Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T13:36:59.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic variation in sorghum as revealed by phenotypic and SSR markers: implications for combining ability and heterosis for grain yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2016

Beyene Amelework ,
Hussien Shimelis  and
Mark Laing
Beyene Amelework*
Affiliation:
African Center for Crop Improvement, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
Hussien Shimelis
Affiliation:
African Center for Crop Improvement, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
Mark Laing
Affiliation:
African Center for Crop Improvement, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: amele_g@yahoo.com or Assefa@ukzn.ac.za
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hybrid breeding relies on selection of genetically unrelated and complementary parents for key traits. The objective of this study was to examine genetic variation and identify unique sorghum genotypes using phenotypic and simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers and to determine their relationships with combining ability and heterosis for grain yield. A total of 32 landraces and four cytoplasmic male sterile (CMS) lines were phenotyped using 25 agro-morphological traits and genotyped with 30 polymorphic SSR markers. The landraces were crossed with four CMS lines using a line × tester mating design. The 128 hybrids, 36 parentals and four check varieties were field-evaluated using a 12 × 14 alpha lattice design with three replications. General combining ability (GCA), specific combining ability (SCA) and heterosis for grain yield were determined. Genetic distance estimates ranged from 0.39 to 0.60 and 0.50 to 0.79, based on phenotypic and SSR markers, respectively. Landraces 72572, 75454, 200654, 239175, 239208, 244735A and 242039B and CMS lines ICSA 743 and ICSA 756 displayed positive and significant GCA effects for grain yield. Based on the SCA effects of yield, lines were classified into three heterotic groups aligned to the different cytoplasmic systems of testers. Lines with high GCA effects rendered hybrids with highly significant SCA effects with high mid-parent heterosis (MPH) for grain yield. Both marker systems were effective in demarcating sorghum genotypes that provided desirable cross-combinations with high combining ability effects and MPH for grain yield. The selected genotypes are recommended as potential parents for sorghum hybrid breeding in moisture stress environments.

Keywords

combining abilitygenetic distanceheterosisphenotypic traitssorghum bicolorSSR markers
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 335 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adugna, A and Tesso, T (2006) Genotype × environment interaction in exotic sorghum hybrids in the lowlands of Ethiopia. International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter 47: 55–57.Google Scholar
Alam, MF, Khan, MR, Nuruzzaman, M, Parvez, S, Swaraz, AM, Alam, I and Ahsan, N (2004) Genetic basis of heterosis and inbreeding depression in rice (Oryza sativa L). Journal of Zhejiang University Science 5: 406–411.Google Scholar
Ayana, A, Bryngelsson, T and Bekele, E (2001) Geographic and altitudinal allozyme variation in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) landraces from Ethiopia and Eritrea. Hereditas 135: 1–12.Google Scholar
Barata, C and Carena, MJ (2006) Classification of North Dakota maize inbred lines into heterotic groups based on molecular and testcross data. Euphytica 151: 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertan, I, Carvalho, FIF and Oliveira, AC (2007) Parental selection strategy in plant breeding programs. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology 10: 211–222.Google Scholar
Bhatnagar, S, Betran, FJ and Rooney, LW (2004) Combining ability of quality protein maize inbreds. Crop Science 44: 1997–2005.Google Scholar
Billot, C, Rivallan, R, Sall, MN, Fonceka, D, Deu, M, Glaszmann, JC, Noyer, JL, Rami, JF, Risterucci, AM, Wincker, P, Ramu, P and Hash, CT (2012) A reference microsatellite kit to assess for genetic diversity of Sorghum bicolor (Poaceae). American Journal of Botany 99: e245–e250.Google Scholar
Blum, A (2013) Heterosis, stress, and the environment: a possible road map towards the general improvement of crop yield. Journal of Experimental Botany 64: 4829–4837.Google Scholar
Blum, A, Ramaiah, S, Kanemasu, ET and Paulsen, GM (1990) The physiology of heterosis in sorghum with respect to environmental stress. Annals of Botany 65: 148–158.Google Scholar
Boppenmaier, J, Melchinger, AE, Brunklaus-Jung, E, Geiger, HH and Herrmann, RG (1992) Genetic diversity for RLFP in European maize inbreds. III. Performance of crosses with versus between heterotic groups for grain traits. Plant Breeding 111: 217–226.Google Scholar
Corbellini, M, Perenzin, M, Accerbi, M, Vaccino, P and Borghi, B (2002) Genetic diversity in breed wheat as revealed by coefficient of parentage and molecular markers, and its relationship to hybrid performance. Euphytica 123: 273–285.Google Scholar
Dar, WD, Reddy, BVS, Gowda, CLL and Ramesh, S (2006) Genetic resources enhancement of ICRISAT-mandated crops. Current Sciences 91: 880–884.Google Scholar
Degu, E, Debello, A and Belete, K (2009) Combining ability study for grain yield and yield-related traits of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) in Ethiopia. Acta Agronomica Hungarica 57: 175–184.Google Scholar
Ejeta, G (2007) The Striga scourge in Africa - a growing pandemic. In: Ejeta, G and Gressel, J (eds) Integrating New Technologies for Striga Control Towards: Ending the Witch-Hunt. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th edn. Essex, UK: Longman Group Ltd.Google Scholar
Fan, XM, Tan, J, Yang, JY and Chen, HM (2004) Combining ability and heterotic grouping of ten temperate, subtropical and tropical quality protein maize inbreds. Maydica 49: 267–272.Google Scholar
FAO (1992) CROPWAT - A Computer Program for Irrigation Planning and Management. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 46. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Geleta, N, Labuschagne, MT and Viljoen, CD (2006) Genetic diversity analysis in sorghum germplasm as estimated by AFLP, SSR and morpho-agronomical markers. Biodiversity Conservation 15: 3251–3265.Google Scholar
Grenier, C, Bramel, PJ, Dahlberg, JA, El-Ahmadi, A, Mahmoud, M, Peterson, GC, Rosenow, DT and Ejeta, G (2004) Sorghum of the Sudan: analysis of regional diversity and distribution. Genetic Resource and Crop Evolution 51: 489–500.Google Scholar
Haullauer, AR, Russell, WA and Lamkey, KR (1988) Corn breeding. In: Sprange, GF and Dudley, JW (eds) Corn and Corn Improvement, Agronomy Monograph 18. Madison, WI, USA: ASA, CSSA and SSSA, pp. 463–564.Google Scholar
Haussmann, BIG, Obilana, AB, Ayiecho, PO, Blum, A, Schipprack, W and Geiger, HH (1999) Quantitative-genetic parameters of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] grown in semi-arid areas of Kenya. Euphytica 105: 109–118.Google Scholar
Hua, JP, Xing, YZ, Xu, CG, Sun, XL, Yu, SB and Zhang, QF (2002) Genetic dissection of an elite rice hybrid revealed that heterozygotes are not always advantageous for performance. Genetics 162: 1885–1895.Google Scholar
IBPGR and ICRISAT (1993) Descriptors for sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Rome, Italy: International Board for Plant Genetic Resource; Patancheru, India: International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Jordan, D, Tao, Y, Godwin, I, Henzell, R, Cooper, M and McIntyre, QF (2003) Prediction of hybrid performance in grain sorghum using RFLP markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 106: 559–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamau, CK (2007) Characterization of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) parental lines and prediction of their hybrid performance under simulated water and population density stress . PhD Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa 213 pp.Google Scholar
Kempthorne, O (1957) An Introduction to Genetic Statistics. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Kenga, R, Alabi, SO and Gupta, SC (2004) Combining ability studies in tropical Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Field Crops Research 88: 251–260.Google Scholar
Li, Y and Li, C (1998) Genetic contribution of Chinese landraces to the development of sorghum hybrids. Euphytica 102: 47–55.Google Scholar
Menkir, A, Melake-Berhan, A, The, C, Ingelbrecht, I and Adepoju, A (2004) Grouping of tropical mid-altitude maize inbred lines on the basis of yield data and molecular markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 108: 1582–1590.Google Scholar
Mosar, H and Lee, M (1994) RFLP variation of genealogical distance, multivariate distance, heterosis and genetic variation in oats. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 87: 947–956.Google Scholar
Mukuru, SZ (1993) Sorghum and millet in Eastern Africa. In: Byth, DE (ed.) Sorghum and Millets Commodity and Research Environments. Patancheru, India: ICRISAT, pp. 57–62.Google Scholar
Nei, M and Li, W (1979) Mathematical method for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 76: 5256–5273.Google Scholar
Payne, RW, Murray, DA, Harding, SA, Baird, DB, Soutar, DM (2014) Genstat for Windows, 17th edn. Hemel Hempstead: VSN International.Google Scholar
Peakall, R and Smouse, PE (2007) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Molecular and Ecological Notes 6: 288–295.Google Scholar
Pedersen, JF, Kaeppler, HF, Andrews, DJ and Lee, RD (1998) Sorghum. In: Banga, SS and Banga, SK (eds) Hybrid Cultivar Development. New Delhi, India: Narosa Publishing House, pp. 344–354.Google Scholar
Perrier, X and Jacquemoud-Collet, JP (2006) DARwin software. dissimilarity analysis and representation for windows. Available at: http://www.darwin.cirad.fr/darwin.html Google Scholar
Perumal, R, Krishnaramanujam, R, Menz, MA, Katile, S, Dahlberg, J, Magill, CW and Rooney, WL (2007) Genetic diversity among sorghum races and working groups based on AFLPs and SSRs. Crop Science 47: 1375–1383.Google Scholar
Powell, W, Morgante, M, Andre, C, Hanafey, M, Vogel, J, Dingey, C and Rafalski, A (1996) The comparison of RLFP, RAPD, and SSR (microsatellite) markers for germplasm analysis. Molecular Breeding 2: 225–238.Google Scholar
Quinby, JR and Martin, JH (1954) Sorghum improvement. Advances in Agronomy 5: 305–359.Google Scholar
Rao, M, Reddy, GL, Kulkarni, RS, Ramesh, S and Lalitha, RSS (2004) Prediction of heterosis based on genetic divergence of parents through regression analysis in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Helia 27: 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, SA, Rao, KEP, Mengesha, MH and Reddy, VG (1996) Morphological diversity in sorghum germplasm from India. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43: 559–596.Google Scholar
Rattunde, HF, Zerbini, E, Chandra, S and Flower, DJ (2001) Stover quality of dual-purpose sorghums: Genetic and environmental sources of variation. Field Crops Research 71: 1–8.Google Scholar
Reddy, BVS, Sharma, HC, Thakur, RP, Ramesh, S and Kumar, AA (2007) Characterization of ICRISAT-bred sorghum hybrid parents. International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter 48: 1–123.Google Scholar
Rogstad, SH (2003) Plant DNA extraction using silica. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 21: 463–464.Google Scholar
Rooney, WL and Smith, CW (2000) Techniques for developing new cultivars. In: Smith, CY and Fredericksen, RA (eds) Sorghum, History, Technology, and Production. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 329–347.Google Scholar
Samarah, NH, Alqudah, AM, Amayreh, JA and McAndrews, GM (2009) The effect of late terminal drought stress on yield components of four barley cultivars. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 195: 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (2003) SAS/STAT Users Guide 9.1.3. Cary. NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Sleper, DA and Poehlman, JM (2006) Breeding Field Crops. 5th edn. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Professional.Google Scholar
Sorensen, AP, Stuurman, J, Van der Voort, JR and Peleman, J (2007) Molecular breeding: Maximizing the exploitation of genetic diversity. In: Varshney, RK and Tuberosa, R (eds) Genomics-Assisted Crop Improvement. Genomics Approaches and Platforms. NY: Springer, pp. 31–56.Google Scholar
Taketa, S, Yuo, T, Sakurai, Y, Miyake, S and Ichii, M (2011) Molecular mapping of the short awn 2 (lks2) and dense spike 1 (dsp1) genes on barley chromosome 7H. Breeding Science 61: 80–85.Google Scholar
Xin, Z and Chen, J (2012) A high throughput DNA extraction method with high yield and quality. Plant Methods 8: 26–33.Google Scholar
Yu, CY, Hu, SW, Zhao, HX, Guo, AG and Sun, GL (2005) Genetic distance revealed by morphological characters, isozymes, proteins and RAPD markers and their relationships with hybrid performance in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110: 511–518.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q, Gao, YJ, Yang, S, Ragab, R, Saghai Maroof, MA and Li, ZB (1994) A diallel analysis of heterosis in elite hybrid rice based on RFLPs and microsatellites. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 89: 185–192.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Amelework supplementary material

Tables S1-S2

Download Amelework supplementary material(File)
File 24.2 KB