Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 178, Issue 2, pp 261–272 | Cite as

Marker-assisted backcross selection in an interspecific Cucumis population broadens the genetic base of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)

  • Tusar K. Behera
  • Jack E. Staub
  • Snigdha Behera
  • Isabelle Y. Delannay
  • Jin Feng Chen
Article

Abstract

Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) is a major cucurbit vegetable species whose genetic base has been drastically reduced during its domestication. The crop’s narrow genetic base (3–12% DNA polymorphism) has resulted from the use of limited genetic material and intense selection during plant improvement. Recently, however, interspecific hybridization has been successful in Cucumis via mating of C. hystrix Chakr. and C. sativus, which resulted in the amphidiploid C. hytivus. We report herein a marker-assisted strategy for increasing genetic diversity in cucumber through introgression backcrossing employing C. hytivus. The comparatively late-flowering but high-yielding, indeterminate, monoecious line WI 7012A (P1; donor parent) derived from a C. hytivus × C. sativus-derived line (long-fruited Chinese C. sativus cv. Beijingjietou) was initially crossed to the determinate, gynoecious C. sativus line WI 7023A (P2; recurrent parent 1), and then advanced backcross generation progeny (BC2) were crossed with the gynoecious indeterminate line WI 9-6A (P3; recurrent parent 2). More specifically, a single F1 individual (P1 × P2) was backcrossed to P2, and then BC progeny were crossed to P2 and P3, where marker-assisted selection (MAS) for genetic diversity (8 mapped and 16 unmapped markers; designated Sel) or no selection (designated NSel) was applied to produce BC3P2 (Sel) and BC3P3 (Sel), and BC2P2 (NSel) and BC2P2S1 (NSel) progeny. Relative vegetative growth, number of lateral branches (LB), days to flowering (DF), yield (fruit number), and fruit quality [as measured by length:diameter (L:D) and endocarp:total diameter (E:T) ratios] were assessed in parents and cross-progeny. DF varied from ~20 (BC3P2Sel) to ~25 days (BC2P3Sel) among the populations examined, where progeny derived from P2 possessed the shortest DF. Differences in cumulative yield among the populations over six harvests were detected, varying from ~8 fruits per plant in BC3P2 (Sel) to ~39 fruits per plant in BC2P3 (Sel). Although the vigorous vegetative growth of line P1 was observed in its backcross progeny, highly heterozygous and polymorphic backcross progeny derived from P3 were comparatively more vigorous and bore many high-quality fruit. Response to selection was detected for LB, DF, L:D, and E:T, but the effectiveness of MAS depended upon the parental lines used. Data indicate that the genetic diversity of commercial cucumber can be increased by introgression of the C. hystrix genome through backcrossing.

Keywords

Genetic diversity C. hytivus Molecular markers Morphological traits 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The fund provided by the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, government of India for sponsoring T.K. Behera to carry out research work at the Department of Horticulture, UW Madison, USA is acknowledged and appreciated.

References

  1. Bates DM, Robinson RW (1995) Cucumbers, melons and water-melons. In: Smartt J, Simmonds NW (eds) Evolution of crop plants. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Behera TK, Staub JE, Behera S, Mason S (2010) Response to phenotypic and marker-assisted selection for yield and quality component traits in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Euphytica 171:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradeen JM, Staub JE, Wyse C, Antonise R, Peleman J (2001) Towards an expanded and integrated linkage map of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Genome 44:111–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen JF, Kirkbride JH (2000) A new synthetic species Cucumis (Cucurbitaceae) from inter-specific hybridization and chromosome doubling. Brittonia 52:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen JF, Staub JE, Tashiro Y, Isshiki S, Miyazaki S (1997) Successful interspecific hybridization between Cucumis sativus L. and C. hystrix Chakr. Euphytica 96:413–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen JF, Staub JE, Qian C, Jiang J, Luo X, Zhuang F (2003) Reproduction and cytogenetic characterization of interspecific hybrids derived from Cucumis hystrix Chakr. × Cucumis sativus L. Theor Appl Genet 106:688–695PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramer CS, Wehner TC (1999) Little heterosis for yield and yield components in hybrids of six cucumber inbreds. Euphytica 110:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cramer CS, Wehner TC (2000a) Fruit yield and yield component correlations of four pickling cucumber populations. Cucurbit Genet Coop Rep 23:12–15Google Scholar
  9. Cramer CS, Wehner TC (2000b) Path analysis of the correlation between fruit number and plant traits of cucumber populations. Hortic Sci 35:708–711Google Scholar
  10. Delannay IY (2009) Use of molecular markers to increase genetic diversity of Beit Alpha, European long, and U.S. Processing market classes of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) through marker-assisted selection. PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin at MadisonGoogle Scholar
  11. Delannay IY, Staub JE (2010a) Use of molecular markers aids in the development of diverse inbred backcross lines in Beit Alpha cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Euphytica. DOI  10.1007/s10681-010-0183-2
  12. Delannay IY, Staub JE (2010b) Backcross introgression of the Cucumis hystrix genome increases genetic diversity in U.S. Processing cucumber. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 135:351–361Google Scholar
  13. Dijkhuizen A, Kennard WC, Havey MJ, Staub JE (1996) RFLP variability and genetic relationships in cultivated cucumber. Euphytica 90:79–89Google Scholar
  14. Fan Z, Robbins MD, Staub JE (2006) Population development by phenotypic selection with subsequent marker-assisted selection for line extraction in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Theor Appl Genet 112:843–855CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fazio G (2001) Comparative study of marker assisted and phenotypic selection and genetic analysis of yield components in cucumber. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  16. Fazio G, Staub JE, Chung SM (2002) Development and characterization of PCR markers in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). J Am Soc Hortic Sci 127:545–557Google Scholar
  17. Fazio G, Staub JE, Stevens MR (2003a) Genetic mapping and QTL analysis of horticultural traits in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) using recombinant inbred lines. Theor Appl Genet 107:864–874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fazio G, Chung SM, Staub JE (2003b) Comparative analysis of response to phenotypic and marker-assisted selection for multiple lateral branching in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Theor Appl Genet 107:875–883CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fredrick LR, Staub JE (1989) Combining ability analyses of fruit yield and quality in near-homozygous lines derived from cucumber. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 114:332–338Google Scholar
  20. Harlan JR, de Wet JM (1971) Toward a rational classification of cultivated plants. Taxon 20:509–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horejsi T, Staub JE (1999) Genetic variation in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) as assessed by random amplified polymorphic DNA. Genet Res Crop Evol 46:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kong Q, Xiang C, Yu Z (2006) Development of EST-SSRs in Cucumis sativus from sequence database. Mol Ecol Notes 6:1234–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kupper RS, Staub JE (1988) Combining ability between lines of Cucumis sativus L. and Cucumis sativus var. hardwickii (R.) Alef. Euphytica 38:197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lebeda A, Widrlechner MP, Staub JE, Ezura H, Zalapa J, Krı′stkova′ E (2007) Cucurbits (Cucurbitaceae; Cucumis spp., Cucurbita spp., Citrullus spp.). In: Singh RJ (ed) Genetic resources, chromosome engineering, and crop improvement, vol 3. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 271–376Google Scholar
  25. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  26. Luan F, Delannay I, Staub JE (2008) Melon (Cucumis melo L.) diversity analyses provide strategies for germplasm curation, genetic improvement, and evidentiary support of domestication patterns. Euphytica 164:445–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McDermott JM, McDonald BA (1993) Gene flow in plant pathosystems. Annu Rev Phytopathol 31:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller MP (1997) Tools for population genetic analysis (TEPGA), Version 3. Department of Biological Sciences. Northern Arizona University, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  29. Nam YW, Lee JR, Song KH, Lee MK, Robbins MD, Chung SM, Staub JE, Zhang HB (2005) Construction of two BAC libraries from cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and identification of clones linked to yield component quantitative trait loci. Theor Appl Genet 111:150–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nei M (1973) Genetic distance between populations. Am Nat 106:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Owens KW, Bliss FA, Peterson CE (1985) Genetic-Variation within and between cucumber populations derived via the inbred backcross line method. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 110:437–441Google Scholar
  32. Ren Y, Zhang ZH, Liu JH, Staub JE, Han YH, Cheng ZC, Li XF, Lu JY, Miao H, Kang HX, Bie BY, Gu XF, Wang XW, Du YC, Jin WW, Huang SW (2009) An integrated genetic and cytogenetic map of the cucumber genome. PLoS One 4:e5795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ritschel P, de Lima Lins T, Tristan R, Cortopassi-Buso G, Amauri-Buso J, Ferreira M (2004) Development of microsatellite markers from an enriched genomic library for genetic analysis of melon (Cucumis melo L.). BMC Plant Biol 4:9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Robbins MD, Staub JE (2009) Comparative analysis of marker-assisted and phenotypic selection for yield components in cucumber. Theor Appl Genet 119:621–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Robbins MD, Casler M, Staub JE (2008) Pyramiding QTL for multiple lateral branching in cucumber using nearly isogenic lines. Mol Breed 22:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SAS (2003) SAS Software, Version 9.1 for Windows. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  37. Serquen FC, Bacher J, Staub JE (1997) Genetic analysis of yield components in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) at low plant density. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 122:522–528Google Scholar
  38. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, UrnabaGoogle Scholar
  39. Staub JE, Kupper RS (1985) Results of the use of Cucumis sativus var. hardwickii germplasm following backcrossing with Cucumis sativus var. sativus. Hortic Sci 20:436–438Google Scholar
  40. Staub JE, Peterson CE, Crubaugh LK, Palmer MJ (1992) Cucumber population WI 6383 and derived inbreds WI 5098 and WI 5551. Hortic Sci 27:1340–1341Google Scholar
  41. Staub JE, Crubaugh LK, Fazio G (2002a) Cucumber recombinant inbred lines. Cucurbit Genet Coop Rep 25:1–2Google Scholar
  42. Staub JE, Dane F, Reitsma K, Fazio G, López-Sesé A I (2002b) The formation of test arrays and a core collection in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) using phenotypic and molecular marker data. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 127:558–567Google Scholar
  43. Staub JE, Robbins MD, Wehner TC (2008) Cucumber. In: Prohens J, Nuez F (eds) Vegetables I: Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Chenopodiaceae, and Cucurbitaceae. Springer, New York, pp 241–282Google Scholar
  44. Tarter JA, Goodman MM, Holland JB (2004) Recovery of exotic alleles in semiexotic maize inbreds derived from crosses between Latin American accessions and a temperature line. Theor Appl Genet 109:609–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wehner TC (1989) Breeding for improved yield in cucumber. Plant Breed Rev 6:323–359Google Scholar
  46. Wehrhahn C, Allard RW (1965) The detection and measurement of the effects of individual genes involved in the inheritance of a quantitative character in wheat. Genetics 51:109–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Weng Y, Johnson S, Staub JES, Huang S (2010) An extended intervarietal microsatellite linkage map of cucumber, Cucumis sativus L. Hortic Sci 45:882–886Google Scholar
  48. Yeh FC, Boyle TJB (1997) Population genetic analysis of co-dominant and dominant markers and quantitative traits. Belg J Bot 129:157Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tusar K. Behera
    • 1
  • Jack E. Staub
    • 2
    • 3
  • Snigdha Behera
    • 2
  • Isabelle Y. Delannay
    • 2
  • Jin Feng Chen
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Vegetable ScienceIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.USDA-ARS, Vegetable Crops Unit, Department of HorticultureUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.USDA-ARS, Forage and Range Research LaboratoryUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Key Laboratory of Southern Vegetable Crop Genetic ImprovementNanjing Agricultural UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations