Effect of F1 and F2 generations on genetic variability and working steps of doubled haploid production in maize


Autoři: Evellyn Giselly de Oliveira Couto aff001;  Mayara Neves Cury aff001;  Massaine Bandeira e Souza aff001;  Ítalo Stefanine Correia Granato aff001;  Miriam Suzane Vidotti aff001;  Deoclécio Domingos Garbuglio aff002;  José Crossa aff003;  Juan Burgueño aff003;  Roberto Fritsche-Neto aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Genetics, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil aff001;  Instituto Agronômico do Paraná-IAPAR, Paraná, Brazil aff002;  Biometrics and Statistics Unit, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), DF, Mexico aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224631

Souhrn

For doubled haploid (DH) production in maize, F1 generation has been the most frequently used for haploid induction due to facility in the process. However, using F2 generation would be a good alternative to increase genetic variability owing to the additional recombination in meiosis. Our goals were to compare the effect of F1 and F2 generations on DH production in tropical germplasm, evaluating the R1-navajo expression in seeds, the working steps of the methodology, and the genetic variability of the DH lines obtained. Sources germplasm in F1 and F2 generations were crossed with the tropicalized haploid inducer LI-ESALQ. After harvest, for both induction crosses were calculated the haploid induction rate (HIR), diploid seed rate (DSR), and inhibition seed rate (ISR) using the total number of seeds obtained. In order to study the effectiveness of the DH working steps in each generation, the percentage per se and the relative percentage were verified. In addition, SNP markers were obtained for genetic variability studies. Results showed that the values for HIR, ISR, and DSR were 1.23%, 23.48%, and 75.21% for F1 and 1.78%, 15.82%, and 82.38% for F2, respectively. The effectiveness of the DH working step showed the same percentage per se value (0.4%) for F1 and F2, while the relative percentage was 27.2% for F1 and 22.4% for F2. Estimates of population parameters in DH lines from F1 were higher than F2. Furthermore, population structure and kinship analyses showed that one additional generation was not sufficient to create new genotype subgroups. Additionally, the relative efficiency of the response to selection in the F1 was 31.88% higher than F2 due to the number of cycles that are used to obtain the DH. Our results showed that in tropical maize, the use of F1 generation is recommended due to a superior balance between time and genetic variability.

Klíčová slova:

Alleles – Flowering plants – Genetic polymorphism – Maize – Plant breeding – Seedlings – Seeds – Humoral immune response


Zdroje

1. Melchinger AE, Schipprack W, Friedrich Utz H, Mirdita V. In Vivo Haploid Induction in Maize: Identification of Haploid Seeds by Their Oil Content. Crop Science. 2014;54: 1497. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2013.12.0851

2. Melchinger AE, Longin CF, Utz HF, Reif JC. Hybrid maize breeding with doubled haploid lines: quantitative genetic and selection theory for optimum allocation of resources. 2005; 14.

3. Smith JSC, Hussain T, Jones ES, Graham G, Podlich D, Wall S, et al. Use of doubled haploids in maize breeding: implications for intellectual property protection and genetic diversity in hybrid crops. Molecular Breeding. 2008;22: 51–59. doi: 10.1007/s11032-007-9155-1

4. Riggs TJ, Snape JW. Effects of linkage and interaction in a comparison of theoretical populations derived by diploidized haploid and single seed descent methods. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 1977;49: 111–115. doi: 10.1007/BF00281708 24407167

5. Jannink J-L, Abadie TE. Inbreeding Method Effects on Genetic Mean, Variance, and Structure of Recurrent Selection Populations. Crop Science. 1999;39: 988. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900040006x

6. Bernardo R. Should maize doubled haploids be induced among F1 or F2 plants? Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2009;119: 255–262. doi: 10.1007/s00122-009-1034-1 19396574

7. Sleper JA, Bernardo R. Recombination and genetic variance among maize doubled haploids induced from F1 and F2 plants. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2016;129: 2429–2436. doi: 10.1007/s00122-016-2781-4 27637886

8. Nanda DK, Chase SS. An Embryo Marker for Detecting Monoploids Of Maize (Zea Mays L.)1. Crop Science. 1966;6: 213. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1966.0011183X000600020036x

9. Melchinger AE, Schipprack W, Würschum T, Chen S, Technow F. Rapid and accurate identification of in vivo-induced haploid seeds based on oil content in maize. Scientific Reports. 2013;3. doi: 10.1038/srep02129 23820577

10. de Couto EGO, Davide LMC, de Bustamante FO, Pinho RGV, Silva TN. Identification of haploid maize by flow cytometry, morphological and molecular markers. Ciênc agrotec. 2013;37: 25–31. doi: 10.1590/S1413-70542013000100003

