Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 88, Issue 6–7, pp 852–858 | Cite as

Identification of RFLP markers closely linked to the bolting gene B and their significance for the study of the annual habit in beets (Beta vulgaris L.)

  • P. Boudry
  • R. Wieber
  • P. Saumitou-Laprade
  • K. Pillen
  • H. Van Dijk
  • C. Jung
Article

Abstract

The annual habit in beet is due to complete or partial absence of the vernalization requirement and can cause severe problems in the beet crop. The absolute vernalization requirement in beet is controlled by a major geneB (bolting), known to be linked to the geneR (red hypocotyl color), in linkage group I. Segregation for theB andR genes was studied in several beet progenies. Penetrance of the annual habit inBb genotypes was affected by both environmental and genetic factors. The precise location in linkage group I of the major geneB was found by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis in a back-cross progeny exhibiting partial penetrance of the annual habit. The linkage value betweenB andR was in good accordance with previous estimations. Use of the closest RFLP marker (pKP591: 3.8 recombination units) allowed us to estimate the penetrance of the annual habit in this back-cross as 0.62. Evidence of pseudo-compatibility was found in the wild coastal beet (Beta vulgaris sspmaritima) used as the mother plant of the back-cross: the selfing rate was estimated as 7%.

Key words

Bolting gene Vernalization requirementBeta vulgaris L. RFLP markers Penetrance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abe J, Yoshikawa H, Tsuda C (1987) Reproductive barriers in sugar beets and its relatives of the sectionvulgares, the genusBeta. J Fac Agr Hokkaido Univ 63:40–48Google Scholar
  2. Abegg FA (1936) A genetic factor for the annual habit in beets and linkage relationship. J Agric Res 53:493–511Google Scholar
  3. Barocka KH (1985) Zucker- und Futterrüben. In: Hoffmann W, Mudra A, Plarre W (eds), Lehrbuch der Züchtung landwirtschaftlicher Kulturpflanzen, Bd. 2 Spezieller Teil. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin Hamburg, pp 245–287Google Scholar
  4. Barzen E, Mechelke W, Ritter E, Seitzer JF, Salamini F (1992) RFLP markers for sugar beet breeding — chromosomal linkage maps and location of major genes for Rhizomania resistance, monogermy and hypocotyl color. Plant J 2:601–611Google Scholar
  5. Beavis WD, Grant D (1991) A linkage map based on information from four F2 populations of maize (Zea mays L.). Theor Appl Genet 82:636–644Google Scholar
  6. Bolelova ZA, Tikhonova VG, Leshchenko EV (1984) Genetical and physiological aspects of bolting in sugar beet plants. Sel'sk Khoz Biologiya 10:90–95Google Scholar
  7. Boudry P, Mörchen M, Saumitou-Laprade P, Vernet Ph, Van Dijk H (1993) The origin and evolution of weed beets: consequences for the breeding and release of herbicide-resistant transgenic sugar beets. Theor Appl Genet 87:471–478Google Scholar
  8. Curtis GJ (1964) Graft transmission of the flowering stimulus from a wildBeta species to a line of beet selected for resistance to bolting. Nature 202:1238–1964Google Scholar
  9. Dale MFB, Ford-Lloyd BV (1983) Reproductive characters associated with breeding behaviour inBeta sect.Beta (Chenopodiaceae). Pl Syst Evol 143:277–283Google Scholar
  10. Desprez M (1980) Observations et remarques sur la montée à graine chez la betterave sucrière. CR Acad Agric Fr: 44–53Google Scholar
  11. Evans A, Weir J (1981) The evolution of weed beet in sugar beet crops. Kulturpflanzen 24:301–310Google Scholar
  12. Fatmi A, Poneleit CG, Pfeffer TW (1993) Variability of recombination frequencies in Iowa Stiff Stalk Synthetic (Zea mays L.). Theor Appl Genet 86:859–866Google Scholar
  13. Feinberg AP, Vogelstein B (1983) A technique for radiolabeling DNA restriction endonuclease fragments to high specific activity. Anal Biochem 137:266–267Google Scholar
  14. Gebhardt C, Ritter E, Barone A, Debener T, Walkemeir B, Schachtschabel U, Kaufmann H, Thompson RD, Bonierbale MW, Ganal MW, Tanksley SD, Salamini F (1991) RFLP maps of potato and their alignment with the homoeologous tomato genome. Theor Appl Genet 83:49–57Google Scholar
  15. Knapp E (1958) Beta-Rüben Bes. Zuckerrüben. In: Kappert H, Rudorf W (eds), Handbuch der Pflanzenzüchtung, vol 2. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin Hamburg, pp 196–284Google Scholar
  16. Kosambi DD (1944) The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Ann Eugen 12:172–175Google Scholar
  17. Lander ES, Green P, Abrahamson I, Barlow A, Daly MJ, Lincoln SE, Newburg L (1987) MAPMAKER: An interactive computer package for constructing primary genetic linkage maps of experimental and natural populations. Genomics 1:174–181Google Scholar
  18. Le Cochec F, Soreau P (1989) Mode d'action des gènes et hétérosis pour le caractère montée à graines dans le croisement de deux lignées fixées de betteraves à sucre (Beta vulgaris L.). Agronomie 9:585–590Google Scholar
  19. Letschert JPW (1993)Beta sectionBeta: biogeographical patterns of variation and taxonomy. Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University Papers 93-1Google Scholar
  20. Lexander K (1980) Present knowledge of sugar beet bolting mechanism. 43rd Winter Congr, Inst Int Rech Betterav, Bruxelles, pp 245–258Google Scholar
  21. Longden P, Goddard V (1987) Effects of weed beet on crop yield and processabililty. Br Sugar Beet Rev 55:10–11Google Scholar
  22. Marcus WB (1948) Inheritance of bolting resistance. Proc Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 5:154–155Google Scholar
  23. Margara J (1960) Recherches sur le déterminisme de l'élongation et de la floraison dans le genre Beta. Ann Amélior Plant 10:361–471Google Scholar
  24. Munerati O (1931) L'eredità della tendenza alla annualità nella commune barbabietola coltivata. Ztschr Züchtung, Reihe A, Pflanzenzüchtung 17:84–89Google Scholar
  25. Nelson RT, Deming GW (1952) Effect of bolters on yield and sucrose content of sugar beet. Proc Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 6:441–444Google Scholar
  26. Owen FV (1942) Inheritance of cross- and self-sterility and self-fertility inBeta vulgaris. J Agric Res 64:679–698Google Scholar
  27. Owen FV (1954) The significance of single gene reactions in sugar beets. Proc Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 8:392–398Google Scholar
  28. Owen FV, Ryser GK (1942) Some Mendelian characters inBeta vulgaris and linkages observed in the Y-R-B group. J Agric Res 65:155–698171Google Scholar
  29. Pharis RP, King RW (1985) Gibberellins and reproductive development in seed plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 36:517–568Google Scholar
  30. Pillen K, Steinrücken G, Wricke G, Herrmann RG, Jung C (1992). A linkage map of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Theor Appl Genet 84:129–135Google Scholar
  31. Pocock TP, Lenton JR (1980) Potential use of retardants for chemical control of bolting in sugar beet. In: Recent developments in the use of plant growth reterdants. Clifford DR, Lenton JR (eds) Br Plant Growth Regul Group Monogr 4:41–52Google Scholar
  32. Rimpau W (1876) Das Aufschiessen der Runkelrüben. Landw Jahrb 5:31–45Google Scholar
  33. Ritter E, Debener T, Barone A, Salamini F, Gebhart C (1991) RFLP mapping on potato chromosomes of two controlling genes extreme resistance to potato virus X (PVX). Mol Gen Genet 227:81–85Google Scholar
  34. Saumitou-Laprade P, Rouwendal GJA, Cuguen J, Krens FFA, Michaelis G (1993) Different CMS sources found inBeta vulgaris ssp. maritima: mitochondrial variability in wild populations revealed by a rapid screening procedure. Theor Appl Genet 85: 529–535Google Scholar
  35. Smed E, Van Geyt JPC, Oleo M (1989) Genetical control and linkage relationships of isozyme markers in sugar beet (B. vulgaris L.). Theor Appl Genet 78:97–104Google Scholar
  36. Stout M (1945) Translocation of the reproductive stimulus in sugar beets. Bot Gaz 107:86–95Google Scholar
  37. Tanksley SD, Young ND, Paterson AH, Bonierbale MW (1989) RFLP mapping in plant breeding — new tools for an old science. Bio/Technol 7:257–264Google Scholar
  38. Theurer JC (1968) Linkage tests of Mendelian male sterility and the other genetic characters in sugarbeets,Beta vulgaris L. Crop Sci 8:698–701Google Scholar
  39. Van Dijk H, Boudry P (1992) Genetic variability for life-histories inBeta maritima. In: Frese L (ed) InternationalBeta Genetic Resources Network. A report on the 2nd IntBeta Genetic Resources Workshop held at the Institute for Crop Science and Plant Breeding, Braunschweig, Germany, 24–28 June 1991. Int Crop Network Series No. 7. Int Board for Plant Genetic Resources, Rome:4–16Google Scholar
  40. Van Geyt JPC, Oleo M, Lange W, De Bock TSM (1988) Monosomic additions in beet (Beta vulgaris) carrying extra chromosomes ofBeta procumbens. Theor Appl Genet 76:577–586Google Scholar
  41. Vince-Prue D (1975) Photoperiodism in plants. Mcgraw-Hill Book Compagny, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang ML, Atkinson MD, Cinoy CN, Devos KM, Harcourt RL, Liu CJ, Rogers WJ, Gale MD (1991) RFLP-based genetic map of rye (Secalel cereale L.) chromosome1R. Theor Appl Genet 82:174–178Google Scholar
  43. Wood DW, Scoot RK (1975) Sowing sugar beet in autumn in England. J Agric Sci 84:97–108Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Boudry
    • 1
  • R. Wieber
    • 2
  • P. Saumitou-Laprade
    • 1
  • K. Pillen
    • 2
  • H. Van Dijk
    • 1
  • C. Jung
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Génétique et Evolution des Populations Végétales, URA-CNRS 1185, Bât. SN2Université de Lille 1Villeneuve d'Ascq CedexFrance
  2. 2.Botanisches Institut der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations