Rice Science ›› 2018, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (5): 261-269.DOI: 10.1016/j.rsci.2018.08.002
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
Yingheng Wang1,2,3,4,5, Qiuhua Cai2,3,4,5, Hongguang Xie2,3,4,5, Fangxi Wu2,3,4,5, Ling Lian2,3,4,5, Wei He2,3,4,5, Liping Chen2,3,4,5, Hua’an Xie1,2,3,4,5(), Jianfu Zhang2,3,4,5()
Received:
2018-01-12
Accepted:
2018-04-09
Online:
2018-09-28
Published:
2018-06-11
Yingheng Wang, Qiuhua Cai, Hongguang Xie, Fangxi Wu, Ling Lian, Wei He, Liping Chen, Hua’an Xie, Jianfu Zhang. Determination of Heterotic Groups and Heterosis Analysis of Yield Performance in indica Rice[J]. Rice Science, 2018, 25(5): 261-269.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
Fig. 1. Frequency distribution of yield and heterosis for 39 hybrids. A, Yield; B, Mid parent heterosis (MPH); C, Better parent heterosis (BPH); D, Standard heterosis over check (SDH).
Fig. 2. Correlation between genetic distance (GD) and yield traits or heterosis. MPH, Mid parent heterosis; SCA, Specific combining ability; BPH, Better parent heterosis; SDH, Standard heterosis over check.
Accession | Pedigree | Group | Yield per plant (g) | GCA (g) |
---|---|---|---|---|
IR79532-21-2-2-1 | IR79532-21-2-2-1 | G2 | 31.07 a | -20.60 |
Shuhui 527 | 1318 / 88-R3360 | G4 | 30.81 ab | 5.33 |
IR68058-64-1-2 | IR68058-64-1-2 | G2 | 30.01 abc | -21.63 |
Minghui 70 | IR54 / Minghui 63 | G3 | 29.14 abc | 4.29 |
Minhui 3139 | Minghui 70 / Yanhui 559 | G5 | 29.08 abc | 20.32 |
IR71701-28-1-4 | IR71701-28-1-4 | G2 | 28.73 abc | -47.06 |
Minghui 86 | P18 / Minghui 75 | G4 | 28.01 abc | 16.42 |
Fuhui 7018 | (Minghui 86 / Tainong 67 // Duoxi 1 /// Chuan R) / (Yunyin / Minghui 86) | G5 | 27.23 abc | 19.26 |
Minghui 63 | IR30 / Gui 630 | G4 | 25.59 abc | -8.42 |
Gui 99 | Longye 5-3 / IR661 / IR2061 | G7 | 25.54 abc | 19.39 |
CNR2 | Luhui 6 / Zhonghui 9560 | G5 | 25.24 abc | -5.38 |
II-32B | Zhenshan 97 / IR665 | G1 | 24.81 abc | 10.86 |
Shuhui 881 | R6323 / japonica | G4 | 23.21 bc | 5.19 |
R453 | 93-11 / B5-10 | G6 | 22.92 c | 12.88 |
Tianfeng B | Mi 31 // Bo B / Zhe 9248 | G1 | 22.71 c | -4.41 |
Taifeng B | Bo B / G9248 | G1 | 22.51 c | -6.45 |
Mean | 26.66 | |||
R | 27.43 a | |||
B | 23.64 b | |||
CK | Yiyou 673 | 31.02 |
Table 1 Pedigree, group, yield, and general combining ability (GCA) for yield trait of 16 parental lines.
Accession | Pedigree | Group | Yield per plant (g) | GCA (g) |
---|---|---|---|---|
IR79532-21-2-2-1 | IR79532-21-2-2-1 | G2 | 31.07 a | -20.60 |
Shuhui 527 | 1318 / 88-R3360 | G4 | 30.81 ab | 5.33 |
IR68058-64-1-2 | IR68058-64-1-2 | G2 | 30.01 abc | -21.63 |
Minghui 70 | IR54 / Minghui 63 | G3 | 29.14 abc | 4.29 |
Minhui 3139 | Minghui 70 / Yanhui 559 | G5 | 29.08 abc | 20.32 |
IR71701-28-1-4 | IR71701-28-1-4 | G2 | 28.73 abc | -47.06 |
Minghui 86 | P18 / Minghui 75 | G4 | 28.01 abc | 16.42 |
Fuhui 7018 | (Minghui 86 / Tainong 67 // Duoxi 1 /// Chuan R) / (Yunyin / Minghui 86) | G5 | 27.23 abc | 19.26 |
Minghui 63 | IR30 / Gui 630 | G4 | 25.59 abc | -8.42 |
Gui 99 | Longye 5-3 / IR661 / IR2061 | G7 | 25.54 abc | 19.39 |
CNR2 | Luhui 6 / Zhonghui 9560 | G5 | 25.24 abc | -5.38 |
II-32B | Zhenshan 97 / IR665 | G1 | 24.81 abc | 10.86 |
Shuhui 881 | R6323 / japonica | G4 | 23.21 bc | 5.19 |
R453 | 93-11 / B5-10 | G6 | 22.92 c | 12.88 |
Tianfeng B | Mi 31 // Bo B / Zhe 9248 | G1 | 22.71 c | -4.41 |
Taifeng B | Bo B / G9248 | G1 | 22.51 c | -6.45 |
Mean | 26.66 | |||
R | 27.43 a | |||
B | 23.64 b | |||
CK | Yiyou 673 | 31.02 |
Group | II-32B | Taifeng B | Tianfeng B | G1 |
---|---|---|---|---|
G2 | 0.5910 | 0.5909 | 0.6498 | 0.6106 |
G3 | 0.5005 | 0.5643 | 0.5213 | 0.5287 |
G4 | 0.5510 | 0.5896 | 0.5785 | 0.5730 |
G5 | 0.5427 | 0.6173 | 0.5398 | 0.5666 |
G6 | 0.5005 | 0.5754 | 0.5319 | 0.5359 |
G7 | 0.5534 | 0.5978 | 0.5426 | 0.5646 |
Mean | 0.5398 | 0.5892 | 0.5607 | 0.5632 |
Table 2 Genetic distances between maintainer and restorer lines.
Group | II-32B | Taifeng B | Tianfeng B | G1 |
---|---|---|---|---|
G2 | 0.5910 | 0.5909 | 0.6498 | 0.6106 |
G3 | 0.5005 | 0.5643 | 0.5213 | 0.5287 |
G4 | 0.5510 | 0.5896 | 0.5785 | 0.5730 |
G5 | 0.5427 | 0.6173 | 0.5398 | 0.5666 |
G6 | 0.5005 | 0.5754 | 0.5319 | 0.5359 |
G7 | 0.5534 | 0.5978 | 0.5426 | 0.5646 |
Mean | 0.5398 | 0.5892 | 0.5607 | 0.5632 |
Source | Parental yield | Hybrid | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
df | MS | F | df | Yield | MPH | BPH | SDH | ||||||||
MS | F | MS | F | MS | F | MS | F | ||||||||
Genotype | 15 | 53.175 | 4.351*** | 38 | 235.369 | 14.012*** | 3 905.300 | 8.600*** | 3 301.240 | 8.686*** | 2 445.018 | 13.672*** | |||
Environment | 1 | 459.437 | 6.366 | 1 | 2 348.255 | 18.717* | 24 225.640 | 25.257* | 9 376.344 | 6.193 | 48 758.570 | 36.745* | |||
Replication | 2 | 41.293 | 0.658 | 2 | 22.754 | 0.185 | 348.081 | 0.333 | 2 261.802 | 1.411 | 256.743 | 0.197 | |||
GEI | 15 | 55.606 | 2.567* | 38 | 148.397 | 7.725*** | 1 983.740 | 5.389*** | 1 511.473 | 5.199*** | 1 538.787 | 7.544*** | |||
Error | 30 | 21.665 | 76 | 19.210 | 368.138 | 290.714 | 203.967 | ||||||||
Total | 95 | 233 |
Table 3 Analysis of variance for parent and hybrid yields, hybrid yield standard heterosis over check (SDH), mid parent heterosis (MPH) and better parent heterosis (BPH).
Source | Parental yield | Hybrid | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
df | MS | F | df | Yield | MPH | BPH | SDH | ||||||||
MS | F | MS | F | MS | F | MS | F | ||||||||
Genotype | 15 | 53.175 | 4.351*** | 38 | 235.369 | 14.012*** | 3 905.300 | 8.600*** | 3 301.240 | 8.686*** | 2 445.018 | 13.672*** | |||
Environment | 1 | 459.437 | 6.366 | 1 | 2 348.255 | 18.717* | 24 225.640 | 25.257* | 9 376.344 | 6.193 | 48 758.570 | 36.745* | |||
Replication | 2 | 41.293 | 0.658 | 2 | 22.754 | 0.185 | 348.081 | 0.333 | 2 261.802 | 1.411 | 256.743 | 0.197 | |||
GEI | 15 | 55.606 | 2.567* | 38 | 148.397 | 7.725*** | 1 983.740 | 5.389*** | 1 511.473 | 5.199*** | 1 538.787 | 7.544*** | |||
Error | 30 | 21.665 | 76 | 19.210 | 368.138 | 290.714 | 203.967 | ||||||||
Total | 95 | 233 |
Hybrid group | Genetic distance | Hybrid yield (g) | MPH (%) | BPH (%) | SDH (%) | SCA (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
II-32A × G5 | 0.5427 | 35.14 a | 34.77 | 25.21 | 13.29 | 41.83 |
II-32A × G6 | 0.5005 | 33.69 a | 39.07 | 19.30 | 10.29 | 30.88 |
Tianfeng A × G7 | 0.5426 | 32.36 ab | 27.44 | 24.46 | 5.62 | 26.72 |
II-32A × G3 | 0.5005 | 30.91 abc | 14.47 | 6.37 | -0.52 | 25.29 |
Tianfeng A × G6 | 0.5319 | 30.24 abc | 29.06 | 17.32 | -1.80 | 19.55 |
II-32A × G7 | 0.5534 | 30.06 abc | 19.50 | 8.25 | -2.78 | 20.38 |
II-32A × G4 | 0.5510 | 30.01 abc | 16.37 | 8.99 | -2.48 | 18.65 |
Taifeng A × G7 | 0.5978 | 28.55 abc | 21.18 | 3.92 | -6.61 | 11.08 |
Tianfeng A × G4 | 0.5785 | 24.99 bcd | -2.65 | -7.99 | -19.17 | 0.09 |
Taifeng A × G5 | 0.6173 | 24.66 bcd | 2.06 | -11.63 | -19.71 | -2.87 |
Taifeng A × G4 | 0.5896 | 24.25 bcd | 1.04 | -10.96 | -20.85 | -4.84 |
Taifeng A × G3 | 0.5643 | 23.99 bcd | -4.52 | -17.82 | -22.05 | -4.99 |
Tianfeng A × G5 | 0.5398 | 23.88 bcd | -8.47 | -14.22 | -22.72 | -4.77 |
Tianfeng A × G3 | 0.5213 | 23.56 bcd | -13.18 | -19.43 | -23.21 | -7.44 |
Taifeng A × G6 | 0.5754 | 22.79 bcd | 1.01 | -17.76 | -25.30 | -11.78 |
Taifeng A × G2 | 0.5909 | 22.13 cd | -16.07 | -32.06 | -26.58 | -16.73 |
Tianfeng A × G2 | 0.6498 | 18.69 de | -32.39 | -37.89 | -38.85 | -27.39 |
II-32A × G2 | 0.5910 | 13.68 e | -50.21 | -55.66 | -55.64 | -45.16 |
Summarized by restorer | ||||||
G1 × G7 | 0.5426 | 30.32 a | 22.71 | 12.21 | -1.26 | 19.39 |
G1 × G6 | 0.5319 | 28.91 a | 23.05 | 6.29 | -5.60 | 12.88 |
G1 × G5 | 0.5398 | 27.89 a | 9.45 | -0.21 | -9.71 | 11.40 |
G1 × G4 | 0.5785 | 26.42 a | 4.92 | -3.32 | -14.17 | 4.63 |
G1 × G3 | 0.5213 | 26.15 a | -1.08 | -10.29 | -15.26 | 4.29 |
G1 × G2 | 0.6106 | 18.17 b | -32.89 | -41.87 | -40.36 | -29.76 |
Summarized by maintainer | ||||||
II-32A × R | 27.78 a | 7.09 | -1.65 | -10.00 | 10.86 | |
Tianfeng A × R | 24.14 a | -6.91 | -12.76 | -21.60 | -4.41 | |
Taifeng A × R | 24.05 a | -1.55 | -15.89 | -21.25 | -6.45 | |
Summarized by environment | ||||||
2015 Fujian | 28.50 a | 9.07 | -4.76 | -3.17 | ||
2016 Hainan | 22.16 b | -9.98 | -15.45 | -32.06 |
Table 4 Genetic distances, hybrid yield performance, and yield heterosis among groups.
