人工合成小麦和地方品种穗发芽抗性育种利用效率

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.07.004

中国农业科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (7): 1255-1266.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.07.004

所属专题：专题——种子萌发与穗发芽

• 专题：种子萌发与穗发芽 • 上一篇下一篇

人工合成小麦和地方品种穗发芽抗性育种利用效率

刘泽厚¹(), 王琴¹, 叶美金², 万洪深¹, 杨宁¹, 杨漫宇¹, 杨武云¹(), 李俊¹()

¹ 四川省农业科学院作物研究所/农业农村部西南地区小麦生物学与遗传育种重点实验室/粮食作物绿色种质创新与遗传改良四川省重点实验室，成都 610066
² 成都师范学院化学与生命科学学院，四川温江 611130

收稿日期:2022-11-09 接受日期:2022-12-23 出版日期:2024-04-01 发布日期:2024-04-09
通信作者:
杨武云，E-mail：yangwuyun@126.com。
李俊，E-mail：lijunchd@126.com
联系方式: 刘泽厚，E-mail：zehouliu@163.com。
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2021YFD1200603); 国家自然科学基金(U22A20472); 四川省科技计划(2022ZDZX0014); 四川省科技计划(2022NSFSC0161); 四川省财政专项种源1+3关键核心技术攻关项目

Utilization Efficiency of Improving the Resistance for Pre-Harvest Sprouting by Synthetic Hexaploid Wheat and Chinese Wheat Landrace

LIU ZeHou¹(), WANG Qin¹, YE MeiJin², WAN HongShen¹, YANG Ning¹, YANG ManYu¹, YANG WuYun¹(), LI Jun¹()

¹ Crop Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Wheat Biology and Genetic Improvement in Southwestern China, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Environmentally Friendly Crop Germplasm Innovation and Genetic Improvement Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610066
² College of Chemistry and Life Sciences, Chengdu Normal University, Wenjiang 611130, Sichuan

Received:2022-11-09 Accepted:2022-12-23 Published:2024-04-01 Online:2024-04-09

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】小麦穗发芽是影响小麦产量和品质的重要限制因子。具有抗穗发芽特性的人工合成小麦和地方品种是改良栽培小麦穗发芽抗性的重要基因资源，通过分子标记辅助选择转育人工合成小麦和地方品种穗发芽抗性位点，评价人工合成小麦和地方品种导入系抗穗发芽育种利用效率，筛选抗穗发芽小麦新材料，为小麦穗发芽抗性育种提供数据和材料支撑。【方法】以抗穗发芽的人工合成小麦SYN792和四川地方品种涪陵须须麦为母本，以穗发芽敏感品种川麦45为轮回亲本，构建2个BC₁F₇群体。2017年，通过整穗发芽鉴定法对2个BC₁F₇群体的1 796个株系进行穗发芽表型初筛，然后利用与人工合成小麦PHS-3D和地方品种PHS-A1穗发芽抗性位点连锁的SSR标记进行分子标记选择，筛选出整穗发芽率（SGR）小于35%且携带PHS-3D和PHS-A1抗性位点的导入系；2018和2019年，连续2年对初筛选出的PHS-3D和PHS-A1导入系进行整穗发芽率、籽粒发芽指数（GI）和产量相关性状鉴定，其中，籽粒发芽鉴定试验设置25 ℃（18GI）和32 ℃（19GI）2个发芽温度。通过不同环境下穗发芽抗性和产量数据，分析人工合成小麦和地方品种导入系抗穗发芽育种利用效率，筛选抗穗发芽且综合性状好的优异导入系。【结果】经整穗发芽鉴定初筛，从1 796个衍生系中筛选出SGR值小于35%的株系537个；进一步对筛选出的537个株系进行分子标记检测，发现332个株系导入了人工合成小麦PHS-3D和地方品种PHS-A1穗发芽抗性位点，包括人工合成小麦导入系73个、地方品种导入系259个；地方品种PHS-A1导入系的频率显著高于人工合成小麦PHS-3D导入系。2018和2019年通过对332个穗发芽抗性位点导入系穗发芽鉴定发现，不同年份穗发芽指标间均呈极显著正相关，穗发芽指标SGR和GI表现出相对稳定的趋势；人工合成小麦和地方品种导入系的3个穗发芽指标平均值（18GI、18SGR和19SGR）均低于23%，差异不显著。不同发芽温度导入系的GI值差异较大，发芽温度32 ℃时，人工合成小麦PHS-3D导入系的GI值显著低于地方品种PHS-A1导入系。筛选出的73个人工合成小麦导入系中，红粒系穗发芽指标值均低于白粒系；其中，11个人工合成小麦白粒导入系表现中抗及以上抗性水平，14个红粒导入系在不同发芽温度时GI值均低于35%。2年产量相关性状分析表明，人工合成小麦PHS-3D导入系的千粒重显著高于地方品种PHS-A1导入系，而穗粒数显著小于地方品种PHS-A1导入系。根据产量性状和穗发芽抗性表现，筛选出23个穗发芽抗性和综合性状均较好的优异导入系，包括7个人工合成小麦PHS-3D导入系、16个地方品种PHS-A1导入系；人工合成小麦优异导入系中有2个白粒导入系穗发芽抗性中抗以上，2个红粒导入系不同发芽温度的GI值均低于25%，表现出稳定的穗发芽抗性。【结论】人工合成小麦和地方品种均可用于改良现代栽培小麦穗发芽抗性，利用地方品种进行穗发芽抗性育种改良效率优于人工合成小麦；但人工合成小麦导入系的穗发芽抗性的稳定性优于地方品种导入系。筛选出的23个人工合成小麦和地方品种导入系是小麦穗发芽抗性和产量性状改良的重要基因资源；特别是人工合成小麦白粒导入系（编号5201）和红粒导入系（编号5497和5505）是非常有育种利用价值的穗发芽抗性育种亲本材料。

关键词: 小麦, 人工合成小麦, 地方品种, 穗发芽, 产量相关性状

Abstract:

【Objective】Pre-harvest sprouting (PHS) is a serious limiting factor for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain yield and end-use quality. Synthetic hexaploid wheats (SHW) and wheat landraces (WL) are important germplasm resources for improving PHS resistance in wheat. The objective of this study is to utilize PHS-resistant loci from SHW and WL for breeding PHS-resistant elite materials, which will provide a theoretical basis for improving PHS resistance of wheat cultivars.【Method】In this study, SYN792 (a synthetic hexaploid wheat from CIMMYT) and Fulingxuxumai (a Chinese wheat landrace) were used as female parents to cross and backcross with Chuanmai 45 (a sensitive variety to PHS), respectively. Two BC₁F₇ populations including 1 796 lines were established. Seed germination index (GI) and seed germination rate of each spike (SGR) in different environments were used to evaluate PHS resistance. Two germination temperature of 25 ℃ (18GI) and 32 ℃ (19GI) were set to examine seed germinability in 2018 and 2019. 1 796 BC₁F₇ lines were evaluated preliminarily by SGR phenotype and molecular markers detection in 2017, and the introgression lines with PHS-3D and PHS-A1 resistant loci and SGR less than 35% were screened. Introgression lines with PHS-3D and PHS-A1 resistant loci were used to analyze utilization efficiency of SHW and WL in PHS-resistance breeding by identifying PHS-resistance and yield related traits in 2018 and 2019.【Result】PHS resistance of 1 796 lines was evaluated preliminarily, and 537 lines with SGR value less than 35% were screened for further molecular marker detection. A total of 332 lines with PHS-3D and PHS-A1 were selected by SSR marker, and the frequency of WL introgression lines was significantly higher than that of SHW introgression lines. 332 introgression lines were used to analyze PHS-resistance and yield related traits in 2018 and 2019. There was a significant positive correlation between different PHS indexes in different years, but there was no significant difference in the values of 18GI, 18SGR and 19SGR between SHW and WL introgression lines. The average values of 18SGR, 19SGR and 18GI in SHW and WL introgression lines were lower than 23%. As far as GI value was concerned, there was obvious difference between different germination temperatures. At the germination temperature of 32 ℃, the mean 19GI value of SHW PHS-3D introgression lines was significantly lower than that of WL PHS-A1 introgression lines. Grain color was associated with PHS resistance in SHW introgression lines, and the red-grained SHW introgression lines had lower the mean GI and SGR values than the white-grained lines. Among 73 SHW introgression lines, 11 white-grained lines showed medium or higher resistance to PHS，and the GI values of 14 red-grained lines at different germination temperatures were lower than 35%. According to the data of agronomic traits in 2018 and 2019, thousand grain weight of SHW introgression lines was significantly higher than that of WL introgression lines, but the number of grains per spike was significantly lower than that of WL introgression lines. 23 elite introgression lines including seven SHW introgression lines and 16 WL introgression lines were selected. Two SHW white-grained introgression lines had better resistance to PHS, and the GI values of two red-grained introgression lines at different germination temperatures were lower than 25%.【Conclusion】It is feasible to transfer PHS-3D and PHS-A1 resistance loci to PHS from SHW and WL for improving PHS-resistance of modern wheat cultivars. In this study, the breeding efficiency of WL for PHS-resistance was better than that of SHW. However, the stability of PHS-resistance of SHW introgression lines was better than that of WL introgression lines. 23 SHW and WL elite introgression lines could be used as parents to improve the PHS-resistance and yield traits in wheat. In particular, the white-grained SHW introgression line No.5201 and the red-grained SHW introgression lines No.5497 and No.5505 were very valuable parents for wheat breeding of PHS resistance.

Key words: wheat, synthetic hexaploid wheat (SHW), wheat landraces, pre-harvest sprouting (PHS), yield related yield

刘泽厚, 王琴, 叶美金, 万洪深, 杨宁, 杨漫宇, 杨武云, 李俊. 人工合成小麦和地方品种穗发芽抗性育种利用效率[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(7): 1255-1266.

LIU ZeHou, WANG Qin, YE MeiJin, WAN HongShen, YANG Ning, YANG ManYu, YANG WuYun, LI Jun. Utilization Efficiency of Improving the Resistance for Pre-Harvest Sprouting by Synthetic Hexaploid Wheat and Chinese Wheat Landrace[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(7): 1255-1266.

图/表 9

表1

图1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

参考文献 44

[1]	GROOS C, GAY G, PERRETANT M R, GERVAIS L, BERNARD M, DEDRYVER F, CHARMET G. Study of the relationship between preharvest sprouting and grain color by quantitative trait loci analysis in a white × red grain bread-wheat cross. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2002, 104(1): 39-47. doi: 10.1007/s001220200004
[2]	VETCH J M, STOUGAARD R N, MARTIN J M, GIROUX M J. Review: Revealing the genetic mechanisms of pre-harvest sprouting in hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Science, 2019, 281:180-185. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2019.01.004
[3]	SIMSEK S, OHM J B, LU H Y, RUGG M, BERZONSKY W, ALAMRI M S, MERGOUM M. Effect of pre-harvest sprouting on physicochemical changes of proteins in wheat. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2014, 94(2): 205-212. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.6229 pmid: 23674491
[4]	ALI A, CAO J J, JIANG H, CHANG C, ZHANG H P, SHEIKH S W, SHAH L, MA C X. Unraveling molecular and genetic studies of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)resistance against factors causing pre-harvest sprouting. Agronomy, 2019, 9(3): 117.
[5]	XIAO S, ZHANG X Y, YAN C, LIN H. Germplasm improvement for preharvest sprouting resistance in Chinese white-grained wheat: An overview of the current strategy. Euphytica, 2002, 126: 35-38. doi: 10.1023/A:1019679924173
[6]	HUANG Y W, DAI X R, LIU H W, YU S, MAI C Y, YU L Q, YU G J, YANG L, ZHOU Y, LI H J, ZHANG H J. Identification of effective alleles and haplotypes conferring pre-harvest sprouting resistance in winter wheat cultivars. BMC Plant Biology, 2022, 22(1): 326.
[7]	IMTIAZ M, OGBONNAYA F C, OMAN J, VAN GINKEL M V. Characterization of quantitative trait loci controlling genetic variation for preharvest sprouting in synthetic backcross-derived wheat lines. Genetics, 2008, 178(3): 1725-1736. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.084939 pmid: 18245824
[8]	刘莉, 王庆海, 陈国志. 小麦穗发芽研究进展. 作物杂志, 2013(4): 6-11.
	LIU L, WANG Q H, CHEN G Z. Advances on resistance to pre-harvest sprouting in wheat. Crops, 2013(4): 6-11. (in Chinese)
[9]	ROY J K, PRASAD M, VARSHNEY R K, BALYAN H S, BLAKE T K, DHALIWAL H S, EDWARDS K J, GUPTA P K. Identification of a microsatellite on chromosomes 6B and a STS on 7D of bread wheat showing an association with preharvest sprouting tolerance. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 1999, 99(1/2): 336-340. doi: 10.1007/s001220051241
[10]	REHMAN ARIF M A, NEUMANN K, NAGEL M, KOBILJSKI B, LOHWASSER U, BÖRNER A. An association mapping analysis of dormancy and pre-harvest sprouting in wheat. Euphytica, 2012, 188(3): 409-417. doi: 10.1007/s10681-012-0705-1
[11]	FLINTHAM J, ADLAM R E, BASSOI M, HOLDSWORTH M, GALE M. Mapping genes for resistance to sprouting damage in wheat. Euphytica, 2002, 126: 39-45. doi: 10.1023/A:1019632008244
[12]	JAISWAL V, MIR R R, MOHAN A, BALYAN H S, GUPTA P K. Association mapping for pre-harvest sprouting tolerance in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Euphytica, 2012, 188(1): 89-102. doi: 10.1007/s10681-012-0713-1
[13]	KULWAL P L, SINGH R, BALYAN H S, GUPTA P K. Genetic basis of pre-harvest sprouting tolerance using single-locus and two-locus QTL analyses in bread wheat. Functional & Integrative Genomics, 2004, 4(2): 94-101.
[14]	MARES D, RATHJEN J, MRVA K, CHEONG J. Genetic and environmental control of dormancy in white-grained wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Euphytica, 2009, 168(3): 311-318. doi: 10.1007/s10681-009-9927-2
[15]	SINGH A K, KNOX R E, CLARKE J M, CLARKE F R, SINGH A, DEPAUW R M, CUTHBERT R D. Genetics of pre-harvest sprouting resistance in a cross of Canadian adapted durum wheat genotypes. Molecular Breeding, 2014, 33(4): 919-929. doi: 10.1007/s11032-013-0006-y
[16]	ZHANG X Q, LI C D, TAY A, LANCE R, MARES D, CHEONG J, CAKIR M, MA J H, APPELS R. A new PCR-based marker on chromosome 4AL for resistance to pre-harvest sprouting in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Molecular Breeding, 2008, 22(2): 227-236. doi: 10.1007/s11032-008-9169-3
[17]	CHEN C X, CAI S B, BAI G H. A major QTL controlling seed dormancy and pre-harvest sprouting resistance on chromosome 4A in a Chinese wheat landrace. Molecular Breeding, 2008, 21(3): 351-358. doi: 10.1007/s11032-007-9135-5
[18]	WANG X Y, LIU H, MIA M S, SIDDIQUE K H M, YAN G J. Development of near-isogenic lines targeting a major QTL on 3AL for pre-harvest sprouting resistance in bread wheat. Crop and Pasture Science, 2018, 69(9): 864-872. doi: 10.1071/CP17423
[19]	MOULLET O, DÍAZ BERMÚDEZ G, FOSSATI D, BRABANT C, MASCHER F, SCHORI A. Pyramiding wheat pre-harvest sprouting resistance genes in triticale breeding. Molecular Breeding, 2022, 42(10): 1-19. doi: 10.1007/s11032-021-01272-7
[20]	FOFANA B, HUMPHREYS D G, RASUL G, CLOUTIER S, BRÛLÉ-BABEL A, WOODS S, LUKOW O M, SOMERS D J. Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling pre-harvest sprouting resistance in a red × white seeded spring wheat cross. Euphytica, 2009, 165(3): 509-521. doi: 10.1007/s10681-008-9766-6
[21]	MARES D J, MRVA K. Mapping quantitative trait loci associated with variation in grain dormancy in Australian wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 2001, 52(12): 1257-1266. doi: 10.1071/AR01049
[22]	TORADA A, IKEGUCHI S, KOIKE M. Mapping and validation of PCR-based markers associated with a major QTL for seed dormancy in wheat. Euphytica, 2005, 143(3): 251-255. doi: 10.1007/s10681-005-7872-2
[23]	ZHANG D L HE, J, HUANG L Y, ZHANG C C, ZHOU Y, SU Y R, LI S P. An advanced backcross population through synthetic octaploid wheat as a “bridge”: Development and QTL detection for seed dormancy. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2017, 8: 2123. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.02123
[24]	ZHOU Y, TANG H, CHENG M P, DANKWA K O, CHEN Z X, LI Z Y, GAO S, LIU Y X, JIANG Q T, LAN X J, PU Z E, WEI Y M, ZHENG Y L, HICKEY L T, WANG J R. Genome-wide association study for pre-harvest sprouting resistance in a large germplasm collection of Chinese wheat landraces. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2017, 8: 401. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00401 pmid: 28428791
[25]	YANG J, LIU Y X, PU Z E, ZHANG L Q, YUAN Z W, CHEN G Y, WEI Y M, ZHENG Y L, LIU D C, WANG J R. Molecular characterization of high pI α-amylase and its expression QTL analysis in synthetic wheat RILs. Molecular Breeding, 2014, 34(3): 1075-1085. doi: 10.1007/s11032-014-0098-z
[26]	YANG J, TAN C, LANG J, TANG H, HAO M, TAN Z, YU H, ZHOU Y, LIU Z H, LI M L, ZHOU Y, CHENG M P, ZHANG L Q, LIU D C, WANG J R. Identification of qPHS.sicau-1B and qPHS.sicau-3D from synthetic wheat for pre-harvest sprouting resistance wheat improvement. Molecular Breeding, 2019, 39(9): 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s11032-018-0907-x
[27]	MARES D, MRVA K, CHEONG J, WILLIAMS K, WATSON B, STORLIE E, SUTHERLAND M, ZOU Y. A QTL located on chromosome 4A associated with dormancy in white- and red-grained wheats of diverse origin. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2005, 111(7): 1357-1364. doi: 10.1007/s00122-005-0065-5 pmid: 16133305
[28]	HE J, ZHANG D L, CHEN X, LI Y G, HU M J, SUN S G, SU Q, SU Y R, LI S P. Identification of QTLs and a candidate gene for reducing pre-harvest sprouting in Aegilops tauschii-Triticum aestivum chromosome segment substitution lines. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2021, 22(7): 3729.
[29]	LANG J, FU Y X, ZHOU Y, CHENG M P, DENG M, LI M L, ZHU T T, YANG J, GUO X J, GUI L X, LI L C, CHEN Z X, YI Y J, ZHANG L Q, HAO M, HUANG L, TAN C, CHEN G Y, JIANG Q T, QI P F, PU Z E, MA J, LIU Z H, LIU Y J, LUO M C, WEI Y M, ZHENG Y L, WU Y R, LIU D C, WANG J R. Myb10-D confers PHS-3D resistance to pre-harvest sprouting by regulating NCED in ABA biosynthesis pathway of wheat. New Phytologist, 2021, 230(5): 1940-1952. doi: 10.1111/nph.v230.5
[30]	KUMAR J, MIR R R, KUMAR N, KUMAR A, MOHAN A, PRABHU K V, BALYAN H S, GUPTA P K. Marker-assisted selection for pre-harvest sprouting tolerance and leaf rust resistance in bread wheat. Plant Breeding, 2010, 129(6): 617-621. doi: 10.1111/pbr.2010.129.issue-6
[31]	TYAGI S, MIR R R, KAUR H, CHHUNEJA P, RAMESH B, BALYAN H S, GUPTA P K. Marker-assisted pyramiding of eight QTLs/genes for seven different traits in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Molecular Breeding, 2014, 34(1): 167-175. doi: 10.1007/s11032-014-0027-1
[32]	郝明, 张连全, 黄林, 甯顺腙, 袁中伟, 姜博, 颜泽洪, 伍碧华, 郑有良, 刘登才. 合成六倍体小麦的遗传育种. 植物遗传资源学报, 2022, 23(1): 40-48. doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20210518002
	HAO M, ZHANG L Q, HUANG L, NING S Z, YUAN Z W, JIANG B, YAN Z H, WU B H, ZHENG Y L, LIU D C. Genetic improvement of synthesized hexaploid wheat in breeding. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2022, 23(1): 40-48. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20210518002
[33]	ROBERTS E H. Dormancy in rice seed: III. The influence of temperature, moisture, and gaseous environment. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1962, 13(1): 75-94. doi: 10.1093/jxb/13.1.75
[34]	FENNIMORE S A, NYQUIST W E, SHANER G E, MYERS S P, FOLEY M E. Temperature response in wild oat (Avena fatua L.) generations segregating for seed dormancy. Heredity, 1998, 81(6): 674-682. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2540.1998.00431.x
[35]	FOLEY M E. Temperature and water status of seed affect afterripening in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Science, 1994, 42(2): 200-204. doi: 10.1017/S0043174500080279
[36]	MARES D J. Temperature dependence of germinability of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain in relation to pre-harvest sprouting. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1984, 35(2): 115-128. doi: 10.1071/AR9840115
[37]	李俊, 魏会廷, 胡晓蓉, 李朝苏, 汤永禄, 刘登才, 杨武云. 川麦42中源于人工合成小麦的一个高产位点鉴定. 作物学报, 2011, 37(2): 255-262.
	LI J, WEI H T, HU X R, LI C S, TANG Y L, LIU D C, YANG W Y. Identification of a high-yield introgression locus from synthetic hexaploid wheat in Chuanmai 42. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2011, 37(2): 255-262. (in Chinese)
[38]	BUCK H T, NISI J E, SALOMON N. Wheat Production in Stressed Environments. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands Press, 2007.
[39]	LIU Y J, LIU Y X, ZHOU Y, WIGHT C, PU Z E, QI P F, JIANG Q T, DENG M, WANG Z X, WEI Y M, CAO W G, LIU D C, ZHENG Y L, LIU C J, FRÉGEAU-REID J, WANG J R. Conferring resistance to pre-harvest sprouting in durum wheat by a QTL identified in Triticum spelta. Euphytica, 2016, 213(1): 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s10681-016-1788-x
[40]	XU F, TANG J Y, WANG S X, CHENG X, WANG H R, OU S J, GAO S P, LI B S, QIAN Y W, GAO C X, CHU C C. Antagonistic control of seed dormancy in rice by two bHLH transcription factors. Nature Genetics, 2022, 54(12): 1972-1982. doi: 10.1038/s41588-022-01240-7 pmid: 36471073
[41]	GUPTA P K, BALYAN H S, SHARMA S, KUMAR R. Genetics of yield, abiotic stress tolerance and biofortification in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2020, 133(5): 1569-1602. doi: 10.1007/s00122-020-03583-3
[42]	HUANG X Q, KEMPF H, GANAL M W, RÖDER M S. Advanced backcross QTL analysis in progenies derived from a cross between a German elite winter wheat variety and a synthetic wheat (Tritium aestivum L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2004, 109(5): 933-943. doi: 10.1007/s00122-004-1708-7
[43]	MCCARTNEY C A, SOMERS D J, HUMPHREYS D G, LUKOW O, AMES N, NOLL J, CLOUTIER S, MCCALLUM B D. Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling agronomic traits in the spring wheat cross RL4452 ×‘AC Domain’. Genome, 2005, 48(5): 870-883. doi: 10.1139/g05-055
[44]	QUARRIE S A, STEED A, CALESTANI C, SEMIKHODSKII A, LEBRETON C, CHINOY C, STEELE N, PLJEVLJAKUSIĆ D, WATERMAN E, WEYEN J, SCHONDELMAIER J, HABASH D Z, FARMER P, SAKER L, CLARKSON D T, ABUGALIEVA A, YESSIMBEKOVA M, TURUSPEKOV Y, ABUGALIEVA S, TUBEROSA R, SANGUINETI M C, HOLLINGTON P A, ARAGUÉS R, ROYO A, DODIG D. A high-density genetic map of hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) from the cross Chinese Spring × SQ1 and its use to compare QTLs for grain yield across a range of environments. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2005, 110(5): 865-880. doi: 10.1007/s00122-004-1902-7

反应型 Infection type	人工合成小麦群体Synthetic hexaploid wheat population		地方品种群体Wheat landrace population
反应型 Infection type	株系数No. of lines	占比Proportion (%)	株系数No. of lines	占比Proportion (%)
高抗HR	110	10.29	267	36.73
抗R	26	2.43	53	7.29
中抗MR	29	2.72	52	7.15
中感MS	38	3.55	64	8.80
感S	96	8.98	78	10.73
高感HS	770	72.03	213	29.30
合计Total	1069	100.00	727	100.00

性状Traits	18SGR	19SGR	18GI
19SGR	0.476**
18GI	0.327**	0.244**
19GI	0.342**	0.257**	0.467**

性状 Traits	PHS-3D导入系PHS-3D introgression lines			PHS-A1导入系PHS-A1 introgression lines
性状 Traits	均值±标准差 Mean (%)±SD	最小值 Min (%)	最大值 Max (%)	均值±标准差 Mean (%)±SD	最小值 Min (%)	最大值 Max (%)
18SGR	20.41±0.29	0.00	98.78	22.82±0.21	0.00	98.97
19SGR	20.65±0.28	0.00	96.04	18.28±0.22	0.00	99.60
18GI	18.88±0.15	1.70	76.32	15.51±0.12	0.33	56.10
19GI	44.67**±0.26	3.84	93.44	60.83**±0.24	1.74	96.32

性状 Traits	粒色 Grain colors	PHS-3D导入系PHS-3D introgression lines
性状 Traits	粒色 Grain colors	均值Mean (%)	标准差SD	标准误SE
18SGR	W	27.50*	0.3526	0.0633
18SGR	R	14.80*	0.2356	0.0373
19SGR	W	39.46**	0.3231	0.0580
19SGR	R	5.56**	0.1002	0.0158
18GI	W	12.20	0.1860	0.0334
18GI	R	8.67	0.1082	0.0171
19GI	W	52.38*	0.2803	0.0503
19GI	R	37.72*	0.2288	0.0362

反应型 Infection type	红粒系Red-grains lines		白粒系White-grains lines
反应型 Infection type	株系数No. of lines	占比Proportion (%)	株系数No. of lines	占比Proportion (%)
高抗HR	11	26.83	0	0.00
抗R	8	19.51	5	15.63
中抗MR	10	24.39	6	18.75
中感MS	5	12.20	8	25.00
感S	7	17.07	6	18.75
高感HS	0	0.00	7	21.87
合计Total	41	100.00	32	100.00

人工合成小麦和地方品种穗发芽抗性育种利用效率

Utilization Efficiency of Improving the Resistance for Pre-Harvest Sprouting by Synthetic Hexaploid Wheat and Chinese Wheat Landrace

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 44

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

性状 Traits	PHS-3D导入系PHS-3D introgression lines			PHS-A1导入系PHS-A1 introgression lines
性状 Traits	均值±标准差 Mean±SD	最小值 Min	最大值 Max	均值±标准差 Mean±SD	最小值 Min	最大值 Max
18PH	113.7±15.47	88.00	151.50	111.02±14.06	54.00	145.50
19PH	110.22±14.43	85.67	149.00	110.44±12.11	59.67	143.67
18TN	4.42±0.96	3.00	7.00	4.28±0.97	2.00	8.00
19TN	2.74±0.69	1.00	4.00	2.82±0.75	1.30	6.80
18GN	31.04±9.85**	13.00	62.33	37.17±9.34**	14.88	66.86
19GN	32.60±8.24**	14.90	57.10	39.67±8.05**	19.80	61.40
18TKW	45.97±10.49**	16.50	66.30	38.92±7.06**	16.50	56.70
19TKW	59.16±7.66**	38.32	76.80	47.66±8.48**	22.30	68.20

株系<BOLD>L</BOLD>ines	编号No. of lines	GN	TKW	PH	TN	GI (%)	SGR (%)
PHS-3D导入系 PHS-3D introgression lines	5201	44.5	47.28	103.33	4.3	22.08	8.21
	5203	47.1	47.43	100.33	4.0	30.59	19.46
	5207	40.0	52.48	107.67	2.5	23.34	13.27
	5212	48.9	53.31	101.67	2.0	28.21	10.33
	5213	38.3	54.31	95.67	2.3	26.01	9.67
	5497	38.7	52.84	105.33	2.9	10.73	2.80
	5505	34.0	62.38	96.67	3.7	15.84	11.08
PHS-A1导入系PHS-A1 introgression lines	5224	37.3	44.93	97.33	3.0	27.99	17.35
	5231	43.8	48.45	100.67	3.7	30.95	4.76
	5234	44.2	44.41	95.33	3.0	21.69	8.90
	5236	51.9	47.69	92.33	3.2	32.99	6.68
	5237	41.7	52.57	75.67	3.5	34.16	1.86
	5249	44.0	47.39	104.00	3.5	26.85	16.83
	5259	49.0	43.04	88.00	2.9	33.66	5.51
	5263	41.2	44.83	84.00	2.8	20.05	4.61
	5269	51.5	41.40	105.33	3.3	19.69	1.77
	5327	42.6	50.96	103.83	3.0	34.02	20.45
	5354	47.5	47.41	101.00	3.8	33.95	18.97
	5392	45.5	40.42	59.67	3.2	35.01	18.73
	5395	40.4	46.29	93.00	3.1	32.32	12.04
	5411	38.9	54.06	78.00	3.3	23.75	19.32
	5425	48.0	52.10	103.67	2.7	34.74	14.23
	5435	49.5	53.09	98.00	2.6	33.53	13.32

[1]	彭廷燊, 陆久焱, 吴美林, 严雨欣, 刘宏周, 南文斌, 秦小健, 李明, 龚俊义, 梁永书. 多年生水稻黄糯2号和长白7号产量相关性状的QTL分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(7): 1361-1379.
[2]	朱琦, 贾振鹏, Tahir SHAH, 徐晨晟, 李芷琦, 吕会帅, 朱鹏超, 韦小敏, 黄冬琳, 孙艳妮, 曹卫东, 高亚军, 王朝辉, 张达斌. 绿肥配施增效产品降低旱地麦田温室气体排放及碳足迹[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(7): 1507-1522.
[3]	叶美金, 吴雷, Lohani Md Nahibuzzaman, 尹丽, 胡欣荣, 刘亚西, 蒋云峰, 陈国跃, 蒲至恩, 李阳, 李婷, 邹亚亚, 吴佳怡, 马建. 基于GWAS的中国地方小麦成熟胚大小位点的鉴定及其遗传效应解析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(6): 1157-1171.
[4]	李文虎, 礼海风, 杜宇鹏, 丁玉兰, 罗一诺, 李宇珂, 佘文婷, 张丰, 滕宇, 张思琦, 黄翠, 李小涵, 刘金山, 王朝辉. 小麦锌吸收转移对土施锌肥响应的区域差异[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(5): 1034-1047.
[5]	焦文娟, 何万龙, 耿洪伟, 白斌, 李剑峰, 程宇坤. 155份春小麦品种（系）条锈病抗性评价与抗病基因分子检测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(5): 937-950.
[6]	崔士友, 陈澎军, 缪源卿, 韩继军, 沈俊明. EMS诱变抗草甘膦小麦新种质的创制与大田评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(4): 723-733.
[7]	钱瑾, 李映雪, 吴芳, 邹晓晨. 集成光谱降维的冬小麦叶片磷含量估算[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(4): 781-792.
[8]	孔媛, 崔沙沙, 李美, 李健, 杨思雨, 房锋, 刘帅帅, 刘明平, 曾艳, 高兴祥, 柏连阳. 黄淮海冬小麦田多花黑麦草等5种禾本科杂草时空分布变化规律[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(4): 807-823.
[9]	王勇胜, 牛丽, 王长杰, 马立花, 廉潇潇, 孟亚雄, 马小乐, 姚立蓉, 张宏, 杨轲, 李葆春, 王化俊, 司二静, 汪军成. 冬小麦千粒重的全基因组关联分析及候选基因预测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(3): 499-514.
[10]	李心怡, 李嘉宁, 杨文平, 夏清, 霍滢睿, 郝世航, 黄婷苗, 任永康, 陈杰, 高志强, 杨珍平. 彩粒小麦锌营养对花后叶面喷锌的响应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(3): 515-527.
[11]	咸青林, 肖鉴珂, 高阿庆, 郜利闯, 刘杨. 种植方式结合测墒补灌下冬小麦产量及水分利用效率[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(3): 589-601.
[12]	张志勇, 谭世超, 熊淑萍, 马新明, 韦一昊, 王小纯. 水氮周年优化对豫北灌区小麦玉米轮作系统产量和氮迁移的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(2): 336-353.
[13]	吕旭东, 孙世媛, 李亚楠, 刘玉龙, 王艳群, 付鑫, 张佳英, 宁鹏, 彭正萍. 智能机械化分层施肥对麦田根-土养分分布和小麦产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(1): 129-146.
[14]	陆浩, 张明龙, 韩梅, 严清彪, 李正鹏, 殷文, 樊志龙, 胡发龙, 柴强. 绿肥过腹还田协同氮肥减施提高小麦产量和土壤质量[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(1): 147-160.
[15]	叶美金, 陈家婷, 周界光, 尹丽, 胡欣荣, 兰雨昕, 陈斌, 苏龙兴, 刘家君, 刘天超, 李小雨, 马建. 小麦穗密度主效QTL的鉴定、验证及其遗传效应分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(1): 17-28.

性状 Traits	18SGR	19SGR	18GI	18GN	19GN	18TKW	19TKW	18PH	19PH	18TN
19SGR	0.476**
18GI	0.327**	0.244**
19GI	0.342**	0.257**	0.467**
18GN	0.253**	0.194**	-0.118*
19GN	0.122*	0.191**	-0.038	0.434**
18TKW	0.061	0.077	0.126*	-0.265**	-0.312**
19TKW	-0.142	-0.075	0.111	-0.302**	-0.202**	0.570**
18PH	-0.187**	-0.276**	-0.151	-0.135*	-0.210**	0.173**	0.093
19PH	-0.171**	-0.183**	-0.167**	-0.152**	-0.149**	0.132*	0.101	0.722**
18TN	-0.095	-0.065	-0.038	-0.189**	-0.185**	0.004	-0.041	0.220**	0.23**
19TN	-0.09	-0.031	-0.084	-0.213**	-0.049	0.088	0.039	0.024	0.161**	0.081