中国农业科学 ›› 2019, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (9): 1488-1501.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.09.002
曲玉杰,孙君灵,耿晓丽,王骁,ZareenSarfraz,贾银华,潘兆娥,何守朴,龚文芳,王立如,庞保印,杜雄明()
收稿日期:
2018-12-18
接受日期:
2019-03-12
出版日期:
2019-05-01
发布日期:
2019-05-16
通讯作者:
杜雄明
作者简介:
曲玉杰,Tel:15737227096;E-mail: 基金资助:
QU YuJie,SUN JunLing,GENG XiaoLi,WANG Xiao,Zareen Sarfraz,JIA YinHua,PAN ZhaoE,HE ShouPu,GONG WenFang,WANG LiRu,PANG BaoYin,DU XiongMing()
Received:
2018-12-18
Accepted:
2019-03-12
Online:
2019-05-01
Published:
2019-05-16
Contact:
XiongMing DU
摘要:
【目的】通过1 500个陆地棉杂交组合分析杂种优势与其亲本间数量性状遗传距离的相关性,探讨能否利用大规模杂交组合亲本间遗传距离提高陆地棉杂种优势预测效果,以期为棉花杂交育种和杂种优势利用提供理论指导。【方法】选择来自15个国家和中国23个省(市)的305份陆地棉核心种质为亲本,采用L×T(Line×Tester)杂交设计配制1 500个杂交组合。2012—2013年,在中国南北方13个生态环境下考察其株高、单铃重、衣分、纤维长度等10个产量和纤维品质相关性状,分析F1杂种优势、亲本间遗传距离和群体结构,并采用4种方式(Cor1—Cor4)计算遗传距离与杂种优势的相关性。【结果】10个性状中亲优势(MPH)均值的变幅为1.70%—7.40%,平均为4.36%,按父本不同将F1分成5组(A,E),其MPH均值A>E>B>C>D;超亲优势(HB)均值的变幅为-4.17%—1.87%,平均为-0.17%,A、B和E组的HB均值皆为正。10个性状在5组中除D、E组的马克隆值之外,其他性状普遍具有明显的中亲优势,其中,单铃重和纤维长度的中亲优势在5组中均以正优势为主(达80%以上),最大值分别为34.01%和9.83%,对应的超亲优势分别为24.25%和5.80%。F1和亲本差异显著性分析表明单铃重、株高、纤维长度、伸长率和整齐度指数整体表现出一定的超亲优势。父本(测试种)与300个母本之间的遗传距离介于2.280—61.430,平均为21.550,5个测试种与母本间的平均遗传距离D>C>E>A>B,其中,最近值为11.721,最远值为33.271。按最小方差聚类,将305个陆地棉亲本划分为2个主群,包括5个亚群。4种遗传距离与杂种优势的相关性分析结果显示,因样本量、遗传距离变幅和父本不同其结果有所差异,相关性随样本量的增大而有所增强。其中,Cor1是Cor2结果的整体体现;Cor3与Cor1和Cor2相比,部分性状的中亲优势与遗传距离的相关性有所不同;Cor4的相关性最弱。综合来看,遗传距离与衣分、断裂比强度、整齐度指数和纺纱均匀性指数的中亲优势呈显著正相关,遗传距离与其他性状的中亲优势的相关性因采用的分析方案不同,结果有所不同;在4种方案中,除整齐度指数外,遗传距离与超亲优势的相关性整体表现负相关。其中,遗传距离与马克隆值、纤维长度和衣分的超亲优势相关性较强。【结论】陆地棉亲本间数量性状遗传距离与杂种优势有一定的线性关系,不同性状的杂种优势与遗传距离的相关性存在正负和强弱差异,且样本量越大相关性越强。说明基于大规模杂交组合研究陆地棉亲本间遗传距离与杂种优势的关系效果显著。
曲玉杰, 孙君灵, 耿晓丽, 王骁, ZareenSarfraz, 贾银华, 潘兆娥, 何守朴, 龚文芳, 王立如, 庞保印, 杜雄明. 陆地棉亲本间遗传距离与杂种优势的相关性研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(9): 1488-1501.
QU YuJie, SUN JunLing, GENG XiaoLi, WANG Xiao, Zareen Sarfraz, JIA YinHua, PAN ZhaoE, HE ShouPu, GONG WenFang, WANG LiRu, PANG BaoYin, DU XiongMing. Correlation Between Genetic Distance of Parents and Heterosis in Upland Cotton[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(9): 1488-1501.
表2
陆地棉10个数量性状杂种优势"
性状 Trait | 分组 Group | 中亲优势MPH | 超亲优势HB | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
变幅 Range (%) | 均值 Mean (%) | 正(负)优势组合数 No. of F1s with positive (negative) heterosis | 变幅 Range (%) | 均值 Mean (%) | 正(负)优势组合数 No. of F1s with positive (negative) heterosis | |||
PH | A | -5.69—24.29 | 9.67 | 286(14) | -8.67—19.98 | 5.08 | 243(57) | |
B | -7.07—16.79 | 5.08 | 267(33) | -15.81—14.16 | 1.29 | 183(117) | ||
C | -1.93—22.05 | 10.16 | 298(2) | -8.26—15.36 | 3.87 | 242(58) | ||
D | -7.77—13.02 | 3.45 | 254(46) | -22.39—4.34 | -6.03 | 17(283) | ||
E | -6.25—11.99 | 2.57 | 227(72) | -16.40—6.74 | -2.28 | 76(223) | ||
BW | A | -12.48—34.01 | 15.55 | 298(2) | -21.65—24.25 | 8.58 | 284(16) | |
B | -19.71—26.00 | 8.29 | 291(9) | -22.75—19.28 | 2.51 | 220(80) | ||
C | -13.87—17.57 | 5.82 | 276(24) | -19.93—12.21 | -0.15 | 149(151) | ||
D | -13.81—24.95 | 7.16 | 285(15) | -20.97—18.79 | 2.69 | 224(76) | ||
E | -12.72—30.82 | 9.68 | 289(10) | -20.78—20.24 | 2.08 | 195(104) | ||
LP | A | -4.72—9.30 | 2.62 | 260(40) | -8.80—5.04 | -1.45 | 96(204) | |
B | -3.06—11.96 | 3.38 | 275(25) | -17.14—6.68 | -1.06 | 107(193) | ||
C | -16.00—13.33 | 3.35 | 268(32) | -25.18—3.97 | -5.32 | 22(278) | ||
D | -0.38—13.14 | 5.07 | 297(3) | -13.54—7.80 | 0.30 | 186(114) | ||
E | -14.04—7.54 | 0.87 | 195(104) | -20.33—4.20 | -4.42 | 51(248) | ||
BN | A | 2.10—50.41 | 23.35 | 300(0) | -13.52—22.49 | 7.03 | 265(35) | |
B | -3.72—67.89 | 20.77 | 295(5) | -16.86—34.80 | 7.45 | 243(57) | ||
C | -13.03—34.73 | 4.81 | 215(85) | -27.49—10.85 | -9.91 | 18(282) | ||
D | -18.18—39.5 | 2.36 | 169(131) | -31.41—5.50 | -13.38 | 5(295) | ||
E | -11.18—75.92 | 26.20 | 290(9) | -22.14—47.65 | 10.61 | 245(54) | ||
FL | A | -1.59—7.33 | 2.93 | 291(9) | -5.69—6.08 | 0.88 | 219(81) | |
B | -3.79—5.03 | 1.45 | 255(45) | -8.61—4.09 | -0.44 | 122(178) | ||
C | -5.62—6.79 | 1.88 | 264(36) | -12.08—4.68 | -0.17 | 147(153) | ||
D | -3.69—6.65 | 1.93 | 269(31) | -7.61—4.26 | -1.35 | 78(222) | ||
E | -4.13—9.83 | 2.75 | 283(16) | -10.79—5.80 | 0.79 | 205(94) | ||
续 | ||||||||
性状 Trait | 分组 Group | 中亲优势MPH | 超亲优势HB | |||||
变幅 Range (%) | 均值 Mean (%) | 正(负)优势组合数 No. of F1s with positive (negative) heterosis | 变幅 Range (%) | 均值 Mean (%) | 正(负)优势组合数 No. of F1s with positive (negative) heterosis | |||
FS | A | -6.68—8.60 | 0.53 | 163(137) | -12.11—4.40 | -2.98 | 32(268) | |
B | -5.91—10.75 | 1.02 | 201(99) | -11.47—5.43 | -1.97 | 76(224) | ||
C | -4.99—12.19 | 3.08 | 272(28) | -11.44—9.62 | 0.38 | 177(123) | ||
D | -7.54—12.55 | 2.03 | 228(72) | -16.52—6.33 | -2.46 | 66(234) | ||
E | -9.01—12.78 | 1.96 | 212(87) | -15.61—10.40 | -1.04 | 124(175) | ||
MIC | A | -6.75—11.80 | 3.95 | 262(38) | -13.06—7.12 | -1.54 | 108(192) | |
B | -8.70—10.91 | 2.13 | 243(57) | -16.29—5.22 | -1.66 | 90(210) | ||
C | -10.38—8.33 | 0.03 | 154(146) | -15.67—5.78 | -5.00 | 23(277) | ||
D | -11.10—6.40 | -3.19 | 23(277) | -18.40—2.27 | -7.64 | 1(299) | ||
E | -14.4—19.63 | -0.42 | 128(171) | -22.09—4.52 | -5.22 | 20(279) | ||
FU | A | -0.87—2.76 | 0.78 | 277(23) | -1.31—1.64 | 0.18 | 185(115) | |
B | -1.22—2.60 | 0.30 | 223(77) | -2.01—1.47 | -0.31 | 76(224) | ||
C | -1.02—2.14 | 0.44 | 241(59) | -2.38—1.70 | -0.12 | 118(182) | ||
D | -0.55—2.22 | 0.81 | 289(11) | -1.60—1.69 | 0.15 | 184(116) | ||
E | -1.81—1.97 | 0.39 | 224(75) | -2.13—1.41 | -0.13 | 120(179) | ||
FE | A | -3.64—3.82 | 0.36 | 181(119) | -7.25—1.36 | -2.04 | 12(288) | |
B | -1.83—3.95 | 0.63 | 211(89) | -4.57—2.90 | -0.50 | 99(201) | ||
C | -3.17—4.13 | 0.93 | 246(54) | -4.42—3.57 | -0.11 | 142(158) | ||
D | -3.75—3.19 | 0.23 | 178(122) | -5.82—1.63 | -1.39 | 36(264) | ||
E | -4.38—10.46 | 3.28 | 261(38)) | -7.21—8.96 | 0.47 | 164(135) | ||
SCI | A | -6.77—15.10 | 2.42 | 226(74) | -13.31—9.08 | -2.42 | 78(222) | |
B | -11.15—11.87 | 0.85 | 180(120) | -17.11—7.75 | -2.94 | 50(250) | ||
C | -8.74—17.67 | 4.59 | 275(25) | -21.08—10.57 | 0.08 | 151(149) | ||
D | -6.42—18.16 | 6.09 | 288(12) | -14.11—11.77 | -0.78 | 133(167) | ||
E | -10.00—16.34 | 3.88 | 258(41) | -16.43—12.82 | -0.25 | 152(147) | ||
均值Mean | A | 1.59—11.71 | 6.21 | 300(0) | -3.54—4.73 | 1.13 | 236(64) | |
B | -0.07—10.37 | 4.39 | 299(1) | -3.87—4.94 | 0.24 | 172(128) | ||
C | -0.71—8.11 | 3.51 | 298(2) | -6.88—2.33 | -1.64 | 39(261) | ||
D | -1.31—6.55 | 2.59 | 188(12) | -7.41—0.55 | -2.99 | 3(297) | ||
E | 0.11—11.52 | 5.12 | 299(0) | -4.93—5.53 | 0.06 | 150(149) | ||
总均值Total mean | 1.70—7.40 | 4.36 | -4.17—1.87 | -0.64 |
表3
Cor1遗传距离与杂种优势的相关关系"
性状 Trait | 与遗传距离的相关性系数 Correlation coefficient with genetic distance | |
---|---|---|
中亲优势MPH | 超亲优势HB | |
PH | 0.0115 | -0.2798*** |
BW | -0.1618*** | -0.1250*** |
LP | 0.2459*** | -0.1234*** |
BN | -0.3870*** | -0.5277*** |
FL | 0.0109 | -0.3482*** |
FS | 0.1890*** | -0.1055*** |
MIC | -0.3627*** | -0.5161*** |
FU | 0.1764*** | 0.0921*** |
FE | -0.0495 | -0.0315 |
SCI | 0.3530*** | -0.0634* |
表4
Cor2遗传距离与杂种优势的相关关系"
性状 Trait | 与遗传距离的相关性系数 Correlation coefficient with genetic distance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
中亲优势MPH | 超亲优势HB | ||||||||||
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅳ | Ⅴ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅳ | Ⅴ | ||
PH | 0.2433*** | -0.0173 | 0.0870 | -0.1815*** | 0.0196 | -0.0037 | -0.3721*** | -0.1579** | -0.5368*** | -0.1613 | |
BW | -0.1003 | -0.1486** | -0.2628*** | -0.2738*** | -0.2346** | -0.0008 | -0.0864 | -0.1819*** | -0.2451*** | -0.4287*** | |
LP | 0.3801*** | 0.2978*** | 0.2879*** | 0.1346** | 0.2462** | -0.0562 | -0.0356 | -0.0852 | -0.0949 | -0.4010*** | |
BN | -0.5678*** | -0.4537*** | -0.5135*** | -0.3352*** | 0.0049 | -0.6861*** | -0.6001*** | -0.6672*** | -0.4586*** | -0.0976 | |
FL | -0.0951 | 0.0630 | -0.0964 | 0.0163 | -0.2031* | -0.4566*** | -0.3952*** | -0.2698*** | -0.0866 | -0.5788*** | |
FS | -0.0239 | 0.1614*** | 0.2813*** | 0.1780*** | 0.2144* | -0.2216** | -0.1698*** | 0.1662** | 0.0818 | -0.0685 | |
MIC | -0.2862*** | -0.3924*** | -0.4440*** | -0.4387*** | -0.1036 | -0.4695*** | -0.5275*** | -0.4915*** | -0.5194*** | -0.1980* | |
FU | 0.1141 | 0.2487*** | 0.1173* | 0.1518** | 0.1791* | -0.0189 | 0.2020*** | 0.0613 | 0.1870*** | -0.2032* | |
