Advertisement

Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 47–52 | Cite as

Estimation of genetic distance and its predictability of F1 hybrid performance in barley

  • Hong-Sik KimEmail author
  • Jung-Gon Kim
  • Seong-Bum Baek
  • Jong-Jin Hwang
Research Article
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

Heterotic performance of hybrids is dependent upon the amount of genetic variability among parents and combining ability of alleles at the loci associated with target traits. This study was carried out to determine if (1) pedigree-based genetic distance could explain molecular levels of genetic diversity, and (2) molecular marker-based genetic distance could predict the degree of hybrid performance in barley. The average value of Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD)-based genetic similarity for all 58 genotypes was 0.641. Twenty-two hulless barley and eight malt barley varieties showed low levels of genetic diversity with higher similarity values than the average of all or of the hulled barley variety pool. Coefficients of parentage (COPs) computed for 1,653 pairs of 58 Korean barley varieties ranged from 0 to 0.984 with a mean of 0.048. Correlation between the genealogical and RAPD-based genetic similarity matrices was 0.256 (P < 0.01). Correlation values for the related and for all (related + unrelated) genotype pairs were almost similar to each other, indicating that the unrelated genotypes share a large portion of genomes alike in state, not identical by descent. RAPD-based genetic similarity estimates among parents were poorly correlated with their hybrid performance such as 1,000-grain weight (r = 0.34), biomass yield (r = −0.12), and grain yield (r = −0.04) for 11 genotype pairs of hulled barley. However, correlations between heterozygosity at marker loci and hybrid performance for biomass and grain yield slightly increased when two F1 hybrids were excluded in the analysis due to their low yield.

Key words

barley genetic distance hybrid performance RAPD coefficient of parentage 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernado R. 1993. Estimation of coefficient of coancestry using molecular markers in maize. Theor. Appl. Genet. 85: 1055–1062Google Scholar
  2. Bohn M, Utz HF, Melchinger AE. 1999. Genetic similarities among winter wheat cultivars determined on the basis of RFLPs, AFLPs, and SSRs and their use for predicting proge ny variance. Crop Sci. 39: 228–237Google Scholar
  3. Charcosset A, Essioux L. 1994. The effect of population struc ture on the relationship between heterosis and heterozygosity at marker loci. Theor. Appl. Genet. 89: 336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox TS, Murphy JP, Rodgers DM. 1986. Changes in genetic diversity in the red winter wheat regions of the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 83: 5583–5586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Donini P, Stephenson P, Bryan GJ, Koebner RMD. 1998. The potential of microsatellites for high throughput genetic diver sity assessment in wheat and barley. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 45: 415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frankel OH, Brown AHD. 1984. Plant genetic resources today: a critical appraisal. In JHW Holden, JT Williams, ed, Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation & Evaluation, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, pp 249–257Google Scholar
  7. Graner A, Ludwig WF, Melchinger AE. 1994. Relationships among European barley germplasm. II. Comparisons of RFLP and pedigree data. Crop Sci. 34: 1199–1205Google Scholar
  8. Gutiérrez OA, Basu S, Saha S, Jenkins JN, Shoemaker OB, Cheatham CL, McCarty Jr JC. 2002. Genetic distance among selected cotton genotypes and its relationship with F2 perfor mance. Crop Sci. 42: 1841–1847Google Scholar
  9. Jong SK, Park MW. 2000a. Cluster analysis of Korean six-row covered barley varieties based on coefficient of parentage. Korean J. Breed. 32: 205–210Google Scholar
  10. Jong SK, Park MW. 2000b. Genetic diversity in naked barley varieties based on coefficient of parentage. Korean J. Breed. 32: 303–308Google Scholar
  11. Jordan DR, Tao Y, Godwin ID, Henzell RG, Cooper M, McIntyre CL. 2003. Prediction of hybrid performance in grain sorghum using RFLP markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 106: 559–567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kempthorne O. 1969. An introduction to genetic statistics. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  13. Kim HS, Park KG, Baek SB, Suh SJ, Nam JH. 2002. Genetic diversity of barley cultivars as revealed by SSR marker. Korean J. Crop Sci. 47: 379–383Google Scholar
  14. Kim HS, Park KG, Baek SB, Kim JG, Nam JH. 2005. Genetic diversity measured by RAPDs in Korean barley germplasm pools. Korean J. Crop Sci. 50: 131–141Google Scholar
  15. Kim JG. 2004. Genetics of cytoplasmic male sterility and fertility restoration, and relationship between genetic diversity and hybrid vigor in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Ph.D. thesis, Chonbuk National University, ChonjuGoogle Scholar
  16. bberstedt T, Melchinger AE, Dußle C, Vuylsteke M, Kuiper M. 2000. Relationships among early European maize inbreds: IV. Genetic diversity revealed with AFLP markers and com parison with RFLP, RAPD, and pedigree data. Crop Sci. 40: 783–791Google Scholar
  17. Manifesto MM, Schlatter AR, Hopp HE, Suárez EY, Dubcovsky J. 2001. Quantitative evaluation of genetic diversity in wheat germplasm using molecular markers. Crop Sci. 41: 682–690Google Scholar
  18. Melchinger AE, Lee M, Lamkey KR, Woodman WW. 1990. Genetic diversity for restriction fragment length polymor phisms: relation to genetic effects in maize inbreds. Crop Sci 30: 1033–1040Google Scholar
  19. Messmer, MM, Melchinger AE, Herrman RG, Boppenmaier J. 1993. Relationships among early European Maize inbreds: II Comparison of pedigree and RFLP data. Crop Sci. 33: 944–950Google Scholar
  20. Mohammadi SA, Prasanna BM. 2003. Analysis of genetic diver sity in crop plants-salient statistical tools and considerations. Crop Sci. 43: 1235–1248Google Scholar
  21. Nevo E. 1998. Genetic diversity in wild cereals: regional and local studies and their bearing on conservation ex situ and in situ. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 45: 355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Russel JR, Fuller JD, Macaulay M, Hatz BG, Jahoor A, Powell W, Waugh R. 1997. Direct comparison of levels of genetic variation among barley accessions detected by RFLPs, AFLPs, SSRs and RAPDs. Theor. Appl. Genet. 95: 714–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Xiao J, Li J, Yuan L, 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. 92: 637–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhang Q, Zhou ZQ, Yang GP, Xu CG, Liu KD, Saghai Maroof MA. 1996. Molecular marker heterozygosity and hybrid per formance in Indica and Japonica rice. Theor. Appl. Genet. 93: 1218–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Crop Science and Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong-Sik Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jung-Gon Kim
    • 2
  • Seong-Bum Baek
    • 3
  • Jong-Jin Hwang
    • 3
  1. 1.International Technology Cooperation CenterRural Development AdministrationSuwonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Rice and Winter Cereal Crop, National Institute of Crop ScienceRural Development AdministrationIksanRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Upland Crop Division, National Institute of Crop ScienceRural Development AdministrationSuwonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations