Hybrid necrosis as a barrier to gene transfer in hexaploid winter wheat × triticale crosses

1998 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Bizimungu ◽  
J. Collin ◽  
A. Comeau ◽  
C.-A. St-Pierre

An interspecific wheat × triticale hybridization program was initiated with the scope of widening and improving the winter wheat gene pool. However, progress was hampered by severe necrosis that caused the death of F1 hybrids from crosses between the most winterhardy wheat and triticale cultivars. This paper describes hybrid necrosis as the main barrier to gene transfer between winter wheat cultivars Borden, Augusta and Ruby, and hexaploid winter triticales OAC Wintri and K9-6. Crosses with tester lines revealed that the three winter wheats were carriers of the necrotic Ne2 allele. High temperature (30 °C) treatment until heading stage permitted to only partially circumvent the problem. A study of cross direction effects at the backcross level showed that the conventional method (F1 × wheat) was more efficient for plant recovery, but plants produced by the alternative backcross system (wheat × F1) were more self-fertile. Within the most winterhardy germplasm, hybrid necrosis is a major problem for transferring genes between winter wheat and triticale. The use of non-necrotic winter wheat lines such as MC11N, a local winter wheat selection, may have a special value as a bridge to circumvent the necrosis problem. Key words: Hybrid necrosis, Ne genes, wheat × triticale hybrids, cross direction

2015 ◽  
Vol 148 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.J. Lamb ◽  
M.A.H. Smith ◽  
I.L. Wise ◽  
R.I.H. McKenzie

AbstractNine winter wheat cultivars (Triticum aestivum Linnaeus) (Poaceae) were the source of the Sm1 gene for resistance to wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), in spring wheat. All nine showed antibiosis characteristic of Sm1, as expected. They also showed oviposition deterrence and reduced hatch, which contributed to overall resistance. The overall level of resistance of the nine winter wheat cultivars was usually lower than that of resistant spring wheat lines in laboratory trials, but equally high in a field trial. Five of seven other North American winter wheat cultivars also showed resistance. Three of these were grown in the 1920s and earlier, before wheat varieties were officially registered. One of these, “Mediterranean”, came from Europe in the 1880s and may be the origin of Sm1 in North America. Two of 11 Chinese winter wheat lines showed resistance to wheat midge but at a lower level than that characteristic of Sm1. Widespread resistance in North American winter wheat cultivars was unexpected because wheat midge has not been a pest of winter wheat for many decades. North American winter wheat cultivars can provide sources of resistance to wheat midge, particularly high levels of oviposition deterrence as exhibited by “Goens” and “Rawhide”.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Fan ◽  
Fang Miao ◽  
Haiyan Jia ◽  
Genqiao Li ◽  
Carol Powers ◽  
...  

AbstractVernalization genes underlying dramatic differences in flowering time between spring wheat and winter wheat have been studied extensively, but little is known about genes that regulate subtler differences in flowering time among winter wheat cultivars, which account for approximately 75% of wheat grown worldwide. Here, we identify a gene encoding anO-linkedN-acetylglucosamine (O-GlcNAc) transferase (OGT) that differentiates heading date between winter wheat cultivars Duster and Billings. We clone thisTaOGT1gene from a quantitative trait locus (QTL) for heading date in a mapping population derived from these two bread wheat cultivars and analyzed in various environments. Transgenic complementation analysis shows that constitutive overexpression ofTaOGT1bfrom Billings accelerates the heading of transgenic Duster plants.TaOGT1 is able to transfer anO-GlcNAc group to wheat proteinTaGRP2. Our findings establish important roles forTaOGT1in winter wheat in adaptation to global warming in the future climate scenarios.


2001 ◽  
Vol 29 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 41-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Törjék ◽  
E. Kiss ◽  
K. Mázik-Tőkei ◽  
G. Hutvágner ◽  
D. Silhavy ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document