Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Original article
  • Open Access

Marker-assisted selection strategy to pyramid two or more QTLs for quantitative trait-grain yield under drought

Rice201811:35

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12284-018-0227-0

  • Received: 27 February 2018
  • Accepted: 21 May 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Marker-assisted breeding will move forward from introgressing single/multiple genes governing a single trait to multiple genes governing multiple traits to combat emerging biotic and abiotic stresses related to climate change and to enhance rice productivity. MAS will need to address concerns about the population size needed to introgress together more than two genes/QTLs. In the present study, grain yield and genotypic data from different generations (F3 to F8) for five marker-assisted breeding programs were analyzed to understand the effectiveness of synergistic effect of phenotyping and genotyping in early generations on selection of better progenies.

Results

Based on class analysis of the QTL combinations, the identified superior QTL classes in F3/BC1F3/BC2F3 generations with positive QTL x QTL and QTL x background interactions that were captured through phenotyping maintained its superiority in yield under non-stress (NS) and reproductive-stage drought stress (RS) across advanced generations in all five studies. The marker-assisted selection breeding strategy combining both genotyping and phenotyping in early generation significantly reduced the number of genotypes to be carried forward. The strategy presented in this study providing genotyping and phenotyping cost savings of 25–68% compared with the traditional marker-assisted selection approach. The QTL classes, Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 and Sub1 + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 in Swarna-Sub1, Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 1.2 , Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.2 and Sub1 + qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 12.1 in IR64-Sub1, qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 4.1 in Samba Mahsuri, Sub1 + qDTY 3.1  + qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2 and Sub1 + qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2 in TDK1-Sub1 and qDTY 12.1  + qDTY 3.1 and qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 3.1 in MR219 had shown better and consistent performance under NS and RS across generations over other QTL classes.

Conclusion

“Deployment of this procedure will save time and resources and will allow breeders to focus and advance only germplasm with high probability of improved performance. The identification of superior QTL classes and capture of positive QTL x QTL and QTL x background interactions in early generation and their consistent performance in subsequent generations across five backgrounds supports the efficacy of a combined MAS breeding strategy”.

Keywords

  • Drought
  • Drought yield QTLs
  • Marker-assisted selection breeding strategy
  • Pyramiding
  • Rice

Background

Rice breeding methodology followed in the past as well as the present ranges from conventional breeding (Singh et al. 1998; Xinglai et al. 2006; Baenziger et al. 2008; Obert et al. 2008; Brick et al. 2008; Kumar et al. 2014), hybrid breeding (Shull 1948; Reif et al. 2005), marker-assisted breeding (MAB; Price 2006; McNally et al. 2009; Breseghello and Sorrells 2006; Kumar et al. 2014), and transgenic breeding (Bhatnagar-Mathur et al. 2008; Yang et al. 2010) to genome-wide association studies and genomic selection (Brachi et al. 2012; Huang et al. 2010; Begum et al. 2015; Biscarini et al. 2016). Grain yield as well as resistance against existing as well as emerging biotic and abiotic stresses is not a straightforward result of understanding the physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms of genetic loci. Three major interactions, i) interaction between genes for the same trait, ii) genes for different traits, and iii) interactions of genes with environments and genetic background restricting the use of QTLs in introgression programs (Kumar et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2012; Xue et al. 2009; Almeida et al. 2013; Elangovan et al. 2008; Cuthbert et al. 2008; Heidari et al. 2011; Bennett et al. 2012). Selection of an appropriate donor/recipient to create desirable variability (Mondal et al. 2016; Dixit et al. 2014) and precise selection under variable conditions, environments, and stress intensity levels is must. A large population size is generally required for selecting appropriate plants possessing the needed gene combinations, desired plant type, and higher yield. An integration of modern, novel, and affordable breeding strategies with knowledge of associated mechanisms, interactions, and associations among related or unrelated traits/factors is necessary in rice breeding improvement programs.

The conventional breeding approach involving a series of phenotyping and genotyping screening of a large population to obtain desired variability and a high frequency of favorable genes in combination was earlier followed by several drought breeding program (Kumar et al. 2014). A conventional breeding approach involving sequential selection of large segregating populations for biotic (bacterial late blight, blast) and abiotic stresses (drought, submergence) across generations helped breeders to develop breeding lines combining tolerance of both stresses. Superior lines in terms of acceptable plant type, grain yield, and quality traits and stable performance under different environments are promoted for release (Kumar et al. 2014; Sandhu and Kumar 2017).

Modern molecular breeding strategies have been implemented to practice a more precise, quick and cost-effective breeding strategy compared to traditional conventional rice breeding improvement programs. Previously, many QTLs for grain yield under drought using different strategies such as selective/whole-genome genotyping, bulk segregant analysis (Vikram et al. 2011; Yadaw et al. 2013; Mishra et al. 2013; Sandhu et al. 2014; Ghimire et al. 2012) have been identified. The successful introgression and pyramiding of the identified genetic regions in different genetic backgrounds using marker-assisted backcrossing (Yadaw et al. 2013; Mishra et al. 2013; Sandhu et al. 2014; Venuprasad et al. 2009; Sandhu et al. 2013; Sandhu et al. 2015) has been reported. Accurate repetitive phenotyping in multi-locations and multi-environments under variable growing conditions is required to evaluate the performance and adaptability of the developed MAB products. There have been several examples of introgression of single genes for both biotic and abiotic stresses (gall midge – Das and Rao 2015; blast – Miah et al. 2016; brown plant hopper – Jairin et al. 2009; submergence – Septiningsih et al. 2009) in the background of popular high-yielding varieties as well as introgression of more than one gene for biotic stresses (xa5 + xa13 + Xa21 - Singh et al. 2001, Kottapalli et al. 2010; Xa21 + xa13 - Singh et al. 2011) for oligogenic traits controlled by major genes.

Several major large-effect QTLs such as qDTY 1.1 (Vikram et al. 2011; Ghimire et al. 2012), qDTY 2.1 (Venuprasad et al. 2009), qDTY 2.2 (Venuprasad et al. 2007; Swamy et al. 2013), qDTY 3.1 (Venuprasad et al. 2009), qDTY 4.1 (Swamy et al. 2013), qDTY 6.1 (Venuprasad et al. 2012), qDTY 10.1 (Swamy et al. 2013), and qDTY 12.1 (Bernier et al. 2007) for grain yield under reproductive-stage (RS) drought stress have been identified. A total of 28 significant marker trait associations were detected for yield-related trait in genome wide association study of japonica rice under drought and non-stress conditions (Volante et al. 2017). Moreover, each of these identified QTLs has shown a yield advantage of 300–500 kg ha− 1 under RS drought stress depending upon the severity and timing of the drought occurrence. However, in order to provide farmers with an economic yield advantage under drought, it is necessary that two or more such QTLs be combined to obtain a targeted yield advantage of 1.0 t ha− 1 under severe RS drought stress (Sandhu and Kumar 2017; Kumar et al. 2014).

Polygenic traits governed by more than one gene within the identified QTLs do not follow the simple rule of single gene introgression. The positive/negative interactions of alleles within QTLs and with the genetic background (Dixit et al. 2012a, b), pleiotropic effect of genes and linkage drag (Xu and Crouch 2008; Vikram et al. 2015; Vikram et al. 2016; Bernier et al. 2007; Venuprasad et al. 2009; Vikram et al. 2011; Venuprasad et al. 2012) played an important role in determining the effect of introgressed loci. The reported linkage drag of the qDTY QTLs has been successfully broken and individual QTLs have been introgressed into improved genetic backgrounds (Vikram et al. 2015). To identify an appropriate number of plants with positive interactions and high phenotypic expression, MAB requires genotyping and phenotyping of large numbers of plants/progenies in each generation from F2 onwards. In this case, MAB for more than two genes/QTLs is not a cost-effective approach. The population size to be genotyped and phenotyped for complex traits such as drought increases significantly as two or more QTLs are considered for introgression. To enhance breeding capacity to develop climate-resilient rice cultivars, there is a strong need to develop a novel, cost/labor-effective, and high-throughput breeding strategy. The effective integration of molecular knowledge into breeding programs and making MAB cost-effective enough to be fully adapted by small- or moderate-sized breeding programs are still a challenge.

In the present study, we closely followed the marker-assisted introgression of two or more QTLs for RS drought stress in the background of rice varieties; Swarna-Sub1, IR64-Sub1, Samba Mahsuri, TDK1-Sub1, and MR219 from F3 to F6/F7/F8 generations. Class analysis for different combinations of QTLs for yield under RS drought stress as well as under irrigated control conditions was performed with the aim to understand the effectiveness of synergistic effect of phenotyping and genotyping in early generations on selection of better progenies. We hypothesized that a QTL class that has performed well in an early generation may maintain its performance across generations/years and seasons.

Results

Performance of lines introgressed with QTLs for grain yield under drought

The pyramided lines with either a single gene or in combination of genetic loci associated with grain yield under drought produced a grain yield advantage over the recipient parent across backgrounds and generations (Fig. 1a to j). The pyramided lines with two or more QTLs had shown a high grain yield advantage in Swarna-Sub1 (Table 1), IR64-Sub1 (Table 2), Samba Mahsuri (Table 3), TDK1-Sub1 (Table 4), and MR219 (Table 5) backgrounds. In a Swarna-Sub1 background, a grain yield advantage of 76.2–2478.5 kg ha− 1 and 395.7–2376.3 kg ha− 1 under non-stress (NS) in Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 and Sub1 + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 pyramided lines, respectively, was observed. Under RS drought stress, a grain yield advantage of 292.4–1117.8 and 284.2–2085.5 kg ha− 1 in Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 and Sub1 + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 pyramided lines, respectively, was observed (Table 1). In an IR64-Sub1 background, the pyramided lines (Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.2 ) showed a grain yield advantage ranging from 21.3 to 1571.4 kg ha− 1 and 170.4 to 864.7 kg ha− 1 under NS and RS drought stress, respectively. Under RS drought stress, the pyramided lines (Sub1 + qDTY 3.2  + qDTY 2.3  + qDTY 12.1 ) showed a grain yield advantage of 217.1 to 719.1 kg ha− 1 in an IR64-Sub1 background (Table 2). The grain yield advantage ranged from 48.0 to 2216.9 kg ha− 1 and 95.5 to 1296.4 kg ha− 1 under NS and RS drought stress conditions, respectively, in Samba Mahsuri introgressed with qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 4.1 (Table 3). In TDK1-Sub1 pyramided lines (Sub1 + qDTY 3.1  + qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2 ), the grain yield advantage ranged from 65.2 to 792.0 kg ha− 1 and 155.9 to 2429.5 kg ha− 1 under NS and RS drought stress conditions, respectively (Table 4). The pyramided lines with qDTY 12.1  + qDTY 3.1 and qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 3.1 showed a grain yield advantage of 735.1–1012.8 kg ha− 1 and 324.0–1240.9 kg ha− 1, respectively, under NS and 672.3–1059.5 kg ha− 1 and 571.4–1099.3 kg ha− 1, respectively, under RS drought stress conditions in an MR219 background (Table 5).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

a Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected SwarnaSub1 pyramided lines under NS (control); b Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected SwarnaSub1 pyramided lines under RS drought stress; c Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected IR64Sub1 pyramided lines under NS (control); d Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected IR64Sub1 pyramided lines under RS drought stress; e Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected Samba Mahsuri pyramided lines under NS (control); f Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected Samba Mahsuri pyramided lines under RS drought stress; g Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected TDK1Sub1 pyramided lines under NS (control); h Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected TDK1Sub1 pyramided lines under RS drought stress; i Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected MR219 pyramided lines under NS (control); and (j) Graph representing the generation (X axis) and mean grain yield (Y axis) of selected MR219 pyramided lines under RS drought stress

Table 1

Mean comparison of QTL classes of grain yield (kg ha− 1) across F3 to F8 generations under reproductive-stage drought stress and irrigated non-stress control conditions in Swarna-Sub1 background at IRRI, Philippines

QTL class

QTL

2012DS

2012DS

2012DS

2012DS

2012DS

2012WS

2013DS

2013DS

2014DS

2014DS

2015WS

2015WS

2016DS

  

NS_Med

RS_Med

RS_ Med

NS_Late

RS_Late

NS

NS

RS

NS

RS

NS

RS

RS

  

F3

F3

F3

F3

F3

F4

F5

F5

F7

F7

F8

F8

F8

Population size

  

663

366

304

91

84

754

432

432

432

432

52

52

52

A

qDTY 1.1

4906 bc

2677 cde

2894 bcf

6766 gh

3674 c

3925 bc

B

Sub1+ qDTY 1.1

5431 efg

2228ab

2930 bg

4141 a

3652 bc

3536 bcd

5191 c

68.24 a

579 b

C

DTY 2.1

4811cde

2828 efg

2962 abg

4265 ab

3719 bc

4176 abc

D

Sub1+ qDTY 2.1

5084 cf

2452 bcde

2776 abde

4649 ab

3554 bc

2729 a

4109 bc

793 ac

E

qDTY 3.1

5098 cdeg

3010 gh

3001 bg

4987 ac

2658 b

4135 bc

973 ac

7941 ab

1868 cd

F

Sub1+ qDTY 3.1

4705 bc

3027 fh

2984 bg

3315 bc

4663 ac

4107 cd

1097 cd

7934 b

1838 cd

4940 b

97.96 a

677 c

G

Sub1

5430 cf

2642 bcefh

2334 ab

5338 bcd

3204 bc

3515 a

2948 abc

530 ac

H

qDTY 1.1 + qDTY 2.1

5394 df

2653 ce

3131 efg

6445 fg

3671 c

4308 ab

I

Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.1

5444 ef

2428 ac

3133 efg

6642 fgh

3636 c

4460 ab

3710 bc

605 ab

J

qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 3.1

4788 c

2693 de

2945 be

6395 fg

3481 bc

4288 ab

K

Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 3.1

4989 cd

2832 efg

3003 ceg

6639 efh

3377 bc

5183 c

3456 b

677 ad

4676 a

159.19 b

566 b

L

qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1

5265 bdf

2998 fh

2955 bg

3620 bc

4623 ac

4116 cd

992 bcd

7932 ab

1672 bc

M

qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1  + Sub1

5154 cf

3172 h

3162 efg

7380 hi

3714 bc

4192 cd

1048 bcd

8194 b

1503 ab

5754 g

360.16 c

830 d

N

qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1

5055 cd

2845 df

3130 dg

7373 hi

3505 c

4807 bc

3912 bd

1073 c

8043 b

1854 d

O

Sub1+ qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1

5484 ef

3010 gh

3167 fg

6780 gh

3859 c

4838 bc

4141 c

1092 c

8297 b

1918 d

5434 e

356.81 c

931 d

X

Parent

3818 a

2203 ab

2465 a

5827 cde

2828 ab

5146 c

2106 a

764 ac

5818 a

799 a

5358 f

64.45 a

398 a

Trial mean

5077

2691

2937

6044

3474

4760

3615

838

7878

1652

5222

175

605

 

F- value

3.68

7.39

2.45

19.77

1.21

6.04

13.22

1.79

6.88

3.75

5.38

6.16

3.93

 

p-value

0.0168

<.0001

0.0018

0.0001

0.2838

<.0001

0.0003

0.0559

0.0003

0.0008

<.0001

0.2991

0.368

The letter display are QTL class labels ordered by mean grain yield of QTL class. Means followed by the same letter (within a column) are not significantly different, DS dry season, WS wet season, NS non-stress, RS reproductive-stage drought stress, Med medium duration, Late late duration, X recipient parent (no QTL)

Table 2

Mean comparison of QTL classes of grain yield (kg ha− 1) across F3 to F7 generations under reproductive-stage drought stress and irrigated non-stress control conditions in IR64-Sub1 background at IRRI, Philippines

QTL class

QTL

2013WS

2013WS

2014DS

2014DS

2014WS

2015DS

2015DS

2015WS

2015WS

  

NS

RS

NS

RS

NS

NS

RS

NS

RS

  

F3

F3

F4

F4

F5

F6

F6

F7

F7

 

Population size

  

467

467

194

194

64

64

64

18

18

A

Sub1+ qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 1.2  + qDTY 12.1

4137 ac

3621 cde

7553 bdf

584 g

B

Sub1+ qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 1.2  + qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 12.1

3640 ac

2605 a

7968 bdf

196 abc

C

Sub1+ qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 1.2  + qDTY 2.2

4986 c

2734 ab

5996 abc

377def

D

Sub1+ qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 1.2

4418 cd

3054 abc

7709 cef

232 abc

3585 ab

5192 a

477 bcd

E

Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 12.1

3589 ac

2634 abc

273 be

 

3976 a

420 bce

F

Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.2

4953 ac

3169 abe

7637 bdf

367 ceg

3347 ab

5120 a

592 bf

4105 a

188 a

G

Sub1 + qDTY 1.1

4413 ac

2677 ab

8224 cef

410 eg

H

Sub1 + qDTY 1.2 + qDTY 12.1

4001 ac

2963 abc

6660 abe

245 be

5468 a

252 ab

I

Sub1 + qDTY 1.2 + qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 12.1

5370 cb

3352 abe

8790 bf

259 be

J

Sub1 + qDTY 12.1

4380 cd

2690 abd

6117 ab

189 bc

3066 ab

5125 a

372 abc

3997 a

64 a

K

Sub1 + qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 12.1

4395 cd

3130 bc

6512 ab

308 ae

2592 a

5026 a

459 bc

3762 a

186 a

L

Sub1 + qDTY 2.2

4252 cd

3767 e

7893 cf

223 abc

M

Sub1 + qDTY 2.3  + qDTY 12.1

3168 ac

3084 abe

8532 cef

194 be

N

Sub1 + qDTY 2.3

3145 ab

2602 a

7080 bde

244 abcd

O

Sub1 + qDTY 3.2  + qDTY 12.1

3670 ac

2746 abd

7145 abf

263 bef

P

Sub1 + qDTY 3.2  + qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 12.1

3109 ac

2728 abd

7798 bdf

197 be

Q

Sub1 + qDTY 3.2  + qDTY 2.2

3055abd

2526 a

6441 ab

220 abcd

2381 a

4398 a

761 f

R

Sub1 + qDTY 3.2  + qDTY 2.3  + qDTY 12.1

2845 ac

2931 abc

6469 abc

304 abcd

2293 a

4570 a

719 def

3883 a

275 a

S

Sub1 + qDTY 3.2  + qDTY 2.3

1688 a

2891 abe

5319 a

304 bef

4727 a

255 ab

T

Sub1 + qDTY 3.2

3444 ac

3427 be

6230 ad

124 b

X

Parent

3620 ac

2305 a

6066 abf

87 abc

3139 ab

5099 a

0a

3849 a

18 a

Trial mean

3853

2998

7181

277

3024

4870

862

3943

128

 

F- value

1.59

2.88

2.92

3.22

2.83

2.26

4.32

1.54

1.53

 

p-value

0.2956

0.006

0.0006

0.0011

0.0363

0.404

0.0004

0.5566

0.5585

The letter display are QTL class labels ordered by mean grain yield of QTL class. Means followed by the same letter (within a column) are not significantly different, DS dry season, WS wet season, NS non-stress, RS reproductive-stage drought stress, X recipient parent (no QTL)

Table 3

Mean comparison of QTL classes of grain yield (kg ha−1) across BC1F3 to BC1F8 generations under reproductive-stage drought stress and irrigated non-stress control conditions in Samba Mahsuri background at IRRI, Philippines

QTL class

QTL

2013DS

2013DS

2014WS

2015WS

2015WS

2016DS

2016DS

  

NS

RS

NS

NS

RS

NS

RS

  

BC1F3

BC1F3

BC1F6

BC1F7

BC1F7

BC1F8

BC1F8

Population size

  

42

42

70

20

20

20

20

A

qDTY 2.2

2020 a

1069 bc

3405 b

3327 b

44 a

B

qDTY 4.1

1900 a

894 b

3340 b

4727 d

184 b

5643 b

33 a

C

qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 4.1

2916 b

1296 c

3270 b

4161 c

110 ba

4999 a

216 b

X

Parent

2742 b

0 a

2137 a

1945 a

15 a

4051 a

39 a

 

Trial Mean

2395

815

3038

3540

88

5198

96

F- value

 

31.22

46.37

11.18

43.03

2.12

19.98

62.66

p-value

 

0.0089

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

0.09

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

The letter display are QTL class labels ordered by mean grain yield of QTL class. Means followed by the same letter (within a column) are not significantly different, DS dry season, WS wet season, NS non-stress, RS reproductive-stage drought stress, X recipient parent (no QTL), Mean data of only 2 lines

Table 4

Mean comparison of QTL classes of grain yield (kg ha−1) across BC2F3 to BC2F8 generations under reproductive-stage drought stress and irrigated non-stress control conditions in TDK-Sub1 background at IRRI, Philippines

QTLclass

QTL

2013WS

2014DS

2014WS

2015DS

2015WS

2016DS

  

RS

NS

RS

NS

NS

RS

NS

RS

NS

RS

  

BC2F3

BC2F4

BC2F4

BC2F5

BC2F6

BC2F6

BC2F7

BC2F7

BC2F8

BC2F8

Population size

  

843

231

231

48

48

48

60

60

60

60

A

Sub1 + qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2 + qDTY 3.1

1232 gh

6883 bc

2453 c

2763 bc

6252bc

816 f

4356 ab

158 de

4739 ab

298 cd

B

qDTY 6.1 + qDTY 6.2 + qDTY 3.1

1298 gh

6289 b

2069 b

2629 ac

6174 c

250 bc

4966 cd

122 cd

4871 ab

278 c

C

Sub1+ qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2

1301 gi

6289 abc

2143 bc

2897 bcd

6475 c

552 de

4797 bd

73.83 abc

4804 b

320 cd

D

Sub1+ qDTY 6.1 + qDTY 3.1

1091 fde

5707 ab

2120 bc

3476 c

5958 ab

368 bd

4657 bc

75 bc

4780 ab

179 ac

E

Sub1+ qDTY 6.2  + qDTY 3.1

1178 ge

6061 abc

2112 bc

2576 ac

5157 a

274 bc

F

qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2

998 cd

3890 a

2126 bc

2307 ac

4799 a

501 cde

G

qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 3.1

1012 ge

5874 ab

1959 b

2704 ac

6775 c

211.97 b

5074 d

73 b

4793 ab

113 ab

H

qDTY 6.2  + qDTY 3.1

1134 fe

I

Sub1 + qDTY 6.2

1051 ce

J

Sub1+ qDTY 6.1

1446 j

K

Sub1 + qDTY 3.1

1376 hij

L

qDTY 6.2

1416 ij

M

qDTY 6.1

1308 gh

N

qDTY 3.1

1217 fg

X

Parent

421 a

6091 abc

24 a

2167 a

6135 bc

0 a

3647 a

2 a

4674 a

0 a

Trial mean

1165

5886

1863

2715

6091

409

4583

84

4760

198

 

F- value

34.1

6.6

1.03

3.21

4.99

16.32

6.44

6.0

5.32

5.0

 

p-value

<.0001

0.0012

0.4207

0.0341

0.0105

<.0001

<.0001

0.0001

0.0013

0.0046

The letter display are QTL class labels ordered by mean grain yield of QTL class. Means followed by the same letter (within a column) are not significantly different, DS dry season, WS wet season, NS non-stress, RS reproductive-stage drought stress, X recipient parent (no QTL)

Table 5

Mean comparison of QTL classes of grain yield (kg ha−1) across BC1F3 to BC1F7 generations under reproductive-stage drought stress and irrigated non-stress control conditions in MR219 background at IRRI, Philippines

QTL class

QTL

2013DS

2014DS

2015DS

  

NS

RS

NS

RS

NS

RS

BC1F3

BC1F3

BC1F5

BC1F7

BC1F7

Population size

  

214

214

620

620

70

70

A

qDTY 12.1

6229 a

654 b

6967 b

301 a

B

qDTY 12.1  + qDTY 2.2

6633 b

761 bc

7364 ac

598 b

5986 a

540 c

C

qDTY 12.1  + qDTY 3.1

6652 ac

1072 d

7532 cd

794 e

7111 c

672 d

D

qDTY 2.2

6760 ab

904 cd

7079 ba

669 bc

6957 c

393 b

E

qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 3.1

7158 bc

1112 d

7243 cd

663 c

6843 bc

679 d

F

qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 3.1  + qDTY 12.1

6799 ab

642 b

7106 ad

442 b

6674 bc

578 cd

G

qDTY 3.1

6488 a

890 c

7374 ac

568 c

6923 bc

537 bcd

X

Parent

5917 ab

13 a

6519 b

0 ab

6148 ab

0 a

Trial mean

6705

781

7173

505

6663

486

F- value

 

2.0

11.76

9.45

19.39

7.76

6.18

p-value

 

0.05

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

0.0004

<.0001

The letter display are QTL class labels ordered by mean grain yield of QTL class. Means followed by the same letter (within a column) are not significantly different, DS dry season, WS wet season, NS non-stress, RS reproductive-stage drought stress, X recipient parent (no QTL)

Performance of pyramided lines in the F3 generation

Mean performances of QTL classes from F3 to F7/F8 of Swarna-Sub1, IR64-Sub1, Samba Mahsuri, TDK1-Sub1, and MR219 pyramided lines are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively.

In a Swarna background, two classes (Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 and Sub1 + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 ) showed higher performance in F3 under both NS and RS drought stress (Table 1). In an IR64-Sub1 background, three classes (Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 1.2 , Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.2 , Sub1 + qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 12.1 ) showed higher performance under NS and RS drought stress both, whereas Sub1 + qDTY 3.2  + qDTY 2.3  + qDTY 12.1 performed better under RS drought stress only in F3 (Table 2). In Samba Mahsuri background, the QTL class qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 4.1 showed a higher performance than a single QTL under both NS and RS drought stress in F3 (Table 3). In a TDK1-Sub1 background, the classes consisting of pyramided lines with Sub1 + qDTY 3.1  + qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2 and Sub1 + qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2 showed a stable and high effect across variable growing conditions in F3 (Table 4). In the MR219 background, pyramided lines having qDTY 12.1  + qDTY 3.1 and qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 3.1 showed significant yield advantage under both NS and RS drought stress (Table 5).

Validation of MAB-selected class performance in subsequent generations

The performance of pyramided line classes identified as superior in the F3 generation was found to be consistent and higher than other QTL classes throughout F4, F5, F6, F7, and F8 generations (except where the number of lines per class was less) across all five studied backgrounds in the present study. The high mean grain yield QTL classes in the F3 generation, Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 and Sub1 + qDTY 2.1  + qDTY 3.1 in a Swarna background (Table 1), qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 4.1 in a Samba Mahsuri background (Table 3), and Sub1 + qDTY 3.1  + qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2 and Sub1 + qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 6.2 in a TDK1-Sub1 background (Table 4) had maintained their high mean grain yield performance from the F4 to F8 generations over other QTL classes. The low mean yield performers in the F3 generation, Sub1 + qDTY 1.1 , Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 3.1 in a Swarna-Sub1 background (Table 1), qDTY 2.2 in a Samba Mahsuri background (Table 3), and qDTY 6.1  + qDTY 3.1 and Sub1 + qDTY 6.2  + DTY 3.1 in a TDK1-Sub1 background (Table 4), were observed to be lower yielders in each of the generations from F4 to F8. The significant high grain yield advantage of Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 1.2 , Sub1 + qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.2 , Sub1 + qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 12.1 , and Sub1 + qDTY 3.2  + qDTY 2.3  + qDTY 12.1 in an IR64-Sub1 background (Table 2) and of qDTY 12.1  + qDTY 3.1 and qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 3.1 in an MR219 background (Table 5) was consistent from the F4 to F7 generation. QTL classes Sub1 + qDTY 1.2  + qDTY 12.1 , Sub1 + qDTY 3.2  + qDTY 2.3 , and qDTY 1.1  + qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 12.1  + Sub1 in an IR64-Sub1 background showed lower yield from F3 to subsequent generations (Table 2). The low grain yield performance of qDTY 12.1  + qDTY 2.2 and qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 3.1  + qDTY 12.1 under RS drought stress in MR219 was maintained from the F4 to F7 generation (Table 5). None of the inferior QTL classes identified in F3 outperformed the identified superior QTL combination class or combination classes in any advanced generation under NS as well as under variable intensities of RS drought stress in different seasons/years across generations from F4 to F7/F8.

Cost effectiveness of the early generation selection

The genotyping cost for the whole population considering all QTL classes from F3 to F7/F8 ranged from USD 9225 to USD 21760 whereas the genotyping cost accounting for further advancement and screening (F4 to F7/F8) of only superior classes in F3 varied from USD 5730 to USD 8978 (Table 6). A genotyping cost savings of USD 12443, 3720, 14,780, 2273, and 6225 was observed in Swarna-Sub1, IR64-Sub1, Samba Mahsuri, TDK1-Sub1, and MR219 backgrounds, respectively, with a range of savings of USD 2273 to USD 14780 in all five backgrounds.
Table 6

Comparison of genotyping cost (USD) considering advancement of all QTL classes versus advancement of only higher performing F3 generation QTL classes

Background

Generation

Number of QTL classes

Population size

Cost (USD)

Total genotyping cost (USD)

Savings (USD)

   

Based on all classes

Based on selected classes

Based on all classes

Based on selected classes

Based on all classes

Based on selected classes

 

Swarna-Sub1

F3

15

754

754

5655

5655

21,420

8978

12,443

F4

15

754

106

5655

795

F5

10

432

106

3240

795

F6

10

432

106

3240

795

F7

6

432

108

3240

810

F8

5

52

17

390

127.50

IR64-Sub1

F3

20

467

467

7005

7005

12,105

8385

3720

F4

19

194

46

2910

690

F5

19

64

18

960

270

F6

13

64

18

960

270

F7

7

18

10

270

150

Samba Mahsuri

BC1F3

3

42

42

210

210

21,760

6980

14,780

BC1F4

3

3000

640

15,000

3200

BC1F5

3

1200

640

6000

3200

BC1F6

3

70

44

350

220

BC1F7

2

20

15

100

75

BC1F8

2

20

15

100

75

TDK1-Sub1

BC2F3

14

843

843

6323

6323

9225

6954

2272

BC2F4

7

231

43

1733

323

BC2F5

7

48

14

360

105

BC2F6

7

48

14

360

105

BC2F7

5

60

13

450

98

MR219

BC1F3

7

214

214

1605

1605

11,955

5730

6225

BC1F4

7

620

240

4650

1800

BC1F5

7

620

240

4650

1800

BC1F6

7

70

35

525

262.50

BC1F7

7

70

35

525

262.50

The genotyping cost was calculated considering five markers per QTL (one peak/near the peak, two right-hand-side flanking markers, and two left-hand-side flanking markers) and USD 0.50 per data point

The phenotyping cost for the whole population ranged from USD 29197 to USD 157455 whereas it was USD 20225 to USD 50507 in the case of selected classes (Table 7). A phenotyping cost savings of USD 60023, 8973, 10,963, 106,948, and 30,029 was observed in Swarna-Sub1, IR64-Sub1, Samba Mahsuri, TDK1-Sub1, and MR219 backgrounds, respectively, with phenotyping cost savings of USD 8973–106,948 in all five backgrounds. The genotyping and phenotyping cost and savings were high in Samba Mahsuri as the number of plant samples in the whole population set in the F4 generation was more than in the QTL class selected in F3 (DTY 2.2  + DTY 4.1 ) (Table 6). The cost savings was inversely proportional to the number of QTL combination classes identified as providing superior performance in F3.
Table 7

Comparison of phenotyping cost (USD) considering advancement of all QTL classes versus advancement of only higher performing F3 generation QTL classes

Background

Generation

Population size

Phenotyping cost (USD)

Total phenotyping cost (USD)

Savings (USD)

  

Based on all classes

Based on selected classes

Based on all classes

Based on selected classes

Based on all classes

Based on selected classes

 

Swarna-Sub1

F3

754

754

27,280

27,280

103,330

43,307

60,023

F4

754

106

27,280

3835

F5

432

106

15,630

3835

F6

432

106

15,630

3835

F7

432

108

15,630

3907

F8

52

17

1881

615

IR64-Sub1

F3

467

467

16,896

16,896

29,197

20,225

8973

F4

194

46

7019

1664

F5

64

18

2316

651

F6

64

18

2316

651

F7

18

10

651

362

Samba Mahsuri

BC1F3

42

42

1520

1520

157,455

50,507

106,948

BC1F4

3000

640

108,540

23,155

BC1F5

1200

640

43,416

23,155

BC1F6

70

44

2533

1592

BC1F7

20

15

724

543

BC1F8

20

15

724

543

TDK1-Sub1

BC2F3

843

843

30,500

30,500

44,501

33,539

10,963

BC2F4

231

43

8358

1556

BC2F5

48

14

1737

507

BC2F6

48

14

1737

507

BC2F7

60

13

2171

470

MR219

BC1F3

214

214

7743

7743

57,671

27,642

30,029

BC1F4

620

240

22,432

8683

BC1F5

620

240

22,432

8683

BC1F6

70

35

2533

1266

BC1F7

70

35

2533

1266

The phenotyping cost of USD 36.18 per entry was calculated considering two replications and screening under NS and RS drought stress with plot size of 1.54 m2 (IRRI Standard drought screening costing)

Interaction among QTLs and with background

In our study, qDTY 1.1 showed positive interactions with qDTY 2.1 , qDTY 2.2 , and qDTY 3.1 , whereas qDTY 2.2 showed positive interactions with qDTY 4.1 , qDTY 12.1 , and qDTY 3.1 . qDTY 3.1 showed positive interactions with qDTY 1.1 , qDTY 2.2 , qDTY 12.1 , qDTY 6.1 , and qDTY 6.2 at least in the genetic backgrounds that we studied in the present experiment. Such information will be helpful to breeders in selecting QTL combinations in their MAB programs.

Discussion

Phenotypic evaluation of QTLs pyramided lines

The yield reduction in RS drought stress experiments was 45, 77, 79, and 97% in F3, F5, F7, and F7 generations, respectively, in Swarna-Sub1 introgression lines as compared to the mean yield of the NS experiments. In IR64-Sub1, the yield reduction was 22, 96, 82, and 97% in F3, F4, F6, and F7 generations, respectively. In the Samba Mahsuri background, the mean yield reduction was 66, 98, and 98% in F3, F7, and F8 generations, respectively, in the RS drought stress experiment compared with NS experiments. A grain yield reduction of 68, 93, 98, and 96% was observed in F4, F6, F7, and F8 generations, respectively, under RS drought stress compared with NS in TDK1-Sub1 introgressed lines. In MR219 introgressed lines, the yield reduction under RS drought stress compared with NS was 88, 93, and 93% in F3, F5, and F7 generations, respectively. Accurate standardized phenotyping under RS drought stress assists breeders in rejecting inferior QTL classes in F3 itself and is the basis of success of the combined MAS breeding approach. It is evident from the yield reduction as well as the water table depths (Fig. 2a-e) that the stress level in RS drought stress experiments ranged from moderate to severe drought stress intensity at the reproductive stage in most of the cases. DTF of majority of pyramided lines was less than that of recipient lines under RS but not under NS. Some of the selected progenies showed early DTF than recipient under NS and this may have resulted from linkages of the drought QTLs with earliness (Vikram et al. 2016). Most of the progenies showed similar PHT as that of recipient cultivars under NS but higher PHT under RS because of their increased ability to produce biomass under RS (data not presented).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Soil water potential measured by parching water table level in experiments (a) Swarna-Sub1 pyramided lines with qDTY 1.1 , qDTY 2.1 , and qDTY 3.1 in different generations; b IR64-Sub1 pyramided lines with qDTY 1.1 , qDTY 1.2 , qDTY 2.2 , qDTY 2.3 , qDTY 3.2 , and qDTY 12.1 in different generations; c Samba Mahsuri pyramided lines with qDTY 2.2 and qDTY 4.1 in different generations; d TDK1-Sub1 pyramided lines with qDTY 3.1, qDTY 6.1, and qDTY 6.2 in different generations; and (e) MR219 pyramided lines with qDTY 2.2 , qDTY 3.1, and qDTY 12.1 in different generations using polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe

Selection of superior QTLs class in early generation

In a marker-assisted QTL introgression/pyramiding program, it would be very valuable to explore QTL combinations with high performance in early generations. The F2 generation is highly heterogeneous; therefore, screening of a large population size is essential to maximize the exploitation of genetic variation (Kahani and Hittalmani 2015). Sometimes, based on the availability of resources, fields for phenotyping, as well as capacity of breeding programs, breeders have to reduce the population size, which may lead to a loss of existing positive genetic variability in the population (Govindaraj et al. 2015). In the present study, the screening of a large-sized F3 population was carried out under control (NS) and RS drought stress conditions. The classification of the population in different classes based on QTL combinations in each generation (F3 to F7/F8) followed by class analysis to see the performance of each QTL class across generation advancement proved to be an effective approach in identifying best-bet QTL combination classes across five high-yielding genetic backgrounds. The performance of the genotypes in a particular QTL class was consistent from F3 to F7/F8 generations in all five studied background in the present study. The advancement of the classes with high mean grain yield performance in the F3 generation in addition to the MAB approach involving stepwise phenotyping and genotyping screening suggested this as being a cost/labor- and resource-effective breeding strategy. The lesser number of genotypes in advanced generations can be screened more precisely in a large plot size with more replications. The current cost-effective high-throughput phenotyping platform (Comar et al. 2012; Andrade-Sanchez et al. 2014; Sharma and Ritchie 2015; Bai et al. 2016) can be used for precise breeding and physiological studies considering the small population size. Even at the F3 level, some heterozygosity will be observed when more genes are involved in the introgression program. However, in our study, we did not observe any change in performance of QTL classes found superior in F3, indicating the F3 generation to be suitable to conduct class analysis and reject inferior classes.

Population size and validation of combined breeding strategy

In addition to the modern next-generation genotyping strategies (Barba et al. 2014; Rius et al. 2015; Dhanapal and Govindaraj 2015) and agricultural system models (Antle et al. 2016), several breeding strategies involving correlated traits as selection criteria in early generations (Senapati et al. 2009), grain yield (Kumar et al. 2014), secondary traits (Mhike et al. 2012), genetic variance, heritability (Almeida et al. 2013), path coefficient analysis, selection tolerance index (Dao et al. 2017), and yield index (Raman et al. 2012) have been suggested for use in breeding programs. The consistent performance of pyramided lines with specific QTL combinations across generations (F3 to F7/F8) in five backgrounds in the present study validates the potential of the suggested combined MAS breeding approach presented in the current study. The integration of accurate phenotyping and the selection of the best class representing the genetic variability of the whole population in early generations are critical steps for the practical implementation of this ultimate novel breeding strategy. Keeping a large F3 population size depending upon the number of genes/QTLs being introgressed and precise phenotyping to exploit the hidden potential of each genotype in each QTL class could maximize the potential output of each class in early generations. The most logical QTL-class performance-derived novel breeding strategy could be adopted to optimize the breeding efficiency of small-to moderate-sized breeding programs in rice breeding improvement programs. Further, the strategy could be equally useful to other crops in which major genes/QTLs determine the expression of traits and QTL x QTL or QTL x genetic background interactions have been identified.

We were able to understand the effectiveness of early generation selection in the marker-assisted introgression program for drought because the breeding program maintained systematic data for both genotyping and phenotyping conducted over the past six or more years. It was only after we successfully identified the best lines coming from each introgression program after successful multi-location evaluation that we realized that, as the breeding program will need to bring in more and more genes for multiple traits to address each of the new emerging climate-related challenges, modifications that allow plant breeders to make large-scale rejections in the early generation will become necessary. The effectiveness of the combined MAS strategy is evident from the result that, in none of the five cases were the superior QTL class combinations identified in F3 outperformed by inferior classes identified in F3 in any advanced generation under both NS and variable intensities of RS drought stress in different seasons/years across generations from F4 to F6/F7/F8.

Cost-effectiveness of combined breeding strategy

Breeding practices are challenged by being laborious, time consuming, and non-economical, requiring large land space and a large population size (Sandhu and Kumar 2017), being imprecise, and having unreliable phenotyping screening (Bhat et al. 2016); hence, an economical, fast, accurate, and efficient breeding selection system is required to increase grain yield potential and productivity (Khan et al. 2015). The cost-benefit balance (Bhat et al. 2016) must be considered in increasing genetic gain in the new era of modern science. The use of the class analysis approach in the F3 generation followed by advancing only higher performing classes reported a genotyping cost savings of 25–68% and phenotyping cost savings of 25–68% compared with the traditional molecular marker breeding approach (Table 6). Although the cost-benefit of the combined MAS breeding strategy will always be inversely proportional to the number of superior QTL class combinations identified for advancement in F3 and subsequent generations, the cost savings will increase as the number of genes included in the introgression program increases because of the rejection of a larger proportion of the total population early in the F3 generation. This procedure will save time, labor, resources, and space and will allow breeders to focus only on germplasm with higher value. This will reduce the population size for phenotypic and genotypic selection in advanced generations compared with earlier marker-assisted breeding strategies (Price 2006; McNally et al. 2009; Yadaw et al. 2013; Sandhu et al. 2014; Brachi et al. 2012; Begum et al. 2015). It will be practical and realistic only if the phenotyping, genotyping, and class analysis in early generations are accurate.

Interactions among QTLs and with background

The QTLs for grain yield under drought have shown QTL x QTL (Sandhu et al. 2018) as well as QTL x genetic background interactions (Dixit et al. 2012a, b; Sandhu et al. 2018). Many such interactions that may occur between QTL x QTL and QTL x genetic background are unknown. Such positive/negative interactions affecting grain yield under normal or RS situation can be captured through approach that combines selection based on phenotyping and genotyping in the early generations. The current study clearly demonstrated the success of selection based on combining phenotyping and genotyping in identifying better progenies in early generation thereby reducing the number of progenies to be advanced. Number of plants to be generated and evaluated in the early generations will depend upon the number of QTLs/genes to be introgressed together, size of introgressed QTLs region as well as availability of closely linked markers for each of the QTLs. The QTLs for grain yield under drought have shown undesirable linkages with low yield potential, very early maturity duration, tall plant height (Vikram et al. 2015). At IRRI, studies were undertaken to break the undesirable linkages of QTLs with tall plant height, very early maturity duration and low yield potential (Vikram et al. 2015). Such improved lines were used in the MAS introgression program. The drought tolerant donors N22, Dular, Apo, Way Rarem, Kali Aus, Aday Sel that are source of identified QTLs do not possess good grain quality. Even though, we did not study the linkage of qDTYs with grain quality, the introgressed lines released as varieties in IR64, Swarna backgrounds in India and Nepal did not reveal any adverse effect on grain quality. The yield superiority of lines with two or more QTLs under both NS and RS drought stress over the five high-yielding backgrounds clearly indicated that qDTY QTLs identified at IRRI are free from undesirable linkage drag and can be successfully used in MAB programs targeting yield improvement under RS drought stress. Further, in Swarna-Sub1, IR64-Sub1, and TDK-Sub1, the highest yielding classes identified were the classes possessing both Sub1 and combinations of the drought QTLs. The yield superiority of such classes across these three backgrounds over all the generations clearly indicated that tolerance of submergence and drought can be effectively combined even though they are governed by two different physiological mechanisms. In the QTL study undertaken at IRRI, qDTY 1.1 showed a significant mean yield advantage in MTU1010 and IR64 (Sandhu et al. 2015); qDTY 2.2 in Pusa Basmati 1460, MTU1010, and IR64 (Venuprasad et al. 2007; Swamy et al. 2013; Sandhu et al. 2013; Sandhu et al. 2014); qDTY 2.3 in Vandana and IR64 (Dixit et al. 2012b; Sandhu et al. 2014); qDTY 3.2 in Sabitri (Yadaw et al. 2013); qDTY 6.1 in IR72 (Venuprasad et al. 2009); and qDTY 12.1 in Vandana (Bernier et al. 2007), Sabitri (Mishra et al. 2013), Kalinga, and Anjali backgrounds. Similar interaction of qDTY 2.3 and qDTY 3.2 with qDTY 12.1 in a Vandana background (Dixit et al. 2012b); qDTY 2.2 and qDTY 3.1 with qDTY 12.1 in an MRQ74 background (Shamsudin et al. 2016); and qDTY 2.2  + qDTY 4.1 in an IR64 background (Swamy et al. 2013) was observed. The interaction of identified QTLs with other QTLs in more than two backgrounds supports the usefulness of such QTL classes in MAS. In all five of these cases, through genotyping and phenotyping we were able to identify QTL class combinations with positive interactions and higher yield. As more data are generated across different backgrounds and interactions are established, breeders will have the ability to identify and forward only selected classes without phenotyping from F3 onward.

