Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 118, Issue 5, pp 993–1004 | Cite as

QTL detection in maize testcross progenies as affected by related and unrelated testers

  • Elisabetta Frascaroli
  • Maria Angela Canè
  • Mario Enrico Pè
  • Giorgio Pea
  • Michele Morgante
  • Pierangelo Landi
Original Paper

Abstract

The evaluation of recombinant inbred lines (RILs) per se can be biased by inbreeding depression in case of allogamous species. To overcome this drawback, RILs can be evaluated in combination with testers; however, testers can carry dominant alleles at the quantitative trait loci (QTL), thus hampering their detection. This study was conducted on the maize (Zea mays L.) population of 142 RILs derived from the single cross B73 × H99 to evaluate the role of different testers in affecting: (1) QTL detection, (2) the estimates of their effects, and (3) the consistency of such estimates across testers. Testcrosses (TCs) were produced by crossing RILs with inbred testers B73 [TC(B)], H99 [TC(H)], and Mo17 [TC(M)]. TCs were field tested in three environments. TC(B) mean was higher than TC(H) mean for all traits, while TC(M) mean was the highest for plant vigor traits and grain yield. As to the number of detected QTL, tester Mo17 was superior to H99 and B73 for traits with prevailing additive effects. Several overlaps among the QTL were detected in two or all the three TC populations with QTL effects being almost always consistent (same sign). For traits with prevailing dominance–overdominance effects, as grain yield, the poor performing tester H99 was clearly the most effective; fewer overlaps were found and some of them were inconsistent (different sign). Epistatic interactions were of minor importance. In conclusion, the three testers proved to affect QTL detection and estimation of their effects, especially for traits showing high dominance levels.

Supplementary material

122_2008_956_MOESM1_ESM.tif (2 mb)
Supplementary figure S1 (TIFF 2.02 MB)

References

  1. Ajmone Marsan P, Gorni C, Chittò A, Redaelli R, van Vijk R, Stam P, Motto M (2001) Identification of QTLs for grain yield and grain-related traits of maize (Zea mays L.) using an AFLP map, different testers, and cofactor analysis. Theor Appl Genet 102:230–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin DF, Lee M, Veldboom LR, Hallauer AR (2000) Genetic mapping in maize with hybrid progeny across testers and generations: grain yield and grain moisture. Crop Sci 40:30–39Google Scholar
  3. Austin DF, Lee M, Veldboom LR (2001) Genetic mapping in maize with hybrid progeny across testers and generations: plant height and flowering. Theor Appl Genet 102:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beavis WD, Smith OS, Grant D, Fincher R (1994) Identification of quantitative trait loci using a small sample of topcrossed and F4 progeny from maize. Crop Sci 34:882–896Google Scholar
  5. Blanc G, Charcosset A, Mangin B, Gallais A, Moreau L (2006) Connected populations for detecting quantitative trait loci and testing for epistasis: an application in maize. Theor Appl Genet 113:206–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burr B, Burr FA (1991) Recombinant inbreds for molecular mapping in maize: theoretical and practical considerations. Trends Genet 7:55–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchill GA, Doerge RW (1994) Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138:963–971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cockerham CC, Zeng ZB (1996) Design III with marker loci. Genetics 143:1437–1456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Crow JF (2000) The rise and fall of overdominance. Plant Breed Rev 17:225–257Google Scholar
  10. Frascaroli E, Canè MA, Landi P, Pea G, Gianfranceschi L, Villa M, Morgante M, Pè ME (2007) Classical genetic and quantitative trait loci analyses of heterosis in a maize hybrid between two elite inbred lines. Genetics 176:625–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frova C, Krajewski P, Di Fonzo N, Villa M, Sari-Gorla M (1999) Genetic analysis of drought tolerance in maize by molecular markers. I. Yield components. Theor Appl Genet 99:280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groh S, González-de-León D, Khairallah MM, Jiang C, Bergvinson D, Bohn M, Hoisington DA, Melchinger AE (1998) QTL mapping in tropical maize: III. Genomic regions for resistance to Diatraea spp. and associated traits in two RIL populations. Crop Sci 38:1062–1072Google Scholar
  13. Hallauer AR (1990) Methods used in developing maize inbreds. Maydica 35:1–16Google Scholar
  14. Hallauer AR, Miranda JB (1988) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  15. Knapp SJ, Stroup WW, Ross WM (1985) Exact confidence intervals for heritability on a progeny mean basis. Crop Sci 25:192–194Google Scholar
  16. Lande R, Thompson R (1990) Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124:743–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Li ZK, Luo LJ, Mei HW, Wang DL, Shu QY, Tabien R, Zhong DB, Ying CS, Stansel JW, Khush GS, Paterson AH (2001) Overdominant epistatic loci are the primary genetic basis of inbreeding depression and heterosis in rice. I. Biomass and grain yield. Genetics 158:1737–1753PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Livini C, Ajmone-Marsan P, Messmer MM, Melchinger AE, Motto M (1992) Genetic diversity of maize inbred lines within and among heterotic groups revealed by RFLP. Theor Appl Genet 84:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lu H, Bernardo R (2001) Molecular marker diversity among current and historical maize inbreds. Theor Appl Genet 103:613–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lübberstedt T, Melchinger AE, Klein D, Degenhardt H, Paul C (1997) QTL mapping in test crosses of European flint lines of maize 2. Comparisons of different testers for forage quality traits. Crop Sci 37:1913–1922Google Scholar
  21. Melchinger AE, Utz HF, Schön CC (1998) Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping using different testers and independent population samples in maize reveals low power of QTL detection and large bias in estimates of QTL effects. Genetics 149:383–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mihaljevic R, Utz HF, Melchinger AE (2005) No evidence for epistasis in hybrid and per se performance of elite european flint maize inbreds from generation means and QTL analyses. Crop Sci 45:2605–2613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SAS INSTITUTE (1996) SAS users guide: statistic. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  24. Schön CC, Melchinger AE, Boppenmaier J, Brunklaus-Jung E, Herrmann RG, Seitzer JF (1994) RFLP mapping in maize: quantitative trait loci affecting testcross performances of elite european flint lines. Crop Sci 34:378–389Google Scholar
  25. 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 132:823–839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Utz HF, Melchinger AE (1996) PLABQTL: a program for composite interval mapping of QTL. J Quant Trait Loci 2:1–5Google Scholar
  27. Wang DL, Zhu J, Li ZK, Paterson AH (1999) Mapping QTL with epistatic effects and QTL × environment interactions by mixed model approaches. Theor Appl Genet 99:1255–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolf DP, Hallauer AR (1997) Triple testcross analysis to detect epistasis in maize. Crop Sci 37:763–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zeng ZB (1994) Precision mapping of quantitative trait loci. Genetics 136:1457–1468PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabetta Frascaroli
    • 1
  • Maria Angela Canè
    • 1
  • Mario Enrico Pè
    • 2
  • Giorgio Pea
    • 3
  • Michele Morgante
    • 4
  • Pierangelo Landi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agroenvironmental Sciences and TechnologiesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Sant’Anna School of Advanced StudiesPisaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Biomolecular Sciences and BiotechnologyUniversity of MilanoMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of Crop Sciences and Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations