Premium
Selection for Resistance to Southwestern Corn Borer Using Marker‐Assisted and Conventional Backcrossing
Author(s) -
Willcox M. C.,
Khairallah M. M.,
Bergvinson D.,
Crossa J.,
Deutsch J. A.,
Edmeades G. O.,
GonzálezdeLeón D.,
Jiang C.,
Jewell D. C.,
Mihm J. A.,
Williams W. P.,
Hoisington D.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
crop science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.76
H-Index - 147
eISSN - 1435-0653
pISSN - 0011-183X
DOI - 10.2135/cropsci2002.1516
Subject(s) - backcrossing , biology , quantitative trait locus , marker assisted selection , selection (genetic algorithm) , infestation , genotype , genetics , population , genotyping , molecular marker , horticulture , agronomy , microbiology and biotechnology , gene , demography , artificial intelligence , sociology , computer science
Two maize ( Zea mays L) lines, susceptible and resistant to first‐generation southwestern corn borer (SWCB), Diatraea grandiosella Dyar, were hybridized then backcrossed to the susceptible parent to form a population that was selected over three backcross generations by either marker‐assisted or conventional selection for resistance to first generation SWCB leaf feeding. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping was done by BC 1 F 1 genotyping and BC 1 F 2 infestation with SWCB. Three putative QTL were identified on chromosomes 7, 9, and 10 accounting for 28% of the phenotypic variance. Marker‐assisted selection (MAS) proceeded by selecting plants heterozygous at the QTL regions and homozygous for the recurrent parent genotype outside the QTL regions in the BC 1 F 1 and BC 2 F 1 generations. BC 2 F 2 individuals were selected for the homozygous donor genotype in the QTL regions. Conventional selection initiated from the most resistant 30 BC 1 F 2 lines. Conventional trials of BC 2 F 2 and BC 2 F 3 families were infested with SWCB and based on leaf damage ratings selected selfed progeny of the former generation formed the subsequent trial entries. A comparative trial of BC 2 F 3 lines, selected by the two methods, was evaluated under SWCB infestation at three locations. Leaf damage ratings were taken at all locations and larvae weight was taken at one location. No significant differences for leaf damage ratings or larvae weight were found between lines selected by the two methods. Both methods produced lines significantly improved over the susceptible parent for SWCB leaf feeding damage indicating that the methods were equivalent as conducted in this experiment.