4.5 Article

Mapping and Comparative Analysis of QTL for Rice Plant Height Based on Different Sample Sizes within a Single Line in RIL Population

Journal

RICE SCIENCE
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 265-272

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S1672-6308(12)60004-3

Keywords

rice; plant height; QTL mapping; recombination inbred line; simple sequence repeat; sample size

Funding

  1. Chinese Natural Science Foundation [31071398]
  2. National Program on Super Rice Breeding
  3. Ministry of Agriculture [2010-3]
  4. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2006AA10Z1E8]
  5. Provincial Program of '8812', Zhejiang Province, China [8812-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To clarify the most appropriate sample size for obtaining phenotypic data for a single line, we investigated the main-effect QTL (M-QTL) of a quantitative trait plant height (ph) in a recombinant inbred line (RIL) population of rice (derived from the cross between Xieqingzao B and Zhonghui 9308) using five individual plants in 2006 and 2009. Twenty-six ph phenotypic datasets from the completely random combinations of 2, 3, 4, and 5 plants in a single line, and five ph phenotypic datasets from five individual plants were used to detect the QTLs. Fifteen M-QTLs were detected by 1 to 31 datasets. Of these, qph7a was detected repeatedly by all the 31 ph datasets in 2006 and explained 11.67% to 23.93% of phenotypic variation; qph3 was detected repeatedly by all the 31 datasets and explained 5.21% to 7.93% and 11.51% to 24.46% of phenotypic variance in 2006 and 2009, respectively. The results indicate that the M-QTL for a quantitative trait could be detected repeatedly by the phenotypic values from 5 individual plants and 26 sets of completely random combinations of phenotypic data within a single line in an RIL population under different environments. The sample size for a single line of the RIL population did not affect the efficiency for identification of stably expressed M-QTLs.

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