Mapping reciprocal effects and interactions with plant density stress in Zea mays L.

Abstract

Reciprocal effects are due to genetic effects of the parents (i.e. maternal and paternal effects), cytoplasmic effects and parent-of-origin effects. However, in Zea mays L. the extent to which reciprocal effects exist, or can be attributed to specific underlying components, remains an area of interest and study. Reciprocal effects have been reported by several investigators for various agronomic characters in different types of maize materials for grain and silage usage. Maize geneticists and breeders have recognized reciprocal effects as one source of genetic variability, but the lack of consistency in the observation of these effects, particularly due to stress conditions, has prevented a systematic exploitation of these effects in practical breeding programs. There is mounting molecular evidence for underlying mechanisms in maize, which could be responsible for both the existence, and the instability of reciprocal effects. In this study, we developed population of reciprocal backcrosses based on an initial set of recombinant inbred lines. This population was used for dissecting reciprocal effects into the underlying components (maternal, cytoplasmic and parentof-origin) effects. We also developed statistical framework to identify and map contributions of specific nuclear chromosomal regions to reciprocal effects. We showed that differences in maternal parents, endosperm DNA and maternally transmitted factors collectively influence reciprocal effects early during the season, and that their influence diluted at later stages. We also found evidence that parent-of-origin effects in the sporophyte DNA existed at all stages and played an important role in establishing differences between reciprocal backcrosses at later developmental stages.

Relationships of grain carbon isotope discrimination (Δ) and ash content with yield and quality in dry bean

“…Under ultra-low density, which approaches the absence of competition, genotypic expression and differentiation are maximized (Fasoulas & Fasoula 1995), allowing the identification of even limited genetic variation (Fasoula 1990;Fasoula & Boerma 2005Tokatlidis et al 2004Tokatlidis et al , 2006Tokatlidis et al , 2008. Previous works have reported density effects on phenology, phenotype expression, resource use and finally yield (Heath & Hebblethwaite 1987;Mazer & Wolfe 1992;Gonzalo et al 2007), but the respective effects on plant physiology and especially Δ are rarely studied and more research is necessary. Recently, the employment of physiological traits in breeding was suggested as a means of increasing selection efficiency (Edmeades et al 2004).…”

Reciprocal differences in DNA sequence and methylation status of the pollen DNA between F1 hybrids of Solanum tuberosum × S. demissum

“…Reciprocal difference refers to differential phenotypic expression observed between reciprocal F 1 hybrids, and the phenomenon is widely observed for various traits in various plant species (Burke et al 1998;Campbell and Waser 2001;Tiffin et al 2001;Rhode and Cruzan 2005;Gonzalo et al 2007). In a perennial wild flower Penstemon davidsonii Greene, reciprocal F 1 hybrids differed significantly in fruit set, seed number, seed weight, number of days to fruit maturity, vegetative growth and performance in field gardens (Kimball et al 2008).…”

Bayesian Diallel Analysis Reveals Mx1-Dependent and Mx1-Independent Effects on Response to Influenza A Virus in Mice

“…It also permits the creation of sophisticated experiments that target a wider range of heritable mechanisms: crossing RIs with each other to form RI intercrosses (RIXs), or crossing them with outside strains, produces replicable systems capable of distinguishing, for example, additive, dominance, and parent-of-origin effects, among others ( e.g. , Xiao et al 1995 ; Hua et al 2002 , 2003 ; Kollipara et al 2002 ; Threadgill et al 2002 ; Mei et al 2005 ; Gonzalo et al 2007 ; Swanson-Wagner et al 2009 ; Shang et al 2015 ; Liu et al 2012 ; Zhou et al 2012 ; Hallin et al 2016 ; Williams and Williams 2017 ).…”