Molecular Breeding

, 35:111 | Cite as

Molecular changes in two maize (Zea mays L.) synthetics after reciprocal selection with two alternative methods



Agronomic evaluations demonstrated that a modification of the classical full-sib reciprocal recurrent selection (RRS-FS) which, in addition to crosses, uses S2 families evaluation (RRS-FS-S2) is more efficient than the classical method for developing high-yielding crosses between two varieties. The objective of this study was to investigate the changes in genetic diversity and structure after performing RRS-FS and RRS-FS-S2 selections. RRS-FS-S2 reduced more the variability, produced more differentiation between cycles of selection derived from the same materials but less between reciprocal populations, and produced a more clear change in the contribution of the parental lines than RRS-FS. On the other hand, the type of selection method did not have a considerable effect on the structure of the populations measured as departure of Hardy–Weinberg (HW) equilibrium at single markers and on linkage disequilibrium (LD) between pairs of markers. We identified some individual markers which were not in HW equilibrium in several populations probably due to genes favouring assortative mating. We also found pairs of markers which increased their LD with selection probably due to epistasis.


Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium Linkage disequilibrium Recurrent selection Molecular markers Population genetics Genetic variability 



Research was supported by the Spanish Plan of Research and Development (AGL2012-33415). Bernardo Ordas acknowledges a Ramon y Cajal contract from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

Supplementary material

11032_2015_308_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (80 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 79 kb)
11032_2015_308_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (72 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 71 kb)


  1. Bauer E, Falque M, Walter H et al (2013) Intraspecific variation of recombination rate in maize. Gen Biol 14:R103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butron A, Tarrío R, Revilla P, Ordás A, Malvar RA (2005) Molecular changes in the maize composite EPS12 during selection for resistance to pink stem borer. Theor Appl Genet 110:044–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butron A, Revilla P, Romay MC, Ordas A, Malvar RA (2009) Causes of agronomic differences between synthetics developed by the random and convergent cross methods. Field Crop Res 110:229–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Comstock RE, Robinson HF, Harvey PH (1949) A breeding procedure designed to make maximum use of both general and specific combining ability. Agron J 41:360–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ducrocq S, Giauffret C, Madur D, Valerie Combes, Dumas F, Jouanne S, Coubriche D, Jamin P, Moreau L, Charcosset A (2009) Fine mapping and haplotype structure analysis of a major flowering time quantitative trait locus on maize chromosome 10. Genetics 183:1555–1563CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hallauer AR, Eberhart SA (1970) Reciprocal full-sib selection. Crop Sci 10:315–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hinze LL, Kresovich S, Nason JD, Lamkey KR (2005) Population genetic diversity in a maize reciprocal recurrent selection program. Crop Sci 45:2435–2442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kahler AI, Hallauer AR, Gardner CO (1986) Allozyme polymorphisms within and among open-pollinated and adapted exotic populations of maize. Theor Appl Genet 72:592–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Labate JA, Lamkey KR, Lee M, Woodman WL (1997) Molecular genetic diversity after reciprocal recurrent selection in BSSS and BSCB1 maize populations. Crop Sci 37:416–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Labate JA, Lamkey KR, Lee M, Woodman WL (2000) Hardy–Weinberg and linkage equilibrium estimates in the BSSS and BSCB1 random mated populations. Maydica 45:243–255Google Scholar
  11. Lewis PO, Zaykin D (2001) Genetic data analysis: computer program for the analysis of allelic data, version 1.0 (d16c).
  12. Liu YG, Whittier RF (1994) Preparation of megabase plant DNA from nuclei in agarose plugs and microbeads. Nucleic Acids Res 22:2168–2169CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Moreno-Gonzalez J, Hallauer AR (1982) Combined S2 and crossbred family selection in full-sib reciprocal recurrent selection. Theor Appl Genet 61:353–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nei M (1978) Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89:583–590PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ordas B, Butron A, Alvarez A, Revilla P, Malvar RA (2012) Comparison of two methods of reciprocal selection in maize (Zea mays L.). Theor Appl Genet 124:1183–1191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Peña-Asin J, Alvarez A, Ordas B (2013) Molecular changes during intra and inter recurrent selection of two populations of maize: one adapted and one non adapted to the selection environment. Euphytica 193:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pinto LR, Vieira MCL, de Souza CL, de Souza AP (2003) Genetic diversity assessed by microsatellites in tropical maize populations submitted to a high-intensity reciprocal recurrent selection. Euphytica 134:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Romay MC, Butron A, Ordas A, Revilla P, Ordas B (2012) Effect of recurrent selection on the genetic structure of two broad-based Spanish maize populations. Crop Sci 52:1493–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weir BS (1996) Genetic data analysis II. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Misión Biológica de GaliciaCSICPontevedraSpain

Personalised recommendations