4.7 Article

Identification of quantitative trait loci for abscisic acid responsiveness in the D-genome of hexaploid wheat

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 171, 期 10, 页码 830-841

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.jplph.2014.02.003

关键词

ABA; Dehydration tolerance; Quantitative trait locus; Synthetic hexaploid wheat; Triticum aestivum

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [25292008]
  2. KANEKA Co. Ltd.
  3. Japan Advanced Plant Science Network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In crop species such as wheat, abiotic stresses and preharvest sprouting reduce grain yield and quality. The plant hormone abscisic acid (ABA) plays important roles in abiotic stress tolerance and seed dormancy. In previous studies, we evaluated ABA responsiveness of 67 Aegilops tauschii accessions and their synthetic hexaploid wheat lines, finding wide variation that was due to the D-genome. In this study, quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis was performed using an F-2 population derived from crosses of highly ABA-responsive and less-responsive synthetic wheat lines. A significant QTL was detected on chromosome 6D, in a similar location to that reported for ABA responsiveness using recombinant inbred lines derived from common wheat cultivars Mironovskaya 808 and Chinese Spring. A comparative map and physiological and expression analyses of the 6D QTL suggested that this locus involved in line differences among wheat synthetics is different from that involved in cultivar differences in common wheat. The common wheat 6D QTL was found to affect seed dormancy and the regulation of cold-responsive/late embryogenesis abundant genes during dehydration. However, in synthetic wheat, we failed to detect any association of ABA responsiveness with abiotic stress tolerance or seed dormancy, at least under our experimental conditions. Development of near-isogenic lines will be important for functional analyses of the synthetic wheat 6D QTL. (C) 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据