Journal of Applied Genetics

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 23–31 | Cite as

Mapping QTLs for root morphological traits inBrassica rapa L. based on AFLP and RAPD markers

  • Gang Lu
  • Jiashu Cao
  • Xiaolin Yu
  • Xun Xiang
  • Hang Chen
Original Article


Root growth and thickening plays a key role in the final productivity and even the quality of storage roots in root crops. This study was conducted to identify and map quantitative trait loci (QTLs) affecting root morphological traits inBrassica rapa by using molecular markers. An F2 population was developed from a cross between Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa ssp.chinensis) and turnip (B. rapa ssp.rapifera), which differed greatly in root characters. A genetic map covering 1837.1 cM, with 192 marker loci and 11 linkage groups, was constructed by using this F2 population. The F3 families derived from F2 plants were grown in the field and evaluated for taproot traits (thickness, length, and weight). QTL analysis via simple interval mapping detected 18 QTLs for the 3 root traits, including 7 QTLs for taproot thickness, 5 QTLs for taproot length, and 6 QTLs for taproot weight. Individually, the QTLs accounted for 8.4–27.4% of the phenotypic variation. The 2 major QTLs,qTRT4b for taproot thickness andqTRW4 for taproot weight, explained 27.4% and 24.8% of the total phenotypic variance, respectively. The QTLs for root traits, firstly detected inBrassica crops, may provide a basis for marker-assisted selection to improve productivity in root-crop breeding.


Brassica rapa L. turnip Chinese cabbage molecular markers taproot characters quantitative trait loci 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajisaka H, Kuginuki Y, Yui S, Enomoto S, Hirai M, 2001. Identification and mapping of a quantitative trait locus controlling extreme late bolting in Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L. ssppekinensis syn.campestris L.) using bulked segregant analysis: a QTL controlling extreme late bolting in Chinese cabbage. Euphytica 118: 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beebe SE, Rojas-Pierce M, Yan XL, Blair MW, Pedraza F, Munoz F, et al. 2006. Quantitative trait loci for root architecture traits correlated with phosphorus acquisition in common bean. Crop Sci 46: 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen H, 2001. Atlas of the traditional vegetables in China. Zhejiang Science and Technology Publishing House, China: 123–124.Google Scholar
  4. Gupta AK, Singh J, Kaur N, 2001. Sink development, sucrose metabolising enzymes and carbohydrate status in turnip (Brassica rapa L.). Acta Physiol Plant 23: 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Iwata H, Niikura S, Matsuura S, Takano Y, Ukai Y, 2004. Genetic control of root shape at different growth stages in radish (Raphanus sativus L.). Breeding Sci 54: 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson WC, Jackson LE, Ochoa O, van Wijk R, Peleman J, Clair DA, Michelmore RW, 2000. Lettuce, a shallow-rooted crop, andLactuca serriola, its wild progenitor, differ at QTL determining root architecture and deep soil water exploitation. Theor Appl Genet 101: 1066–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kosambi DD, 1944. The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Ann Eugen 12: 172–175.Google Scholar
  8. Lander ES, Green P, Abrahamson J, Bavlow A, Daly MJ, Lincoln SE, Newburg L, 1987. Mapmaker: An interactive computer package for constructing primary genetic linkage maps of experimental and natural populations. Genomics 1: 174–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lincoln SE, Daly MJ, Lander ES, 1992. Construction of genetic maps with MAPMAKER/EXP 3.0. Whitehead Inst Tech Rep Whitehead Inst., Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Lynch JP, van Beem JJ, 1993. Growth and architecture of seedling roots of common bean genotypes. Crop Sci 33: 1253–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lu G, Zhuang XY, 2004. Changes of sink activity and soluble protein during tap-root thickening. J Zhejiang University 30: 39–43 (in Chinese with English Abstract).Google Scholar
  12. Malamy JE, 2005. Intrinsic and environmental response pathways that regulate root system architecture. Plant Cell Environ 28: 67–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Manickavelu A, Nadarajan N, Ganesh S, Gnanamalar RP, Chandrababu R, 2006. Drought tolerance in rice: morphological and molecular genetic consideration. Plant Growth Regul 50: 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nelson JC, 1997. QGENE: software for marker-based genomic analysis and breeding. Mol Breed 3: 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nishioka M, Tamura K, Hayashi M, Fujimori Y, Ohkawa Y, Kuginuki Y, Harada K, 2005. Mapping of QTLs for bolting time inBrassica rapa (syn.campestris) under different environmental conditions. Breeding Sci 55: 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nozaki T, Kumazaki A, Koba T, Ishikawa K, Ikehashi H, 1997. Linkage analysis among loci for RAPDs, isozymes and some agronomic traits inBrassica campestris L. Euphytica 95: 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paterson AH, Lander ES, Had JD, Paterson S, Lincoln SE, Tanksley SD, 1988. Resolution of quantitative traits into Mendelian factors by using a complete linkage map of restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Nature 335: 721–726.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Paterson AH, Damon S, Hewitt J, Zamir D, Rabinowitch HD, Lincoln SE, 1991. Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits in tomato: comparison across species, generations and environments. Genetics 127: 181–197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Price AH, Steele KA, Moore BJ, Barraclough PB, Clark LJ, 2000. A combined RFLP and AFLP linkage map of upland rice (Oryza sativa L.) used to identify QTLs for root-penetration ability. Theor Appl Genet 100: 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reid JB, English JM, 2000. Potential yield in carrots (Daucus carota L.): theory, test and an application. Annals of Botany 85: 593–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robertson BM, Hall AE, Foster KW, 1985. A field technique for screening for genotypic differences in root growth. Crop Sci 25: 1084–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rouhier H, Usuda H, 2001. Spatial and temporal distribution of sucrose synthase in the radish hypocotyl in relation to thickening growth. Plant Cell Physiol 42: 583–593.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. SAS Institute, 1989. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 6, 4th edn. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  24. Shibaike H, 1998. Molecular genetic mapping and plant evolutionary biology. J Plant Res 111: 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Song KM, Slocum MK, Osborn TC, 1995. Molecular marker analysis of genes encoding morphological variation inBrassica rapa (syn.campestris). Theor Appl Genet 90: 1–10.Google Scholar
  26. Steele KA, Price AH, Shashidhar HE, Witcombe JR, 2006. Marker-assisted selection to introgress rice QTLs controlling root traits into an Indian upland rice variety. Theor Appl Genet 112: 208–221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Takuno S, Kawahara T, Ohnishi O, 2007. Phylogenetic relationships among cultivated types ofBrassica rapa L. em. Metag. As revealed by AFLP analysis. Genet Resour Crop Evol 54: 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tanhuanpaa P, Schulman A, 2002. Mapping of genes affecting linolenic acid content inBrassica rapa ssp.oleifera. Mol Breed 10: 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, van de Lee T, Hornes M, et al. 1995. AFLP: a new technique for DNA finger-printing. Nucl Acids Res 23: 4407–4414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams JGK, Kubelik AR, Livak KJ, Rafalski JA, Tingey V, 1990. DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primer are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res 18: 6531–6535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Zobel R, 1986. Rhizogenetics (root genetics) of vegetable crops. HortScience 21: 956–959.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gang Lu
    • 1
  • Jiashu Cao
    • 1
  • Xiaolin Yu
    • 1
  • Xun Xiang
    • 1
  • Hang Chen
    • 2
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Horticultural Plant Growth, Development and Biotechnology, Department of HorticultureZhejiang UniversityHangzhouP.R. China
  2. 2.Institute of National Vegetable ScienceBeijingP.R. China

Personalised recommendations