Hybrid group | Genetic distance | Hybrid yield (g) | MPH (%) | BPH (%) | SDH (%) | SCA (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
II-32A × G5 | 0.5427 | 35.14 a | 34.77 | 25.21 | 13.29 | 41.83 |
II-32A × G6 | 0.5005 | 33.69 a | 39.07 | 19.30 | 10.29 | 30.88 |
Tianfeng A × G7 | 0.5426 | 32.36 ab | 27.44 | 24.46 | 5.62 | 26.72 |
II-32A × G3 | 0.5005 | 30.91 abc | 14.47 | 6.37 | -0.52 | 25.29 |
Tianfeng A × G6 | 0.5319 | 30.24 abc | 29.06 | 17.32 | -1.80 | 19.55 |
II-32A × G7 | 0.5534 | 30.06 abc | 19.50 | 8.25 | -2.78 | 20.38 |
II-32A × G4 | 0.5510 | 30.01 abc | 16.37 | 8.99 | -2.48 | 18.65 |
Taifeng A × G7 | 0.5978 | 28.55 abc | 21.18 | 3.92 | -6.61 | 11.08 |
Tianfeng A × G4 | 0.5785 | 24.99 bcd | -2.65 | -7.99 | -19.17 | 0.09 |
Taifeng A × G5 | 0.6173 | 24.66 bcd | 2.06 | -11.63 | -19.71 | -2.87 |
Taifeng A × G4 | 0.5896 | 24.25 bcd | 1.04 | -10.96 | -20.85 | -4.84 |
Taifeng A × G3 | 0.5643 | 23.99 bcd | -4.52 | -17.82 | -22.05 | -4.99 |
Tianfeng A × G5 | 0.5398 | 23.88 bcd | -8.47 | -14.22 | -22.72 | -4.77 |
Tianfeng A × G3 | 0.5213 | 23.56 bcd | -13.18 | -19.43 | -23.21 | -7.44 |
Taifeng A × G6 | 0.5754 | 22.79 bcd | 1.01 | -17.76 | -25.30 | -11.78 |
Taifeng A × G2 | 0.5909 | 22.13 cd | -16.07 | -32.06 | -26.58 | -16.73 |
Tianfeng A × G2 | 0.6498 | 18.69 de | -32.39 | -37.89 | -38.85 | -27.39 |
II-32A × G2 | 0.5910 | 13.68 e | -50.21 | -55.66 | -55.64 | -45.16 |
Summarized by restorer | ||||||
G1 × G7 | 0.5426 | 30.32 a | 22.71 | 12.21 | -1.26 | 19.39 |
G1 × G6 | 0.5319 | 28.91 a | 23.05 | 6.29 | -5.60 | 12.88 |
G1 × G5 | 0.5398 | 27.89 a | 9.45 | -0.21 | -9.71 | 11.40 |
G1 × G4 | 0.5785 | 26.42 a | 4.92 | -3.32 | -14.17 | 4.63 |
G1 × G3 | 0.5213 | 26.15 a | -1.08 | -10.29 | -15.26 | 4.29 |
G1 × G2 | 0.6106 | 18.17 b | -32.89 | -41.87 | -40.36 | -29.76 |
Summarized by maintainer | ||||||
II-32A × R | 27.78 a | 7.09 | -1.65 | -10.00 | 10.86 | |
Tianfeng A × R | 24.14 a | -6.91 | -12.76 | -21.60 | -4.41 | |
Taifeng A × R | 24.05 a | -1.55 | -15.89 | -21.25 | -6.45 | |
Summarized by environment | ||||||
2015 Fujian | 28.50 a | 9.07 | -4.76 | -3.17 | ||
2016 Hainan | 22.16 b | -9.98 | -15.45 | -32.06 |
1 | Fischer S, Maurer H P, Würschum T, Möhring J, Piepho H P, Schön C C, Thiemt E M, Dhillo B S, Weissmann E A, Melchinger A E, Reif J C.2010. Development of heterotic groups in triticale.Crop Sci, 50(2): 584-590. |
2 | Gai J Y, Dai J R, Li J S, Sun Q X.2016. Utilization of Heterosis in Crops. Beijing, China: High Education Press. (in Chinese) |
3 | Lee M, Godshalk E B, Lamkey K R, Woodman W W.1989. Association of restriction fragment length polymorphisms among maize inbreds with agronomic performance of their crosses.Crop Sci, 29(4): 1067-1071. |
4 | Liu K J, Muse S V.2005. PowerMarker: An integrated analysis environment for genetic marker analysis.Bioinformatics, 21: 2128-2129. |
5 | Lu Z M, Xu B Q.2010. On significance of heterotic group theory in hybrid rice breeding.Rice Sci, 17(2): 94-98. |
