Indian Journal of Plant Physiology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 7–15 | Cite as

Bulked line analysis: a useful tool to identify microsatellite markers linked to drought tolerance in rice

  • R. Beena
  • V. P. Praveenkumar
  • Veena Vighneswaran
  • M. C. Narayankutty
Original Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

Eighty rice germplasm collections were used to study the variation in root traits and water use efficiency (WUE based on ∆13C value) for two seasons. Deep and shallow root genotypes were selected on the basis of phenotypic data. Similarly based upon ∆13C values, high and low WUE plant types were selected. Basis of selection for BLA being, the genotype with extreme values on either side of the grand mean is given as either positive (+) negative (−) sign for each trait studied. The genotypes which has scored nearer value to either side of the grand mean is omitted and were not considered for bulking in order to have two very distinct bulks amongst the genotypes. Varieties identified for deep and thick roots were Chuvanna modan (Ptb 30), Ptb1 (Aryan), Ptb2 (Ponnaryan), Ptb 6 (Athikkiraya) and Ptb15 (Kavunginpoothala). Varieties identified for high WUE (based on ∆13C value) were Ptb5 (Veluthari kayama), Ptb7 (Parambuvattan), Ptb9 (Thavalakannan), Ptb10 (Thekkancheera) and Ptb19 (Athikiraya). Selected genotypes were used for molecular characterization using microsatellite markers. A total of 216 microsatellite markers representing 12 different chromosomes were selected for genotyping. DNA from each group were bulked together for bulked line analysis of root traits and WUE. RM 202 showed polymorphism between deep root and shallow root bulked DNA. For WUE, RM313 is polymorphic between the high and low WUE genotypes. Although the BLA method cannot be used directly to localize genes, it is useful for the identification of DNA markers that are associated with the target gene. Through such markers, the linked trait can be precisely localized if the markers used have been previously mapped.

Keywords

Rice Drought tolerance Root traits Water use efficiency Bulked line analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support from Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, Young Investigator’s Programme in Biotechnology is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Bimpong, I. K., Serraj, R., Chin, J. H., Ramos, J., Mendoza, E. M. T., Hernandez, J. E., et al. (2011). Identification of QTLs for drought-related traits in alien introgression lines derived from crosses of rice (Oryza sativa cv. IR64 × O. glaberrima) under lowland moisture stress. Journal of Plant Biolology, 54, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization] Rome. (2011). http://faostat.fao.org/.
  3. Farquhar, G. D., Ehleriner, J. R., & Hubick, K. T. (1989). Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology Plant Molecular Biology, 40, 503–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farquhar, G. D., O’Leary, M. H., & Berry, J. A. (1982). On the relationship between carbon isotope discrimination and the intercellular CO2 concentration in leaves. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 9, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Febrero, A., Fernandez, S., Molino-Cano, J. L., & Araus, J. S. (1998). Yield, carbon isotope discrimination, canopy reflectance and cuticular conductance of barley isolines of differing glaucousness. Journal of Experimental Botany, 49, 1575–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gawel, N., & Jarret, R. L. (1991). A modified CTAB DNA extraction procedure for Musa and Ipomoea plant. Molecular Biolology, 9, 262–266.Google Scholar
  7. Hubick, K. T., Farquhar, G. D., & Shorter, R. (1986). Correlation between water-use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in diverse peanut germplasm. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 13, 803–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Impa, S. M., Nadaradjan, S., Boominathan, P., Shashidhara, G., Bindumadhava, H., & Sheshshayee, M. S. (2005). Carbon isotope discrimination accurately reflects variability in WUE measured at a whole plant level in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Crop Science, 45, 2517–2522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kanagaraj, P., Prince, K. S. J., Sheeba, J. A., Biji, K. R., Paul, S. B., Senthil, A., et al. (2010). Microsatellite markers linked to drought resistance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Current Science, 98(6), 836–839.Google Scholar
  10. Kumar, B., Gomez, S. M., Boopathi, N. M., Kumar, S. S., Kumaresan, D., Biji, K. R., et al. (2005). Identification of microsatellite markers associated with drought tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.) using bulked line analysis. In: Abstracts, seventeenth annual congress of PGIA, 24–25, November, 2005, Postgraduate Institute of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (p. 6).Google Scholar
  11. Ludlow, M. M., & Muchow, R. C. (1990). A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy, 43, 107–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Madhava, B. H., Sheshshayee, M. S., Shankar, A. G., Prasad, T. G., & Udayakumar, M. (2003). Use of SPAD chlorophyll meter to assess transpiration efficiency of peanut. In: Cruickshank et al. (Eds.), Breeding of drought resistant peanuts. ACIAR Proceedings No. 112. Proceedings of a collaborative review meeting, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India (pp. 3–9). 25–27 February 2002. ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  13. Matsui, T., & Singh, B. B. (2003). Root characteristics in cowpea related to drought tolerance at the seedling stage. Experimental Agriculture, 39, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Passioura, J. B. (1983). Roots and drought resistance. Agricultural Water Management, 7, 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Passioura, J. B. (1986). Resistance to drought and salinity: Avenues for improvement. Australian Journal of Plant Physiolgy, 13, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Price, A. H., Steele, K. A., Moore, B. J., & Jones, R. G. W. (2002). Upland rice grown in soil filled chambers and exposed to contrasting water-deficit regimes. II. Mapping QTLs for root morphology and distribution. Field Crop Research, 76, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rao, R. C. N., Udayakumar, M., Farquhar, G. D., Talwar, H. S., & Prasad, T. G. (1995). Variation in carbon isotope discrimination and its relationship to specific leaf area and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase content in groundnut genotypes. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 22, 545–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rao, R. C. N., & Wright, G. C. (1994). Stability of the relationship between specific leaf area and carbon isotope discrimination across environments in peanut. Crop Science, 34, 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Robinson, D., Handley, L. L., Scrimgeour, C. M., Gordon, D. C., Forster, B. P., & Ellis, R. P. (2000). Using stable isotope natural abundances (δ15N and δ13C) to integrate the stress responses of wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum C. Koch.) genotypes. Journal of Experimental Botany, 51, 41–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rucker, K. S., Kvien, C. K., Holbrook, C. C., & Hook, J. E. (1995). Identification of peanut genotypes with improved drought avoidance traits. Peanut Science, 22, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sellamuthu, R., Liu, G. F., Ranganathan, C. B., & Serraj, R. (2011). Genetic analysis and validation of quantitative trait loci associated with reproductive-growth traits and grain yield under drought stress in a doubled haploid line population of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Field Crops Reserach, 124, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sheshshayee, M. S., Bindumadhava, H., Rachaputi, N. R., Prasad, T. G., Udayakumar, M., Wright, G. C., et al. (2006). Leaf chlorophyll concentration relates to transpiration efficiency in peanut. Annals of Applied Biology, 148, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sheshshayee, M. S., Bindumadhava, H., Shankar, A. G., Prasad, T. G., & Udayakumar, M. (2003). Breeding strategies to exploit water use efficiency for crop improvement. Journal of Plant Biology, 30, 253–268.Google Scholar
  24. Songsri, P., Jogloy, S., Vorasoot, N., Akkasaeng, C., Patanothai, A., & Holbrook, C. C. (2008). Root distribution of drought resistant peanut genotypes in response to drought. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 194, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Srividhya, A., Vemireddy, L. R., Sridhar, S., Jayaprada, M., Ramanarao, P. V., Hariprasad, A., et al. (2011). Molecular mapping of QTLs for yield and its components under two water supply conditions in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology, 14(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taiz, L., & Zeiger, E. (2006). Stress physiology. In L. Taiz & E. Zeiger (Eds.), Plant physiology (4th ed., pp. 671–681). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Udayakumar, M., Sheshshayee, M. S., Nataraj, K. N., Bindumadhava, H., Devendra, R., Aftab Hussain, I. S., et al. (1998). Why breeding for water use efficiency has not been successful. An analysis and alternate approach to exploit this trait for crop improvement. Current Science, 74, 996–1000.Google Scholar
  28. Wright, G. C., Hubick, K. T., & Farquhar, G. D. (1988). Discrimination in carbon isotopes of leaves correlates with water-use efficiency of field grown peanut cultivars. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 15, 815–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wright, G. C., & Nageswara Rao, R. C. (1994). Peanut water relations. In J. Smartt (Ed.), The groundnut crop (pp. 281–325). London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright, G. C., Rao, R. C. N., & Farquhar, G. D. (1994). Water-use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in peanut under water deficit conditions. Crop Science, 34, 92–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society for Plant Physiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Agricultural Research Station, PattambiKerala Agricultural UniversityPalakkadIndia

Personalised recommendations