Pyramiding of multiple QTLs associated with multiple traits

With the identification of gene-based/closely linked markers for different biotic stresses (bacterial blight, blast, brown planthopper, gall midge) and abiotic stresses (submergence, drought, phosphorus deficiency, cold, anaerobic germination, high temperature), the MAB program is moving forward to introgress more genes/QTLs to develop climate-resilient and better rice varieties. For effective tolerance to develop a variety combining tolerance of biotic and abiotic stresses – bacterial leaf blight (three genes – xa5, xa13, Xa21), blast (two – pi2, pi9), brown planthopper (two – BPH3, BPH17), gall midge (two – Gm4, Gm8), drought (three –qDTY 1.1 , qDTY 2.1 , qDTY 3.1 ), and submergence (Sub1) – researchers will need introgression and the combination of 13–15 genes/QTLs in gene combinations mentioned here or in other combinations depending upon the prevalence of a pathotype/biotype in different regions. The number of genes to be introgressed is likely to increase as exposure of rice to high temperature at the reproductive stage will probably increase in most rice-growing regions. The introgression of 10–15 genes will not only require a larger initial population in F2 and F3 but will also lead to increased positive/negative interactions between genes/QTLs. With capacity development, as more and more breeding programs adopt marker-assisted introgression of more genes, the combined MAS strategy will be of great help to plant breeders in reducing the number of plants that they should handle in each generation and make their breeding program cost-effective.

Conclusions

The selection of QTL classes with a high mean yield performance and positive interactions among loci and with background in the early generation and consistent performance of QTL classes in subsequent generations across five backgrounds supports the effectiveness of a combined MAS breeding strategy. The challenge ahead is the appropriate estimation of the precise population size to be used for QTL class analysis in the early F3 generation to maintain genetic variability as the number of genes/QTLs increases further. Integration of a cost-effective, efficient, designed, statistics-led early generation superior QTL class selection-based breeding strategy with new-era genomics such as genotyping by sequencing and genomic selection could be an important breakthrough to build up a scientific next-generation breeding program.

Methods

The study was conducted at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines, to introgress QTLs for grain yield under RS drought stress in the background of improved high- yielding widely grown but drought-susceptible varieties from India (Swarna, IR64, Samba Mahsuri), Lao PDR (TDK1), and Malaysia (MR219).

Five sets of introgressed populations were used:
  1. 1.

    Swarna-Sub1 pyramided lines with qDTY 1.1 , qDTY 2.1 , and qDTY 3.1

     
  2. 2.

    IR64-Sub1 pyramided lines with qDTY 1.1 , qDTY 1.2 , qDTY 2.2 , qDTY 2.3 , qDTY 3.2 , and qDTY 12.1

     
  3. 3.

    Samba Mahsuri pyramided lines with qDTY 2.2 and qDTY 4.1

     
  4. 4.

    TDK1-Sub1 pyramided lines with qDTY 3.1, qDTY 6.1, and qDTY 6.2

     
  5. 5.

    MR219 pyramided lines with qDTY 2.2 , qDTY 3.1, and qDTY 12.1

     

Three steps were employed for the development of a cost-effective, reliable, and resource-efficient combined MAS breeding strategy: (1) grain yield and genotypic data across F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, and F8/fixed lines for all five sets were compiled; (2) class analysis was carried out to develop a combined MAS breeding strategy; and (3) the performance of the superior classes was monitored across advanced generations to validate the combined MAS breeding strategy.

The screening of all five population sets was carried out under NS control and RS drought stress conditions. For the NS experiments, 5-cm water depth level was maintained throughout the rice growing season until physiological maturity. For the screening under RS drought stress, irrigation was stopped at 30 days after transplanting (DAT). The last irrigation was provided at 24 DAT and there was no standing water in the field when drought was initiated at 30 DAT. The stress cycle was continued until severe stress symptoms were observed. Monitoring of soil water potential was carried out by placing perforated PVC pipes at 100-cm soil depth in the field in a zig-zag manner. After the initiation of stress, the water table level was recorded daily. When approximately 70% of the lines exhibited severe leaf rolling or wilting, one life-saving irrigation with a sprinkler system was provided. Then, a second cycle of the stress was initiated. The water table level was measured from all the pipes until the rice crop reached 50% maturity.

Molecular marker work was carried out following the procedure as described in Sandhu et al. (2014). For genotyping, a total of 754, 754, 432, 432, 432, and 52 plants were phenotyped and genotyped in F3 (NS, RS), F4 (NS), F5 (NS, RS), F6 (NS, RS), F7 (NS), and F8 (NS, RS) generations, respectively, in a Swarna-Sub1 background. In the IR64-Sub1 background, 467, 194, 64, 64, and 18 plants were phenotyped and genotyped in F3 (NS, RS), F4 (NS, RS), F5 (NS), F6 (NS, RS), and F7 (NS, RS) generations, respectively. In the Samba Mahsuri background, a total of 42, 3000, 1200, 70, 20 and 20 plants were phenotyped and genotyped in BC1F3 (NS, RS), BC1F4 (NS, RS), BC1F5 (NS), BC1F6 (NS), BC1F7 (NS, RS), and BC1F8 (NS, RS) generations respectively. In the TDK-1Sub1 background, 843, 231, 48, 48, 60 and 60 plants were phenotyped and genotyped in BC2F3 (RS), BC2F4 (NS, RS), BC2F5 (NS), BC2F6 (NS, RS), BC2F7 (NS, RS), and BC2F8 (NS, RS) generations, respectively. A total of 214, 620, 620, 70, and 70 plants were phenotyped and genotyped in BC1F3 (NS, RS), BC1F4 (NS), BC1F5 (NS, RS), BC1F6 (NS, RS), and BC1F7 (NS, RS) generations, respectively, in the MR219 background. Data on plant height, days to 50% flowering, and grain yield were recorded following the procedure of Venuprasad et al. (2009). The detailed description on QTLs and markers used in the present study in each background is presented in Additional file 1: Table S1. The general schematic scheme followed for QTL introgression and pyramiding program, phenotyping and genotyping screening is shown in Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Analytical approach to reveal a combined MAS breeding strategy

The grain yield data from F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, and F8 generations across seasons and NS (control) and RS drought stress conditions for all five sets of pyramided populations were compiled and categorized into classes based on the genotypic QTL information. Class analysis using SAS v9.2 was attempted to see the mean grain yield performance of QTL classes across generation advancement.

Genotyping and phenotyping cost calculation

The phenotyping cost of USD 36.18 per entry (two replications, screening under NS and RS drought stress with plot size of 1.54 m2) (IRRI Standard drought screening costing) including the cost of land preparation, land rental, irrigation, electricity, field layout, seeding, transplanting, maintenance cost, resource input (fertilizer), pesticides, herbicides, field supplies, harvesting, threshing, drying, data collection, and labor was used to calculate the cost savings for phenotyping. The genotyping cost was calculated for the whole population across successive generations (F3 to F7/F8) and compared with the genotyping cost (F3 to F7/F8) considering only the QTL classes that performed better in F3. The genotyping cost was calculated considering five markers per QTL (one peak/near the peak, two right-hand-side flanking markers, and two left-hand-side flanking markers) using USD 0.50 per data point (Xu et al. 2002; Xu 2010).