FE | -0.3579*** | -0.1354** | -0.1053 | 0.0999 | 0.1257 | -0.2300** | -0.1320** | 0.0370 | 0.1207* | -0.0573 | |
SCI | 0.1834** | 0.4003*** | 0.4058*** | 0.3726*** | 0.2354** | -0.2461*** | -0.0577 | 0.2116*** | 0.2357*** | -0.2630** |
表5
Cor3遗传距离与杂种优势的相关关系"
性状 Trait | 与遗传距离的相关性系数 Correlation coefficient with genetic distance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
中亲优势MPH | 超亲优势HB | ||||||||||
A | B | C | D | E | A | B | C | D | E | ||
PH | -0.11067 | 0.0312 | 0.0017 | 0.0052 | 0.1615** | -0.1641** | -0.0833 | 0.0051 | -0.3327*** | 0.0227 | |
BW | 0.1073 | -0.0282 | 0.1353* | 0.2430*** | 0.0554 | -0.0087 | -0.0669 | 0.1034 | 0.1466* | 0.0074 | |
LP | 0.1419* | 0.1554** | 0.0350 | 0.1358* | -0.1145* | -0.0849 | -0.3894*** | -0.1031 | -0.2701*** | -0.3032*** | |
BN | 0.1857** | 0.1712** | 0.1544** | 0.0346 | 0.1311* | 0.0608 | 0.0268 | 0.0603 | -0.2319*** | 0.1402* | |
FL | 0.1765** | 0.0001 | 0.1664** | 0.2205*** | -0.1417* | -0.1908*** | -0.3943*** | -0.0480 | -0.3636*** | -0.3814*** | |
FS | 0.1470* | 0.1501** | 0.0881 | 0.0730 | -0.1812** | -0.2267*** | -0.3329*** | -0.2339*** | -0.3668*** | -0.2409*** | |
MIC | 0.0100 | 0.0416 | -0.0033 | -0.0042 | -0.0834 | -0.2506*** | -0.3376*** | -0.2372*** | -0.4879*** | -0.1338* | |
FU | 0.0130 | 0.1898*** | 0.0281 | 0.1364* | 0.0113 | -0.0461 | -0.0260 | -0.0401 | 0.0644 | -0.0909 | |
FE | 0.2138*** | 0.0941 | 0.2281*** | 0.1783** | 0.0139 | 0.1112 | -0.1177* | 0.0892 | -0.0334 | -0.0138 | |
SCI | 0.0193 | 0.1416* | 0.0804 | 0.1335* | -0.0742 | -0.3766*** | -0.3699*** | -0.2454*** | -0.4021*** | -0.2531*** |
表6
Cor4遗传距离与杂种优势的相关关系"
优势 Heterosis | 性状 Trait | 与遗传距离的相关性 Correlation with genetic distance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅳ | Ⅴ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A | B | C | D | E | A | B | C | D | E | A | B | C | D | E | A | B | C | D | E | A | B | C | D | E | ||||||
中亲优势 MPH | PH | P | P | P | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BW | P | P | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LP | N | P | P | P | P | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
BN | P | P | P | P | P | P | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
FL | P | P | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FS | N | P | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MIC | P | P | P | P | P | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
FU | N | P | P | P | P | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
FE | N | P | P | P | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SCI | P | N | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
超亲优势 HB | PH | P | N | N | P | N | N | P | N | N | ||||||||||||||||||||
BW | N | P | N | N | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LP | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |||||||||||||||
BN | P | P | N | P | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FL | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |||||||||||||||||||
FS | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |||||||||||||||||||||
MIC | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | P | P | N | ||||||||||||||||
FU | N | N | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FE | N | N | P | P | N | N | N | |||||||||||||||||||||||
SCI | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
[1] | CHEN Z J, SCHEFFLER B E, ELIZABETH D, TRIPLETT B A, TIANZHEN Z, WANGZHEN G, XIAOYA C, STELLY D M, RABINOWICZ P D, TOWN C D . Toward sequencing cotton (Gossypium) genomes. Plant Physiology, 2007,145(4):1303-1310. |
[2] |
ZHANG J, FANG H, ZHOU H P, SANOGO S, MA Z . Genetics, breeding, and marker-assisted selection for verticillium wilt resistance in cotton. Crop Science, 2014,54(4):1289-1303.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2013.08.0550 |
[3] |
FANG L, WANG Q, HU Y, JIA Y, CHEN J, LIU B, ZHANG Z, GUAN X, CHEN S, ZHOU B . Genomic analyses in cotton identify signatures of selection and loci associated with fiber quality and yield traits. Nature Genetics, 2017,49(7):1089-1098.
doi: 10.1038/ng.3887 pmid: 28581501 |
[4] |
彭倩, 薛亚东, 张向歌, 李慧敏, 孙高阳, 李卫华, 谢慧玲, 汤继华 . 利用单片段代换系测交群体定位玉米产量相关性状的杂种优势位点. 作物学报, 2016,42(4):482-491.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2016.00482 |
PENG Q, XUE Y D, ZHANG X G, LI H M, SUN G Y, LI W H, XIE H L, TANG J H . Identification of heterotic loci for yield and ear traits using CSSL test population in maize. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2016,42(4):482-491. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2016.00482 |
|
[5] |
LI D Y, HUANG Z Y, SONG S H, XIN Y Y, MAO D H, LV Q M, ZHOU M, TIAN D M, TANG M F, ZHUNL H . Integrated analysis of phenome, genome, and transcriptome of hybrid rice uncovered multiple heterosis-related loci for yield increase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016,113(41):E6026-E6035.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1610115113 pmid: 27663737 |
[6] |
DUVICK D N . The contribution of breeding to yield advances in maize (Zea mays L.). Advances in Agronomy, 2005,86(5):83-145.
doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(05)86002-X |
[7] | 傅廷栋 . 油菜杂种优势研究利用的现状与思考. 中国油料作物学报, 2008: 1-5. |
FU T D . On research and application of heterosis in rapessed. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2008: 1-5. (in Chinese) | |
[8] |
邢朝柱, 靖深蓉, 邢以华 . 中国棉花杂种优势利用研究回顾和展望. 棉花学报, 2007,19(5):337-345.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7807.2007.05.003 |
XING C Z, JING S R, XING Y H . Review and prospect on cotton heterosis utilization and study in China. Cotton Science, 2007,19(5):337-345. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7807.2007.05.003 |
|
[9] |
袁有禄, 靖深蓉 . 世界棉花杂种优势利用研究进展, 问题与前景. 中国棉花, 2000,27(8):2-5.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-632X.2000.08.001 |
YUAN Y L, JING S R . Advances, problems and prospects of heterosis utilization of cotton in the world. China Cotton, 2000,27(8):2-5. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-632X.2000.08.001 |
|
[10] |
WU Y T, YIN J M, GUO W Z, ZHU X F, ZHANG T Z . Heterosis performance of yield and fibre quality in F1 and F2 hybrids in upland cotton. Plant Breeding, 2010,123(3):285-289.
