2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11032-014-0032-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of a candidate gene marker for Rf 1 based on a PPR gene in cytoplasmic male sterile CMS-D2 Upland cotton

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
31
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
2
31
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, in radish Rfo loci, three similar PPRs were identified, which may arise through gene duplication events [38]. In this study, five genes were not located on the Rf1 -carrying chromosome (Gh_D05), while the PPR gene Gh_D05G3392 is located on the chromosome where the restorer gene Rf1 resides [27], though it is outside of the Rf1 locus and its protein was predicted to target in the chloroplasts, and the physical distance is short. Therefore, we speculate that the Gh_D05G3392 gene may share a high similarity with Rf1 in cotton but it is not the candidate gene for Rf1 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, in radish Rfo loci, three similar PPRs were identified, which may arise through gene duplication events [38]. In this study, five genes were not located on the Rf1 -carrying chromosome (Gh_D05), while the PPR gene Gh_D05G3392 is located on the chromosome where the restorer gene Rf1 resides [27], though it is outside of the Rf1 locus and its protein was predicted to target in the chloroplasts, and the physical distance is short. Therefore, we speculate that the Gh_D05G3392 gene may share a high similarity with Rf1 in cotton but it is not the candidate gene for Rf1 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…hirsutum and SSR marker GNCOT-C1-F (GenBank: KX090570.1). However, it is outside of the Rf1 locus [27], while other five genes were even not located on the Rf1 -carrying chromosome (Gh_D05). Thus, with the introduction of the dominant restorer gene Rf1 to the A line containing the CMS-inducing cytoplasm, the expression of the three PLS subfamily genes (PLS and E subgroup) was suppressed, while other three genes in the P subfamily were activated for male fertility restoration in the R line.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yang et al [56] identi ed 6 EST-SSR markers (NAU2650, NAU2924, NAU3205, NAU3652, NAU3938, and NAU4040) with a genetic distance of 0.327 cM linked to Rf 1 of CMS-D2. Wu et al [20] screened 13 molecular markers closely linked to Rf 1 and located Rf 1 between the SSR markers BNL3535 and NAU3652, with a genetic distance of 0.049 cM and 0.078, respectively. Recently, they have reported co-segregated InDel markers such as InDel-1891, InDel-3434, InDel-7525, InDel-9356 and InDel-R [21,57].…”
Section: Molecular Marker Discovery and Ne Mapping Of The Fertility Rmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study of Yin et al [19] not only identi ed 5 new SSRs and 2 new STS markers for Rf 1 , but also made high-resolution genetic and physical maps of 15 markers at a genetic distance of 0.9 cM. More to this, Wu et al [20,21] recognized new BNL3535 SSR markers and developed 4 InDel markers by wholegenome resequencing. Zhao et al [22] used super-BSA and successfully mapped Rf 1 to 1.35 Mb region of chromosome D05.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The restorer gene Rf 1 from the nuclear genome of D2‐2 can restore male fertility to both CMS‐D2 (Weaver and Weaver, 1977; Kohel et al, 1984; Zhang and Stewart, 2001b) and CMS‐D8 (Zhang and Stewart, 2001b), whereas Rf 2 from D8 only restores male fertility to CMS‐D8 (Zhang and Stewart, 2001b; Zhang et al, 2005). Both restorer genes were tightly linked on the same chromosome within a 1.0‐cM region on the basis of fertility segregation in a large testcross population (Zhang and Stewart, 2001b) and molecular linkage mapping (Liu et al, 2003; Zhang and Stewart, 2004; Feng et al, 2005; Yin et al, 2006; Wang et al, 2007, 2009; Wu et al, 2014, 2017b). In addition, the two CMS and restoration systems have been further characterized through DNA marker and gene expression analysis (Zhang et al, 2008; Wang et al, 2010; Wu et al, 2011, 2017a; Suzuki et al, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c; Yang et al, 2018).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%