欢迎访问作物学报,今天是

作物学报 ›› 2008, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (04): 605-611.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2008.00605

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学 • 上一篇    下一篇

大豆抗倒伏性的评价指标及其QTL分析

黄中文1,2;赵团结1;喻德跃1;陈受宜3;盖钧镒1,*   

  1. 1 南京农业大学大豆研究所 / 国家大豆改良中心 / 作物遗传与种质创新国家重点实验室, 江苏南京210095; 2 河南科技学院农学系, 河南新乡453003; 3 中国科学院遗传与发育生物学研究所, 北京100101
  • 收稿日期:2007-08-06 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2008-04-12 网络出版日期:2008-04-12
  • 通讯作者: 盖钧镒

Lodging Resistance Indices and Related QTLs in Soybean

HUANG Zhong-Wen12,ZHAO Tuan-Jie1,YU De-Yue1,CHEN Shou-Yi3,GAI Jun-Yi1*   

  1. 1 Soybean Research Institute, Nanjing Agricultural University / National Center for Soybean Improvement / National Key Laboratory for Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing 210095, Jiangsu; 2 Department of Agronomy, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, Xinxiang 453003, Henan; 3 Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
  • Received:2007-08-06 Revised:1900-01-01 Published:2008-04-12 Published online:2008-04-12
  • Contact: GAI Jun-Yi

摘要: 倒伏性的鉴定通常采用倒伏程度分级法, 但其表现依赖于田间实时环境, 分级较粗放。育种实践需要一种不依赖于实时环境的倒伏潜势评价方法。本研究利用表型差异大的32个大豆品种和1个重组自交系(RIL)群体NJRIKY, 研究了鲜重力矩(株高×鲜重, PF)、干重力矩(株高×干重, PD)、单位抗折力鲜重力矩(株高×鲜重/抗折力, PFS)和单位抗折力干重力矩(株高×干重/抗折力, PDS)等4种倒伏性评价指标与倒伏程度的关系, 从中遴选出PF与倒伏程度的相关系数高、物理意义明确、测度简便、环境稳定性高, 与倒伏程度共同QTL多, 综合表现最优, 反映了倒伏势。在A2、C2、D2和G连锁群上, 共检测到7个倒伏程度相关的QTL, 分别解释表型变异的6%~12%, 2年未检测到相同的QTL; 在B1、C2和O连锁群共检测到7个倒伏势有关的QTL, 分别解释表型变异的5%~12%, 其中qPFC2-2, 2年均能稳定表达, 贡献值较大; 倒伏程度和倒伏势共有的QTL区间有GMKF059a~satt319和satt286~A63_1T两个; 抗倒伏性等位基因来自亲本科丰1号。

关键词: 大豆, 倒伏指标, 相关, QTL分析

Abstract: The used lodging resistance index is lodging score, with 0 as most resistant and 4 as most sensitive. In breeding for lodging resistance, an index more precise than lodging score and independent from the cultivation conditions is expected. In the present study, four kinds of lodging resistance indices, i.e. fresh matter moment (plant height × above ground fresh weight, PF), dry matter moment (plant height × above ground dry weight, PD), fresh weight moment per unit of stem broken strength (PFS), and dry weight moment per unit of stem broken strength (PDS), were designed in two experiments, one with 32 diverse cultivars and one with the RIL population NJRIKY including 184 recombinant inbred lines of the cross (Kefeng 1 × Nannong 1138-2) in 2005 and 2006. Among the four indices, fresh weight moment (PF) designated as lodging potential performed with higher correlation with lodging score, more relevant physical meaning, easier operation of measurement, better stability in various environments and more common QTLs with lodging score than those of the other indices, therefore PF was the best candidate of lodging resistance index to replace lodging score. On the basis of the results, QTL analysis was performed for lodging score and lodging potential. Seven QTLs for lodging score on linkage groups A2, C2, D2, and G explaining 6%–12% of phenotypic variation, but no common one between the two years, were detected. There were seven QTLs for lodging potential on linkage groups B1, C2, and O, explaining 5%-12% phenotypic variation, with the same QTL qPFC2-2 in two years. Between lodging score and lodging po-tential, two QTLs were with same flanking markers, i.e. GMKF059a–satt319 and satt286–A63_1T, and the lodging resistance alleles were mainly contributed from Kefeng 1. Between the two loci, qPFC2-2 was of larger contribution, so its flanking markers can be used in marker-assisted selection for lodging resistance in soybean.

Key words: Soybean, Lodging indix, Correlation, QTL analysis

[1] 金昱何, 王雪菲, 徐张一娃, 缪怡宁, 蒋云杰, 伊莹, 缪德麟, 朱静仪, 钟一帆, 陈铭亨, 方芳, 刘鹏. 外源激素对低温胁迫下大豆叶片叶绿素荧光参数及抗氧化酶系统的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1817-1829.
[2] 唐宽强, 李公允, 宋美毅, 赵雪, 常春玲. 大豆株高性状全基因组关联分析及预测模型构建[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1743-1756.
[3] 姚术, 郭凯悦, 翟慧慧, 姚佳慧, 邓文琪, 闫玲, 黄驰, 高阳, 俞嫣然, 赵振邦, 李英慧, 王晓波, 李佳佳. 大豆苗期耐低铁综合评价及优异种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1373-1387.
[4] 杨锐, 陈敬东, 黄郢, 张学昆, 周登文, 刘清云, 徐劲松, 谢伶俐, 许本波. 长江下游冬油菜区应对气候变化的育种和栽培策略研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1153-1165.
[5] 张晴, 杨昱, 郭茜, 岳霈尧, 殷丛丛, 牛景萍, 赵晋忠, 杜维俊, 岳爱琴. 大豆GmARA6a的克隆及响应盐胁迫的功能分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 480-493.
[6] 马婷婷, 郭晓江, 李豪, 邓梅, 蒲至恩, 李伟, 张亚洲, 王凤涛, 崔凤娟, 魏育明, 王际睿, 蒋云峰, 陈国跃. 利用小麦农家种孝感麦协同改良蜀麦753产量与抗病耐逆性的育种实践[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 56-71.
[7] 王克晶, 李向华. 我国珍稀的大豆属多年生烟豆和短绒野大豆物种遗传资源濒危性评估分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2009-2019.
[8] 孟然, 李赵嘉, 冯薇, 陈悦, 刘路平, 杨春燕, 鲁雪林, 王秀萍. 大豆不同生育时期耐盐性综合评价及耐盐种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 1991-2008.
[9] 贺红利, 张雨涵, 杨静, 程云清, 赵杨, 李星诺, 司洪亮, 张兴政, 杨向东. 大豆e1-as基因突变体的创制及生理分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2228-2239.
[10] 胡蒙, 沙丹, 张晟瑞, 谷勇哲, 张世碧, 李静, 孙君明, 邱丽娟, 李斌. 大豆分枝数QTL定位及候选基因筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1747-1756.
[11] 王琼, 邹丹霞, 陈兴运, 张威, 张红梅, 刘晓庆, 贾倩茹, 魏利斌, 崔晓艳, 陈新, 王学军, 陈华涛. 大豆开花时间和成熟期性状全基因组关联分析与候选基因预测[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1558-1568.
[12] 殷丛丛, 李睿琦, 岳霈尧, 李晨, 牛景萍, 赵晋忠, 杜维俊, 岳爱琴. 基于闭合哑铃介导等温扩增可视化检测大豆花叶病毒SC15方法的建立及应用[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(5): 1248-1260.
[13] 许睿, 何妙华, 王昊, 李卫, 任杰, 夏志强. 基于空间转录组技术解析大豆种胚对X射线辐射的响应机制[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(12): 3121-3132.
[14] 蒋昂辰, 李琰, 李雨晨, 张晶, 陈爱萍. 21份无芒雀麦种质农艺性状及种子产量的综合评价与优异种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(11): 2958-2970.
[15] 林洋, 史晓蕾, 陈强, 刘兵强, 杨庆, 于慧娟, 闫龙, 武小霞, 杨春燕. 大豆蛋白质脂肪及脂肪酸组分相关QTL定位[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(11): 2899-2910.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!