4.4 Article

Extensive genetic and DNA methylation variation contribute to heterosis in triploid loquat hybrids

期刊

GENOME
卷 61, 期 6, 页码 437-447

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/gen-2017-0232

关键词

triploid loquat; AFLP; MSAP; genetic variation; DNA methylation variation; heterosis

资金

  1. National Science & Technology Support Projects [2013BAD02B02]
  2. State Spark-Program [2015GA811003]
  3. Central Fiscal for Forestry Science & Technology Extension and Demonstration Project [2016-03]
  4. program of Chongqing Forestry Key Scientific & Technological Projects [2016-10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aim to overcome the unclear origin of the loquat and elucidate the heterosis mechanism of the triploid loquat. Here we investigated the genetic and epigenetic variations between the triploid plant and its parental lines using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and methylation-sensitive amplified fragment length polymorphism (MSAP) analyses. We show that in addition to genetic variations, extensive DNA methylation variation occurred during the formation process of triploid loquat, with the triploid hybrid having increased DNA methylation compared to the parents. Furthermore, a correlation existed between genetic variation and DNA methylation remodeling, suggesting that genome instability may lead to DNA methylation variation or vice versa. Sequence analysis of the MSAP bands revealed that over 53% of them overlap with protein-coding genes, which may indicate a functional role of the differential DNA methylation in gene regulation and hence heterosis phenotypes. Consistent with this, the genetic and epigenetic alterations were associated closely to the heterosis phenotypes of triploid loquat, and this association varied for different traits. Our results suggested that the formation of triploid is accompanied by extensive genetic and DNA methylation variation, and these changes contribute to the heterosis phenotypes of the triploid loquats from the two cross lines.

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

4.4
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