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2004.00990.x |
[11] |
邢朝柱, 喻树迅 . 棉花杂种优势表达机理研究进展. 棉花学报, 2004,16(6):379-382.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7807.2004.06.012 |
XING C Z, YU S X . Progress of cotton heterosis expression mechanisms. Cotton Science, 2004,16(6):379-382. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7807.2004.06.012 |
|
[12] | NEI M. Genetic Distance and Molecular Phylogeny. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, 1987, 193-223. |
[13] | 徐静斐, 汪路应 . 水稻杂种优势和配合力的初步研究. 遗传, 1980,2(2):17-19. |
XU J P, WANG L Y . Preliminary study on heterosis and combining ability of rice. Hereditas, 1980,2(2):17-19. (in Chinese) | |
[14] |
MOLL R H, LONNQUIST J H, FORTUNO J V, JOHNSON E C . The relationship of heterosis and genetic divergence in maize. Genetics, 1965,52(1):139-144.
doi: 10.0000/PMID17248265 pmid: 17248265 |
[15] |
GHADERI A, ADAMS M W, NASSIB A M . Relationship between genetic distance and heterosis for yield and morphological traits in dry edible bean and faba bean1. Crop Science, 1984,24(1):37-42.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci1984.0011183X002400010009x |
[16] |
ALI M, COPELAND L O, ELIAS S G, KELLY J D . Relationship between genetic distance and heterosis for yield and morphological traits in winter canola (Brassica napus L.). Theoretical & Applied Genetics, 1995,91(1):118-121.
doi: 10.1007/BF00220867 pmid: 24169676 |
[17] |
TEKLEWOLD A, BECKER H C . Comparison of phenotypic and molecular distances to predict heterosis and F1 performance in Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun). Theoretical & Applied Genetics, 2006,112(4):752-759.
doi: 10.1007/s00122-005-0180-3 pmid: 16365759 |
[18] |
王学德, 潘家驹 . 棉花亲本遗传距离与杂种优势间的相关性研究. 作物学报, 1990,16(1):32-38.
doi: 10.1007/BF02015343 |
WANG X D, PAN J J . Studies on the relationship between genetic distance of parents and yield heterosis in hybrid cotton. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 1990,16(1):32-38. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.1007/BF02015343 |
|
[19] |
赵玉昌, 曹栓柱, 曹新川 . 陆地棉数量性状遗传距离与杂种优势关系的研究. 塔里木大学学报, 2008,20(1):19-22.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-0568.2008.01.006 |
ZHAO Y C, CAO S Z, CAO X C . Study of the relationship between genetic distance and heterosis in upland cotton. Journal of Tarim University, 2008,20(1):19-22. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-0568.2008.01.006 |
|
[20] |
郝德荣, 何林池, 刘水东, 周金凤, 邢建美, 黄昭平 . 抗虫棉数量性状遗传距离与杂种优势关系的研究. 金陵科技学院学报, 2008,24(4):50-55.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-755X.2008.04.012 |
HAO D R, HE L C, LIU S D, ZHOU J F, XING J M, HUANG S P . Study of the relationship between genetic distance and heterosis in insect resistant cotton. Journal of Jinling Institute of Technology, 2008,24(4):50-55. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-755X.2008.04.012 |
|
[21] |
陈强, 杨祖荣, 王谧, 范玉刚 . 几个陆地棉表型遗传距离与杂种优势之间的关系研究. 江西农业学报, 2011,23(5):25-26.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8581.2011.05.009 |
CHEN Q, YANG Z R, WANG M, FAN Y G . Research on relationship between phenotypic genetic distance and heterosis of several upland cotton combinations. Acta Agriculture Jiangxi, 2011,23(5):25-26. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8581.2011.05.009 |
|
[22] |
赵仁渠, 杨明 . 样本对小麦遗传距离与杂种优势关系的影响. 生物数学学报, 1994(1):48-53.
doi: 10.1007/BF02007173 |
ZHAO R Q, YANG M . Studies on the effects of sample on the relationship between genetic distance and heterosis in wheat. Journal of Biomathematics, 1994(1):48-53. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.1007/BF02007173 |
|
[23] |
代攀虹, 孙君灵, 贾银华, 杜雄明, 王谧 . 利用表型数据构建陆地棉核心种质. 植物遗传资源学报, 2016,17(6):961-968.
doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.2016.06.001 |
DAI P H, SUN J L, JIA Y H, DU X M, WANG M . Construction of core collection of upland cotton based on phenotypic data. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2016,17(6):961-968. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.2016.06.001 |
|
[24] |
代攀虹, 孙君灵, 何守朴, 王立如, 贾银华, 潘兆娥, 庞保印, 杜雄明, 王谧 . 陆地棉核心种质表型性状遗传多样性分析及综合评价. 中国农业科学, 2016,49(19):3694-3708.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2016.19.003 |
DAI P H, SUN J L, HE S P, WANG L R, JIA Y H, PAN Z E, PANG B Y, DU X M, WANG M . Comprehensive evaluation and genetic diversity analysis of phenotypic traits of core collection in upland ctton. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2016,49(19):3694-3708. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2016.19.003 |
|
[25] |
KEMPTHORNE O, FINNEY D J . An introduction to genetic statistics. Aibs Bulletin, 1957,39(2):69-79.
doi: 10.2307/1292411 |
[26] | BORCARD D, GILLET F, LEGENDRE P . Numerical Ecology with R. Springer, 2011: 332-334. |
[27] |
GB —2007《棉花细绒棉》条款解释. 中国纤检, 2007(7):6-14.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-4466.2007.07.002 |
GB 1103—2007《Cotton–Upland cotton》Interpretation. China Fiber Inspection, 2007(7):6-14. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-4466.2007.07.002 |
|
[28] | MILLER M, SONG Q, SHI X, JUENGER T E, CHEN Z J . Natural variation in timing of stress-responsive gene expression predicts heterosis in intraspecific hybrids of Arabidopsis. Nature Communications, 2015,6:7453-7455. |
[29] |
张锡顺, 杨建国, 杨若菡, 徐宁生, 刘旭云, 杜刚 . 蓖麻数量性状遗传距离与杂种优势关系的研究. 中国农业科学, 2006,39(3):209-216.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.2006.03.029 |
ZHANG X S, YANG J G, YANG R H, XU N S, LIU X Y, DU G . Study of the relationship between genetic distance and heterosis in castor. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2006,39(3):209-216. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.2006.03.029 |
|
[30] |
武耀廷, 张天真, 朱协飞, 王广明 . 陆地棉遗传距离与杂种F1、F2产量及杂种优势的相关分析. 中国农业科学, 2002,35(1):22-28.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.2002.01.005 |
WU Y T, ZHANG T Z, ZHU X F, WANG G M . Relationship between F1, F2 yield, heterosis and genetic distance measured by molecular markers and parent performance in cotton. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2002,35(1):22-28. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.2002.01.005 |
|
[31] |
杨代刚, 马雄风, 周晓箭, 张先亮, 白凤虎, 王海风, 孟清芹, 裴小雨, 喻树迅 . 陆地棉配合力与杂种优势、遗传距离的相关性分析. 棉花学报, 2012,24(3):191-198.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7807.2012.03.001 |
YANG D G, MA X F, ZHOU X J, ZHANG X L, BAI F H, WANG H F, MENG Q Q, PEI X Y, YU S X . Correlation among combining ability, heterosis and genetic distance in upland cotton. Cotton Science, 2012,24(3):191-198. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7807.2012.03.001 |
|
[32] |
宿俊吉, 陈红, 余渝, 林海, 宁新柱, 李吉莲, 刘萍, 刘丽, 相吉山, 邓福军 . 陆地棉遗传距离与纤维品质性状中亲优势及F1、F2表现的相关性研究. 棉花学报, 2013,25(2):142-147.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7807.2013.02.008 |
SU J J, CHEN H, YU Y, LIN H, NING X Z, LI J L, LIU P, LIU L, XIANG J S, DENG F J . The relationship of genetic distance to mid-parent heterosis and manifestations of F1&F2 of fiber quality traits in upland cotton. Cotton Science, 2013,25(2):142-147. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7807.2013.02.008 |
|
[33] |
ZHANG J F, ABDELRAHEEM A, WU J X . Heterosis, combining ability and genetic effect, and relationship with genetic distance based on a diallel of hybrids from five diverse Gossypium barbadense cotton genotypes. Euphytica, 2017,213(9):208-222.
doi: 10.1007/s10681-017-1997-y |
[34] | CHRISTIAN R, ANGELIKA C E, CHRISTOPH G, JAN L, FRANK T, RONAN S, THOMAS A, MARK S, LOTHAR W, MELCHINGER A E . Genomic and metabolic prediction of complex heterotic traits in hybrid maize. Nature Genetics, 2012,44(2):217-220. |
[35] |
桑世飞, 王会, 梅德圣, 刘佳, 付丽, 王军, 汪文祥, 胡琼 . 利用全基因组SNP芯片分析油菜遗传距离与杂种优势的关系. 中国农业科学, 2015,48(12):2469-2478.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.12.020 |
SANG S F, WANG H, MEI D S, LIU J, FU L, WANG J, WANG W X, HU Q . Correlation analysis between heterosis and genetic distance evaluated by genome-wide SNP chip in Brassica napus. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2015,48(12):2469-2478. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.12.020 |
|
[36] | YANG M, WANG X, REN D, HUANG H, XU M, HE G, DENG X W . Genomic architecture of biomass heterosis in Arabidopsis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017,114(30):8101-8106. |
[37] |
孙正文, 匡猛, 马峙英, 王省芬 . 利用CottonSNP63K芯片构建棉花品种的指纹图谱. 中国农业科学, 2017,50(24):4692-4704.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.24.003 |
SUN Z W, KUANG M, MA Z Y, WANG S F . Using cotton SNP63K chip to construct fingerprint map of cotton varieties. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017,50(24):4692-4704. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.24.003 |
|
[38] |
WANG M, TU L, LIN M, LIN Z, WANG P, YANG Q, YE Z, SHEN C, LI J, ZHANG L . Asymmetric subgenome selection and cis-regulatory divergence during cotton domestication. Nature Genetics, 2017,49(4):579-590.
doi: 10.1038/ng.3807 pmid: 28263319 |
[39] |
MA Z, HE S, WANG X, SUN J, ZHANG Y, ZHANG G, WU L, LI Z, LIU Z, SUN G . Resequencing a core collection of upland cotton identifies genomic variation and loci influencing fiber quality and yield. Nature Genetics, 2018,50(6):803-813.
doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0119-7 pmid: 29736016 |
[1] | 王彩香,袁文敏,刘娟娟,谢晓宇,马麒,巨吉生,陈炟,王宁,冯克云,宿俊吉. 西北内陆早熟陆地棉品种的综合评价及育种演化[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(1): 1-16. |
[2] | 王秀秀,邢爱双,杨茹,何守朴,贾银华,潘兆娥,王立如,杜雄明,宋宪亮. 陆地棉种质资源表型性状综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(6): 1082-1094. |
[3] | 杜金霞,李奕莎,李美霖,陈文浛,张木清. 甘蔗不同基因型对白条病抗性的评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(21): 4118-4130. |
[4] | 谢晓宇, 王凯鸿, 秦晓晓, 王彩香, 史春辉, 宁新柱, 杨永林, 秦江鸿, 李朝周, 马麒, 宿俊吉. 陆地棉吐絮率的限制性两阶段多位点全基因组关联分析及候选基因预测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(2): 248-264. |
[5] | 王娟, 马晓梅, 周小凤, 王新, 田琴, 李成奇, 董承光. 棉花产量构成因素性状的全基因组关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(12): 2265-2277. |
[6] | 冯俊杰,赵文达,张新全,刘英杰,袁帅,董志晓,熊毅,熊艳丽,凌瑶,马啸. 引种日本多花黑麦草标准品种DUS性状变异分析及应用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(12): 2447-2460. |
[7] | 刘瑞达, 葛常伟, 王敏轩, 申延会, 李朋珍, 崔子倩, 刘瑞华, 沈倩, 张思平, 刘绍东, 马慧娟, 陈静, 张桂寅, 庞朝友. 陆地棉转录因子基因GhMYB108的克隆及其在抗旱中的作用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(10): 1877-1890. |
[8] | 袁景丽,郑红丽,梁先利,梅俊,余东亮,孙玉强,柯丽萍. 花青素代谢对陆地棉叶片和纤维色泽呈现的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(9): 1846-1855. |
[9] | 聂兴华, 郑瑞杰, 赵永廉, 曹庆芹, 秦岭, 邢宇. 利用荧光SSR分子标记评估中国栗属植物遗传多样性[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(8): 1739-1750. |
[10] | 秦鸿德, 冯常辉, 张友昌, 别墅, 张教海, 夏松波, 王孝刚, 王琼珊, 蓝家样, 陈全求, 焦春海. 基于部分NCII设计的陆地棉F1表现预测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(8): 1590-1598. |
[11] | 李凯峰,尹玉和,王琼,林团荣,郭华春. 不同马铃薯品种挥发性风味成分及代谢产物相关性分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(4): 792-803. |
[12] | 王娜,赵资博,高琼,何守朴,马晨辉,彭振,杜雄明. 陆地棉盐胁迫应答基因GhPEAMT1的克隆及功能分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(2): 248-260. |
[13] | 李嘉伟,苏江硕,张飞,房伟民,管志勇,陈素梅,陈发棣. 基于表型性状构建传统菊花核心种质[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(16): 3514-3526. |
[14] | 张斌斌,蔡志翔,沈志军,严娟,马瑞娟,俞明亮. 观赏桃种质资源表型性状多样性评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(11): 2406-2418. |
[15] | 张晓,李曼,刘大同,江伟,张勇,高德荣. 扬麦系列品种品质性状分析及育种启示[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(7): 1309-1321. |
|