Skip to main content

Table 7 Seed-related QTLs detected in F2 population of E. sibiricus and a comparative genome analysis with Barley and Wheat

From: Construction of the first high-density genetic linkage map and identification of seed yield-related QTLs and candidate genes in Elymus sibiricus, an important forage grass in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau

Traits

Year

LG

Position (cM)

Markers

LOD

PVE (%)

Barley

Wheat

Chromosome

Start

End

Chromosome

Start

End

SL

2016

2

132.789

Marker17770

3.23

6.77

2

525,430,014

525,434,447

2B

166,265,395

173,154,799

2017

14

86.897

Marker46836

3.90

7.63

7

201,764,340

201,764,390

7D

15,895

15,962

2018

14

86.897

Marker46836

3.69

8.17

7

201,764,340

201,764,390

7D

15,895

15,962

FN

2016

8

25.833

Marker37873

4.16

8.22

2

561,040,849

561,040,930

3D

88,006,199

88,006,346

2017

6

67.613

Marker27141

3.87

7.89

5

133,194,102

133,194,508

1B

6,358,937

6,359,405

SS

2016

6

22.431

Marker124682

3.37

8.32

3

289,212,195

289,212,280

7B

191,525,193

191,525,496

SSD

2017

3

55.356

Marker42714

3.04

3.50

2

468,824,875

468,825,323

IWGSC_CSS_6DL _scaff_3270696

185

592

 

11

117.581

Marker358832

3.74

9.48

      

SSC

2016

11

59.219

Marker144585

3.13

6.94

5

74,138,678

74,519,101

3B

207,900,333

300,351,070

2017

2

104.222

Marker147448

3.14

7.27

1

168,916,378

169,305,775

6A

182,509,526

201,508,821

 

3

76.328–77.328

Marker5164

3.09

2.17

5

271,933,595

271,994,082

3B

521,637,350

532,583,969

 

Marker18220

   

6B

105,011,872

105,011,972

 

Marker159117

   

1A

229,214,595

229,214,680

AL

2016

1

4.286

Marker126869

5.63

10.37

1

167,306,197

167,306,286

4A

169,140,642

202,332,198

 

5

13.755

Marker43872

3.48

5.71

      
 

6

32.507

Marker36805

3.00

4.70

1H_unordered

6,651,693

6,651,781

5B

50,717,504

173,868,037

 

11

99.908

Marker115159

3.10

5.96

   

6B

19,131,019

19,131,091

2017

1

183.45

Marker170807

4.12

7.66

3

255,290,836

255,290,962

IWGSC_CSS_5DS _scaff_2780361

9985

10,253

2018

1

183.45

Marker170807

4.80

9.60

3

255,290,836

255,290,962

IWGSC_CSS_5DS _scaff_2780361

9985

10,253

 

13

110.648

Marker78024

3.33

7.73

1H_unordered

3,661,356

3,661,808

7D

139,977,810

147,025,902

WS

2017

5

89.494

Marker83614

3.43

6.34

      
 

12

27.128

Marker9523

3.59

10.85

1

406,764,725

406,764,825

7A

176,324,811

176,324,911

2018

12

0–1

Marker74289

10.62

4.63

      
 

Marker14232

6

305,405,950

305,723,291

6D

14,745,809

79,835,131

 

Marker78094

7

150,597,839

150,598,042

2B

312,751,553

312,751,613

 

Marker194422

5

10,598,527

10,599,030

IWGSC_CSS_5AS _scaff_1534198

2678

3168

SW1

2016

9

172.925–173.425

Marker71571

3.78

9.10

7

248,346,134

248,346,234

3A

112,164,566

113,254,286

 

Marker269877

3

406,889,670

406,889,761

3B

43,676,691

43,677,121

 

Marker103013

2HS_unordered

334,091

334,191

2D

120,033,794

125,789,378

 

Marker114890

2

551,173,341

551,173,439

3B

65,016,288

65,016,388

 

Marker83710

   

2B

97,262,681

97,262,764

 

Marker16854

1

308,951,091

308,951,574

7D

187,064,140

187,064,237

 

Marker150167

   

7B

130,188,660

130,189,144

 

10

59.903

Marker146504

3.57

4.75

   

6A

168,554,803

168,554,905

2017

4

73.78

Marker64733

4.43

6.24

4

289,745,492

289,745,569

1D

61,289,255

102,398,709

 

7

33.751

Marker39194

3.89

8.17

   

4A

179,051,368

179,051,906

 

9

179.183

Marker220020

3.09

5.68

      
 

Marker127996

7

228,688,948

228,688,991

1D

63,473,969

70,540,158

2018

7

33.751

Marker39194

3.61

7.72

   

4A

179,051,368

179,051,906

 

9

0.75

Marker147559

3.25

3.26

5

484,748,382

484,748,419

5D

101,712,306

101,712,696

 

Marker211648

      
 

Marker307331

5

335,768,023

335,768,120

6B

157,240,266

157,240,367

 

12

17.107

Marker34249

3.56

8.13

5

62,560,678

62,560,749

5D

146,115,303

146,115,379

  1. LG Linkage group, LOD the logarithm of odds score, PVE the percentage of the phenotypic variance explained by individual QTL