Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
  • KSBS
  • E-Submission

Plant Breed. Biotech. : Plant Breeding and Biotechnology

OPEN ACCESS
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICIES
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Articles

Research Article

Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci for Vigorous Root Development under Water-Deficiency Conditions in Rice

Plant Breeding and Biotechnology 2018;6(2):147-158.
Published online: June 1, 2018

1Department of Plant Life & Environmental Science, Institute of Ecological Phytochemistry, Hankyong National University, Anseong 17579, Korea

2Graduate School of Integrated Bioindustry, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea

3Department of Plant Science, Research Institute for Agriculture and Life Sciences, and Plant Genomics and Breeding Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea

4Phyzen Genomics Institute, Seongnam 13558, Korea

*Corresponding author: Joong Hyoun Chin, jhchin@sejong.ac.kr, Tel: +82-2-6935-3897, Fax: +82-2-3408-4336
*Corresponding author: Soo-Cheul Yoo, scyoo@hknu.ac.kr, Tel: +82-31-670-5082, Fax: +82-31-670-5089
• Received: March 30, 2018   • Revised: May 10, 2018   • Accepted: May 11, 2018

Copyright © 2018 The Korean Society of Breeding Science

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 6 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 6 Crossref
prev next

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Analysis of Seed Vigor and Grain Quality Traits under Accelerated Aging Treatment in japonica Rice
    Kyeongmin Kang, Seung Young Lee, Su-Kyung Ha, Gileung Lee, Jae-Ryoung Park, Mina Jin, Jung-Pil Suh, Youngjun Mo, Hyun-Sook Lee
    Korean Journal of Breeding Science.2025; 57(3): 217.     CrossRef
  • The resilience of rice under water stress will be driven by better roots: Evidence from root phenotyping, physiological, and yield experiments
    Sadiah Shafi, Insha Shafi, Aaqif Zaffar, Sajad Majeed Zargar, Asif B. Shikari, Anuj Ranjan, P.V. Vara Prasad, Parvaze A. Sofi
    Plant Stress.2023; 10: 100211.     CrossRef
  • Hydraulic conductance and xylem vessel diameter of young maize roots subjected to sustained water‐deficit
    Nahid Jafarikouhini, Thomas R. Sinclair
    Crop Science.2023; 63(4): 2458.     CrossRef
  • Shaping the root system architecture in plants for adaptation to drought stress
    Alok Ranjan, Ragini Sinha, Sneh L. Singla‐Pareek, Ashwani Pareek, Anil Kumar Singh
    Physiologia Plantarum.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Genetics and genomics of root system variation in adaptation to drought stress in cereal crops
    Md Nurealam Siddiqui, Jens Léon, Ali A Naz, Agim Ballvora, Miriam Gifford
    Journal of Experimental Botany.2021; 72(4): 1007.     CrossRef
  • Phenotyping Root Systems in a Set of Japonica Rice Accessions: Can Structural Traits Predict the Response to Drought?
    Paulo Henrique Ramos Guimarães, Isabela Pereira de Lima, Adriano Pereira de Castro, Anna Cristina Lanna, Patrícia Guimarães Santos Melo, Marcel de Raïssac
    Rice.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci for Vigorous Root Development under Water-Deficiency Conditions in Rice
Plant Breed. Biotech.. 2018;6(2):147-158.   Published online June 1, 2018
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci for Vigorous Root Development under Water-Deficiency Conditions in Rice
Plant Breed. Biotech.. 2018;6(2):147-158.   Published online June 1, 2018
Close

Figure

  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci for Vigorous Root Development under Water-Deficiency Conditions in Rice
Image Image Image
Fig. 1 Comparison between root fresh weight of two-weeks old Milyang23 and Tong88-7 grown in beach sand under semi-drought condition. Dotted red box region was magnified for better observation of root architecture.
Fig. 2 Frequency distributions of the early seedling-vigor associated traits in RIL population grown under semi-drought condition. The grey bars represent number of individual RILs. Black arrows indicate mean values of parents in early seedling-vigor associated traits. M and T represent Milyang23 and Tong88-7, respectively.
Fig. 3 Physical map of SNP markers derived from GBS of MT-RILs and the locations of seedling-vigor associated QTLs identified in this study. White solid bars indicate chromosomes. Black, grey and patterned solid bars on the right of each chromosome represent QTLs indicated by a bar corresponding to the length of their confidence interval.
Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci for Vigorous Root Development under Water-Deficiency Conditions in Rice

Phenotypic values of early seedling-vigor related traits among the parents and RIL population in two-weeks old plants grown under semi-drought condition.

Traitz) Milyang23 Tong88-7 RIL population

Mean ± SDy) Min Max
RL (cm) 23.3 ± 0.70 25.15 ± 3.15 24.20 ± 4.53 10.50 39.07
RFW (mg) 123.5 ± 13.50 151.00 ± 19.50* 120.42 ± 25.35 47.00 190.50
RDW (mg) 10.30 ± 3.11 11.63 ± 5.59 11.40 ± 2.53 5.30 18.15
SL (cm) 16.70 ± 1.31 17.93 ± 0.89* 15.94 ± 2.12 10.93 22.60
SFW (mg) 106.00 ± 2.00 133.60 ± 9.10*** 115.12 ± 21.45 64.00 215.00
SDW (mg) 19.25 ± 0.75 23.85 ± 2.55* 21.81 ± 3.81 12.63 33.36
RRSL 1.32 ± 0.06 1.43 ± 0.26 1.53 ± 0.31 0.69 2.52
RRSFW 0.14 ± 0.02 0.11 ± 0.01*** 0.14 ± 0.03 0.08 0.27
RRSDW 0.71 ± 0.13 0.47 ± 0.08** 0.53 ± 0.09 0.27 0.73
SQ 1.03 ± 0.06 1.18 ± 0.03*** 1.35 ± 0.15 1.04 1.86

z)RL, Root length; RFW, Root fresh weight; RDW, Root dry weight; SL, Shoot length; SFW, Shoot fresh weight; SDW, Shoot dry weight; RRSL, Ratio of root to shoot length; RRSFW, Ratio of root to shoot fresh weight; RRSDW, Ratio of root to shoot dry weight; SQ, Seedling quality.

y)Mean ± SD (standard deviation).

*, ** and ***indicate differences between the two parents significant at the 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 probability levels, respectively.

Correlations coefficients among seedling-vigor associated traits in 162 RIL lines.

Traits RL SL RFW SFW RDW SDW RRSL RRSFW RRSDW SQ
RL 1.00
SL 0.13 1.00
RFW 0.33*** 0.39*** 1.00
SFW 0.18* 0.66*** 0.33*** 1.00
RDW 0.48*** 0.39*** 0.73*** 0.41*** 1.00
SDW 0.23** 0.65*** 0.47*** 0.74*** 0.55*** 1.00
RRSL 0.67*** −0.45*** 0.04 −0.22*** 0.19* −0.18* 1.00
RRSFW −0.21* 0.15 −0.60*** 0.02 −0.45*** −0.11 −0.28*** 1.00
RRSDW 0.18* −0.07 0.31*** −0.2** 0.49*** −0.24** 0.27*** −0.38 1.00
SQ 0.23** −0.10 0.23** 0.35*** 0.34*** 0.58*** 0.30*** −0.27*** −0.25** 1.00

The trait abbreviations are the same as in Table 1.

*, ** and ***indicate differences between the two parents significant at the 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 probability levels, respectively.

Summary of the markers distribution and genome coverage in the linkage map of the RIL population.

Chr. No. of markers Chr. length coverage (bp)z) Genetic length (cM)y) No. of markers/cM Minimum interval (cM) Maximum interval (cM) Average interval (cM) No. of gaps >5 cM Percentage of genotype (%)

