Advertisement

Euphytica

, 215:46 | Cite as

Molecular characterisation of maize introgressed inbred lines bred in different environments

  • Lennin Musundire
  • John Derera
  • Shorai DariEmail author
  • Pangirayi Tongoona
  • Jill E. Cairns
Article

Abstract

Establishing detailed information on genetic diversity and relationships among maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines in a breeding programme help ensure effective utilization of germplasm. Introgression of temperate maize germplasm into 12 tropical elite maize inbred lines using a common donor inbred line and different selection environments might disrupt the heterotic grouping system. Therefore, the objective of the study was to determine the effect of introgression on the clustering pattern of the newly introgressed inbred lines and to identify unique genotypes for breeding. A total of 76 introgressed inbred lines derived through pedigree crosses of introgression of 12 elite tropical inbred lines from three major heterotic groups N3, SC and P with a common donor temperate maize inbred line (08CED6_7_B) were used in the study. In addition to the derived 76 introgressed inbred lines, 26 temperate parental inbred lines and 21 elite tropical parental inbred lines with known heterotic group classification were also included in the study as references samples for heterotic groupings to give a total of 123 inbred lines for the study. Introgressed inbred lines derived from four generations of pedigree selection in three distinct environments in Zimbabwe and South Africa were characterised using 20 SSR markers. The 20 SSR markers proved very effective in discriminating the introgressed inbred lines according to genetic distance and clustering. A total of 83 alleles were detected with an average of 4.15 alleles per locus, and had an allelic diversity of 0.53 and PIC of 0.47. Introgression of temperate maize germplasm into tropical elite inbred lines did not disrupt heterotic groupings, because introgressed inbred lines remained genetically inclined towards the original heterotic groups from which they were derived. However, there were some introgressed inbred lines (14%), which did not show any inclination to any of the heterotic groups. Marked genetic difference noted within and across heterotic groupings for the introgressed inbred lines provides germplasm variation that can be exploited for inbred line development and hybrid formation, respectively.

Keywords

Maize Introgression Genetic diversity SSR markers Heterotic grouping 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was fully supported and funded by Seed Co Pvt Ltd. We thank all research personnel at various sites for conducting the trials.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there to be no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10681_2019_2367_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. Abadassi J, Herve Y (2000) Introgression of temperate germplasm to improve an elite tropical maize population. Euphytica 113:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. http://www.dnalandmarks.ca. Accessed 18 Sept 2013
  3. http://www.genemapperV40.com. Accessed 18 Sept 2013
  4. Ahmad SQ, Khan S, Ghaffar M, Ahmad F (2011) Gene action for some agronomic traits in maize (Zea mays L.). Crop Breed J 1:133–141Google Scholar
  5. Ali F, Shah IA, Rahman H ur, Noor M, Durrishahwar M, Khan Y, Ullah I, Yan J (2012) Heterosis for yield and agronomic attributes in diverse maize germplasm. Aust J Crop Sci 6:455–462Google Scholar
  6. Bordes J, Charmet G, de Vaulx RD, Lapierre A, Pollacsek M et al (2007) Doubled-haploid versus single-seed descent and S1-family variation for testcross performance in a maize population. Euphytica 154:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choukan R, Hossainzadeh A, Ghannadha MR, Warburton ML, Talei AR et al (2006) Use of SSR data to determine relationships and potential heterotic groupings within medium to late maturing Iranian maize inbred lines. Field Crops Res 95:212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. George MLC, Regalado E, Li W, Cao M, Dahlan M et al (2004) Molecular characterization of Asian maize inbred lines by multiple laboratories. Theor Appl Genet 109:80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodman MM (1999) Broadening the genetic diversity in maize breeding by use of exotic germplasm. Madison, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Hallauer AR, Miranda JB (1988) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  11. Laborda PR, Oliveira KM, Garcia AAF, Paterniani MEAGZ, de Souza AP (2005) Tropical maize germplasm: What can we say about its genetic diversity in the light of molecular markers? Theor Appl Genet 111:1288–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu J (2004) Powermaker V.3.25. http://www.powermarker.net. Accessed 18 Sept 2013
  13. McClosky B, Tanksley SD (2013) The impact of recombination on short-term selection gain in plant breeding experiments. Theor Appl Genet 126:2299–2312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nei M (1983) Relative efficiencies of different tree-making methods for molecular data. In: Miyamoto MM, Cracraft J (eds) Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 90–128Google Scholar
  15. Nelson PT, Goodman MM (2008) Evaluation of elite exotic maize inbreds for use in temperate breeding. Crop Sci 48:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nelson PT, Jones MP, Goodman MM (2006) Selecting among available, elite tropical maize inbreds for use in long term temperate breeding. Maydica 51:255–262Google Scholar
  17. Pabendon MB, Dahlan M, Sutrisno E, Regalado E, George ML (2004) Preliminary study of genetic diversity of Indonesian maize inbreds collection. In: Srinivasan G, Zaidi PH, Prasanna BM, Gonzalez F, Lesnick K (eds) Proceedings of the eighth Asian regional maize workshop: new technologies for the new millennium Bangkok, Thailand 5–8 August 2002. CIMMYT, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  18. Patto MCV, Satovic Z, Pego S, Fevereiro P (2004) Assessing the genetic diversity of Portuguese maize germplasm using microsatellite markers. Euphytica 137:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prasanna BM (2012) Diversity in global maize germplasm: characterization and utilization. J Biol Sci 37:843–855Google Scholar
  20. Prasanna BM, Mohammadi SA, Sudan C, Nair SK, Garg A et al (2004) Application of molecular marker technologies for maize improvement in India—present status and prospects. In: Srinivasan G, Zaidi PH, Prasanna BM, Gonzalez F, Lesnick K (eds) Proceedings of the eighth Asian regional maize workshop: New technologies for the new millennium. Bangkok, Thailand 5–8 August 2002. CIMMYT, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  21. Reif JC, Fischer S, Schrag TA, Lamkey KR, Klein D et al (2010) Broadening the genetic base of European maize heterotic pools with US Cornbelt germplasm using field and molecular marker data. Theor Appl Genet 120:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sharopova N, McMullen MD, Schultz L, Schroeder S, Sanchez-Villeda H et al (2002) Development and mapping of SSR markers for maize. Plant Mol Biol 48:463–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh BD (2006) Plant breeding principles and methods. Darya Ganj, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  24. Tallury SP, Goodman MM (1999) Experimental evaluation of the potential of tropical germplasm for temperate maize improvement. Theor Appl Genet 98:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tarter JA, Goodman MM, Holland JB (2004) Recovery of exotic alleles in semi exotic maize inbreds derived from crosses between Latin American accessions and a temperate line. Theor Appl Genet 109:609–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang CL, Cheng FF, Sun ZH, Tang JH, Wu LC et al (2008) Genetic analysis of photoperiod sensitivity in a tropical by temperate maize recombinant inbred population using molecular markers. Theor Appl Genet 117:1129–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wende A, Shimelis H, Derera J, Mosisa W, Danson et al (2012) Genetic interrelationships among medium to late maturing tropical maize inbred lines using selected SSR markers. Euphytica 191:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wijnker E, de Jong H (2008) Managing meiotic recombination in plant breeding. Trends Plant Sci 13:640–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xiao J, Li J, McCouch SR, Tanksley SD (1996) Genetic diversity and its relationship to hybrid performance and heterosis in rice as revealed by PCR-based markers. Theor Appl Genet J 92:637–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yao Q, Yang K, Pan G, Rong T (2007) Genetic diversity of maize (Zea mays L.) landraces from South west China based on SSR data. J Genet Genom 34:851–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang Q, Zhou ZO, Yang GP, Xu CG, Liu KD et al (1996) Molecular marker heterozygosity and hybrid performance in India and Japonica rice. Theor Appl Genet J 93:1218–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang S, Li X, Yuan L, Li M, Peng Z (2004) Heterotic groups and exploitation of heterosis-methodology, strategy, and use in hybrid maize breeding in China. In: Srinivasan G, Zaidi PH, Prasanna BM, Gonzalez F, Lesnick K (eds) Proceedings of the eighth Asian regional maize workshop: new technologies for the new millennium. Bangkok, Thailand 5–8 August 2002. CIMMYT, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhi-zhai L, Rong-hua G, Jiu-ran Z, Yi-lin C, Feng-ge W et al (2010) Analysis of Genetic Diversity and population structure of maize landraces from the south maize region of China. Agric Sci China 9:1251–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lennin Musundire
    • 1
  • John Derera
    • 2
  • Shorai Dari
    • 3
    Email author
  • Pangirayi Tongoona
    • 4
  • Jill E. Cairns
    • 5
  1. 1.Seed Co Ltd, Rattray Arnold Research StationChisipite, HarareZimbabwe
  2. 2.African Centre for Crop Improvement, School of Agricultural Sciences and AgribusinessUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalScottsville, PietermaritzburgSouth Africa
  3. 3.Crop Science Department, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of ZimbabweMt Pleasant, HarareZimbabwe
  4. 4.West African Centre for Crop Improvement (WACCI), University of GhanaAccraGhana
  5. 5.International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)HarareZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations