Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 107, Issue 3, pp 494–502 | Cite as

Genetic basis of heterosis explored by simple sequence repeat markers in a random-mated maize population

Article

Abstract.

The genetic basis of heterosis in crop plants has not been completely resolved. Our objective in this study was to determine the level of dominance for quantitative trait loci (QTLs) that underlie heterosis in maize (Zea mays L.). An F2 population of an elite maize single cross, LH200 × LH216, was random mated for three generations in an attempt to break up repulsion linkages that might lead to pseudo-overdominance. The population was analyzed with 160 simple-sequence repeat markers. Phenotypic data analyses indicated overdominance for grain yield and partial dominance for plant height, grain moisture and stalk lodging. A total of 28 QTLs were identified for grain yield, 16 for grain moisture, 8 for stalk lodging, and 11 for plant height. For grain yield, 24 QTLs (86%) showed overdominance. In contrast, most of the QTLs for plant height, grain moisture and stalk lodging showed partial to complete dominance. Little epistasis was detected among the QTLs for any of the traits. Our results can be interpreted in one of two ways, or a combination of both: (1) QTLs for grain yield in maize exhibit true overdominance, or (2) QTLs for grain yield show partial to complete dominance, but they are so tightly linked such that three generations of random mating failed to separate their individual effects.

Keywords.

Heterosis Maize Overdominance Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) Random mating 

References

  1. Basten CJ, Weir BS, Zeng ZB (1998) QTL Cartographer version 1.13. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Bingham ET (1998) Role of chromosome blocks in heterosis and estimates of dominance and overdominance. In: Lamkey KR, Staub JE (eds) Concepts and breeding of heterosis in crop plants. Crop Sci Soc Am, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp 71–87Google Scholar
  3. Churchill GA, Doerge RW (1994) Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138:963–971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cochran WG, Cox GM (1950) Experimental designs. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cockerham CC, Zeng ZB (1996) Design III with marker loci. Genetics 143:1437–1456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Comstock RE, Robinson HF (1948) The components of genetic variance in populations. Biometrics 4:254–266Google Scholar
  7. Crow JF (1999) Dominance and overdominance. In: Coors JG, Pandey S (eds) Genetics and exploitation of heterosis in crops. Am Soc Agron, Crop Sci Soc Am, Soil Sci Soc Am, Inc, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp 49–58Google Scholar
  8. Davenport CB (1908) Degeneration, albinism and inbreeding. Science 28:454–455Google Scholar
  9. Dijkhuizen A, Dudley JW, Rocheford TR (1996) Marker-QTL linkages estimated using F2 and random-mated generations. Illinois Corn Breeders School 32:144–157Google Scholar
  10. Dunn LC, Landauer W (1934) The genetics of the rumpless fowl with evidence of a case of changing dominance. J Genet 29:217–243Google Scholar
  11. Duvick DN (1999) Heterosis: feeding people and protecting natural resources. In: Coors JG, Pandey S (eds) Genetics and exploitation of heterosis in crops. Am Soc Agron, Crop Sci Soc Am, Soil Sci Soc Am, Inc, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp 19–29Google Scholar
  12. East EM (1908) Inbreeding in corn. Rep Connecticut Agric Exp Stn for 1907, pp 419–428Google Scholar
  13. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Ltd, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher RA (1928) The possible modifications of the response of the wild-type to recurrent mutations. Am Nat 62:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford EB (1940) Genetic research in the Lepidoptera. Ann Eugen 10:227–252Google Scholar
  16. Gardner CO (1963) Estimates of genetic parameters in cross-fertilizing plants and their implications in plant breeding. In: Hanson WD, Robinson HF (eds) Stat genet and plant breed. NAS-NRC Publ 982, Washington DC, pp 225–252Google Scholar
  17. Graham GI, Wolff DW, Stuber CW (1997) Characterization of a yield quantitative trait locus on chromosome five of maize by fine mapping. Crop Sci 37:1601–1610Google Scholar
  18. Harland SC (1936) The genetical conception of the species. Biol Rev 11:83–112Google Scholar
  19. Helfer RG (1939) Dominance modifiers of scute in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 24:278–301Google Scholar
  20. Jones DF (1917) Dominance of linked factors as a means of accounting for heterosis. Genetics 2:466–479Google Scholar
  21. Kacser H, Burns JA (1981) The molecular basis of dominance. Genetics 97:639–666PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kettlewell HBD (1965) Insect survival and selection for pattern. Science 148:1290–1296Google Scholar
  23. Lander ES, Bostein D (1989) Mapping Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. Genetics 121:185–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lincoln S, Daly MJ, Lander ES (1992) Constructing genetic linkage maps with MAPMAKER/EXP version 3.0b. Whitehead Inst Tech Rep, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Lu H, Romero-Severson J, Bernardo R (2002) Chromosomal regions associated with segregation distortion in maize. Theor Appl Genet 105:622–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Mackay TFC (2001) The genetic architecture of quantitative traits. Annu Rev Genet 35:303–339Google Scholar
  28. Mangelsdorf AJ (1952) Gene interaction in heterosis. In: Gowen JW (ed) Heterosis. Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa, USA, pp 321–329Google Scholar
  29. MBS, Inc (1999) Genetic handbook, 26th edn. MBS, Inc, Story City, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Rhodes D, Ju GC, Yang W-J, Samaras Y (1992) Plant metabolism and heterosis. Plant Breed Rev 10:53–91Google Scholar
  31. Saghai-Maroof MA, Soliman KM, Jorgensen RA, Allard RW (1984) Ribosomal DNA spacer-length polymorphism in barley: mendelian inheritance, chromosomal location, and population dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:8014–8018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shull GH (1908) The composition of a field of maize. Rep Am Breeders Assoc 4:296–301Google Scholar
  33. Stuber CW, Lincoln SE, Wolff DW, Helentjaris T, Lander ES (1992) Indentification of genetic factors contributing to heterosis in a hybrid from two elite maize inbred lines using molecular markers. Genetics 132:823–839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Xiao J, Li J, Yuan L, Tanksley SD (1995) Dominance is the major genetic basis of heterosis in rice as revealed by QTL analysis using molecular markers. Genetics 140:745–754PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Yu SB, Li JX, Xu CG, Tan YF, Gao YJ, Li XH, Zhang QF, Saghai Maroof MA (1997) Importance of epistasis as the genetic basis of heterosis in an elite rice hybrid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9226–9231PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907–1150, USA
  2. 2.Departments of Agronomy and Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 1159 Forestry Building, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907–1159, USA
  3. 3.Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA
  4. 4.Department of Plant Breeding, Cornell University, 240 Emerson Hall, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

Personalised recommendations