Milyang23 Tong88-7 Missing
1 402 40,128,771 144.85 2.78 0.37 18.2 0.36 9 46.36 37.26 16.37
2 1243 33,188,669 148.6 8.36 0.33 23.18 0.12 3 46.16 36.76 17.09
3 441 35,141,671 110.53 3.99 0.36 68.18 0.25 1 39.50 43.85 16.64
4 561 28,502,996 120.76 4.65 0.34 22.69 0.21 3 36.01 46.58 17.41
5 43 22,871,791 56.97 0.75 0.42 26.98 1.35 2 43.76 39.94 16.31
6 262 27,162,759 93.09 2.81 0.33 22.91 0.35 3 35.86 45.41 18.74
7 1387 29,462,612 120.64 11.5 0.33 15.36 0.08 2 44.63 38.60 16.78
8 443 28,154,081 117.23 3.78 0.36 30.29 0.26 5 42.98 39.14 17.88
9 103 17,797,835 81.95 1.26 0.41 22.12 0.8 6 34.52 45.17 20.31
10 593 23,129,467 98.56 6.02 0.34 14.14 0.16 1 35.07 47.42 17.51
11 560 26,975,688 123.4 4.54 0.32 51.53 0.22 3 36.98 46.04 16.98
12 102 13,793,654 59.55 1.71 0.32 32.93 0.59 2 39.81 43.89 16.29
Total 6140 326,309,994 1276.13 52.15 4.23 348.51 4.75 40 41.53 41.31 17.16
Mean 511.7 27,192,500 196.3 4.35 0.35 29.04 0.4 3.33 40.14 42.50 17.36

z)Physical coverage of chromosome in base pairs (bp).

y)Length of the chromosome based on recombination events and measured in centimorgan (cM). Chr.: chromosome, cM: centiMorgan.

Identification of QTLs associated with seedling vigor traits evaluated in MT-RILs.

TraitNamez) Chr. Positiony) LeftMarkerx) RightMarkerx) LOD PVE (%)w) Addv)
qRL11 11 16 sch11_3365343 sch11_4345989 3.14 8.97 −1.55
qRFW9 9 14 sch09_9173032 ich09_10545886 3.21 10.06 −12.01
qRFW11 11 9 sch11_2823622 sch11_3365343 3.50 4.32 −7.87
qRDW11 11 13 sch11_3365343 sch11_4345989 3.04 8.35 −0.86
qRRSFW11 11 10 sch11_3365343 sch11_4345989 3.68 10.06 0.01
qSQ11 11 1 ich11_2013066 sch11_2497290 3.17 8.69 −0.05

z)QTLs were designated as “q + trait name + chromosome number”.

y)Position represents locus in chromosomes by physical map of single nucleotide polymorphism markers derived from genotyping by sequencing.

x)“s” and “i” represent SNP and InDel markers, respectively.

w)Percent of the phenotypic variance explained.

v)Positive and negative values of additive effect indicate positive effect contributed by Milyang23(+) and Tong88-7(−) allele, respectively.

Identification of epistatic QTLs (E-QTLs) for traits.

Traits Chr. 1 Position 1 LeftMarker1 RightMarker1 Chr. 2 Position 2 LeftMarker2 RightMarker2 LODz) PVE (%) Add1y) Add2 AddbyAddx)
RFW 2 20 ich02_5196733 sch02_5230872 4 30 sch04_18763820 sch04_19992451 4.22 10.92 0.45 1.92 −9.11
RFW 2 70 ich02_19764482 sch02_19818373 10 80 sch10_19609978 sch10_19757727 4.21 8.57 −1.69 0.37 −8.31
RDW 2 70 ich02_19764482 sch02_19818373 10 75 sch10_18226263 ich10_19479764 5.53 9.94 −0.16 0.20 −1.13
RDW 2 120 sch02_33032852 sch02_33602428 12 40 sch12_19891678 sch12_27094002 4.40 15.83 −0.47 0.20 −1.36
SFW 1 25 sch01_5087361 sch01_6734940 1 30 ich01_6767989 sch01_10939343 6.39 0.71 −11.02 12.24 −32.42
SFW 4 40 sch04_18763820 sch04_19992451 4 45 sch04_20020347 sch04_22463546 4.52 0.49 −17.54 19.31 −18.71
SFW 5 20 sch05_3074371 sch05_20462142 5 35 sch05_20462142 sch05_25097135 7.48 0.77 10.14 −10.71 −17.04
SFW 6 25 ich06_777450 sch06_2942192 6 30 sch06_3456779 sch06_5164475 7.04 0.50 15.40 −14.90 −20.97
SFW 8 45 sch08_4748893 sch08_6095179 8 50 sch08_6095179 sch08_6313336 4.95 0.44 −21.33 21.15 −19.45
SFW 9 20 ich09_10545886 sch09_11781984 9 25 sch09_11800572 sch09_15384756 5.10 0.64 −10.99 7.81 −33.60
SFW 10 60 sch10_17683106 ich10_17849231 10 70 sch10_18226263 ich10_19479764 4.80 0.50 16.83 −19.02 −15.18
SFW 11 25 sch11_4345989 sch11_18310046 11 30 sch11_4345989 sch11_18310046 5.69 0.79 −14.54 18.72 −10.95
SFW 12 30 sch12_19891678 sch12_27094002 12 35 sch12_19891678 sch12_27094002 5.35 0.73 12.47 −14.04 −12.70
SDW 5 5 sch05_3074371 sch05_20462142 5 15 sch05_3074371 sch05_20462142 4.92 3.32 1.00 −1.62 −2.70
RRSL 2 55 ich02_17191191 ich02_17223018 6 50 ich06_6355863 ich06_7106892 4.16 14.06 −0.02 −0.02 −0.11
RRSFW 3 5 sch03_1827167 sch03_28123567 3 10 sch03_1827167 sch03_28123567 4.56 3.07 −0.01 0.01 −0.04
RRSFW 4 25 sch04_18651090 sch04_18763820 4 30 sch04_18763820 sch04_19992451 4.53 2.72 0.01 −0.01 −0.04
RRSFW 6 25 ich06_777450 sch06_2942192 6 30 sch06_3456779 sch06_5164475 4.88 2.63 0.01 −0.02 −0.03
RRSFW 9 60 sch09_15384756 ich09_18664128 9 65 ich09_18664128 ich09_18752131 6.03 2.42 −0.02 0.02 −0.03
RRSFW 11 15 sch11_3365343 sch11_4345989 11 20 sch11_4345989 sch11_18310046 5.63 3.31 0.03 −0.03 −0.02
SQ 1 115 ich01_32634671 sch01_33219737 12 15 sch12_18954369 sch12_19106499 4.15 13.41 0.01 −0.01 −0.05

z)LOD threshold is 4.0.

y)Add1 and Add2 represent the additive effect of epistatic QTLs, respectively; its positive value indicates that two loci genotypes being the same as those in parents take the positive effects, while the two-loci recombinants take the negative effects.

x)Add by Add represents the estimated additive effects of epistatic QTL.

Table 1 Phenotypic values of early seedling-vigor related traits among the parents and RIL population in two-weeks old plants grown under semi-drought condition.

RL, Root length; RFW, Root fresh weight; RDW, Root dry weight; SL, Shoot length; SFW, Shoot fresh weight; SDW, Shoot dry weight; RRSL, Ratio of root to shoot length; RRSFW, Ratio of root to shoot fresh weight; RRSDW, Ratio of root to shoot dry weight; SQ, Seedling quality.

Mean ± SD (standard deviation).

indicate differences between the two parents significant at the 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 probability levels, respectively.

Table 2 Correlations coefficients among seedling-vigor associated traits in 162 RIL lines.

The trait abbreviations are the same as in Table 1.

indicate differences between the two parents significant at the 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 probability levels, respectively.

Table 3 Summary of the markers distribution and genome coverage in the linkage map of the RIL population.

Physical coverage of chromosome in base pairs (bp).

Length of the chromosome based on recombination events and measured in centimorgan (cM). Chr.: chromosome, cM: centiMorgan.

Table 4 Identification of QTLs associated with seedling vigor traits evaluated in MT-RILs.

QTLs were designated as “q + trait name + chromosome number”.

Position represents locus in chromosomes by physical map of single nucleotide polymorphism markers derived from genotyping by sequencing.

“s” and “i” represent SNP and InDel markers, respectively.

Percent of the phenotypic variance explained.

Positive and negative values of additive effect indicate positive effect contributed by Milyang23(+) and Tong88-7(−) allele, respectively.

Table 5 Identification of epistatic QTLs (E-QTLs) for traits.

LOD threshold is 4.0.

Add1 and Add2 represent the additive effect of epistatic QTLs, respectively; its positive value indicates that two loci genotypes being the same as those in parents take the positive effects, while the two-loci recombinants take the negative effects.

Add by Add represents the estimated additive effects of epistatic QTL.