4.5 Article

Comparison of three QTL detection models on biochemical, sensory, and yield characters in Coffea canephora

Journal

TREE GENETICS & GENOMES
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages 1541-1553

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11295-014-0778-1

Keywords

Coffea canephora; QTL detection models; Yield; Bean biochemical composition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coffea canephora is subject to enormous competitive challenges from other crops, especially for farmer sustainability and consumer requirements. Coffee breeding programs have to focus on specific traits linked to these two key targets, such as quality character, largely depending on the bean's biochemical composition and field yield. Two segregating populations A and B, from crosses between a hybrid (Congolese x Guinean) FRT58 parental clone and a Congolese FRT51 genotype and between two Congolese parents FRT67 and FRT51, respectively, were used to characterize the quantitative trait loci (QTL) involved in agronomic and biochemical traits. A consensus genetic map was established using 249 SSRs covering 1,201 cM. Three QTL detection models per population with MapQTL (model I) and MCQTL (model II) followed by a connected population approach with MCQTL (model III) were compared based on their efficiency, precision for QTL detection, and their genetic effect assessment (additive, dominance, and parental-favorable allele). The analysis detected a total of 143 QTLs, 60 of which were shared between the three models; 28 found with two models; and two, 13, and 40 specific from models I, II, and III, respectively. The last model III based on connected populations is much more efficient in detecting QTLs with low variance explained and led to the genetic characterization of favorable allele. Thanks to this comparison of three QTL detection models on our quantitative genetic study, we will give a new insight for coffee breeding programs dedicated to managing complex agronomic or qualitative traits.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available