No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Development and genomic characterization of EMS induced mutant population of Zea mays L.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2023
Abstract
Maize is among major field crops which provides food, fodder and various byproducts to the industry. Development of better performing varieties is very important to enhance and strengthen the maize production system. In this study ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) is used to induce genetic variation in maize. Mutant population was derived from two genotypes 100,003 and 100,004. EMS was applied under three different concentrations of 25, 50 and 75 mM. 25 mM was found as an ideal concentration resulting in maximum survival rate. Total 10 SSRs were used in this study, which amplified 28 alleles with average of 2.7 alleles. Analysis of molecular variance showed significant differences present among individuals. Average heterozygosity for mutants derived from 100,003 and 100,004 was 0.58 and 0.53, respectively. UPGMA analysis characterized the mutants into two main and many sub clusters. According to the principal component analysis, PC 1 and 2 contributed to 64.2% variability with eigenvalue greater than 1. Statistics showed maximum coefficients of variance in traits of leaf area, cobb height and plant height. Promising mutants were also identified and recommended for future breeding programme. In conclusion, EMS mutagenesis is an effective technique to develop novel mutants that can be exploited in future breeding programmes.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of NIAB
References
AbdElgawad, H, Zinta, G, Hegab, MM, Pandey, R, Asard, H and Abuelsoud, W (2016) High salinity induces different oxidative stress and antioxidant responses in maize seedlings organs. Frontiers in Plant Science 7, 276.10.3389/fpls.2016.00276CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adeyemo, O, Menkir, A, Melaku, G and Omidiji, O (2012) Genetic diversity assessment and relationship among tropical yellow endosperm maize inbred lines using SSR markers. Maydica 56, 1703.Google Scholar
Ahloowalia, B and Maluszynski, M (2001) Induced mutations – a new paradigm in plant breeding. Euphytica 118, 167–173.10.1023/A:1004162323428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, I, Ahmad, B, Boote, K and Hoogenboom, G (2020) Adaptation strategies for maize production under climate change for semi-arid environments. European Journal of Agronomy 115, 126040.10.1016/j.eja.2020.126040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Naggar, A, Shafik, M and Musa, R (2020) Genetic diversity based on morphological traits of 19 maize genotypes using principal component analysis and GT biplot. Annual Research & Review in Biology 35, 68–85.10.9734/arrb/2020/v35i230191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andorf, C, Beavis, WD, Hufford, M, Smith, S, Suza, WP, Wang, K, Woodhouse, M, Yu, J and Lübberstedt, T (2019) Technological advances in maize breeding: past, present and future. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 132, 817–849.10.1007/s00122-019-03306-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aslam, M (2014) Assessment of drought tolerance in maize (Zea may L.) genotypes at early growth stages by using principle component and biplot analysis. The Experiment 29, 1943–1951.Google Scholar
Aslam, M, Saeed, MS, Sattar, S, Rehan, M and Sajjad, M (2018) Result of chemical mutagenesis on quantitative as well as qualitative traits of maize (Zea mays (L.). International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience 6, 12–15.10.18782/2320-7051.6087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avvaru, AK, Saxena, S, Sowpati, DT and Mishra, RK (2017) MSDB: a comprehensive database of simple sequence repeats. Genome Biology and Evolution 9, 1797–1802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cairns, JE, Sonder, K, Zaidi, P, Verhulst, N, Mahuku, G, Babu, R, Nair, S, Das, B, Govaerts, B and Vinayan, M (2012) Maize production in a changing climate: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation strategies. Advances in Agronomy 114, 1–58.10.1016/B978-0-12-394275-3.00006-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2019) Statistical Databases (FAOSTAT). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).Google Scholar
Hallauer, AR and Carena, MJ (2009) Maize. In Teng, K (ed.), Cereals. US: Springer, pp. 3–98.10.1007/978-0-387-72297-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hameed, K, Khan, MS, Sadaqat, HA and Awan, FS (2019) Phenotypic characterization of super basmati ethyl methane sulfonate (EMS) induced mutants. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 56, 378–384.Google Scholar
Hotelling, H (1933) Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology 24, 417.10.1037/h0071325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idrees, M and Irshad, M (2014) Molecular markers in plants for analysis of genetic diversity: a review. European Academic Research 2, 1513–1540.Google Scholar
Khan, I, Awan, F, Ahmad, A and Khan, A (2004) A modified mini-prep method for economical and rapid extraction of genomic DNA in plants. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 22, 89–89.10.1007/BF02773355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khursheed, S, Raina, A, Laskar, RA and Khan, S (2018) Effect of gamma radiation and EMS on mutation rate: their effectiveness and efficiency in faba bean (Vicia faba L). Caryologia 71, 397–404.10.1080/00087114.2018.1485430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kodym, A and Afza, R (2003) Physical and chemical mutagenesis. In Grotewold, E (ed.), Plant Functional Genomics. US: Springer, pp. 189–203.10.1385/1-59259-413-1:189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laskar, RA, Sheikh, N, Hajong, S and Khan, TU (2020) Optimization of EMS and DES treatments for inductions of mutations in quantitative traits of maize. Plant Cell Biotechnology and Molecular Biology 41, 134–143.Google Scholar
Leitão, J (2012) Chemical mutagenesis. Plant Mutation Breeding and Biotechnology 1, 135–158.10.1079/9781780640853.0135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levene, H (1949) On a matching problem arising in genetics. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 20, 91–94.10.1214/aoms/1177730093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H-Y, Lu, C-F, Lan, X-Z, Yang, F-J, Jin, D-S, Qiao, P, Lu, X, Meng, Y and Chen, Y-Z (2013) Genetic variation analysis in maize mutants from AS-9 inbred line based on SSR marker [J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica 3.Google Scholar
Luo, C, He, XH, Chen, H, Ou, SJ and Gao, MP (2010) Analysis of diversity and relationships among mango cultivars using Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) markers. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 38, 1176–1184.10.1016/j.bse.2010.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maqbool, MA, Aslam, M, Ali, H, Shah, T, Farid, B and Zaman, QU (2015) Drought tolerance indices based evaluation of chickpea advanced lines under different water treatments. Research on Crops 16, 336–344.10.5958/2348-7542.2015.00049.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nei, M (1972) Genetic distance between populations. American Naturalist 106, 283–292.10.1086/282771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nei, M (1973) Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 70, 3321–3323.10.1073/pnas.70.12.3321CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pathaichindachote, W, Panyawut, N, Sikaewtung, K, Patarapuwadol, S and Muangprom, A (2019) Genetic diversity and allelic frequency of selected Thai and exotic rice germplasm using SSR markers. Rice Science 26, 393–403.10.1016/j.rsci.2018.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pathirana, R (2011) Plant mutation breeding in agriculture. Plant Sciences Reviews 6, 107–126.Google Scholar
Prasanna, BM, Palacios-Rojas, N, Hossain, F, Muthusamy, V, Menkir, A, Dhliwayo, T, Ndhlela, T, San Vicente, F, Nair, SK and Vivek, BS (2020) Molecular breeding for nutritionally enriched maize: status and prospects. Frontiers in Genetics 10, 1392.10.3389/fgene.2019.01392CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qiao, X, Shi, H, Ke, Y, Yuan, J and Yu, X (2012) Genetic variation of maize mutants by spaceflight based on SSR analysis. Journal of Maize Sciences 3, 15–21.Google Scholar
Qin, H, Cai, Y, Yang, C and Wang, G (2008) Genetic variation of maize (Zea mays L.) mutants based on SSR analysis [J]. Acta Agriculturae Nucleatae Sinica 22, 750–755.Google Scholar
Qin, Z, Wang, Y, Wang, Q, Li, A, Hou, F and Zhang, L (2015) Evolution analysis of simple sequence repeats in plant genome. PLoS ONE 10, e0144108.10.1371/journal.pone.0144108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rafi, S, Kamili, AN, Ganai, B, Mir, MY and Parray, JA (2016) Morpho-biochemical evaluation of EMS regenerated mutants of Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) Sternb. Under in vitro conditions. Journal of Nature and Natural Sciences 1, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raina, A, Laskar, RA, Khursheed, S, Amin, R, Tantray, YR, Parveen, K and Khan, S (2016) Role of mutation breeding in crop improvement-past, present and future. Asian Research Journal of Agriculture 2, 1–13.10.9734/ARJA/2016/29334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramakrishnan, M, Ceasar, SA, Duraipandiyan, V, Al-Dhabi, NA and Ignacimuthu, S (2016) Using molecular markers to assess the genetic diversity and population structure of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.) from various geographical regions. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 63, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reif, J, Melchinger, A, Xia, X, Warburton, M, Hoisington, D, Vasal, S, Beck, D, Bohn, M and Frisch, M (2003) Use of SSRs for establishing heterotic groups in subtropical maize. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 107, 947–957.10.1007/s00122-003-1333-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribaut, JM, Betran, J, Monneveux, P and Setter, T (2009) Drought tolerance in maize. In Bebberzen, JL and Hake, SC (eds), Handbook of Maize: Its Biology. US: Springer, pp. 311–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, D, Kamili, AN, Wani, AA, Nazir, N, Sajad, N, Khan, I, Parray, JA and Shah, S (2016) Mutagenic action of ethyl methanesulphonate (EMS): a review. Journal of Research & Development 16, 63–68.Google Scholar
Shimelis, HA, Olaolorun, BM, Mathew, I and Laing, MD (2019) Optimising the dosage of ethyl methanesulphonate mutagenesis in selected wheat genotypes. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 36, 357–366.Google Scholar
Spencer-Lopes, M, Forster, BP and Jankuloski, L (2018) Manual on mutation breeding: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
Talebi, AB, Talebi, AB and Shahrokhifar, B (2012) Ethyl methane sulphonate (EMS) induced mutagenesis in Malaysian rice (cv. MR219) for lethal dose determination. American Journal of Plant Sciences 3, 1661–1665.10.4236/ajps.2012.312202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toker, C, Yadav, SS and Solanki, I (2007) Mutation breeding. In Yadav, SS, McNeil, DL and Stevenson, PC (eds), Lentil. US: Springer, pp. 209–224.10.1007/978-1-4020-6313-8_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inghelandt, D, Melchinger, AE, Lebreton, C and Stich, B (2010) Population structure and genetic diversity in a commercial maize breeding program assessed with SSR and SNP markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 120, 1289–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J, Larsson, S and Buckler, E (2014) Entering the second century of maize quantitative genetics. Heredity 112, 30–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wani, MR, Khan, S and Kozgar, MI (2011) Induced chlorophyll mutations. I. Mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency of EMS, HZ and SA in mungbean. Frontiers of Agriculture in China 5, 514–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W, Krakowsky, M, Scully, B, Brown, R, Menkir, A, Warburton, M and Windham, G (2015) Identifying and developing maize germplasm with resistance to accumulation of aflatoxins. World Mycotoxin Journal 8, 193–209.10.3920/WMJ2014.1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashif et al. supplementary material
Kashif et al. supplementary material 1
Image
89.8 KB
Kashif et al. supplementary material
Kashif et al. supplementary material 2
File
14.8 KB