Detection of epistasis, and estimation of additive and dominance components of genetic variation for synchrony in pod maturity in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek)

Khattak, G. S. S.; Haq, Muhammad Ahsan ul; Ashraf, Muhammad; Tahir, G. R.; Marwat, Euk

doi:10.1016/s0378-4290(01)00178-2

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the number of interacting genes is relatively high, the differences between epistatic genetic values of the individuals account for almost the entire genotypic variance, causing low estimates of heritability and biased estimates of the additive and dominance components (Viana, 2000). The magnitude of the additive × additive components should be assessed towards developing superior pure lines (Viana, 2000), but a more accurate evaluation of the epistatic components of variation requires the analysis of specific crosses built for this purpose (Khattak et al, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inheritance of root traits and phosphorus uptake in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under limited soil phosphorus supply

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scarce information about genetic control of root traits in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) impedes a more effective exploitation of the reported variability for plant breeding. This work investigated the inheritance of traits related to the root system and P absorption of common bean grown under limited soil P supply. Two experiments were carried out, each one involving one family of crosses comprising six populations (two parental cultivars, F1, F2, and two backcrosses). One plant was grown per pot with 3 kg of soil (7 mg P kg −1 Mehlich-1) and harvested at pod setting. Root samples provided the root surface area and root length by digital image analysis. Considerable additive genotypic effects were detected in both experiments; additive × additive epistases were significant only in the second experiment, whereas dominance effects were seldom significant. Estimated broad-sense heritabilities were 0.55 and 0.51 for root area, 0.50 and 0.47 for root length, 0.51 and 0.61 for root mass, and 0.51 and 0.43 for the total P content, in the first and second experiments, respectively. High genotypic correlation between root mass and root area justifies screening genotypes based solely on root mass. Phenotypic and genotypic correlations between shoot mass and root mass, and shoot mass and total P content, were highly significant, indicating that direct selection for higher shoot growth of bean plants under limited soil P supply would result in increased root mass and P uptake. A scheme for root breeding in common bean towards improving P efficiency should include: matching cultivars with favourable alleles; advance until later generations without any selection; selection of resultant genotypes under low soil P supply via shoot growth; evaluation of promising lines for root growth and agronomic performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inheritance of root traits and phosphorus uptake in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under limited soil phosphorus supply

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adapted from Mather and Jinks (1982, life-history than morphological traits. In addition to those listed in the Appendix, the following papers were used in this analysis: Goud et al (1975), Ketata et al (1975), Arumugam and Muthukrishnan (1979), , Nanda et al (1981Nanda et al ( , 1982, Singh (1981), Bowman and Jones (1984), Singh et al ( , 1984Singh et al ( , 1987Singh et al ( , 1990, Melchinger et al (1986), Randhawa et al (1986), Verma and unus (1986), Garg et al (1987), Pawar et al (1988), Gupta and Labana (1989), Malhotra and Singh (1989), Singh and Nanda (1898), Subbaraman and Sree Rangasamy (1989), Virk et al (1989), Setiamihardja and Knavel (1990), Shinde and Deshmukh (1990), Kishor et al (1992), Wani and Zargar (1992), Ehdaie and Waines (1995), Pooni et al (1994), Tefera and Peat (1997), Ceballos et al (1998), L. L. , Carroll et al (2001), Galloway and Fenster (2001), Gilchrist and Partridge (2001), Khattak et al (2001), Polak and Starmer (2001). For the more specific questions concerning the magnitude of effects we used only six-parameter estimates (i.e., categories 2 and 3).…”

Section: The Databasementioning

confidence: 99%

Epistasis and Dominance: Evidence for Differential Effects in Life-History Versus Morphological Traits

Roff

Emerson

2006

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Dominance and epistatic effects are predicted to be larger in life-history than in morphological traits. We test these predictions using published results from line cross analyses. We find that dominance is found in more than 95% of traits, regardless of the type of trait, but that the magnitude of the effect in relation to the additive effect is much greater in life-history than in morphological traits. Epistatic effects were detected more often in life-history than in morphological traits (79% and 67%, respectively). We also test for a difference in the magnitude of the effects by comparing the ratio of the nonadditive components separately to the additive component. For both dominance and epistatic components, the ratio of the nonadditive component to additive effects in life-history traits is approximately twice as large as that for morphological traits.

show abstract

“…In addition to those listed in the Appendix, the following papers were used in this analysis: Goud et al (1975), Ketata et al (1975), Arumugam and Muthukrishnan (1979), , Nanda et al (1981Nanda et al ( , 1982, Singh (1981), Bowman and Jones (1984), Singh et al ( , 1984Singh et al ( , 1987Singh et al ( , 1990, Melchinger et al (1986), Randhawa et al (1986), Verma and unus (1986), Garg et al (1987), Pawar et al (1988), Gupta and Labana (1989), Malhotra and Singh (1989), Singh and Nanda (1898), Subbaraman and Sree Rangasamy (1989), Virk et al (1989), Setiamihardja and Knavel (1990), Shinde and Deshmukh (1990), Kishor et al (1992), Wani and Zargar (1992), Ehdaie and Waines (1995), Pooni et al (1994), Tefera and Peat (1997), Ceballos et al (1998), L. L. , Carroll et al (2001), Galloway and Fenster (2001), Gilchrist and Partridge (2001), Khattak et al (2001), Polak and Starmer (2001).…”

Section: The Databasementioning

confidence: 99%

Epistasis and Dominance: Evidence for Differential Effects in Life-History Versus Morphological Traits

Roff¹,

Emerson²

2006

Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dominance and epistatic effects are predicted to be larger in life-history than in morphological traits. We test these predictions using published results from line cross analyses. We find that dominance is found in more than 95% of traits, regardless of the type of trait, but that the magnitude of the effect in relation to the additive effect is much greater in life-history than in morphological traits. Epistatic effects were detected more often in life-history than in morphological traits (79% and 67%, respectively). We also test for a difference in the magnitude of the effects by comparing the ratio of the nonadditive components separately to the additive component. For both dominance and epistatic components, the ratio of the nonadditive component to additive effects in life-history traits is approximately twice as large as that for morphological traits.

show abstract

Detection of epistasis, and estimation of additive and dominance components of genetic variation for synchrony in pod maturity in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek)

Cited by 17 publications

References 11 publications

Inheritance of root traits and phosphorus uptake in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under limited soil phosphorus supply

Inheritance of root traits and phosphorus uptake in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under limited soil phosphorus supply

Epistasis and Dominance: Evidence for Differential Effects in Life-History Versus Morphological Traits

Epistasis and Dominance: Evidence for Differential Effects in Life-History Versus Morphological Traits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About