11. Rotarenco VA, Dicu G, State D, Fuia SRV. New inducers of maternal haploids in maize. 2010;84: 7.

12. Chaikam V, Martinez L, Melchinger AE, Schipprack W, Boddupalli PM. Development and Validation of Red Root Marker-Based Haploid Inducers in Maize. Crop Science. 2016;56: 1678. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2015.10.0653

13. Choe E, Carbonero CH, Mulvaney K, Rayburn AL, Mumm RH. Improving in vivo maize doubled haploid production efficiency through early detection of false positives: Improving maize doubled haploid production efficiency. Plant Breeding. 2012;131: 399–401. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2012.01962.x

14. Molenaar WS, Oliveira Couto EG, Piepho H, Melchinger AE. Early diagnosis of ploidy status in doubled haploid production of maize by stomata length and flow cytometry measurements. Plant Breeding. 2019;138: 266–276. doi: 10.1111/pbr.12694

15. Prigge V, Sánchez C, Dhillon BS, Schipprack W, Araus JL, Bänziger M, et al. Doubled Haploids in Tropical Maize: I. Effects of Inducers and Source Germplasm on in vivo Haploid Induction Rates. Crop Science. 2011;51: 1498. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2010.10.0568

16. Chaikam V, Nair SK, Babu R, Martinez L, Tejomurtula J, Boddupalli PM. Analysis of effectiveness of R1-nj anthocyanin marker for in vivo haploid identification in maize and molecular markers for predicting the inhibition of R1-nj expression. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2015;128: 159–171. doi: 10.1007/s00122-014-2419-3 25385333

17. Mahuku G, Chaikam V, Prasanna BM. Doubled Haploid Technology in Maize Breeding: Theory and Practice [Internet]. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT: BM Prasanna, Vijay Chaikam, George Mahuku; 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/10883/1351

18. de Andrade LRB, Fritsche Neto R, Granato ÍSC, Sant’Ana GC, Morais PPP, Borém A. Genetic Vulnerability and the Relationship of Commercial Germplasms of Maize in Brazil with the Nested Association Mapping Parents. Chen C, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016;11: e0163739. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163739 27780247

19. Chaikam V, Lopez LA, Martinez L, Burgueño J, Boddupalli PM. Identification of in vivo induced maternal haploids in maize using seedling traits. Euphytica. 2017;213. doi: 10.1007/s10681-017-1968-3

20. Geiger HH, Röber F DS. Vorträge für Pflanzenzüchtung. Methodology and genetics of in vivo haploid induction in maize. 1997 38: 203–244.

21. Chase SS. Monoploids and Diploids of Maize: A Comparison of Genotypic Equivalents. American Journal of Botany. 1964;51: 928. doi: 10.2307/2440242

22. Melchinger AE, Molenaar WS, Mirdita V, Schipprack W. Colchicine Alternatives for Chromosome Doubling in Maize Haploids for Doubled-Haploid Production. Crop Science. 2016;56: 559. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2015.06.0383

23. Eder J, Chalyk S. In vivo haploid induction in maize. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2002;104: 703–708. doi: 10.1007/s00122-001-0773-4 12582677

24. Granato ISC, Galli G, de Oliveira Couto EG, e Souza MB, Mendonça LF, Fritsche-Neto R. snpReady: a tool to assist breeders in genomic analysis. Molecular Breeding. 2018;38. doi: 10.1007/s11032-018-0844-8

25. Tateno Y, Nei M, Tajima F. Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data: I. Distantly Related Species. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 1982;18: 387–404. doi: 10.1007/bf01840887 7175956

26. Stacklies W, Redestig H, Scholz M, Walther D, Selbig J. pcaMethods a bioconductor package providing PCA methods for incomplete data. Bioinformatics. 2007;23: 1164–1167. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm069 17344241

27. Yang J, Benyamin B, McEvoy BP, Gordon S, Henders AK, Nyholt DR, et al. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nature Genetics. 2010;42: 565–569. doi: 10.1038/ng.608 20562875

28. Stinard PS, Sachs MM. The Identification and Characterization of Two Dominant r1 Haplotype-Specific Inhibitors of Aleurone Color in Zea mays. Journal of Heredity. 2002;93: 421–428. doi: 10.1093/jhered/93.6.421 12642642

29. Hoisington DA, Nueffer MG, Coe EH Jr. The genetics of corn. In: Corn and corn improvement. Madison, Wisconsin: Sprague G.F. and Dudley J.W. (eds.); 1988.

30. Xu X, Li L, Dong X, Jin W, Melchinger AE, Chen S. Gametophytic and zygotic selection leads to segregation distortion through in vivo induction of a maternal haploid in maize. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2013;64: 1083–1096. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ers393 23349137


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11