6 | Luo X J, He H H, Peng X S, Yu Q Y, Sun J L, Zhang H L, Li Z C.2006. Analysis on correlation between genetic distance of rice parents and heterosis with SSR molecular marker.J Plant Genet Resour: 209-214. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
7 | Melchinger A E, Gumber R K.1998. Overview of heterosis and heterotic groups in agronomic crops. In: Concepts and Breeding of Heterosis in Crop Plants. USA: Crop Spciety of America: 29-44. |
8 | Menz M A, Klein R R, Unruh N C, Rooney W L, Klein P E, Mullet J E.2004. Genetic diversity of public inbreds of sorghum determined by mapped AFLP and SSR markers.Crop Sci, 44: 1236-1244. |
9 | R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria (). |
10 | Reif J C, Melchinger A E, Xia X C, Warburton M L, Hoisington D A, Vasal S K, Beck D, Bohn M, Frisch M.2003. Use of SSRs for establishing heterotic groups in subtropical maize.Theor Appl Genet, 107(5): 947-957. |
11 | Singh V K, Upadhyay P, Sinha P, Mall A K, Ellur R K, Singh A, Jaiswal S K, Biradar S, Ramakrishna S, Sundaram R M, Ahmed I, Viraktamath B C, Kole C, Singh S.2011. Prediction of hybrid performance based on the genetic distance of parental lines in two-line rice (Oryza sativa L.) hybrids.J Crop Sci Biotechnol, 14: 1. |
12 | Smith J S C, Chin E C L, Shu H, Smith O S, Wall S J, Senior M L, Mitchell S E, Kresovich S, Ziegle J.1997. An evaluation of the utility of SSR loci as molecular markers in maize (Zea mays L.): Comparisons with data from RFLPS and pedigree.Theor Appl Genet, 95: 163-173. |
13 | Sun C Q, Jiang T B, Chen L, Wu C M, Li Z C, Wang X K.2000. Studies on the relationship between heterosis and genetic differentiation in hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.).Acta Agron Sin, 26(6): 641-649. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
14 | Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S.2007. MEGA4: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0.Mol Biol Evol, 24(8): 1596-1599. |
15 | Wang S J, Lu Z M.2006. Evolvement and analysis of genetic diversity in indica hybrid rice(Oryza sativa L.) in China. Jiangsu J Agric Sci, 22: 192-198. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
16 | Wang S J, Lu Z M, Wan J M.2006a. Genetic diversity of parental lines in indica hybrid rice based on phenotypic characters and SSR cluster analysis.Chin J Rice Sci, 20: 475-480. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
17 | Wang S J, Wan J M, Lu Z M.2006b. Parental cluster analysis in indica hybrid rice(Oryza sativa L.) by SSR analysis.Acta Agron Sin, 32: 1437-1443. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
18 | Wang S J, Lu Z M.2007. Study on heterosis groups of key parental lines in indica hybrid rice(Oryza sativa L.) in China.Nanjing Agric Univ, 30: 14-18. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
19 | Wang K, Qiu F L, Larazo W, Paz M A, Xie F M.2015. Heterotic groups of tropical indica rice germplasm.Theor Appl Genet, 128(3): 421-430. |
20 | Wang Y H, Zheng Y M, Cai Q H, Liao C J, Mao X H, Xie H G, Zhu Y S, Lian L, Luo X, Xie H A, Zhang J F.2016. Population structure and association analysis of yield and grain quality traits in hybrid rice primal parental lines.Euphytica, 212: 261-273. |
21 | Xie F M, Guo L B, Ren G J, Hu P S, Wang F, Xu J L, Li X, Qiu F L, Paz M A.2012. Genetic diversity and structure of indica rice varieties from two heterotic pools of southern China and IRRI.Plant Genet Resour, 10: 186-193. |
22 | Xie F M, He Z Z, Esguerra M Q, Qiu F L, Ramanathan V.2014. Determination of heterotic groups for tropical indica hybrid rice germplasm.Theor Appl Genet, 127(2): 407-417. |
23 | Xu W J, Virmani S S, Hernandez J E, Sebastian L S, Redoña E D, Li Z K.2002. Genetic diversity in the parental lines and heterosis of the tropical rice hybrids.Euphytica, 127(1): 139-148. |
24 | Yu Y H, Liu Y, Li Z Y, Chen G H, Xu Z J, Tang L, Mao T, Xu H.2016. Relationship between indica-japonica index of parents and heterosis of hybrid and its genetic basis in japonica two line hybrid rice.Acta Agron Sin, 42: 648-657. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
25 | Zha R M, Ling Y H, Yang Z L, Zhao F M, Zhong B Q, Xie R, Sang X C, He G H.2008. Prediction of hybrid grain yield performances in indica rice(Oryza sativa L.) with effect- increasing loci.Mol Breeding, 22(3): 467-476. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
26 | Zeng M Q, Ji H L, Li J Y, Sansen J.2007. Formation and development on the conception of heterotic group and their heterotic pattern in maize ( Zea may L.).Acta Agric Boreali-Sin, 22: 30-37. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
27 | Zhao M F, Li X H, Yang J B, Xu C G, Hu R Y, Liu D J, Zhang Q.1999. Relationship between molecular marker heterozygosity and hybrid performance in intro- and inter-subspecific crosses of rice.Plant Breeding, 118: 139-144. |
28 | Zhao Q Y, Zhu Z, Zhang Y D, Zhao L, Chen T, Zhang Q F, Wang C L.2009. Analysis on correlation between heterosis and genetic distance based on simple sequence repeat markers in japonica rice.Chin J Rice Sci, 23: 141-147. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
29 | Zhu Z F, Sun C Q, Jiang T B, Fu Q, Wang X K.2001. The comparison of genetic divergences and its relationships to heterosis revealed by SSR and RFLP markers in rice (Oryza sativa L.).Acta Genet Sin, 28(8): 738-745. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[1] | ZHANG Tao, NI Xian-lin, JIANG Kai-feng, DENG Hua-feng, HE Qing, YANG Qian-hua, YANG Li, WAN Xian-Qi, CAO Ying-jiang, ZHENG Jia-kui, . Relationship Between Heterosis and Parental Genetic Distance Based on Molecular Markers for Functional Genes Related to Yield Traits in Rice [J]. RICE SCIENCE, 2010, 17(4): 288-295 . |
[2] | LI Ji-hang, XIANG Xun-chao, HE Li-bin, LI Ping, . Source-Sink Relationship in Intersubspecific Hybrid Rice [J]. RICE SCIENCE, 2006, 13(4): 250-256 . |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||