, Volume 165, Issue 3, pp 419–434

Relationship between phenotypic and genetic diversity of parental genotypes and the specific combining ability and heterosis effects in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

  • K. Krystkowiak
  • T. Adamski
  • M. Surma
  • Z. Kaczmarek


The purpose of the study was to evaluate the relationship between the genetic distances (GD) and phenotypic distances (PD) of parents and the specific combining ability (SCA) and heterosis effects. The experiment comprised 18 parental genotypes of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and 76 F2 hybrids, obtained after crossing in a line × tester scheme. Parents and hybrids were examined in a field experiment conducted in a block design with three replications. SCA as well as mid-parent heterosis effects were estimated for selected morphological and technological traits. PDs and GDs were investigated between pairs of parental genotypes. GD between parental genotypes was evaluated by using randomly amplified polymorphic DNA markers. Heterosis was observed in all hybrids, and protein content exhibited the highest heterosis among the seven examined traits. The relationship between PD and GD as well as the SCA and mid-parent heterosis effects were evaluated using correlation coefficient. The correlation between PD, SCA and heterosis were low and not significant for the examined traits, whereas the correlation between SCA, heterosis and GDs were significant for protein content and rheological properties. The results indicate that GDs between parents can be used to predict performance of hybrids for selected technological traits.


Triticum aestivum Combining ability Genetic distance Heterosis Line × tester analysis Phenotypic distance Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA 


  1. Acquaah G (2006) Principles of plant genetics & breeding. Blackwell Publishing LtdGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuja SL, Dhayal LS (2007) Combining ability estimates for yield and fibre quality traits in 4 × 13 line × tester crosses of Gossypium hirsutum. Euphytica 153:87–98. doi:10.1007/s10681-006-9244-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbosa-Neto JF, Sorells ME, Cisar G (1996) Prediction of heterosis in wheat using coefficient of parentage and RFLP-based estimates of genetic relationship. Genome 39:1142–1149. doi:10.1139/g96-144 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardo R (1994) Prediction of maize single-cross performance using RFLPs and information from related hybrids. Crop Sci 34:20–25Google Scholar
  5. Betran FJ, Ribaut JM, Beck D, de Leon DG (2003) Genetic diversity, specific combining ability and heterosis in tropical maize under stress and non stress environments. Crop Sci 43:797–806Google Scholar
  6. Bhutta WM, Akhtar J, Ibrahim M, Shahzad A (2006) Genetic variation between Pakistani wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes as revealed by Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers. S Afr J Bot 72:280–283. doi:10.1016/j.sajb.2005.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boppenmaier J, Malchinger AE, Brunklaus-Jung E, Geiger HH, Herrmann RG (1992) Genetic Diversity for RFLPs in European maize inbreds I. Relation to performance of flint × dent crosses for forge traits. Crop Sci 32:895–902Google Scholar
  8. Boppenmaier J, Malchinger AE, Seitz G, Geiger HH, Herrmann RG (1993) Genetic diversity for RFLPs in European maize inbreds. Plant Breed 111:217–226. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0523.1993.tb00632.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burkhamer RL, Lanning SP, Martens RJ, Martin JM, Talbert LE (1998) Predicting progeny variance from parental divergence in hard red spring wheat. Crop Sci 38:243–248Google Scholar
  10. Cao W, Hucl P, Scoles G, Chibbar RN (1998) Genetic diversity within spelta and macha wheats based on RAPD analysis. Euphytica 104:181–189. doi:10.1023/A:1018628102650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cerna FJ, Rafalski A, Tingey S, Dyer D (1997) Relationship between seed yield heterosis and molecular marker heterozygosity in soybean. Theor Appl Genet 95:460–467. doi:10.1007/s001220050583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan KF, Sun M (1997) Genetic diversity and relationships detected by isozyme and RAPD analysis of crop and wild species of Amaranthus. Theor Appl Genet 95:865–873. doi:10.1007/s001220050637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen L, Gao QK, Chen DM, Xu CJ (2005) The use of RAPD markers for detecting genetic diversity, relationship and molecular identification of Chinese elite tea genetic Resources [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] preserved in tea germplasm repository. Biodivers Conserv 14:1433–1444. doi:10.1007/s10531-004-9787-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheres MT, Miller JF, Crane JM, Knapp SJ (2000) Genetic distance as a predictor of heterosis and hybrid performance within and between heterosis group in sunflower. Theor Appl Genet 100:889–894. doi:10.1007/s001220051366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbellini M, Perenzin M, Accerbi M, Vaccino P, Borghi B (2002) Genetic diversity in bread wheat, as revealed by coefficient of parentage and molecular markers, and its relationship to hybrid performance. Euphytica 123:273–285. doi:10.1023/A:1014946018765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox TS, Murphy JP (1990) The effect of parental divergence on F2 heterosis in winter wheat crosses. Theor Appl Genet 79:241–250. doi:10.1007/BF00225958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox TS, Kiang YT, Gorman MB, Rogers DM (1985) Genetic relationships between hard red winter wheat cultivars as evaluated by pedigree analysis and gliadin polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis patterns. Crop Sci 25:1058–1062Google Scholar
  18. Diers BW, Mc Vetty PBE, Osborn TC (1996) Relationship between heterosis and genetic distance based on Restriction Fragment Lenght Polymorphism markers in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Crop Sci 36:79–83Google Scholar
  19. Dreisigacker S, Melchinger AE, Zhang P, Ammar K, Flachenecker C, Hoisington D et al (2005) Hybrid performance and heterosis in spring bread wheat, and their relations to SSR-based genetic distances and coefficients of parentage. Euphytica 144:51–59. doi:10.1007/s10681-005-4053-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dudley JW, Saghai-Maroof MA, Refener GK (1991) Molecular markers and grouping of parents in maize breeding programs. Crop Sci 31:718–723Google Scholar
  21. Goldshalk EB, Lee M, Lamkey KR (1990) Relationship of Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms to single-cross hybrid performance in maize. Theor Appl Genet 80:273–280Google Scholar
  22. Jain A, Bhatia S, Banga SS, Prakash S, Lakshmikumaran M (1994) Potential use of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) technique to study the genetic diversity in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) and its relationship to heterosis. Theor Appl Genet 88:116–122. doi:10.1007/BF00222403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jinks JL, Pooni HS (1976) Predicting the properties of recombinant inbred lines derived by single seed decent. Heredity 36:253–266. doi:10.1038/hdy.1976.30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joshi CP, Nguyen HT (1993) RAPD (random amplified polymorphic DNA) analysis based intervarietal genetic relationships among hexaploid wheats. Plant Sci 93:95–103. doi:10.1016/0168-9452(93)90038-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaczmarek Z, Krajewski P (1996) Multivariate evaluation of parental forms on the basis of incomplete crossing system. J Genet Breed 50:15–22Google Scholar
  26. Kaczmarek Z, Adamski T, Surma M, Czajka S (2005) Multivariate GCA and SCA effects in an analysis of top-cross and line × tester progenies. In: Prus-Głowacki W (ed) Variability and evolution—new perspectives. Academic Press UAM, Poznań, pp 299–310Google Scholar
  27. Kuczyńska A, Milczarski P, Surma M, Masojć P, Adamski T (2001) Genetic diversity among cultivars of spring barley revealed by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD). J Appl Genet 42:43–48 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuczyńska A, Surma M, Kaczmarek Z, Adamski T (2007) Relationship between phenotypic and genetic diversity of parental genotypes and the frequency of transgression effects in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Plant Breed 126:361–368. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0523.2007.01367.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kwon SJ, Ha WG, Hwang HG, Yang SJ, Choi HC, Moon HP et al (2002) Relationship between heterosis and genetic divergence in ‘Tongil’-type rice. Plant Breed 121:487–492. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0523.2002.00760.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee M, Goldshalk KR, Lamkey KR, Woodman WW (1989) Association of restriction fragment length polymorphisms among maize inbreds with agronomic performance of their crosses. Crop Sci 29:1067–1071Google Scholar
  31. Lefort-Buston M, Dattee Y, Guillot-Lemoine B (1987) Heterosis and genetic distance in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.): use of kinship coefficient. Genome 29:11–18Google Scholar
  32. Li ZK, Luo LJ, Mei HW, Wang DL, Shu QY, Tabien R et al (2001) Overdominant epistatic loci are the primery genetic basis of inbreeding depression and heterosis I. Biomass and grain yield. Genetics 158:1737–1753PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu ZQ, Pei Y, Pu ZJ (1999) Relationship between hybrid performance and genetic diversity based on RAPD markers in wheat, Triticum aestivum. Plant Breed 118:119–123. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0523.1999.118002119.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marciniak K, Kaczmarek Z, Adamski T, Surma M (2003) The anther-culture response of Triticale line × tester progenies. Cell Mol Biol Lett 8:343–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin JM, Talbert LE, Lanning SP, Blake NK (1995) Hybrid performance in wheat as related to parental diversity. Crop Sci 35:104–108Google Scholar
  36. Mather K, Jinks JL (1982) Biometrical genetics, 3rd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Melchinger AE, Lee M, Lamkey KR, Woodman WL (1990) Genetic diversity for restriction fragment length polymorphisms among maize inbreds with agronomic performance of their crosses. Crop Sci 33:944–950Google Scholar
  38. Melchinger AE, Boppenmaier J, Dhillon BS, Pollmer WG, Herrmann RG (1992) Genetic diversity for RFLPs in European maize inbreds: II Relation to performance of hybrids within versus between heterotic groups for forage traits. Theor Appl Genet 84:672–681. doi:10.1007/BF00224167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moser H, Lee M (1994) RFLP variation and genealogical distance, multivariate distance, heterosis and genetic variance in oats. Theor Appl Genet 87:947–956. doi:10.1007/BF00225789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Narro L, Pandey S, Cross J, De Leon C, Salazar F (2003) Using line × tester interaction for the formation of yellow maize synthetics tolerant to acid soils. Crop Sci 43:1718–1728Google Scholar
  41. Oettler G, Becker HC, Hoppe G (2001) Heterosis for yield and other agronomic traits of winter triticale F1 and F2 hybrids. Plant Breed 120:351–353. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0523.2001.00624.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oury FX, Brabant P, Berard P, Pluchard P (2000) Predicting hybrid value in bread wheat: biometric modeling based on a “top-cross” design. Theor Appl Genet 100:96–104. doi:10.1007/PL00002905 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paczos-Grzeda E (2004) Pedigree, RAPD and simplified AFLP-based assessment of genetic relationships among Avena sativa L. cultivars. Euphytica 138:13–22. doi:10.1023/B:EUPH.0000047055.99322.7a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perenzin M, Corbellini M, Accerbi M, Vaccino P, Borghi B (1998) Bread wheat: F1 hybrid performance and parental diversity estimates using molecular markers. Euphytica 100:273–279. doi:10.1023/A:1018324811038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Plaschke J, Ganal MW, Roder MS (1995) Detection of genetic diversity in closely related bread wheat using microsatellite markers. Theor Appl Genet 91:1001–1007. doi:10.1007/BF00223912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pomaj MS (2002) Preliminary results of a study in triticale hybrids. In: Proc. 5th int. triticale symp Radzików, vol II, pp 299–302Google Scholar
  47. Rajora OP, Rahman MH (2003) Microsalellite DNA and RAPD fingerprinting, identification and genetic relationships of hybrid poplar (Populus × canadensis) cultivars. Theor Appl Genet 106:470–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Riaz A, Li G, Queressh Z, Swatt MS, Quiros CF (2001) Genetic diversity of oilseed Brassica inbred lines based on Sequence-Related Amplified Polymorphism and its relation to hybrid performance. Plant Breed 120:411–415. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0523.2001.00636.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sant VJ, Patankar AG, Sarode ND, Mhase LB, Sainani MN, Deshmukh RB et al (1999) Potential of DNA markers in detecting divergence and in analyzing heterosis in Indian elite chickpea cultivars. Theor Appl Genet 98:1217–1225. doi:10.1007/s001220051187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shamsuddin AKM (1985) Genetic diversity in relation to heterosis and combining ability in spring wheat. Theor Appl Genet 70:306–308. doi:10.1007/BF00304916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shen JX, Fu TD, Yang GSY, Tu JX, Ma CZ (2006) Prediction of heterosis using QTLs for yield traits in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Euphytica 151:165–171. doi:10.1007/s10681-006-9137-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sheng JX, Lu GY, Fu TD, Yang GS (2002) Relationship between genetic diversity and hybrid performance in Oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Acta Agron Sin 28:622–627Google Scholar
  53. Shieh GJ, Thseng FS (2002) Genetic diversity of Tainan-white maize inbred lines and prediction of single cross hybrid performance using RAPD markers. Euphytica 124:307–313. doi:10.1023/A:1015753820623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shoran J, Kant L, Singh RP (2003) Winter and spring wheat: an analysis of combining ability. Cereal Res Commun 31:347–354Google Scholar
  55. Stuber CW, Lincoln E, Wolff DW, Helentijars 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
  56. Sun G, Bond M, Nass H, Martin R, Dong Z (2003) RAPD polymorphisms in spring wheat cultivars and lines with different level of Fusarium resistance. Theor Appl Genet 106:1059–1067PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Thompson D, Henry R (1995) Single-step protocol for preparation of plant tissue for analysis by PCR. Biotechniques 19:394–400Google Scholar
  58. Topal A, Aydin C, Akgun N, Babaoglu M (2004) Diallel cross analysis in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.): identification of best parents for some kernel physical features. Field Crops Res 87:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2003.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tuteja OP, Luthra P, Kumar S (2003) Combining ability analysis in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) for yield and its components. Indian J Agr Sci 73:671–675Google Scholar
  60. Wang YL, Qiao CG, Wang QY (1994) Relation between genetic divergence and heterosis in popcorn. Acta Agronomica Sin 20:223–228Google Scholar
  61. Weißmann S, Weißmann AE (2002) Hybrid triticale- prospects for research and breeding. Part I: Why hybrids? In: Proc. 5th int. triticale symp Radzików, vol I, pp 188–191Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Xiao J, Li J, Yuan L, McCouch SR, Tanksley SD (1996) Genetic diversity and relationship to hybrid performance and heterosis in rice as revealed by PCR-based markers. Theor Appl Genet 92:637–643. doi:10.1007/BF00226083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yu S, Li JX, Xu CG, Tan YF, Gao YJ, Li XH et al (1997) Importance of epistasis as the genetic basis of heterosis in an elite rice hybrid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9226–9231. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.17.9226 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yu CY, Hu SW, Zhao HX, Guo AG, Sun GL (2005) Genetic distances revealed by morphological characters, isozymes, proteins and RAPD markers and their relationships with hybrid performance in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Theor Appl Genet 110:511–519. doi:10.1007/s00122-004-1858-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhang QF, Gao YJ, Yang SH, Ragab RA, Saghai-Moroof MA, Li ZB (1994) A diallel analysis of heterosis in elite hybrid rice based on RFLPs and microsatellites. Theor Appl Genet 89:185–192. doi:10.1007/BF00225139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang QF, Zhou ZQ, Yang GP, Xu CG, Liu KD, Saghai-Maroof MA (1996) Molecular marker heterozygosity and hybrid performance in indica and japonica rice. Theor Appl Genet 93:1218–1224. doi:10.1007/BF00223453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Krystkowiak
    • 1
  • T. Adamski
    • 1
  • M. Surma
    • 1
  • Z. Kaczmarek
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Plant GeneticsPolish Academy of SciencesPoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations