Strategies for efficient implementation of molecular markers in wheat breeding

Although molecular markers allow more accurate selection in early generations than conventional screens, large numbers can make selection impracticable while screening in later generations may provide little or no advantage over conventional selection techniques. Investigation of different crossing strategies and consideration of when to screen, what proportion to retain and the impacts of dominant vs. codominant marker expression revealed important choices in the design of marker-assisted selection programs that can produce large efficiency gains. Using F2 enrichment increased the frequency of selected alleles allowing large reductions in minimum population size for recovery of target genotypes (commonly around 90%) and/or selection at a greater number of loci. Increasing homozygosity by inbreeding from F2 to F2:3 also reduced population size by around 90% in some crosses with smaller incremental reductions in subsequent generations. Backcrossing was found to be a useful strategy to reduce population size compared with a biparental population where one parent contributed more target alleles than the other and was complementary to F2 enrichment and increasing homozygosity. Codominant markers removed the need for progeny testing reducing the number of individuals that had to be screened to identify a target genotype. However, although codominant markers allow target alleles to be fixed in early generations, minimum population sizes are often so large in F2 that it is not efficient to do so at this stage. Formulae and tables for calculating genotypic frequencies and minimum population sizes are provided to allow extension to different breeding systems, numbers of target loci, and probabilities of failure. Principles outlined are applicable to implementation of markers for both quantitative trait loci (QTL) and major genes.

[1]  D. Falconer Introduction to quantitative genetics. 1. ed. , 1984 .

[2]  H. Bariana,et al.  Cytogenetic studies in wheat. XV. Location of rust resistance genes in VPM1 and their genetic linkage with other disease resistance genes in chromosome 2A. , 1993, Genome.

[3]  J. Thoday Population Genetics , 1956, Nature.

[4]  G. Rebetzke,et al.  "Perfect" markers for the Rht-B1b and Rht-D1b dwarfing genes in wheat , 2002, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[5]  Greg J. Rebetzke,et al.  Gibberellic acid-sensitive dwarfing genes reduce plant height to increase kernel number and grain yield of wheat. , 2000 .

[6]  R. Koebner,et al.  21st century wheat breeding: plot selection or plate detection? , 2003, Trends in biotechnology.

[7]  J. R. Sedcole Number of Plants Necessary to Recover a Trait 1 , 1977 .

[8]  T. Townley-Smith,et al.  Simulations and practical problems of applying multiple marker assisted selection and doubled haploids to wheat breeding programs , 1998, Euphytica.

[9]  W. Zhang,et al.  Characterisation and marker development for low molecular weight glutenin genes from Glu-A3 alleles of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum. L) , 2004, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[10]  W. D. Hanson Minimum Family Sizes for the Planning of Genetic Experiments , 1959 .

[11]  W. Spielmeyer,et al.  Identification and Validation of Markers Linked to Broad‐Spectrum Stem Rust Resistance Gene Sr2 in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) , 2003 .

[12]  M. Ganal,et al.  Genetic analysis of the dwarfing gene (Rht8) in wheat. Part I. Molecular mapping of Rht8 on the short arm of chromosome 2D of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) , 1998, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[13]  W. Zhang,et al.  Multiplex-PCR typing of high molecular weight glutenin alleles in wheat , 2003, Euphytica.

[14]  F. Salamini,et al.  Catalogue of gene symbols for wheat , 1998 .

[15]  R. Appels,et al.  Diagnostic DNA markers for cereal cyst nematode resistance in bread wheat , 2001 .

[16]  D. Falconer,et al.  Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. , 1962 .