Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 120, Issue 3, pp 387–398 | Cite as

Heterosis in crop mutant crosses and production of high yielding lines using doubled haploid systems

  • M. Maluszynski
  • I. Szarejko
  • P. Barriga
  • A. Balcerzyk
Article

Abstract

Heterosis appearing in crosses between mutants derived from the same parent variety and crosses of mutants with parent varieties has been observed by many authors for many plant species including such important crops as barley, faba bean, maize, pea, pearl millet, rice, sunflower, sesame, sweet clover, triticale and wheat. Mutant heterosis was reported for crosses of spontaneous mutants, mutants obtained after treatment with various mutagens and recently also for somaclonal variants. The heterotic effects are usually related to an increase in some yield components. There is a lack of correlation between mutation of a particular plant character and appearance of heterotic effect. The yielding performance of a mutant was not correlated with its potential to give yield heterosis in crosses with another mutant, often also a very poor one, or with the parent variety. Poor yielding barley mutants from the collection of semi-dwarf forms of the Department of Genetics, Silesian University gave heterosis in crosses with other mutants or parent varieties for such characters as tillering, grain number and weight per plant. In addition to mutants with deleterious mutations of such characters as chlorophyll synthesis or fasciated stem there were also lines mutated for earliness, semi-dwarfness, low glucoside or high protein and lysine content which gave significant heterosis in crosses. One possible explanation of the phenomenon of mutant heterosis is related to the frequency of mutations induced by chemical and physical mutagens. The appearance and the level of heterotic effect of mutated genes will depend on their interaction with other mutated genes or with genes from the parental genotype. High specific combining ability of mutants giving heterotic effect makes hybrid seed production, based on crosses with defined sources of cytoplasmic or genetic male sterility, unfeasible or even impossible. Doubled haploids provide a unique system to attempt the ‘fixing’ of hybrid performance in homozygous lines and to avoid the step of hybrid seed production. The assumption on the ‘fixability’ of hybrid yield in homozygous lines based on reports that large additive genetic variance is responsible for yield heterosis in wheat or barley was proven also for mutant crosses.

mutant heterosis barley deleterious mutations semidwarfness doubled haploids anther culture fixation of hybrid performance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aastveit, K., 1964. Heterosis and selection in barley. Genetics 49: 159–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anandakumar, C.R. & S.R. Sree Rangasamy, 1995. Heterosis and selection indices in rice. Egypt J Genet Cytol 14: 123–132.Google Scholar
  3. Ba Bong, B. & M.S. Swaminathan, 1995. Magnitude of hybrid vigour retained in double haploid lines of some heterotic rice hybrids. Theor Appl Genet 90: 253–257.Google Scholar
  4. Barbosa-Neto, J.F., M.E. Sorrells & G. Cisar, 1996. Prediction of heterosis in wheat using coefficient of parentage and RFLPbased estimates of genetic relationship. Genome 39: 1142–1149.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohn, M., H.F. Utz & A.E. Melchinger, 1999. Genetic similarities among winter wheat cultivars determined on the basis of RFLPs, AFLPs, and SSRs and their use for predicting progeny variance. Crop Sci 39: 228–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush, R.H., A. Lucken & R.C. Frohberg, 1971. F1 hybrids versus random F5 line performance and estimates of genetic effects in spring wheat. Crop Sci 11: 357–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cerna, F.J., S.R. Cianzio, A. Rafalski, S. Tingey & D. Dyer, 1997. Relationship between seed yield heterosis and molecular marker heterozygosity in soybean. Theor Appl Genet 95: 460–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chopra, K., 1996. Global assessment of hybrid rice technologies for breeding and seed production. In: Proceedings of the 18th Session of the International Rice Commission, D.V. Tran (Ed.), FAO, Rome, pp. 23–36.Google Scholar
  9. Chowdari, K.V., S.R. Venkatachalam, A.P. Davierwala, V.S. Gupta, P.K. Ranjekar & O.P. Govila, 1998. Hybrid performance and genetic distance as revealed by the (GATA)4 microsatellite and RAPD markers in pearl millet. Theor Appl Genet 97: 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doll, H., 1966. Yield and variability of chlorophyll-mutant heterozygotes in barley. Hereditas 56: 256–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dollinger, E.J., 1983. Effects of visible recessive alleles on vigor characteristics in a maize hybrid. Crop Sci 25: 819–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dudley, J.W., M.A. Saghai Maroof & G.K. Rufener, 1991. Molecular markers and grouping of parents in maize breeding programs. Crop Sci 31: 718–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Durneva, G.N., I.I. Ulitcheva, Y.D. Beletskii & E.P. Gus'kov, 1994. Influence of a mutant plastom on the expression of morphological and physiological traits of sunflower hybrids. Russian J Genet 30(4): 437–443.Google Scholar
  14. Gale, M.D., A.M. Salter, F.C. Curtis & W.J. Angus, 1988. The exploitation of the Tom Thumb dwarfing gene, Rht3 in F1 hybrid wheats. In: Semi-dwarf Cereal Mutants and Their Use in Cross-Breeding III. IAEA, Vienna, pp. 57–68.Google Scholar
  15. Gorny, A., 1977. Chemomutanty Petunia axillaris (Lam.) B.S.P. Silesian University, Katowice.Google Scholar
  16. Gottschalk, W., 1976. Monogenic heterosis. In: Induced Mutations in Cross-Breeding. IAEA, Vienna, pp. 189–197.Google Scholar
  17. Grzesik, H., 1995. Studies on dwarf mutants of winter triticale (X Triticosecale Witt.). Part II. Effect of heterosis in F1 hybrids of winter triticale Hod. Rosl. Aklim. Nasien 39(3): 21–39 (in Polish with English summary).Google Scholar
  18. Gupta, H.S., R.N. Bhuyan, A. Pattanayak & D.K. Pandey, 1996. Development of cold-tolerant rice through anther culture. IRRN 21(1): 20.Google Scholar
  19. Gustafsson, A., 1946. The effect of heterozygosity on viability and vigour. Hereditas 32: 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustafsson, A., 1947. The advantageous effect of deleterious mutations. Hereditas 33: 573–575.Google Scholar
  21. Gustafsson, A. & I. Dormling, 1972. Dominance and overdominance in phytotron analysis of monohybrid barley. Hereditas 70: 185–216.Google Scholar
  22. Gustafsson, A. I. Dormling & G. Ekman, 1973. Phytotron ecology of mutant genes. I. Heterosis in mutant crossings of barley. Hereditas 74: 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gustafsson, A., N. Nybom & U. von Wettstein, 1950. Chlorophyll factors and heterosis in barley. Hereditas 36: 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagberg, A., 1953. Heterozygosity in erectoides mutations in barley. Hereditas 39: 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoballah, A.A., 1999. Selection and agronomic evaluation of induced mutant lines of sesame. In: Induced Mutations for Sesame Improvement. IAEA-TECDOC, IAEA, Vienna, pp. 71–84.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, D.F., 1945. Heterosis resulting from degenerative changes. Genetics 30: 527–542.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kasha, K.J., L.S.P. Song, S.J. Park & E. Reinbergs, 1977. Fixation of heterosis: comparison of F1 hybrids with their respective homozygous lines developing using doubled haploid procedures. Cereal Res Commun 5(3): 205–214.Google Scholar
  28. Kaul, M.L.H., 1980. Radiation genetics studies in garden pea. 9. Non-allelism of early flowering mutants and heterosis. Z Pflanzenzüchtg 84: 192–200.Google Scholar
  29. Kawai, T., 1967. New crop varieties bred by mutation breeding. Jpn Agric Res Q 2: 8–12.Google Scholar
  30. Konzak, C.F., 1989. Exploitation and analysis of heterosis in wheat with induced mutations. In: M. Maluszynski (Ed.), Current Options for Cereal Improvement, pp. 97–113. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  31. Lightner, J., G. Pearce, C.A. Ryan & J. Browse, 1993. Isolation of signaling mutants of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Mol Gen Genet 241: 595–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lönnig, W.-E., 1982. Dominance, overdominance and epistasis in Pisum sativum L. Theor Appl Genet 63: 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maluszynski, M., 1982. The high mutagenic effectiveness of MNUA in inducing a diversity of dwarf and semi-dwarf forms of spring barley. Acta Soc Bot Polon 51: 429–440.Google Scholar
  34. Maluszynski, M., A. Fuglewicz, I. Szarejko & A. Micke, 1989. Barley mutant heterosis. In: Current Options for Cereal Improvement. Doubled Haploids, Mutants and Heterosis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 129–146.Google Scholar
  35. Maluszynski, M., A. Micke, B. Sigurbjörnsson, I. Szarejko & A. Fuglewics, 1987. The use of mutants for breeding and for hybrid barley. In: S. Yasuda & T. Konishi (Eds.), Barley Genetics V, pp. 969–977. Okayama.Google Scholar
  36. Majarrez-Sandoval, P., T.E. Jr. Carter, D.M. Webb & J.W. Burton, 1997. Heterosis in soybean and its prediction by genetic similarity measures. Crop Sci 37: 1443-1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marburger, J.E. & R.R.C. Wang, 1988. Anther culture of some perennial triticeae. Plant Cell Rep 7: 313–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin, J.M., L.E. Talbert, S.P. Lanning & N.K. Blake, 1995. Hybrid performance in wheat as related to parental diversity. Crop Sci 35: 104–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Melchinger, A.E., M. Lee, K.R. Lamkey & W.L. Woodman, 1990. Genetic diversity for restriction fragment length polymorphisms among maize inbreds with agronomic performance of their crosses. Crop Sci 33: 944–950.Google Scholar
  40. Micke, A., 1969. Improvement of low yielding sweet clover mutants by heterosis breeding. In: Induced Mutations in Plants. IAEA, Vienna, pp. 541–550.Google Scholar
  41. Micke, A., 1976. Hybrid vigour in mutant crosses. Prospects and problems of exploitation studied withmutants of sweet clover. In: Induced Mutations in Cross-Breeding. IAEA, Vienna, pp. 199–218.Google Scholar
  42. Murty, G.S.S., 1979. Heterosis in inter-mutant hybrids of Sesamum indicum L. Curr Sci 48(18): 825–827.Google Scholar
  43. Nybom, N., 1950. Studies on mutations in barley. I. Superdominant factors for internode length. Hereditas 36: 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pasztor, K., P. Pepo & K. Egri, 1985. Changes in the production of maize hybrids due to mutant parent lines. Acta Agron Acad Hungar 34(1-2): 189–195.Google Scholar
  45. Pathak, R.S., 1991. Genetic evaluation of two aphid resistant cowpea mutants in Kenya. In: Plant Mutation Breeding for Crop Improvement. Vol. 2, IAEA, Vienna, pp. 241–247.Google Scholar
  46. Perenzin, M., M. Corbellini, M. Accerbi, P. Vaccino & B. Borghi, 1998. Bread wheat: F1 hybrid performance and parental diversity estimates using molecular markers. Euphytica 100: 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Polok, K., I. Szarejko & M. Maluszynski, 1997. Barley mutant heterosis and fixation of 'F1-performance' in doubled haploid lines. Plant Breed 116: 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rai, K.N., D.J. Andrews & A.S. Rao, 1986. Hybrid potential of 81A - a dwarf male-sterile line of pearl millet. Indian J Genet 46(2): 295–303.Google Scholar
  49. Rybtsov, S.A., T.A. Ezhova & S.A. Gostimskii, 1997. Use of in vitro tissue culture to study heterosis in the pea. Russian J Genet 33(11): 1299–1303.Google Scholar
  50. Saeed Iqbal, R.M., M.B. Chaudhry, M. Aslam & A.A. Bandesha, 1991. Economic and agricultural impact of mutation breeding in cotton in Pakistan. In: Plant Mutation Breeding for Crop Improvement. Vol. 1, IAEA, Vienna, pp. 187–201.Google Scholar
  51. Saghai Maroof, M.A., G.P. Yang, Z. Qifa & K.A. Gravois, 1997. Correlation between molecular marker distance and hybrid performance in U.S. southern long grain rice. Crop Sci 37: 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sarawat, P., F.L. Stoddard & D.R. Marshall, 1994. Derivation of superior F5 lines from heterotic hybrids in pea. Euphytica 73: 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shen, Y., Q. Cai, M. Gao & Z. Liang, 1995. Isolation and genetic characterization of somaclonal mutants with large-sized grain in rice. Cereal Res Commun 23(3): 235–241.Google Scholar
  54. Shen, Y., M. gao & Q. Cai, 1994. A novel environment-induced genic male sterile (EGMS) mutant in indica rice. Euphytica 76: 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith, O.S., J.S.C. Smith, S.L. Bowen, R.A. Tenborg & S.J. Wall, 1990. Similarities among a group of elite maize inbreds as measured by pedegree, F1 grain yield heterosis and RFLPs. Theor Appl Genet 80: 833–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spiss, L. & H. Goral, 1990. Effect of heterosis in hybrids with dwarf mutants of triticale. Hod Rosl Aklim Nasien 34(3/4): 33–37.Google Scholar
  57. Stelling, D., 1997. Heterosis and hybrid performance in topless faba beans (Vicia faba L.). Euphytica 97: 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stoilov, M. & S. Daskaloff, 1976. Some results on the combined use of induced mutations and heterosis breeding. In: Induced Mutations in Cross-Breeding. IAEA, Vienna, pp. 179–188.Google Scholar
  59. Stubbe, H. & K. Pirschle, 1999. Ñber einen monogen bedingten Fall von Heterosis bei Antirrhinum majus. Ber Deutsche Bot Ges 58: 546–558.Google Scholar
  60. Suenaga, K., 1994. Doubled haploid system using the intergeneric crosses between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and maize (Zea mays). Bull Natl Inst Agrobiol Resour 9: 83–139.Google Scholar
  61. Szarejko, I. & M. Maluszynski, 1999. High frequency of mutations after mutagenic treatment of barley seeds with Na N3 and MNH with application of interincubation germination period. MBNL 44: 28–30.Google Scholar
  62. Upadhyaya, B.R. & D.C. Rasmusson, 1967. Heterosis and combining ability in barley. Crop Sci 7: 644–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Xiao, J., J. Li, L. Yuan, S.R. McCouch & S.D. Tanksley, 1996. Genetic diversity and its relationship to hybrid performance and heterosis in rice as revealed by PCR-based markers. Theor Appl Genet 92: 637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Xiao, J., J. Li, L. Yuan & S.D. Tanksley, 1995. Dominance is the major genetic basis of heterosis in rice as revealed by QTL analysis using molecular markers. Genetics 140: 745–754.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Xu, M., 1988. The hereditary tendency of characters in F1 generation of wheat crosses with mutants. Acta Agri Nucl Sinica 2(1): 5–12.Google Scholar
  66. Yap, T.C. & B.L. Harvey, 1971. Heterosis and combining ability of barley hybrids in densely and widely seeded conditions. Can J Plant Sci 51: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang, Q., Z.Q. Zhou, G.P. Yang, C.G. Xu, K.D. Liu & M.A. Saghai Maroof, 1996. Molecular marker heterozygosity and hybrid performance in indica and japonica rice. Theor Appl Genet 93: 1218–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zinovatnaya, G.N., I.I. Ulitcheva & E.P. Gus'kov, 1995. Combining ability of sunflower plastom mutant lines and expression of heterosis for quantitative traits in intermutant hybrids. Russian J Genet 31(12): 1423–1429.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Maluszynski
    • 1
  • I. Szarejko
    • 2
  • P. Barriga
    • 3
  • A. Balcerzyk
    • 2
  1. 1.Plant Breeding and Genetics SectionJoint FAO/IAEA DivisionViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of GeneticsSilesian UniversityKatowicePoland
  3. 3.Austral UniversityValdiviaChile

Personalised recommendations