Molecular Breeding

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 533–546 | Cite as

High-density linkage mapping of yield components and epistatic interactions in maize with doubled haploid lines from four crosses

  • M. Stange
  • T. A. Schrag
  • H. F. Utz
  • C. Riedelsheimer
  • E. Bauer
  • A. E. Melchinger
Article

Abstract

Grain yield (GY) is a genetically complex and physiologically multiplicative trait which can be decomposed into the components kernel number (KN) and 100-kernel weight (HKW). Genetic analysis of these less complex yield component traits may give insights into the genetic architecture and predictive ability of complex traits. Here, we investigated how the incorporation of component traits and epistasis in quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping approaches influences the accuracy of GY prediction. High-density genetic maps with 7,000–10,000 polymorphic single nucleotide polymorphisms were constructed for four biparental populations. The populations comprised between 99 and 227 doubled haploid maize lines which were phenotyped in field trials in two environments. Heritability was highest for HKW (88–89 %), intermediate for KN (72–80 %), and lowest for GY (64–83 %). Mapped QTL explained in total 21–55 %, 22–67 %, and 24–75 % of the genotypic variance for GY, KN, and HKW, respectively. Support intervals of QTL were short, indicating that QTL were located with high precision. Co-located QTLs with same parental origin of favorable alleles were detected within populations for different traits and between populations for the same traits. Using GY predictions based on the detected QTL, prediction accuracies (r) determined by cross validation ranged from 0.18 to 0.52. Epistatic models did not outperform the corresponding additive models. In conclusion, models based on QTL positions of component traits support the identification of favorable alleles for multiplicative traits and provide a basis to select superior inbred lines by marker-assisted breeding.

Keywords

QTL High-density Epistasis Maize Grain yield 

Supplementary material

11032_2013_9887_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (40 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 39 kb)
11032_2013_9887_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 19 kb)
11032_2013_9887_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (11 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (XLSX 11 kb)
11032_2013_9887_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (XLSX 23 kb)
11032_2013_9887_MOESM5_ESM.xlsx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (XLSX 20 kb)

References

  1. Aastveit AH, Aastveit K (1993) Effects of genotype-environment interactions on genetic correlations. Theor Appl Genet 86:1007–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astle W, Balding DJ (2009) Population structure and cryptic relatedness in genetic association studies. Stat Sci 24:451–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin D, Lee M (1996) Comparative mapping in F2:3 and F6:7 generations of quantitative trait loci for grain yield and yield components in maize. Theor Appl Genet 92:817–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baierl A, Bogdan M, Frommlet F, Futschik A (2006) On locating multiple interacting quantitative trait loci in intercross designs. Genetics 173:1693–1703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beavis W (1998) QTL analyses: power, precision and accuracy. In: Paterson AH (ed) Molecular analysis of complex traits. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 145–161Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Boer MP, Ter Braak CJF, Jansen RC (2002) A penalized likelihood method for mapping epistatic quantitative trait loci with one-dimensional genome searches. Genetics 162:951–960PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckler ES, Holland JB, Bradbury PJ, Acharya CB, Brown PJ, Browne C, Ersoz E, Flint-Garcia S, Garcia A, Glaubitz JC, Goodman MM, Harjes C, Guill K, Kroon DE, Larsson S, Lepak NK, Li H, Mitchell SE, Pressoir G, Peiffer JA, Rosas MO, Rocheford TR, Romay MC, Romero S, Salvo S, Sanchez Villeda H, Da Silva HS, Sun Q, Tian F, Upadyayula N, Ware D, Yates H, Yu J, Zhang Z, Kresovich S, McMullen MD (2009) The genetic architecture of maize flowering time. Science 325:714–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlborg O, Haley CS (2004) Epistasis: too often neglected in complex trait studies? Nat Genet 5:618–625Google Scholar
  10. Carlborg O, Kerje S, Schütz K, Jacobsson L, Jensen P, Andersson L (2003) A global search reveals epistatic interaction between QTL for early growth in the chicken. Genome Res 13:413–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlborg O, Jacobsson L, Ahgren P, Siegel P, Andersson L (2006) Epistasis and the release of genetic variation during long-term selection. Nat Genet 38:418–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charcosset A, Gallais A (1996) Estimation of the contribution of quantitative trait loci (QTL) to the variance of a quantitative trait by means of genetic markers. Theor Appl Genet 93:1193–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Churchill GA, Doerge RW (1994) Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138:963–971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Daetwyler HD, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA (2010) The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185:1021–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudley JW, Johnson GR (2009) Epistatic models improve prediction of performance in corn. Crop Sci 49:763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eberhart SA, Russell WA, Penny LH (1964) Double cross hybrid prediction in maize when epistasis is present. Crop Sci 4:2–5Google Scholar
  17. Eshed Y (1996) Less-than-additive epistatic interactions of quantitative trait loci in tomato. Genetics 143:1807–1817PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fan C, Xing Y, Mao H, Lu T, Han B, Xu C, Li X, Zhang Q (2006) GS3, a major QTL for grain length and weight and minor QTL for grain width and thickness in rice, encodes a putative transmembrane protein. Theor Appl Genet 112:1164–1171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guo J, Chen Z, Liu Z, Wang B, Song W, Li W, Chen J, Dai J, Lai J (2011) Identification of genetic factors affecting plant density response through QTL mapping of yield component traits in maize (Zea mays L.). Euphytica 182:409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haley CS, Knott SA (1992) A simple regression method for mapping quantitative trait loci in line crosses using flanking markers. Heredity 69:315–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hallauer AR, Carena MJ, Miranda JB (2010) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  22. Holland JB (2007) Genetic architecture of complex traits in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 10:156–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang X, Paulo M, Boer M (2011) Analysis of natural allelic variation in Arabidopsis using a multiparent recombinant inbred line population. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:4488–4493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krzywinski M, Schein J, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R, Horsman D, Jones SJ, Marra MA (2009) Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res 19:1639–1645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumawat G, Raje RS, Bhutani S, Pal JK, Mithra AS, Gaikwad K, Sharma TR, Singh NK (2012) Molecular mapping of QTLs for plant type and earliness traits in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.). BMC Genet 13:84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lamkey KR, Schnicker BJ, Melchinger AE (1995) Epistasis in an elite maize hybrid and choice of generation for inbred line development. Crop Sci 35:1272–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawrence CJ, Harper LC, Schaeffer ML, Sen TZ, Seigfried TE, Campbell DA (2008) MaizeGDB: the maize model organism database for basic, translational, and applied research. Int J Plant Genom 2008:496957Google Scholar
  28. Lawson HA, Cady JE, Partridge C, Wolf JB, Semenkovich CF, Cheverud JM (2011) Genetic effects at pleiotropic loci are context-dependent with consequences for the maintenance of genetic variation in populations. PLoS Genet 7:e1002256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li YL, Niu SZ, Dong YB, Cui DQ, Wang YZ, Liu YY, Wei MG (2007) Identification of trait-improving quantitative trait loci for grain yield components from a dent corn inbred line in an advanced backcross BC2F2 population and comparison with its F2:3 population in popcorn. Theor Appl Genet 115:129–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li YL, Li XH, Li JZ, Fu JF, Wang YZ, Wei MG (2009) Dent corn genetic background influences QTL detection for grain yield and yield components in high-oil maize. Euphytica 169:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li JZ, Zhang ZW, Li YL, Wang QL, Zhou YG (2011) QTL consistency and meta-analysis for grain yield components in three generations in maize. Theor Appl Genet 122:771–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lu M, Xie C-X, Li X-H, Hao Z-F, Li M-S, Weng J-F, Zhang D-G, Bai L, Zhang S-H (2010) Mapping of quantitative trait loci for kernel row number in maize across seven environments. Mol Breed 28:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lübberstedt T, Frei UK (2012) Application of doubled haploids for target gene fixation in backcross programmes of maize. Plant Breed 131:449–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ma XQ, Tang JH, Teng WT, Yan JB, Meng YJ, Li JS (2007) Epistatic interaction is an important genetic basis of grain yield and its components in maize. Mol Breed 20:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackay TFC, Stone EA, Ayroles JF (2009) The genetics of quantitative traits: challenges and prospects. Nat Rev Genet 10:565–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin M, Miedaner T, Dhillon BS, Ufermann U, Kessel B, Ouzunova M, Schipprack W, Melchinger AE (2011) Colocalization of QTL for gibberella ear rot resistance and low mycotoxin contamination in early european maize. Crop Sci 51:1935–1945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Melchinger AE, Singh M, Link W, Utz HF, Kittlitz E (1994) Heterosis and gene effects of multiplicative characters: theoretical relationships and experimental results from Vicia faba L. Theor Appl Genet 88:343–348Google Scholar
  38. Mode CJ, Robinson HF (1959) Pleiotropism and the genetic variance and covariance. Biometrics 15:518–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peng B, Li Y, Wang Y, Liu C, Liu Z, Tan W, Zhang Y, Wang D, Shi Y, Sun B, Song Y, Wang T, Li Y (2011) QTL analysis for yield components and kernel-related traits in maize across multi-environments. Theor Appl Genet 122:1305–1320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pinson SRM, Park IWD, Paterson AH, Stanselt JW (1997) Epistasis for three grain yield components in rice. Genetics 145:453–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Prigge V, Melchinger AE (2012) Production of haploids and doubled haploids in maize. Methods Mol Biol 877:161–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prigge V, Xu X, Li L, Babu R, Chen S, Atlin GN, Melchinger AE (2012) New insights into the genetics of in vivo induction of maternal haploids, the backbone of doubled haploid technology in maize. Genetics 190:781–793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riedelsheimer C, Technow F, Melchinger AE (2012a) Comparison of whole-genome prediction models for traits with contrasting genetic architecture in a diversity panel of maize inbred lines. BMC Genomics 13:452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Riedelsheimer C, Lisea J, Czedik-Eysenberg A, Supice R, Flis A, Grieder C, Altmann T, Stitt M, Willmitzer L, Melchinger AE (2012b) Genome-wide association mapping of leaf metabolic profiles for dissecting complex traits in maize. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8872–8877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Salvi S, Tuberosa R (2005) To clone or not to clone plant QTLs: present and future challenges. Trends Plant Sci 10:297–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schaeffer M, Byrne P, Coe EH Jr, Science C, Collins F (2006) Consensus quantitative trait maps in maize: a database strategy. Maydica 51:357–367Google Scholar
  47. Searle SR (1971) Linear models. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  48. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1980) Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  49. Song X-J, Huang W, Shi M, Zhu M-Z, Lin H-X (2007) A QTL for rice grain width and weight encodes a previously unknown RING-type E3 ubiquitin ligase. Nat Genet 39:623–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sreenivasulu N, Schnurbusch T (2012) A genetic playground for enhancing grain number in cereals. Trends Plant Sci 17:91–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stich B, Piepho H-P, Schulz B, Melchinger AE (2008) Multi-trait association mapping in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Theor Appl Genet 117:947–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Utz HF (2005) PLABSTAT- A computer program for statistical analysis of plant breeding experiments. 3A. Universität Hohenheim, HohenheimGoogle Scholar
  54. Utz HF (2012) PlabMQTL—software for meta-QTL analysis with composite interval mapping. Version 0.5s. PlabMQTL manual. Institute of Plant Breeding, Seed Science, and Population Genetics, University of Hohenheim, HohenheimGoogle Scholar
  55. Utz HF, Melchinger AE, Schön CC (2000) Bias and sampling error of the estimated proportion of genotypic variance explained by quantitative trait loci determined from experimental data in maize using cross validation and validation with independent samples. Genetics 154:1839–1849PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Ooijen JW (2006) JoinMap® 4, software for the calculation of genetic linkage maps in experimental populations. Kyazma BV, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu Y, Bhat PR, Close TJ, Lonardi S (2008) Efficient and accurate construction of genetic linkage maps from the minimum spanning tree of a graph. PLoS Genet 4:e1000212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xing Z, Tan F, Hua P, Sun L, Xu G, Zhang Q (2002) Characterization of the main effects, epistatic effects and their environmental interactions of QTLs on the genetic basis of yield traits in rice. Theor Appl Genet 105:248–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Xu S, Jia Z (2007) Genomewide analysis of epistatic effects for quantitative traits in barley. Genetics 175:1955–1963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Xue W, Xing Y, Weng X, Zhao Y, Tang W, Wang L, Zhou H, Yu S, Xu C, Li X, Zhang Q (2008) Natural variation in Ghd7 is an important regulator of heading date and yield potential in rice. Nat Genet 40:761–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yang G, Li Y, Wang Q, Zhou Y, Zhou Q, Shen B, Zhang F, Liang X (2011) Detection and integration of quantitative trait loci for grain yield components and oil content in two connected recombinant inbred line populations of high-oil maize. Mol Breed 29:313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yin X, Chasalow SD, Stam P, Kropff MJ, Dourleijn CJ, Bos I, Bindraban PS (2002) Use of component analysis in QTL mapping of complex crop traits: a case study on yield in barley. Plant Breed 121:314–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yu J, Holland JB, McMullen MD, Buckler ES (2008) Genetic design and statistical power of nested association mapping in maize. Genetics 178:539–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zuk O, Hechter E, Sunyaev SR, Lander ES (2012) The mystery of missing heritability: genetic interactions create phantom heritability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:1193–1198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Stange
    • 1
  • T. A. Schrag
    • 1
  • H. F. Utz
    • 1
  • C. Riedelsheimer
    • 1
  • E. Bauer
    • 2
  • A. E. Melchinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Plant Breeding, Seed Science and Population GeneticsUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Plant BreedingTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany

Personalised recommendations