Statistical analysis

Mean comparison of QTL genotype classes

Hypothesis about no differences among phenotype means of QTL genotype classes for each background under NS and RS drought stress in each season was performed in SAS v9.2 (SAS Institute Inc. 2009) using the following linear model.
$$ {y}_{ij kl}=\mu +{r}_k+b{(r)}_{kl}+{q}_i+g{(q)}_{ij}+{e}_{ij kl} $$
where μ represents the population mean, r k represents the effect of the k th replicate, b(r) kl is the effect of the l th block within the k th replicate, q i corresponds to the effect of the i th QTL, g(q) ij symbolizes the effect of the j th genotype nested within the i th QTL, and e ijkl corresponds to the error (Knapp 2002). The effects of QTL class and the genotypes within QTL were considered fixed and the replicates and blocks within replicates were set to random.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Ma. Teresa Sta. Cruz and Paul Maturan for the management of field experiments, Jocelyn Guevarra and RuthErica Carpio for assistance with seed preparations.

Funding

This study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Generation Challenge Program (GCP). The authors thank BMGF and GCP for financial support for the study.

Availability of data and materials

The relevant supplementary data has been provided with the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

AK conceived the idea of the study and was involved in critical revision and final approval of the version to be published; NS was involved in conducting the experiments, analysis, interpretation of the data, and drafting the manuscript; SD, SY, BPMS, and NAAS were involved in developing populations and conducting the experiments. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

The manuscript has been approved by all authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
International Rice Research Institute, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
(2)
Current address: Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

References

  1. Almeida GD, Makumbi D, Magorokosho C, Nair S, Borém A, Ribaut JM, Bänziger M, Prasanna BM, Crossa J, Babu R (2013) QTL mapping in three tropical maize populations reveals a set of constitutive and adaptive genomic regions for drought tolerance. Theor Appl Genet 126(3):583–600View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade-Sanchez P, Gore MA, Heun JT, Thorp KR, Carmo-Silva AE, French AN, Salvucci ME, White JW (2014) Development and evaluation of a field-based high-throughput phenotyping platform. Funct Plant Biol 41(1):68–79View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Antle JM, Jones JW, Rosenzweig CE (2016) Next generation agricultural system data models and knowledge products: introduction. Agric Syst AGSY-02173:1–5Google Scholar
  4. Baenziger PS, Beecher B, Graybosch RA, Ibrahim AMH, Baltensperger DD, Nelson LA (2008) Registration of ‘NEO1643’ wheat. J Plant Registr 2:36–42View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Bai G, Ge Y, Hussain W, Baenziger PS, Graef G (2016) A multi-sensor system for high throughput field phenotyping in soybean and wheat breeding. Comput Electron Agric 128:181–192View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Barba M, Czosnek H, Hadidi A (2014) Historical perspective development and applications of next-generation sequencing in plant virology. Viruses 6:106–136. https://doi.org/10.3390/v6010106 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Begum H, Spindel JE, Lalusin A, Borromeo T, Gregorio G, Hernandez J (2015) Genome-wide association mapping for yield and other agronomic traits in an elite breeding population of tropical rice (Oryza sativa). PLoS One 10:e0119873View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett D, Reynolds M, Mullan D, Izanloo A, Kuchel H, Langridge P, Schnurbusch T (2012) Detection of two major grain yield QTL in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L) under heat drought and high yield potential environments. Theor Appl Genet 125(7):1473–1485View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernier J, Kumar A, Ramaiah V, Spaner D, Atlin G (2007) A large-effect QTL for grain yield under reproductive-stage drought stress in upland rice. Crop Sci 47(2):507–516View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhat JA, Ali S, Salgotra RK, Mir ZA, Dutta S, Jadon V, Tyagi A, Mushtaq M, Jain N, Singh PK, Singh GP (2016) Genomic selection in the era of next generation sequencing for complex traits in plant breeding. Front Genet 7:221View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhatnagar-Mathur P, Vadezm V, Sharmam KK (2008) Transgenic approaches for abiotic stress tolerance in plants: retrospect and prospects. Plant Cell Rep 27:411–424View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Biscarini F, Cozzi P, Casella L, Riccardi P, Vattari A, Orasen G, Perrini R, Tacconi G, Tondelli A, Biselli C, Cattivelli L (2016) Genome-wide association study for traits related to plant and grain morphology, and root architecture in temperate rice accessions. PLoS One 11(5):e0155425View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Brachi B, Aimé C, Glorieux C, Cuguen J, Roux F (2012) Adaptive value of phenological traits in stressful environments: predictions based on seed production and laboratory natural selection. PLoS One 7:e32069View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Breseghello F, Sorrells ME (2006) Association analysis as a strategy for improvement of quantitative traits in plants. Crop Sci 46:1323–1330View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Brick MA, Ogg JB, Singh SP, Schwartz HF, Johnson JJ, Pastor-Corrales MA (2008) Registration of drought-tolerant rust-resistant high-yielding pinto bean germplasm line CO46348. J Plant Registr 2:120–134View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Comar A, Burger P, de Solan B, Baret F, Daumard F, Hanocq JF (2012) A semi-automatic system for high throughput phenotyping wheat cultivars in-field conditions: description and first results. Funct Plant Biol 39(11):914–924View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Cuthbert JL, Somers DJ, Brûlé-Babel AL, Brown PD, Crow GH (2008) Molecular mapping of quantitative trait loci for yield and yield components in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L). Theor Appl Genet 117(4):595–608View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dao SJ, Traore EVS, Gracen V, Eric YD (2017) Selection of drought tolerant maize hybrids using path coefficient analysis and selection index. Pakistan J Biol Sci 20:132–139View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Das G, Rao GJN (2015) Molecular marker assisted gene stacking for biotic and abiotic stress resistance genes in an elite rice cultivar. Front Plant Sci 6:698PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Dhanapal AP, Govindaraj M (2015) Unlimited thirst for genome sequencing data interpretation and database usage in genomic era: the road towards fast-track crop plant improvement. Genet Res Internat 2015:1–15View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Dixit S, Singh A, Kumar A (2014) Rice breeding for high grain yield under drought: a strategic solution to a complex problem. Int J Agron Article ID 863683:15Google Scholar
  22. Dixit S, Swamy BM, Vikram P, Ahmed HU, Cruz MS, Amante M, Atri D, Leung H, Kumar A (2012a) Fine mapping of QTLs for rice grain yield under drought reveals sub-QTLs conferring a response to variable drought severities. Theor Appl Genet 125(1):155–169View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dixit S, Swamy BM, Vikram P, Bernier J, Cruz MS, Amante M, Atri D, Kumar A (2012b) Increased drought tolerance and wider adaptability of qDTY 12.1 conferred by its interaction with qDTY 2.3 and qDTY 3.2 . Mol Breed 30:1767–1779View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Elangovan M, Rai R, Dholakia BB, Lagu MD, Tiwari R, Gupta RK, Rao VS, Röder MS, Gupta VS (2008) Molecular genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci associated with loaf volume in hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum). J Cereal Sci 47(3):587–598View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghimire KH, Quiatchon LA, Vikram P, Swamy BM, Dixit S, Ahmed H, Hernandez JE, Borromeo TH, Kumar A (2012) Identification and mapping of a QTL (qDTY 1.1 ) with a consistent effect on grain yield under drought. Field Crops Res 131:88–96View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Govindaraj M, Vetriventhan M, Srinivasan M (2015) Importance of genetic diversity assessment in crop plants and its recent advances: an overview of its analytical perspectives. Genet Res Int 2015:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/431487 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Heidari B, Sayed-Tabatabaei BE, Saeidi G, Kearsey M, Suenaga K (2011) Mapping QTL for grain yield yield components and spike features in a doubled haploid population of bread wheat. Genome 54(6):517–527View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang X, Sang T, Zhao Q, Feng Q, Zhao Y, Li C, Zhu C, Lu T, Zhang Z, Li M, Fan D (2010) Genome-wide association studies of 14 agronomic traits in rice landraces. Nat Genet 42(11):961–967View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Jairin J, Teangdeerith S, Leelagud P, Kothcharerk J, Sansen K, Yi M, Vanavichit A, Toojinda T (2009) Development of rice introgression lines with brown planthopper resistance and KDML105 grain quality characteristics through marker-assisted selection. Field Crops Res 110(3):263–271View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahani F, Hittalmani S (2015) Genetic analysis and traits association in F2 intervarietal populations in rice under aerobic condition Rice Res: Open Access Oct 25, p 9Google Scholar
  31. Khan MH, Dar ZA, Dar SA (2015) Breeding strategies for improving rice yield: a review. Agric Sci 6(5):467Google Scholar
  32. Knapp G (2002) Variance estimation in the error components regression model. Commun Stat Theor Met 31:1499–1514View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Kottapalli KR, Narasu ML, Jena KK (2010) Effective strategy for pyramiding three bacterial blight resistance genes into fine grain rice cultivar Samba Mahsuri using sequence tagged site markers. Biotechnol Lett 32:989–996View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kumar A, Dixit S, Ram T, Yadaw RB, Mishra KK, Mandal NP (2014) Breeding high-yielding drought-tolerant rice: genetic variations and conventional and molecular approaches. J Exp Bot 65:6265–6278View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. McNally KL, Childs KL, Bohnert R, Davidson RM, Zhao K, Ulat VJ, Zeller G, Clark RM, Hoen DR, Bureau TE, Stokowski R (2009) Genomewide SNP variation reveals relationships among landraces and modern varieties of rice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(30):12273–12278View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Mhike X, Okori P, Magorokosho C, Ndlela T (2012) Validation of the use of secondary traits and selection indices for drought tolerance in tropical maize (Zea mays L). African J Plant Sci 6(2):96–102Google Scholar
  37. Miah G, Rafii MY, Ismail MR, Puteh AB, Rahim HA, Latif MA (2016) Marker-assisted introgression of broad-spectrum blast resistance genes into the cultivated MR219 rice variety. J Sci Food Agric 97(9):2810–2818View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Mishra KK, Vikram P, Yadaw RB, Swamy BM, Dixit S, Cruz MTS, Maturan P, Marker S, Kumar A (2013) qDTY 12.1 : a locus with a consistent effect on grain yield under drought in rice. BMC Genet 14(1):12View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Mondal S, Rutkoski JE, Velu G, Singh PK, Crespo-Herrera LA, Guzmán C, Bhavani S, Lan C, He X, Singh RP (2016) Harnessing diversity in wheat to enhance grain yield climate resilience disease and insect pest resistance and nutrition through conventional and modern breeding approaches. Front Plant Sci 7(991):1–15Google Scholar
  40. Obert DE, Evans CP, Wesenberg DM, Windes JM, Erickson CA, Jackson EW (2008) Registration of ‘Lenetah’ spring barley. J Plant Registr 2:85–97View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Price AH (2006) Believe it or not QTLs are accurate! Trends Plant Sci 11:213–216View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Raman A, Verulkar S, Mandal N, Variar M, Shukla V, Dwivedi J, Singh B, Singh O, Swain P, Mall A, Robin S (2012) Drought yield index to select high yielding rice lines under different drought stress severities. Rice 5(1):31View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Reif JC, Hallauer AR, Melchinger AE (2005) Heterosis and heterotic patterns in maize. Maydica 50:215–223Google Scholar
  44. Rius M, Bourne S, Hornsby HG, Chapman MA (2015) Applications of next-generation sequencing to the study of biological invasions. Current Zool 61(3):488–504View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Sandhu N, Dixit S, Swamy BM, Vikram P, Venkateshwarlu C, Catolos M, Kumar A (2018) Positive interactions of major-effect QTLs with genetic background that enhances rice yield under drought. Sci Rep 8(1):1626View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandhu N, Jain S, Kumar A, Mehla BS, Jain R (2013) Genetic variation linkage mapping of QTL and correlation studies for yield root and agronomic traits for aerobic adaptation. BMC Genet 14:104–119View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandhu N, Kumar A (2017) Bridging the rice yield gaps under drought: QTLs genes and their use in breeding programs. Agronomy 7(2):27View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Sandhu N, Singh A, Dixit S, Cruz MTS, Maturan PC, Jain RK, Kumar A (2014) Identification and mapping of stable QTL with main and epistasis effect on rice grain yield under upland drought stress. BMC Genet 15(1):63View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Sandhu N, Torres RO, Cruz MTS, Maturan PC, Jain R, Kumar A, Henry A (2015) Traits and QTLs for development of dry direct-seeded rainfed rice varieties. J Exp Bot 66(1):225–244Google Scholar
  50. Senapati BK, Pal S, Roy S, De DK, Pal S (2009) Selection criteria for high yield in early segregating generation of rice (Oryza sativa L) crosses. J Crop Weed 5:36–38Google Scholar
  51. Septiningsih EM, Pamplona AM, Sanchez DL, Neeraja CN, Vergara GV, Heuer S, Ismail AM, Mackill DJ (2009) Development of submergence-tolerant rice cultivars: the Sub1 locus and beyond. Ann Bot 103(2):151–160View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Shamsudin NAA, Swamy BM, Ratnam W, Cruz MTS, Sandhu N, Raman AK, Kumar A (2016) Pyramiding of drought yield QTLs into a high quality Malaysian rice cultivar MRQ74 improves yield under reproductive stage drought. Rice 9:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12284-016-0093-6 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Sharma B, Ritchie GL (2015) High-throughput phenotyping of cotton in multiple irrigation environments. Crop Sci 55(2):958–969View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Shull GH (1948) What is “heterosis”? Genetics 33:439–446PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Singh AK, Gopalakrishnan S, Singh VP (2011) Marker assisted selection: a paradigm shift in basmati breeding. Indian J Genet 71(2):1–9Google Scholar
  56. Singh RP, Rajaram S, Miranda A, Huerta-Espino J, Autrique E (1998) Comparison of two crossing and four selection schemes for yield traits and slow rusting resistance to leaf rust in wheat. Euphytica 100:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018391519757 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Singh S, Sidhu JS, Huang N, Vikal Y, Li Z, Brar DS (2001) Pyramiding three bacterial blight resistance genes (xa5 xa13 and Xa21) using marker-assisted selection into indica rice cultivar PR106. Theor Appl Genet 102:1011–1015View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Swamy BPM, Ahmed HU, Henry A, Mauleon R, Dixit S, Vikram P, Tilatto R, Verulkar SB, Perraju P, Mandal NP, Variar M, Robin S (2013) Genetic physiological and gene expression analyses reveal that multiple QTL enhance yield of rice mega-variety IR64 under drought. PLoS One 8(5):e62795View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Venuprasad R, Bool ME, Quiatchon L, Sta Cruz MT, Amante M, Atlin GN (2012) A large effect QTL for rice grain yield under upland drought stress on chromosome 1. Mol Breed 30:535–547View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Venuprasad R, Dalid CO, Del Valle M, Zhao D, Espiritu M, Cruz MTS, Amante M, Kumar A, Atlin GN (2009) Identification and characterization of large-effect quantitative trait loci for grain yield under lowland drought stress in rice using bulk-segregant analysis. Theor Appl Genet 120(1):177–190View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Venuprasad R, Lafitte HR, Atlin GN (2007) Response to direct selection for grain yield under drought stress in rice. Crop Sci 47:285–293View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Vikram P, Swamy BM, Dixit S, Ahmed HU, Cruz MTS, Singh AK, Kumar A (2011) qDTY 1.1 a major QTL for rice grain yield under reproductive-stage drought stress with a consistent effect in multiple elite genetic backgrounds. BMC Genet 12(1):89View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Vikram P, Swamy BM, Dixit S, Trinidad J, Cruz MTS, Maturan PC, Amante M, Kumar A (2016) Linkages and interactions analysis of major effect drought grain yield QTLs in rice. PLoS One 11(3):e0151532View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Vikram P, Swamy BPM, Dixit S, Singh R, Singh BP, Miro B, Kohli A, Henry A, Singh NK, Kumar A (2015) qDTY 1.1 drought susceptibility of modern rice varieties: an effect of linkage of drought tolerance with undesirable traits. Nat Sci Rep 5:14799View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Volante A, Desiderio F, Tondelli A, Perrini R, Orasen G, Biselli C, Riccardi P, Vattari A, Cavalluzzo D, Urso S, Ben Hassen M (2017) Genome-wide analysis of japonica rice performance under limited water and permanent flooding conditions. Front Plant Sci 8:1862View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang Z, Cheng J, Chen Z, Huang J, Bao Y, Wang J, Zhang H (2012) Identification of QTL with main epistatic and QTL×environment interaction effects for salt tolerance in rice seedlings under different salinity conditions. Theor Appl Genet 125:807–815View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Xinglai P, Sangang X, Qiannying P, Yinhong S (2006) Registration of ‘Jinmai 50’ wheat. Crop Sci 46:983–995View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Xu Y (2010) Molecular plant breeding CABI PublishingView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Xu Y, Crouch JH (2008) Marker-assisted selection in plant breeding: from publications to practice. Crop Sci 48:391–407View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Xu Y, Lobos KB, Clare KM (2002) Development of SSR markers for rice molecular breeding In: Proceedings of Twenty-Ninth Rice Technical Working Group Meeting 24–27 February 2002 Little Rock Arkansas Rice Technical Working Group Little Rock Arkansas, p 49Google Scholar
  71. Xue D, Huang Y, Zhang X, Wei K, Westcott S, Li C, Chen M, Zhang G, Lance R (2009) Identification of QTLs associated with salinity tolerance at late growth stage in barley. Euphytica 169(2):187–196View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Yadaw RB, Dixit S, Raman A, Mishra KK, Vikram P, Swamy BM, Cruz MTS, Maturan PT, Pandey M, Kumar A (2013) A QTL for high grain yield under lowland drought in the background of popular rice variety Sabitri from Nepal. Field Crops Res 144:281–287View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Yang S, Vanderbeld B, Wan J, Huang Y (2010) Narrowing down the targets: towards successful genetic engineering of drought tolerant crops. Mol Plant 3:469–490View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement