of Santa Catarina (FAPESC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Each author contributed individually and significantly to the development of this study. Conceptualization: MRC; CJLM; SJGC. Data curation: MRC; CLTS; CPH. Formal analysis: MRC; CJLM. Supervision: CJLM; SJGC. Writing—original draft: MRC; CJLM; GAF; SJGC; CLTS; CPH. Writing—review and editing: MRC; CLTS; CPH.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
de Melo, R.C., Coimbra, J.L.M., da Silva, J.G.C. et al. Implications of additive × additive epistasis for common bean breeding. Euphytica 220, 68 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-024-03330-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-024-03330-5