Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 119, Issue 1, pp 65–74 | Cite as

Simultaneous selection of major and minor genes: use of QTL to increase selection efficiency of coleoptile length of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

  • Jiankang Wang
  • Scott C. Chapman
  • David G. Bonnett
  • Greg J. Rebetzke
Original Paper

Abstract

Plant breeders simultaneously select for qualitative traits controlled by one or a small number of major genes, as well as for polygenic traits controlled by multiple genes that may be detected as quantitative trait loci (QTL). In this study, we applied computer simulation to investigate simultaneous selection for alleles at both major and minor gene (as QTL) loci in breeding populations of two wheat parental lines, HM14BS and Sunstate. Loci targeted for selection included six major genes affecting plant height, disease resistance, and grain quality, plus 6 known and 11 “unidentified” QTL affecting coleoptile length (CL). Parental line HM14BS contributed the target alleles at two of the major gene loci, while parental line Sunstate contributed target alleles at four loci. The parents have similar plant height, but HM14BS has a longer coleoptile, a desirable attribute for deep sowing in rainfed environments. Including the wild-type allele at the major reduced-height locus Rht-D1, HM14BS was assumed to have 13 QTL for increased CL, and Sunstate four; these assumptions being derived from mapping studies and empirical data from an actual HM14BS/Sunstate population. Simulation indicated that compared to backcross populations, a single biparental F1 cross produced the highest frequency of target genotypes (six desired alleles at major genes plus desired QTL alleles for long CL). From 1,000 simulation runs, an average of 2.4 individuals with the target genotype were present in unselected F1-derived doubled haploid (DH) or recombinant inbred line (RIL) populations of size 200. A selection scheme for the six major genes increased the number of target individuals to 19.1, and additional marker-assisted selection (MAS) for CL increased the number to 23.0. Phenotypic selection (PS) of CL outperformed MAS in this study due to the high heritability of CL, incompletely linked markers for known QTL, and the existence of unidentified QTL. However, a selection scheme combining MAS and PS was equally as efficient as PS and would result in net savings in production and time to delivery of long coleoptile wheats containing the six favorable alleles.

References

  1. Barton NH, Keightley PD (2002) Understanding quantitative genetic variation. Nat Rev Genet 3:11–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardo R (2002) Breeding for quantitative traits in plants. Stemma Press, WoodburyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernardo R, Charcosset A (2006) Usefulness of gene information in marker-assisted recurrent selection: a simulation appraisal. Crop Sci 46:614–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardo R, Yu J (2007) Prospects for genomewide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Sci 47:1082–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnett DG, Rebetzke GJ, Spielmeyer W (2005) Strategies for efficient implementation of molecular markers in wheat breeding. Mol Breed 15:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper M, Podlich DW, Smith OS (2005) Gene-to-phenotype models and complex trait genetics. Aust J Agri Sci 56:895–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies J, Berzonsky WA, Leach GD (2006) A comparison of marker-assisted and phenotypic selection for high grain protein content in spring wheat. Euphytica 152:117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dekkers JCM, Hospital F (2002) The use of molecular genetics in the improvement of agricultural populations. Nat Rev Genet 3:22–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dubcovsky J (2004) Marker-assisted selection in public breeding programs: the wheat experience. Crop Sci 44:1895–1898Google Scholar
  10. Eagles HA, Bariana HS, Ogbonnaya FC, Rebertzke GJ, Hollamby GJ, Henry RJ, Henschke PH, Carter M (2001) Implementation of markers in Australian wheat breeding. Aust J Agric Res 52:1349–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eagles HA, Hollamby GJ, Gororo NN, Eastwood RF (2002) Estimation and utilisation of glutenin gene effects from the analysis of unbalanced data from wheat breeding programs. Aust J Agric Res 53:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eathington SR, Crosbie TM, Edwards MD, Rieter RS, Bull JK (2007) Molecular markers in a commercial breeding program. Crop Sci 47(S3):154–163Google Scholar
  13. Ellis MH, Spielmeyer W, Gale K, Rebetzke GJ, Richards RA (2002) Perfect markers for the Rht-B1b and Rht-D1b dwarfing mutations in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Theor Appl Genet 105:1038–1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellison FW, Brown GN, Mares DJ, Moore SG, O’Brien L (1994) Triticum aestivum spp. vulgare (bread wheat) cv. Sunstate. Aust J Exp Agric 34:869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longman, EssexGoogle Scholar
  16. Korzun V, Roder MS, Ganal MW, Worland AJ, Law CN (1998) Genetic analysis of the dwarfing gene (Rht8) in wheat. Part I. Molecular mapping of Rht8 on the short arm of chromosome 2D of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). Theor Appl Genet 96:1104–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lande R, Thompson R (1990) Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124:743–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lander ES, Botstein D (1989) Mapping Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. Genetics 121:185–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Li H, Ye G, Wang J (2007) A modified algorithm for the improvement of composite interval mapping. Genetics 175:361–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li H, Ribaut J-M, Li Z, Wang J (2008) Inclusive composite interval mapping (ICIM) for digenic epistasis of quantitative traits in biparental populations. Theor Appl Genet 116:243–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moreau L, Charcosset A, Gallais A (2004) Experimental evaluation of several cycles of marker-assisted selection in maize. Euphytica 137:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paterson AH, Tanksley SD, Sorrells ME (1991) DNA markers in plant improvement. Adv Agron 46:39–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Podlich DW, Cooper M (1998) QU-GENE: a platform for quantitative analysis of genetic models. Bioinformatics 14:632–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Podlich DW, Winkler CR, Cooper M (2004) Mapping as you go: an effective approach for marker-assisted selection of complex traits. Crop Sci 44:1560–1571Google Scholar
  25. Rebetzke GJ, Richards RA (2000) Gibberellic acid-sensitive dwarfing genes reduce plant height to increase kernel number and grain yield of wheat. Aust J Agric Res 51:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rebetzke GJ, Richards RA, Fischer VM, Mickelson BJ (1999) Breeding long coleoptile, reduced height wheats. Euphytica 106:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rebetzke GJ, Appels R, Morrison A, Richards RA, McDonald G, Ellis MH, Spielmeyer W, Bonnett DG (2001) Quantitative trait loci on chromosome 4B for coleoptile length and early vigour in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Aust J Agric Res 52:1221–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rebetzke GJ, Richards RA, Sirault XRR, Morrison AD (2004) Genetic analysis of coleoptile length and diameter of wheat. Aust J Agric Res 55:733–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rebetzke GJ, Richards RA, Fettell NA, Long M, Condon AG, Botwright TL (2007a) Genotypic increase in coleoptiles length improves wheat establishment, early vigour and grain yield with deep sowing. Field Crop Res 100:10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rebetzke GJ, Ellis MH, Bonnett DG, Richards RA (2007b) Molecular mapping of genes for coleoptile growth in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Theor Appl Genet 114:1173–1183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richards RA (1992) The effect of dwarfing genes in spring wheat in dry environments. I. Agronomic characteristics. Aust J Agric Res 43:517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spielmeyer W, Sharp PW, Lagudah ES (2003) Identification and validation of markers linked to broad-spectrum stem rust resistance gene Sr2 in wheat. Crop Sci 43:333–336Google Scholar
  33. Wang J, van Ginkel M, Podlich D, Ye G, Trethowan R, Pfeiffer W, DeLacy IH, Cooper M, Rajaram S (2003) Comparison of two breeding strategies by computer simulation. Crop Sci 43:1764–1773Google Scholar
  34. Wang J, van Ginkel M, Trethowan R, Ye G, DeLacy I, Podlich D, Cooper M (2004) Simulating the effects of dominance and epistasis on selection response in the CIMMYT Wheat Breeding Program using QuCim. Crop Sci 44:2006–2018Google Scholar
  35. Wang J, Eagles HA, Trethowan R, van Ginkel M (2005) Using computer simulation of the selection process and known gene information to assist in parental selection in wheat quality breeding. Aust J Agric Res 56:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang J, Chapman SC, Bonnett DG, Rebetzke GJ, Crouch J (2007) Application of population genetic theory and simulation models to efficiently pyramid multiple genes via marker-assisted selection. Crop Sci 47:580–588Google Scholar
  37. Young ND (1999) A cautiously optimistic vision for marker-assisted selection. Mol Breed 5:505–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiankang Wang
    • 1
  • Scott C. Chapman
    • 2
  • David G. Bonnett
    • 3
    • 4
  • Greg J. Rebetzke
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Crop Science, The National Key Facility for Crop Gene Resources and Genetic Improvement and CIMMYT ChinaChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.CSIRO Plant IndustrySt LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.CSIRO Plant IndustryCanberraAustralia
  4. 4.International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)Mexico, DFMexico

Personalised recommendations