Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 92, Issue 2, pp 191–203 | Cite as

Advanced backcross QTL analysis: a method for the simultaneous discovery and transfer of valuable QTLs from unadapted germplasm into elite breeding lines

  • S. D. Tanksley
  • J. C. Nelson
Article

Abstract

Advanced backcross QTL analysis is proposed as a method of combining QTL analysis with variety development. It is tailored for the discovery and transfer of valuable QTL alleles from unadapted donor lines (e.g., land races, wild species) into established elite inbred lines. Following this strategy, QTL analysis is delayed until the BC2 or BC3 generation and, during the development of these populations, negative selection is exercised to reduce the frequency of deleterious donor alleles. Simulations suggest that advanced backcross QTL analysis will be effective in detecting additive, dominant, partially dominant, or overdominant QTLs. Epistatic QTLs or QTLs with gene actions ranging from recessive to additive will be detected with less power than in selfing generations. QTL-NILs can be derived from advanced backcross populations in one or two additional generations and utilized to verify QTL activity. These same QTL-NILs also represent commercial inbreds improved (over the original recurrent inbred line) for one or more quantitative traits. The time lapse from QTL discovery to construction and testing of improved QTL-NILs is minimal (1–2 years). If successfully employed, advanced backcross QTL analysis can open the door to exploiting unadapted and exotic germplasm for the quantitative trait improvement of a number of crop plants.

Key words

Molecular markers Introgression Plant breeding Quantitative trait loci 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allard RW (1960) Plant breeding. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JA et al. (1993a) Detection of QTLs affecting pre-harvest sprouting resistance in wheat by RFLPs. Crop Sci 33:543Google Scholar
  3. Anderson JA, Churchill GA, Autrique JE, Tanksley SD, Sorrells ME (1993b) Optimizing parental selection for genetic linkage maps. Genome 31:181–186Google Scholar
  4. Arondel V, Lemieux B, Hwang I, Gibson S, Goodman HM, Somerville CR (1992) Map-based cloning of a gene controlling omega-3 fatty acid desaturation in Arabidopsis. Science 258:1353–1355Google Scholar
  5. Bellmann K, Ahrens H (1966) Modellpopulationen in der Selektion-stheorie und einige Ergebniße aus Simulationsstudien. Der Züchter 36:172–185Google Scholar
  6. Bliss FA (1981) Utilization of vegetable germplasm. HortScience 16:129–132Google Scholar
  7. Eshed Y, Zamir D (1994) Introgressions from Lycopersicon pennellii can improve the soluble-solids yield of tomato hybrids. Theor Appl Genet 88:891–897Google Scholar
  8. Fatokun CA, Menancio-Hautea Dl, Danesh D, Young ND (1992) Evidence for orthologous seed weight genes in cowpea and mung bean based on RFLP mapping. Genetics 132:841–846Google Scholar
  9. Fraser A, Burnell D (1970) Computer models in genetics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Frey KJ, Cox TS, Rodgers DM, Bramel-Cox P (1981) Increasing cereal yields with genes from wild and weedy species. Journal Paper No. J-11254 of the lowa Agric and Home Econ Exp Stn, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. Project 2447, pp 51–68Google Scholar
  11. Hanson WD (1959) Early generation analysis of lengths of heterozygous chromosome segments around a locus held heterozygous with backcrossing or selfing. Genetics 44:833–837Google Scholar
  12. Hallauer AR, Miranda JB (1988) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes PM, Liu BH, Knapp SJ, Chen F, Jones B, Blake T, Franckowiak J, Rasmusson, Sorrells M, Ullrich, SE, Wesenberg D, Kleinhofs A (1993) Quantitative trait locus effects and environmental interaction in a sample of North American barley germ plasm. Theor Appl Genet 87:392–401Google Scholar
  14. Helentjaris T, King G, Slocum M, Siedenstrang C, Wegman S (1985) Restriction fragment length polymorphisms as probes for plant diversity and their development as tools for applied plant breeding. Plant Mol Biol 5:109–118Google Scholar
  15. Keim P, Diers BW, Shoemaker RC (1990) Genetic analysis of soybean hard seededness with molecular markers. Theor Appl Genet 79:465–469Google Scholar
  16. Kosambi DD (1944) The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Ann Eugen 12:172–175Google Scholar
  17. Ladizinsky G (1985) Founder effect in crop-plant evolution. Econ Bot 39:191–199Google Scholar
  18. Martin GB, Brommonschenkel SH, Chunwongse J, Frary A, Ganal MW, Spivey R, Wu T, Earle ED, Tanksley SD (1993) Map-based cloning of a protein kinase gene conferring disease resistance in tomato. Science 262:1432–1436Google Scholar
  19. Messeguer R (1991) High-resolution RFLP map around the root knot nematode resistance gene (Mi) in tomato. Theor Appl Genet 80:437–448Google Scholar
  20. Miller JC, Tanksley SD (1990) RFLP analysis of phylogenetic relationships and genetic variation in the genus Lycopersicon. Theor Appl Genet 80:437–448Google Scholar
  21. Owens KW, Bliss FA, Peterson CE (1985a) Genetic analysis of fruit length and weight in two cucumber populations using the inbred backcross line method. J Am Soc Hort Sci 110:431–436Google Scholar
  22. Owens KW, Bliss FA, Peterson CE (1985b) Genetic variation within and between two cucumber populations derived via the inbred backcross line method. J Am Soc Hort Sci 110:437–441Google Scholar
  23. Paterson AH, Lander ES, Hewitt JD, Peterson S, Lincoln SE, Tanksley SD (1988) Resolution of quantitative traits into Mendelian factors by using a complete linkage map of restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Nature 335:721–726Google Scholar
  24. Simmons, NW (1976) Evolution of crop plants. Longman, London New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Soller M, Beckmann JS (1983) Genetic polymorphism in variety identification and genetic improvement. Theor Appl Genet 67:25–33Google Scholar
  26. Stam PA, Zeven C (1981) The theoretical proportion of the donor genome in near-isogenic lines of self-fertilizers bred by backcrossing. Euphytica 30:227–238Google Scholar
  27. Stuber CW, Lincoln SE, Wolff DW, Helentjaris T, Lander ES (1992) Identification of genetic factors contributing to heterosis in a hybrid from two elite maize inbred lines using molecular markers. Genetics 132:823–839Google Scholar
  28. Sullivan JG, Bliss FA (1983a) Genetic control of quantitative variation in phaseolin seed protein of common bean. J Am Soc Hort Sci 108:782–787Google Scholar
  29. Sullivan JG, Bliss FA (1983b) Expression of enhanced seed protein content in inbred backcross lines of common bean. J Am Soc Hort Sci 108:787–791Google Scholar
  30. Tanksley SD (1983) Molecular markers in plant breeding. Plant Mol Biol Rep 1:3–8Google Scholar
  31. Tanksley SD, Young ND, Paterson AH, Bonierbale MW (1989) RFLP mapping in plant breeding: new tools for an old science. Bio/Technology 7:257–264Google Scholar
  32. Tanksley SD, Ganal MW, Martin GB (1995) Chromosome landing: a paradigm for map-based gene cloning in plants with large genomes. Trends Genet 11:63–68Google Scholar
  33. Ullstrup AJ (1978) Corn diseases in the United States and thier control. Agricultural Handbook 199:1–55Google Scholar
  34. Vicente MC de, Tanksley SD (1993) QTL analysis of transgressive segregation in an interspecific tomato cross. Genetics 134:585–596Google Scholar
  35. Wang ZY, Second G, Tanksley SD (1992) Polymorphism and phylogenetic relationships among species in the genus Oryze as determined by analysis of nuclear RFLPs. Theor Appl Genet 83:565–581Google Scholar
  36. Wang G, Mackill DJ, Bonman JM, McCouch SR, Champoux MC, Nelson RJ (1994) RFLP mapping of genes conferring complete and partial resistance to blast in a durably resistant rice cultivar. Genetics 136:1421–1434Google Scholar
  37. Wehrhahn C, Allard RW (1965) The detection and measurement of the effects of individual genes involved in the inheritance of a quantitative character in wheat. Genetics 51:109–119Google Scholar
  38. Young ND, Tanksley SD (1989) RFLP analysis of the size of chromosomal segments retained around the Tm-2 locus of tomato during backcross breeding. Theor Appl Genet 77:353–359Google Scholar
  39. Zamir D, Ekstein-Michelson I, Zakay Y, Navot N, Zeidan M, Sarfatti M, Eshed Y, Harel E, Pleban T, van-Oss H, Kedar N, Rabinowitch HD, Czosnek H (1994) Mapping and introgression of a tomato yellow leaf curl virus tolerance gene, TY-1. Theor Appl Genet 88:141–146Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. D. Tanksley
    • 1
  • J. C. Nelson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Breeding and BiometryCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations