Gelelectrophoretic Gliadin Patterns of Euplasmic and Alloplasmic Primary Triticale and the Corresponding Wheat Parents
This study was conducted to determine the influence of wheat cytoplasms on storage protein patterns in wheat and triticale. Euplasmic and alloplasmic triticale had been produced by crossing T. durum and T. aestivum, having nine different cytoplasms, with four rye inbred lines. The gliadin patterns of these euplasmic and alloplasmic primary hexa- and octoploid triticale and the corresponding wheat parents were biochemically analysed, using the acid PAGE as electrophoretic technique. Comparing the gliadin patterns of the euplasmic and alloplasmic wheat parents it was found that the variation of the quantitative expression in the gliadin patterns was amplified in the background of alien wheat cytoplasms. This variation was reduced in alloplasmic triticale, especially in hexaploids. The quantitative expression of rye secalin bands in triticale was influenced by the wheat genome. From this extensive study, it can be concluded that alien wheat cytoplasms produce quantitative and qualitative variations in the expression of gliadin patterns.
KeywordsSingle Kernel Common Wheat Cultivar Wheat Parent Durum Line Gliadin Allele
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.Dal Belin Peruffo A, Pallavicini C, Varanini Z, Pogna, NE. Analysis of wheat varieties by gliadin electrophoregrams I.Catalogue of electrophoregram formulas of 29 common wheat cultivars grown in Italy. Genet Agr 1981; 35: 195–208.Google Scholar
- 7.Van de Weghe L. Comparative study of electrophoretic methods for cultivar identification of wheat and triticale. Seed Sci & Technol 1991; 19: 41–50.Google Scholar
- 9.Federmann G, Goecke EU, Steiner AM. Der elektrophoretische Nachweis von Weichweizen (Triticum aestivum L.) in Dinkelmehlen (Triticum spelta L.). Getreide Mehl und Brot 1992; 46 (10): 309–312.Google Scholar
- 10.Metakovsky EV. Gliadin allele identification in common wheat II. Catalogue of gliadin alleles in common wheat. J Genet & Breed 1991; 45: 325–344.Google Scholar