Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 120, Issue 6, pp 1193–1205 | Cite as

Genetic dissection of chromosome substitution lines of cotton to discover novel Gossypium barbadense L. alleles for improvement of agronomic traits

  • Sukumar SahaEmail author
  • Jixiang Wu
  • Johnie N. Jenkins
  • Jack C. McCarty
  • Russell Hayes
  • David M. Stelly
Original Paper

Abstract

We recently released a set of 17 chromosome substitution (CS-B) lines (2n = 52) that contain Gossypium barbadense L. doubled-haploid line ‘3-79’ germplasm systematically introgressed into the Upland inbred ‘TM-1’ of G. hirsutum (L.). TM-1 yields much more than 3-79, but cotton from the latter has superior fiber properties. To explore the use of these quasi-isogenic lines in studying gene interactions, we created a partial diallel among six CS-B lines and the inbred TM-1, and characterized their descendents for lint percentage, boll weight, seedcotton yield and lint yield across four environments. Phenotypic data on the traits were analyzed according to the ADAA genetic model to detect significant additive, dominance, and additive-by-additive epistasis effects at the chromosome and chromosome-by-chromosome levels of CS-B lines. For example, line 3-79 had the lowest boll weight, seedcotton yield and lint yield, but CS-B22Lo homozygous dominance genetic effects on seedcotton and lint yield were nearly four times those of TM-1, and its hybrids with TM-1 had the highest additive-by-additive epistatic effects on seedcotton and lint yield. CS-B14sh, 17, 22Lo and 25 produced positive homozygous dominance effects on lint yield, whereas doubly heterozygous combinations of CS-B14sh with CS-B17, 22Lo and 25 produced negative dominance effects, suggesting that epistatic effects between genes in these chromosomes strongly affect lint yield. The results underscore the opportunities to systematically identify genomic regions harboring genes that impart agronomically significant effects via epistatic interactions. The chromosome-by-chromosome approach significantly complements other strategies to detect and quantify epistatic interaction effects, and the quasi-isogenic nature of families and lines from CS-B intermatings will facilitate high-resolution localization, development of markers for selection and map-assisted identification of genes involved in strong epistatic effects.

Keywords

Dominance Effect Specific Combine Ability Epistatic Effect Upland Cotton Lint Yield 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge coordinated research support by Texas AgriLife Research, Cotton Inc., Texas State Support Committee and Texas Department of Agriculture Food and Fiber Research Grant Program and long term technical assistance of Mr. Dwaine A. Raska in synthesis of the CS lines. We thank Dr. Ted Wallace, Mississippi State University, Dr. David Fang, USDA/ARS, Stoneville, MS and Dr. H. Sakhanokho, USDA/ARS, Poplarville, MS for reviewing and providing valuable suggestions to improve this manuscript. We also thank Ms. L. Hendrix, USDA/ARS, Mississippi State, MS for her help in this research. This paper was approved for publication as Journal Article No. J-11463 of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University.

References

  1. Beaseley JO, Brown MS (1942) Asynaptic Gossypium plants and their polyploids. J Agric Res 65:421–427Google Scholar
  2. Bowman D (1999) Public cotton breeders-do we need them? J Cot Sci 3:139–152Google Scholar
  3. Bowman DT, May OL, Calhoun DS (1996) Genetic base of upland cotton cultivars released between 1970 and 1990. Crop Sci 36:577–581Google Scholar
  4. Cockerham CC (1980) Random and fixed effect in plant genetics. Theor Appl Genet 56:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gingle AR, Yang H, Chee PW, May OL, Rong J, Bowman DT, Lubbers EL, Day JL, Paterson AH (2006) An integrated web resource for cotton. Crop Sci 46:1998–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. He DH, Lin ZX, Zhang XL, Zhang YX, Li W, Nie YC, Guo XP (2008) Dissection of genetic variance in advanced generations from an interspecific cross of Gossypium hirsutum and G. barbadense. Plant Breed 127:286–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jenkins JN, Wu J, McCarty JC, Saha S, Gutierrez OA, Hayes R, Stelly DM (2006) Genetic effects of thirteen Gossypium barbadense L. chromosome substitution lines in topcrosses with Upland cotton cultivars: I. Yield and yield components. Crop Sci 46:1169–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jenkins JN, McCarty JC, Wu J, Saha S, Gutierrez OA, Hayes R, Stelly DM (2007) Genetic effects of thirteen Gossypium barbadense L. chromosome substitution lines in topcrosses with Upland Cotton cultivars: II fiber quality traits. Crop Sci 47:561–570Google Scholar
  9. Jiang C, Wright RJ, Woo SS, DelMonte TA, Paterson AH (2000) QTL analysis of leaf morphology in tetraploid Gossypium (cotton). Theor Appl Genet 100:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lacape JM, Nguyen TB, Courtois B, Belot JL, Giband M, Gourlot JP, Gawryziak G, Roques S, Hau B (2005) QTL analysis of cotton fiber quality using multiple Gossypium hirsutum × Gossypium barbadense backcross generations. Crop Sci 45:123–140Google Scholar
  11. Li Z-K, Fu B-Y, Gao Y-M, Xu J-L, Ali J, Lafitte HR, Jiang Y-Z, Domingo RJ, Vijayakumar CHM, Maghirang R, Zheng T-Q, Zhu L-H (2005) Genome-wide introgression lines and their use in genetic and molecular dissection of complex phenotypes in rice (Oryza sativa L). Plant Mol Biol 59:33–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. McCarty JC, Jenkins JN (2005) Registration of 14 primitive derived cotton germplasm lines with improved fiber strength. Crop Sci 45:2668–2669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCarty JC, Jenkins JN, Wu J (2004) Primitive accession derived germplasm by cultivar crosses as sources for cotton improvement: I. Phenotypic values and variance components. Crop Sci 44:1226–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCarty JC, Wu J, Saha S, Jenkins JN, Hayes R (2006) Effects of chromosome 5sh from Gossypium barbadense L. on flower production in G. hirsutum L. Euphytica 152:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCarty JC Jr, Wu J, Jenkins JN (2007) Use of primitive derived cotton accessions from agronomic and fiber traits improvement: variance components and genetic effects. Crop Sci 47:100–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mergeai G (2003) Forty years of genetic improvement of cotton through interspecific hybridization at Gembloux Agricultural University: achievement and prospects. In: Swanepol A (ed) Proceedings of the world cotton research conference, Cape Town, South Africa, pp 119–133Google Scholar
  17. Miller RG (1974) The jackknife: a review. Biometrika 61:1–15Google Scholar
  18. Osborn TC, Kramer C, Graham E, Braun CJ (2008) Insight and innovations from wide crosses: examples from Canola and Tomato. Crop Sci 47(S3):S229–S237Google Scholar
  19. Reinisch AJ, Dong J, Brubaker CL, Stelly DM, Wendel JF, Paterson AH (1994) A detailed RFLP map of cotton, Gossypium hirsutum × Gossypium barbadense: chromosome organization and evolution in a disomic polyploid genome. Genetics 138:829–847PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rhyne CL (1958) Linkage studies in Gossypium. I. Altered recombination in allotetraploid G. hirsutum L. following linkage group transference from related diploid species. Genetics 43:822–834PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Robinson FA, Percival AE (1997) Resistance to Meloidogyne incognita race 3 and Rotylenchulus reniformis in wild accessions of Gossypium hirsutum and G. barbadense from Mexico. J. Nematol 29:746–755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rong J, Abbey C, Bowers JE, Brubaker CL, Chang C, Chee PW, Delmonte TA, Ding X, Garza JJ, Marler BS, Park C, Pierce GJ, Rainey KM, Rastogi VK, Schulze SR, Trolinder NL, Wendel JF, Wilkins TA, Williams-Coplin TD, Wing RA, Wright RJ, Zhao X, Zhu L, Paterson AH (2004) A 3347-locus genetic recombination map of sequence-tagged sites reveals features of genome organization, transmission and evolution of cotton (Gossypium). Genetics 166:389–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rong J, Feltus FA, Waghmare VN, Pierce GJ, Chee PW, Draye X, Saranga Y, Wright RJ, Wilkins TA, May OL, Smith CW, Gunnway JR, Wendel JF, Paterson AH (2007) Meta-analysis of polyploidy cotton QTLs shows unequal contributions of subgenomes to a complex network of genes clusters implicated in lint fiber development. Genetics 176:2577–2588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Saha S, Jenkins JN, Wu J, McCarty JC, Gutierrez OA, Percy RG, Cantrell RG, Stelly DM (2006) Effects of chromosome-specific introgression in Upland cotton on fiber and agronomic traits. Genetics 172:1927–1938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Shurley D (2008) Cotton and the biofuels craze. Cotton Farm. August issueGoogle Scholar
  26. Stelly DM, Saha S, Raska DA, Jenkins JN, McCarty JC, Gutierrez OA (2005) Registration of 17 Upland (Gossypium hirsutum) germplasm lines disomic for different G. barbadense chromosome or arm substitutions. Crop Sci 45:2663–2665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tanksley SD, McCough SR (1997) Seed banks and molecular maps: Unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science 277:1063–1066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ulloa M (2006) Heritability and correlations of agronomic and fiber traits in an okra leaf Upland cotton population. Crop Sci 46:1508–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ulloa M, Saha S, Jenkins JN, Meredith WR, McCarty JC, Stelly DM (2005) Chromosomal assignment of RFLP linkage groups harboring important QTLs on an intraspecific cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) joinmap. J Hered 96:132–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service (2002) Census of agriculture. USDA-NASS, Washington, DC. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp. Accessed 16 Sept 2008
  31. Van Esbroeck GA, Bowman DT (1998) Cotton germplasm diversity and its importance to cultivar development. J Cot Sci 2:121–129Google Scholar
  32. Wu J, Jenkins JN, McCarty JC Jr, Saha S, Stelly DM (2006a) An additive-dominance model to determine chromosomal effects in chromosome substitution lines and other germplasms. Theor Appl Genet 112:391–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wu J, Jenkins JN, McCarty JC Jr, Wu D (2006b) Variance component estimation using the additive, dominance, and additive × additive model when genotypes vary across environments. Crop Sci 46:174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhu J (1989) Estimation of genetic variance components in the general mixed model. Dissertation, North Carolina State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhu J (1993) Methods of predicting genotype value and heterosis for offspring of hybrids (Chinese). J Biomath 8(1):32–44Google Scholar
  36. Zhu J (1994) General genetic models and new analysis methods for quantitative traits. J Zhejiang Agric Univ 20:551–559Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sukumar Saha
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jixiang Wu
    • 2
    • 4
  • Johnie N. Jenkins
    • 1
  • Jack C. McCarty
    • 1
  • Russell Hayes
    • 1
  • David M. Stelly
    • 3
  1. 1.Crop Science Research LaboratoryUSDA-ARSMississippi StateUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant and Soil SciencesMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  3. 3.Department of Soil and Crop SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  4. 4.Plant Science DepartmentSouth Dakota UniversityBrookingsUSA

Personalised recommendations