Relationship of molecular and phenotypic divergence with hybrid performance in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea)

VINU V; NAVEEN SINGH; SUJATA VASUDEV; S C GIRI; RAJENDRA SINGH; B DASS; D K YADAVA

doi:10.56093/ijas.v86i9.61502

Authors

VINU V ICAR-Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
NAVEEN SINGH ICAR-Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
SUJATA VASUDEV ICAR-Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
S C GIRI ICAR-Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
RAJENDRA SINGH ICAR-Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
B DASS ICAR-Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
D K YADAVA ICAR-Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v86i9.61502

Keywords:

Brassica juncea, Genetic diversity, Heterosis, Hybrid performance

Abstract

Predicting hybrid performance from the parental generation could largely enhance the efficiency of hybrid breeding programmes. To determine the relationship of parental distances estimated from phenotypic traits and SSR markers with F₁ performance, average heterosis and heterobeltiosis in 44 indigenous and exotic genotypes of Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. and Coss.], were studied. Jaccard’s genetic distances (JD) and Manhattan genetic distances (MD) were taken as criteria to classify the genotypic pairs into four diversity groups, viz. high, intermediate high, intermediate low and low. Seventy crosses representing the four diversity groups each for JD and MD were evaluated. Placement of higher number of significantly better hybrids was in extreme diversity groups created using JD, while, it was higher in intermediate diversity groups generated through MD. Low regression values were observed between JD among genotypic pairs and mean performance (R2 = 0.02), average heterosis (R2 = 0.046) and heterobeltiosis (R2 = 0.15). Similarly, low regression values were observed between MD among genotypic pairs and mean performance (R2 = 0.033), average heterosis (R2 = 0.046) and heterobeltiosis (R2 = 0.009). The slope of linear regression curve, placement of hybrids on the plot and low regression values in all the cases revealed that there is no significant association between genetic distance and hybrid performance. Therefore, desirable genetic diversity, in form of heterotic pools, needs to be identified from indigenous and exotic germplasm for expression of heterosis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ali A, Shah S A and Hassan S. 2000. Mutant heterosis in oilseed rape. Cruciferae Newsletter 22: 67–8.

Ali M, Copeland L O, Elias S G and Kelly J D. 1995. Relationship between genetic distance and heterosis for yield and morphological traits in winter canola (Brassica napus). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 91: 118–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00220867

Alie F A, Singh T, Tariq and Sharma P K. 2009. Genetic diversity analysis in Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern & Coss]. Progressive Agriculture - An International Journal 9(1): 50–3.

Becker H C and Engqvist G M. 1995. The potential of resynthesized rapeseed for hybrid breeding. (In) Proceedings of 9th International Rapeseed Conference: Rapeseed Today and Tomorrow. Murphy D J (Ed.). Cambridge, UK, pp 113– 5.

Burstin J and Charcosset A. 1997. Relationship between phenotypic and marker distances: theoretical and experimental investigations. Heredity 79: 477–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6882270

Diers B W, McVetty P B E and Osborn T C. 1996. Relationship between heterosis and genetic distance based on Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism markers in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Annals of Botany 36: 79–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1996.0011183X003600010014x

Doyle J J and Doyle J L. 1990. Isolation of Plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 12: 13–5.

Falk K, Rakow G, Downey R and Spurr D. 1994. Performance of inter-cultivar summer turnip rape hybrids in Saskatchewan. Cannadian Journal of Plant Science 74: 441–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps94-082

Gaikwad K B, Singh N, Bhatia D, Kaur R, Bains N S, Bharaj T S and Singh K. 2014. Yield-enhancing heterotic QTL transferred from wild into cultivated species of rice (Oryza sativa L.). PLoS ONE 9(6): e96939. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096939

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096939. Girke A. 2002. Neue Genpools aus resynthetisiertem Raps (Brassicanapus L.) fu¨ r dieHybridzuchtung. Dissertation, Universita"tGo"ttingen: http://www.webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2002/girke/girke.pdf.

Gupta P, Chaudhary and Lal S K. 2011. Heterosis and combining ability analysis for yield and its components in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L. Czern & Coss). Academic Journal of Plant Science 4(2): 45–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11703-010-1016-8

Gupta V P, Sekhon M S and Satija D R. 1991. Studies on genetic diversity, heterosis and combining ability in Indian mustard [Brassica juncea L. (Czern and Coss)]. Indian Journal of Genetics 51: 448–53.

Jain A, Bhatia S, Banga S S, Prakash S and Laxmimurukan M. 1994. Potential use of Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) technique to study genetic diversity in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) and its relatedness to heterosis. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 88: 116–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00222403

Knaak C and Ecke W. 1995. Genetic diversity and F1 performance in European winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). (In) Proceedings of 9th International Rapeseed Conference: Rapeseed Today and Tomorrow. Murphy D J (Ed.). Cambridge, UK, pp 110–2.

Lefort-Buson M, Guillot-Lemoine B and Dattee Y. 1986. Heterosis and genetic distance in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.): Use of different indicators of genetic divergence in a 7 · 7 diallel. Agronomie 6: 839–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:19860908

Li R H, Xue C G, Yuan L P, He Y Q, Sun C Q, Yu S B, Li H X and Wang X K. 1998. Differentiation and classification of parental lines and favorable genic interactions affecting F1 fertility in distant crosses of rice (O. sativa L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 96: 526–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220050770

Mahmood T, Ali M, Anwar M and Iqbal S. 2003. Heterosis for some quantitative characters in Brassica juncea L. Asian Journal of Plant Science 2: 71–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2003.71.73

Mahto J L and Haider Z A. 2004. Short communication heterosis in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L. Czern & Cosson). Journal of Tropical Agriculture 42(1-2): 39–41.

Melchinger A E. 1999. Genetic diversity and heterosis. (In) The Genetics and Exploitation of Heterosis in Crops, pp 99–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/1999.geneticsandexploitation.c10

Coors J G and Pandey S (Eds). American Society of Agronomy Inc. and Crop Science Society of America Inc., Madison, USA.

Perrier X and Jacquemoud-Collet J P. 2006. Dissimilarity Analysis and Representation for Windows. Version 5. Available at http://darwin.cirad.fr/.

Plieske J and Struss D. 2001. Microsatellite markers for genome analysis in Brassica. I. Development in Brassica napus and abundance in Brassicaceae species. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 102: 689–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220051698

Pradhan A K, Sodhi Y S, Mukeropandhyay and Pental D. 1993. Heterosis breeding in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.): Analysis of component characters contributing to heterosis for yield. Euphytica 69: 219–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00022368

Qian W, Li Q, Noack J, Sass O, Meng J, Frauen M and Jung C. 2009. Heterotic patterns in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.): II. Crosses between European winter and Chinese semi-winter lines. Plant Breeding 128: 466–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2008.01597.x

Qian W, Sass O, Meng J, Li M, Frauen M and Jung C. 2007. I. Heterotic patterns in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.): Crosses between spring and Chinese semi-winter lines. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 115: 27–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-007-0537-x

Ram, Kashi, Ram K, Chauhan Y S and Katiyar R P. 1976. Partial diallel analysis in F2 generation in Indian mustard. Indian Journal of Agriculture Science 46(5): 229–32.

Riaz A, Li G, Quresh Z, Swati M S and Quiros C F. 2001. Genetic diversity of oilseed Brassica napus inbred lines based on Sequence-Related Amplified Polymorphism and its relation to hybrid performance. Plant Breeding 120: 411–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0523.2001.00636.x

Rohlf F J. 1998. NTSYS-pc Numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system. version 2.02. Available at www.exetersoftware.com/cat/ntsyspc/ntsyspc.html . Accessed on November 11, 2011.

Shen J, Lu G, Fu T and Yang G. 2003. Relationship between heterosis and genetic distance based on AFLPs in Brassica napus. (In) Proceedings of 11th International Rapeseed Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp 343–6.

Singh D, Arya R K, Chandra N, Niwas R and Salisbury P. 2010. Genetic diversity studies in relation to seed yield and its component traits in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L. Czern & Coss.). Journal of Oilseed Brassica 1(1): 19–22.

Singh H, Lather V S and Singh D. 1985. Extent of heterosis in relation to genotypic diversity in Indian x Exotic cross of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Genet Iberica 37: 97– 105.

Singh N, Yadava D K, Vasudev S, Singh R, Giri S C, Dass B, Barun S and Prabhu K V. 2015. Combining ability and heterobeltiosis for yield and yield combining traits in high quality oil in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) genotypes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 85(4): 498–503.

Sneath P H A and Sokal R R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification, p 573. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Sokal R R and Michener C D. 1958. A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 38: 1 409–38.

Teklewold A and Becker H C. 2006. Geographic pattern of genetic diversity among 43 Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun) accessions as revealed by RAPD analysis. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 53: 1 173–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-2011-4

Turi N A, Raziuddin, Shah S S and Sardar A. 2006. Estimation of heterosis for some important traits in mustard (Brassica juncea L). Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 1(4): 1–5.

USDA. 2012. www.usda.gov/oce/forum/

Vaishnava A, Sachan J N and Tewari S K. 2006. Genetic divergence for important quantitative traits in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Czern and Coss). Agricultural Science Digest 26(4): 269–72.

Varshney S K. 1985. Heterosis in crosses between parents selected for harvest index and plant height in Indian rapeseed. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 55: 398–402.

Verma O P, Singh H P and Singh V P. 1998. Heterosis and inbreeding depression in Indian mustard. Cruciferae Newsletter 20: 75–6.

Vinu V, Singh N, Sujata V, Yadava D K, Kumar S, Sugandh N, Bhat S R and Prabhu K V. 2013. Assessment of genetic diversity in Brassica juncea (Brassicaceae) genotypes using phenotypic differences and SSR markers. Revista de Biologia Tropical 61(4): 1 919–34.

Yadava D K, Sapra R L, Sujata V, Dass B and Prabhu K V. 2009. Selection of high diversity with a minimal set of accessions from Indian mustard {Brassica juncea (L.) Czern & Coss.} germplasm collection. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 79(7): 552–4.

Yadava D K, Singh N, Sujata V, Singh R, Singh S, Giri S C, Dwivedi V K and Prabhu K V. 2012. Combining ability and heterobeltiosis for yield and yield contributing traits in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 82(7): 573–7.

Yadava T P, Singh H, Gupta V P and Rana R K. 1974. Heterosis and combining ability in raya for yield and its components. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 34: 684–95.

Yu C Y, Hu S W, Zhao H X and Guo A G. 2005. Genetic distances revealed by morphological characters, isozymes, protein and RAPD markers and their relationships with hybrid performance in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110: 511–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1858-7