4.6 Article

EcoTILLING Reveals Natural Allelic Variations in Starch Synthesis Key Gene TaSSIV and Its Haplotypes Associated with Higher Thousand Grain Weight

期刊

GENES
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes10040307

关键词

starch; TaSSIV; EcoTILLING; polymorphism; KASP; haplotype

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program [2016YFD0102100]
  2. NSFC [31771791]
  3. China Agriculture Research System of P.R. China [CARS-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wheat is a staple food commodity grown worldwide, and wheat starch is a valuable source of energy and carbon that constitutes 80% of the grain weight. Manipulation of genes involved in starch synthesis significantly affects wheat grain weight and yield. TaSSIV plays an important role in starch synthesis and its main function is granule formation. To mine and stack more favorable alleles, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of TaSSIV-A, B, and D were investigated across 362 wheat accessions by Ecotype-Targeting Induced Local Lesions IN Genome (EcoTILLING). As a result, a total of 38 SNPs in the amplified regions of three TaSSIV genes were identified, of which 10, 15, and 13 were in TaSSIV-A, B, and D, respectively. These 38 SNPs were evaluated by using KASP and six SNPs showed an allele frequency >5% whereas the rest were <5%, i.e., considered to be minor alleles. In the Chinese mini core collection, three haplotypes were detected for TaSSIV-A and three for TaSSIV-B. The results of an association study in the Chinese mini core collection with thousand grain weight (TGW) and spike length (SPL) showed that Hap-2-1A was significantly associated with TGW and Hap-3-1B with SPL. Allelic frequency and geographic distribution indicated that the favored haplotype (Hap-2-1A) has been positively selected in Chinese wheat breeding. These results suggested that the Kompetitive Allele Specific PCR (KASP) markers can be applied in starch improvement to ultimately improve wheat yield by marker assisted selection in wheat breeding.

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

4.6
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