芝麻抗裂蒴性鉴定方法研究及核心种质抗裂蒴性评价

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.20.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 芝麻蒴果成熟易开裂,造成产量损失,是影响芝麻机械化收获的重要因素。建立一种简便易行、准确可靠、重复性好的芝麻抗裂蒴性鉴定方法,有利于发掘抗裂蒴种质和选育抗裂蒴品种,推动芝麻机械化生产进程。【方法】 芝麻进入成熟期2周以后,取主茎中部蒴果进行抗裂蒴性鉴定。利用5份具有不同抗裂蒴性的代表性材料,通过比较蒴果样品烘干前后裂口宽与开裂角度C1的差异,确定样品处理方式;通过比较主茎各节位蒴果的裂口宽和开裂角度C1变异情况,选择最佳取样部位。以308份核心种质为材料,测量计算蒴果长、蒴果宽、蒴果厚、裂口宽、裂口深、果皮重、裂口深/蒴果长、果皮重/蒴果长、开裂角度C1和C2等10项指标,通过相关性分析、主成分分析、隶属函数、线性回归等统计学分析,筛选抗裂蒴性评价的最佳指标;根据不同抗裂蒴性核心种质的裂口宽变异分布情况,确定抗裂蒴性等级划分标准。【结果】 蒴果样品经过烘干处理,有助于消除误差,可提高鉴定准确性;植株主茎中部5节位蒴果的裂口宽和开裂角度C1在同一材料不同单株间无显著差异,为最佳取样部位;建立308份核心种质的抗裂蒴性综合评价值与单项指标的最优回归方程,即D=﹣0.12+0.33X₂+3.21X₁₀,表明裂口宽和果皮重/蒴果长对抗裂蒴性有显著影响,且裂口宽与蒴果开裂角度C1呈极显著正相关（相关系数0.8049）,因此,裂口宽可以作为芝麻抗裂蒴性鉴定评价的指标;确定的芝麻抗裂蒴性等级划分标准为：高抗（裂口宽≤0.7 cm）,抗（0.7 cm＜裂口宽≤0.9 cm）,中间型（0.9 cm＜裂口宽≤1.1 cm）,裂（1.1 cm＜裂口宽≤1.5 cm）,易裂（裂口宽＞1.5 cm）。【结论】 当芝麻进入成熟期2周后,选取主茎中部5节位的中位蒴果,烘干处理后测量蒴果的裂口宽,能够精准评价芝麻的抗裂蒴性。该方法简便易行,不受环境影响,可控性强,重复性好,结果可靠,能较为准确地反映芝麻的抗裂蒴性,可用于芝麻种质抗裂蒴性高通量鉴定。利用该方法对308份核心种质进行抗裂蒴性评价,并从中筛选出11份高抗裂蒴种质。

关键词: 芝麻, 抗裂蒴性, 鉴定方法, 裂口宽, 核心种质

Abstract:

【Objective】 The mature sesame capsules are prone to dehisce, which causes yield loss, and it is an important factor influencing mechanized harvesting. Establishment of an easy, accurate, reliable and reproducible method for identification sesame capsule dehiscence (CD) resistance, will be helpful to discover germplasm with CD resistance and breed varieties resistant to CD, consequently promote the mechanization process of sesame production. 【Method】 After 2 weeks of the sesame enters mature stage, the capsules in the middle capsules part of the main stem were used in the identification CD resistance. Five representative germplasms with different CD resistance were used, the sample treatment method was determined by comparing the capsule opening width (COW) and the dehiscence angle C1 before and after drying, the best sampling part was selected by comparing the COW and the dehiscence angle C1 at each node of main stem. Using 308 core collections, total of 10 indices were measured and calculated, such as the capsule length (CL), capsule width (CW), capsule thickness (CT), capsule opening width (COW), capsule dehiscence depth (CDD), peel weight (PW), CDD/CL, PW/CL, dehiscence angle C1 and C2. Through statistical analysis including correlation analysis, principal component analysis, membership functions, and linear regression, the optimal index to evaluating CD resistance was screened out. The classification standard of CD resistance was determined according to the COW variation distribution on sesame core collections with diverse CD resistance. 【Result】 The capsule drying treatment was helpful to eliminate the error, and improve the identification accuracy. There was no significant difference between different plants of each material in the COW and dehiscence angle C1 of capsule from the middle 5 nodes, which were the best sampling parts. Based on statistical analysis of the 308 core collections, the optimal regression equation was established on the D value and individual indexes, that was D=-0.12+0.33X₂+ 3.21X₁₀, which showed that COW and PL/CL had significant effects on CD resistance, as the COW was highly significantly positive correlated with the dehiscence angle C1 (the correlation coefficient reached 0.8049), therefore the COW could be used in the identification of the CD resistance. The following classification criteria of sesame CD resistance were determined: Highly Resistant (COW≤0.7 cm), Resistant (0.7 cm＜COW≤0.9 cm), Intermediate (0.9 cm＜COW≤1.1 cm), Dehiscent (1.1 cm＜COW≤1.5 cm), Prone to dehiscence (COW＞1.5 cm). 【Conclusion】 When the sesame entered mature stage for 2 weeks or later, the middle capsules from 5 nodes in the middle part of the main stem was sampled and dried, then the COW were measured to accurately evaluate the CD resistance of sesame. The method established in this study was simple, with strong controllability and good repeatability, it was unaffected by environment, the result was reliable and can accurately reflect the CD resistance, therefore, the method can be used for high throughput identification of CD resistance of sesame germplasm. The CD resistance of 308 core collections were evaluated by this method, 11 germplasms with high CD resistance were identified.

Key words: Sesamum indicum L, capsule dehiscence resistance, identification method, capsule opening width, core collection

师立松,高媛,黎冬华,杨文娟,周瑢,张秀荣,张艳欣. 芝麻抗裂蒴性鉴定方法研究及核心种质抗裂蒴性评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(20): 3520-3532.

LiSong SHI,Yuan GAO,DongHua LI,WenJuan YANG,Rong ZHOU,XiuRong ZHANG,YanXin ZHANG. Study on the Method for Identification Sesame Capsule Dehiscence Resistance and Evaluation of Capsule Dehiscence Resistance of the Core Collection[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(20): 3520-3532.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.20.003

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2019/V52/I20/3520

图/表 14

图1

图2

图3

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

图4

图5

图6

表7

表8

参考文献 39

[1]	窦福良, 魏东 . 芝麻饼粕中活性成分的提取方法研究进展. 食品科学, 2010,31(19):414. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201019091
	DOU F L, WEI D . Research progress in extraction methods of active components from sesame cake. Food Science, 2010,31(19):414. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201019091
[2]	李娜 . 芝麻的营养成分与食疗保健作用. 中国食物与营养, 2008,13(5):55-57.
	LI N . Nutritional components and dietary healthcare of sesame. Food and Nutrition in China, 2008,13(5):55-57. (in Chinese)
[3]	杨梅, 杨文娟, 高媛, 张艳欣, 朱晓冬, 周瑢, 黎冬华, 张秀荣, 吴文华, 王林海 . 芝麻蒴果大小相关性状的QTL定位分析. 中国油料作物学报, 2017,39(6):785-793.
	YANG M, YANG W J, GAO Y, ZHANG Y X, ZHU X D, ZHOU R, LI D H, ZHANG X R, WU W H, WANG L H . Quantitative trait locus mapping for sesame capsule size. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Science, 2017,39(6):785-793. (in Chinese)
[4]	张艳欣, 王林海, 黎冬华, 高媛, 吕海霞, 张秀荣 . 芝麻耐湿性QTL定位及优异耐湿基因资源挖掘. 中国农业科学, 2014,47(3):422-430. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.03.002
	ZHANG Y X, WANG L H, LI D H, GAO Y, LÜ H X, ZHANG X R . Mapping of sesame waterlogging tolerance QTL and identification of excellent waterlogging tolerant germplasm. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014,47(3):422-430. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.03.002
[5]	LANGHAM D R . Progress in mechanizing sesame in the US through breeding. Trends in New Crops and New Uses, 2002: 157-173.
[6]	SHIM K B, KANG C H, SEONG J D, HWANG C D, PAEK K Y, RHO J W, LEE Y Y, KIM H Y . A new sesame cultivar, "Kopoom" with shattering resistance, high quality and yielding. Korean Journal of Breeding Science, 2007: 114-115.
[7]	YAMADA T, FUNATSUKI H, HAGIHARA S, FUJITA S, TANAKA Y, TSUJI H, ISHIMOTO M, FUJINO K, HAJIKA M . A major QTL, qPDH1, is commonly involved in shattering resistance of soybean cultivars. Breeding Science, 2009,59(4):435-440.
[8]	SUZUKI M, FUJINO K, NAKAMOTO Y, ISHIMOTO M . Fine mapping and development of DNA markers for the qPDH1 locus associated with pod dehiscence in soybean. Molecular Breeding, 2010,25(3):407-418.
[9]	DONG Y, YANG X, LIU J, WANG B H, LIU B L, WANG Y Z . Pod shattering resistance associated with domestication is mediated by a NAC gene in soybean. Nature Communications, 2014,5(2):3352.
[10]	FUNATSUKI H, SUZUKI M, HIROSE A, INABA H, YAMADA T, HAJIKA M, KOMATSU K, KATAYAMA T, SAYAMA T, ISHIMOTO M, FUJINO K . Molecular basis of a shattering resistance boosting global dissemination of soybean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014,111(50):17797.
[11]	RAMAN H, RAMAN R, KILIAN A, DETERING F, CARLING J, COONBES N, DIFFEY S, KADKOL G, EDWARDS D, MCCULLY M, RUPERAO P PARKIN I A P, BATLEY J, LUCKETT D, WRATTEN N, . Genome-Wide delineation of natural variation for pod shatter resistance in Brassica napus. PLoS ONE, 2014,9(7):e101673.
[12]	LIU J, WANG J, WANG H, WANG W X, ZHOU R J, MEI D S, CHENG H T, YANG J, RAMAN H, HU Q . Multigenic control of pod shattering resistance in Chinese rapeseed germplasm revealed by genome-wide association and linkage analyses. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2016,7(1058):1-14.
[13]	MONGKOLPORN O, KADKOL G P, PANG E C K, TAYLOR P W J . Identification of RAPD markers linked to recessive genes conferring siliqua shatter resistance in Brassica rapa. Plant Breeding, 2010,122(6):479-484.
[14]	刘婷婷, 孙盈盈, 曹石, 杨阳, 吴莲蓉, 左青松, 吴江生, 周广生 . 油菜抗裂角性状研究进展. 作物杂志, 2014(3):5-9.
	LIU T T, SUN Y Y, CAO S, YANG Y, WU L R, ZUO Q S, WU J S, ZHOU G S . Research advances on traits of resistance to pod shattering in rapeseed. Crops, 2014(3):5-9. (in Chinese)
[15]	LILJEGREN S J, ROEDER A H, KEMPIN S A, GREMSKI K, OSTERGAARD L, GUIMIL S, REYES D K, YANOFSKY M F . Control of fruit patterning in Arabidopsis by indehiscent. Cell, 2004,116(6):843-853.
[16]	RAJANI S, SUNDARESAN V . The Arabidopsis myc/bHLH gene ALCATRAZ enables cell separation in fruit dehiscence. Current Biology, 2001,11(24):1914-1922.
[17]	LILJEGREN S J, DITTA G S, ESHED Y, SAVIDGE B, BOWMAN J L, YANOFSKY M F . SHATTERPROOF MADS-box genes control seed dispersal in Arabidopsis. Nature, 2000,404(6779):766-770.
[18]	ØSTERGAARD L, KEMPIN S A, BIES D, KLEE H J, YANOFSKY M F . Pod shatter-resistant Brassica fruit produced by ectopic expression of the FRUITFULL gene. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 2006,4(1):45-51.
[19]	FUNATSUKI H, HAJIKA M, YAMADA T, SUZUKI M, HAGIHARA S, TANAKA Y, FUJITA S, ISHIMOTO M, FUJINO K . Mapping and use of QTLs controlling pod dehiscence in soybean. Breeding Science, 2012,61(5):554-558.
[20]	QUICK G R . A quantitative shatter index for soybeans. Experimental Agriculture, 1974,10(2):149.
[21]	WEEKS S A, WOLFORD J C, KLEIS R W . A tensile testing method for determining the tendency of soybean pods to dehisce. Transactions of the Asae, 1975,18(3):471-474.
[22]	TOMASZEWSKI Z, KOCZOWSKA I . Metoda hodowli rzepiku ozimego TK-6. Biuletyn Institutu Hodowli I Aklimatyzacji Roslin, 1971,5:73-75.
[23]	LOOF B, JONSSON R . Results of investigations on resistance to shedding in rape. Sveriges Utsadesforesnings Tidskrift, 1970,80:193-205.
[24]	MORGAN C L, BRUCE D M, CHILD R, LADBROOKEA Z L, ARTHURA A E . Genetic variation for pod shatter resistance among lines of oilseed rape developed from synthetic B. napus. Field Crops Research, 1998,58(2):153-165.
[25]	谭小力, 张洁夫, 杨莉, 张志燕, 周佳, 姜松, 戚存扣 . 油菜角果裂角力的定量测定. 农业工程学报, 2006,22(11):40-43.
	TAN X L, ZHANG J F, YANG L, ZHANG Z Y, ZHOU J, JIANG S, QI C K . Quantitive determination of the strength of rapeseed pod dehiscence. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2006,22(11):40-43. (in Chinese)
[26]	文雁成, 傅廷栋, 涂金星, 马朝芝, 沈竞雄, 张书芬 . 甘蓝型油菜抗裂角品种(系)的筛选与分析. 作物学报, 2008,34(1):163-166. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2008.00163
	WEN Y C, FU T D, TU J X, MA C Z, SHEN J X, ZHANG S F . Screening and analysis of resistance to silique shattering in rape (Brassica napus L.). Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2008,34(1):163-166. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2008.00163
[27]	彭鹏飞, 李云昌, 胡琼, 刘凤兰, 李英德, 徐育松, 梅德圣 . 甘蓝型油菜的抗裂角性鉴定及品种筛选. 华北农学报, 2009,24(6):223-226. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2009.06.046
	PENG P F, LI Y C, HU Q, LIU F L, LI Y D, XU Y S, MEI D S . Screen of varieties suitable for machine harvesting from new breeding hybrids or lines in Brassica napus. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2009,24(6):223-226. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2009.06.046
[28]	LANGHAM D R . Method for making non-dehiscent sesame: US, US006100452A. 2000 -08-08.
[29]	黎冬华, 刘文萍, 张艳欣, 王林海, 危文亮, 高媛, 丁霞, 王蕾, 张秀荣 . 芝麻耐旱性的鉴定方法及关联分析. 作物学报, 2013,39(8):1425-1433. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2013.01425
	LI D H, LIU W P, ZHANG Y X, WANG L H, WEI W L, GAO Y, DING X, WANG L, ZHANG X R . Identification method of drought tolerance and association mapping for sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2013,39(8):1425-1433. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2013.01425
[30]	FUNATSUKI H, ISHIMOTO M, TSUJI H, KAWAGUCHI K, HAJIKA M, FUJINO K . Simple sequence repeat markers linked to a major QTL controlling pod shattering in soybean. Plant Breed, 2006,125(2):195-197.
[31]	孙超才, 王伟荣, 李延莉, 钱小芳 . 适应机械收获的双低油菜新品种沪油17号的选育. 农业科技通讯, 2007(5):27-28.
	SUN C C, WANG W R, LI Y L, QIAN X F . Breeding of a double low rapeseed variety Huyou No.17 which is suitable for machinery harvest. Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2007(5):27-28. (in Chinese)
[32]	WEN Y C, ZHANG S F, Yi B, WEN J, WANG J P, ZHU J C, HE J P, CAO J H . Identification of QTLs involved in pod-shatter resistance in Brassica napus L. Crop and Pasture Science, 2012,63(12):1082-1089.
[33]	彭鹏飞 . 甘蓝型油菜抗裂角性状的鉴定、遗传分析及QTL定位[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2009.
	PENG P F . Determination, genetic analysis and QTL mapping of pod shatter resistance in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.)[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2009. ( in Chinese)
[34]	SZOT B, TYS J, SZPRYNGIEL M, GROCHOWICZ M . Determination of the reasons for rapeseed losses at combine harvesting and some methods of their limitation. Zeszyty Problemowe Postepow Nauk Rolniczych, 1991,389:221-232.
[35]	李耀明, 朱俊奇, 徐立章, 赵湛 . 基于悬空压裂法的油菜角果抗裂角力测试实验. 农业工程学报, 2012,28(8):111-114.
	LI Y M, ZHU J Q, XU L Z, ZHAO Z . Experiment on strength of rapeseed pod dehiscence based on impending fracturing method. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2012,28(8):111-114. (in Chinese)
[36]	文雁成, 傅廷栋, 涂金星, 马朝芝, 沈金雄, 文静, 张书芬 . 影响甘蓝型油菜角果抗裂特性的因素分析. 中国油料作物学报, 2010,32(1):25-29.
	WEN Y C, FU T D, TU J X, MA C Z, SHEN J X, WEN J, ZHANG S F . Factors analysis of silique shatter resistance in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Science, 2010,32(1):25-29. (in Chinese)
[37]	KADKOL G P, HALLORAN G M, MACMILLAN R H . Evaluation of Brassica, genotypes for resistance to shatter: II. Variation in siliqua strength within and between accessions. Euphytica, 1985,34(3):915-924.
[38]	ASHRI A, LADIJINSKI G . Anatomical effects of the capsule dehiscence alleles in sesame. Crop Science, 1964,4:136-138.
[39]	BEDIGIAN D . Evolution of sesame revisited: domestication, diversity and prospects. Genetic Resources & Crop Evolution, 2003,50:779-787.

取样部位Sampling position	单株Single plant	LS78	LS83	LS85	LS89	LS90
全部节位平均值 Average value of all nodes	1	0.793b	0.985b	1.198a	1.860a	1.827a
	2	0.905a	1.158a	0.944b	1.681a	1.859a
	3	0.848ab	0.990b	0.941b	1.686a	1.895a
	4	0.873ab	1.028b	0.960b	1.865a	1.946a
中部5节位平均值 Average value of the middle 5 nodes	1	0.898a	1.113a	1.127a	1.875a	1.897a
	2	0.887a	1.171a	1.084a	1.748a	1.953a
	3	0.883a	1.098a	1.136a	1.925a	1.813a
	4	0.832a	1.059a	1.070a	1.751a	2.065a
去除基部5节和顶部5节后其他节位平均值 Average value of the other nodes after removing the base 5 nodes and the top 5 nodes	1	0.886a	1.070a	1.193a	1.886a	1.929a
	2	0.929a	1.164a	1.043b	1.730a	1.977a
	3	0.910a	0.995a	1.024b	1.744a	1.968a
	4	0.889a	1.095a	1.012b	1.845a	1.942a

取样部位Sampling position	单株Single plant	LS78	LS83	LS85	LS89	LS90
全部节位平均值 Average value of all nodes	1	18.359b	18.876b	24.569a	31.512a	30.521b
	2	21.766a	23.300a	19.403b	30.737a	31.779ab
	3	21.045a	18.702b	19.030b	30.387a	33.235ab
	4	21.935a	20.739b	18.555b	32.998a	35.056a
中部5节位平均值 Average value of the middle 5 nodes	1	20.413a	20.889a	22.995a	31.163a	32.538a
	2	20.703a	23.216a	21.873a	30.555a	32.246a
	3	21.866a	21.039a	22.098a	32.814a	31.869a
	4	20.739a	20.779a	20.366a	29.832a	35.052a
去除基部5节和顶部5节后其他节位平均值 Average value of the other nodes after removing the base 5 nodes and the top 5 nodes	1	20.382b	20.139ab	24.577a	31.557a	31.528b
	2	21.715ab	22.865a	21.507b	31.906a	33.556b
	3	22.519a	18.941b	20.516b	31.259a	34.291ab
	4	22.227a	21.184ab	19.382b	31.810a	34.882a

材料 Material	抗裂蒴性 Capsule dehiscence resistance	裂口宽 Capsule opening width	C1
LS78	抗Resistance	0.875d	20.930d
LS83	裂Dehiscence	1.110c	21.480c
LS85	裂Dehiscence	1.104c	21.833c
LS89	易裂Prone to dehiscence	1.825b	31.091b
LS90	易裂Prone to dehiscence	1.932a	32.926a

指标 Index	蒴果长 CL	裂口宽 COW	裂口深 CDD	蒴果宽 CW	蒴果厚 CT	果皮重 PW	C1	C2	裂口深/蒴果长 CDD/CL	果皮重/蒴果长 PW/CL	D值 D value
蒴果长CL	1.0000
裂口宽COW	0.5062	1.0000
裂口深CDD	0.6554	0.5770	1.0000
蒴果宽CW	0.4282	0.3949	0.2994	1.0000
蒴果厚CT	0.4368	0.2164	0.2965	0.5118	1.0000
果皮重PW	0.7243	0.4019	0.4767	0.7101	0.6662	1.0000
C1	-0.0427	0.8049	0.2332	0.1597	-0.0551	-0.0137	1.0000
C2	-0.1942	0.4027	-0.4335	0.0982	-0.0907	-0.1020	0.6119	1.0000
裂口深/蒴果长 CDD/CL	0.2019	0.4072	0.8486	0.1156	0.0858	0.1585	0.3336	-0.4530	1.0000
果皮重/蒴果长 PW/CL	0.3987	0.2310	0.2576	0.7128	0.6484	0.8948	-0.0108	-0.0427	0.0945	1.0000
D值 D value	0.5232	0.8394	0.4445	0.7049	0.5221	0.6940	0.6155	0.4104	0.2376	0.6271	1.0000

指标 Index	蒴果长 CL	裂口宽 COW	裂口深 CDD	蒴果宽 CW	蒴果厚 CT	果皮重 PW	C1	C2	裂口深/蒴果长 CDD/CL	果皮重/蒴果长 PW/CL	贡献率 C
CI(1)	0.3909	0.3222	0.3866	0.3643	0.3335	0.4299	0.1271	-0.0622	0.2341	0.3005	0.4165
CI(2)	-0.0480	0.4889	0.0606	-0.0940	-0.1679	-0.1967	0.6244	0.4753	0.1232	-0.2197	0.2232
CI(3)	-0.0412	0.0052	-0.4347	0.2610	0.2343	0.1840	0.0352	0.4936	-0.5658	0.2958	0.1891
CI(4)	-0.6695	-0.1791	-0.0770	0.1940	0.0638	-0.0460	0.2664	-0.0690	0.4115	0.4743	0.0743