Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T10:29:40.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Development and identification of new synthetic T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2018

Hongyu Li
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Xiaojuan Liu
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Minghu Zhang
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Zhen Feng
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Dengcai Liu
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Michael Ayliffe
Affiliation:
CSIRO Agriculture, Box 1600, Clunies Ross Street, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
Ming Hao
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Shunzong Ning
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Zhongwei Yuan
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Zehong Yan
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Xuejiao Chen
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
Lianquan Zhang*
Affiliation:
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, 211 Huimin Road, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: zhanglianquan1977@126.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Triticum monococcum ssp. monococcum has useful traits for bread wheat improvement. The synthesis of Triticum turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids is an essential step for transferring genes from T. monococcum into bread wheat. In this study, 264 wide hybridization combinations were done by crossing 60 T. turgidum lines belonging to five subspecies with 83 T. monococcum accessions. Without embryo rescue and hormone treatment, from the 10,810 florets pollinated, 1983 seeds were obtained, with a mean crossability of 18.34% (range 0–89.29%). Many hybrid seeds (90.73%, 923/1017) could germinate and produce plants. A total of 56 new amphiploids (AABBAmAm) were produced by colchicine treatment of T. turgidum × T. monococcum F1 hybrids. The chromosome constitution of amphiploids was characterized by fluorescence in situ hybridization using oligonucleotides probes with different chromosome and sub-chromosome specificities. Sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis analysis indicated that the Glu-A1m-b, Glu-A1m-c, Glu-A1m-d and Glu-A1m-h proteins of T. monococcum were expressed in some amphiploids. Despite resistance reduction in several cases, 45 out of 56 amphiploids exhibited resistance to the current predominant Chinese stripe rust races at both the seedling and adult plant stage. These novel amphiploids provide new germplasm for the potential improvement of bread wheat quality and stripe rust resistance.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2018 

Introduction

Alien species are important resources for increasing the genetic diversity of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (Mujeeb-Kazi and Kimber, Reference Mujeeb-Kazi and Kimber1985). The cultivated einkorn T. monococcum L. subsp. monococcum (2n = 2x = 14, genome AmAm) is the first cultivated wheat. It is closely related to Triticum urartu Tumanian ex Gandilyan (2n = 2x = 14, AuAu) which is the A genome donor progenitor of hexaploid bread wheat (Dvorák et al., Reference Dvorák, Terlizzi, Zhang and Resta1993). T. monococcum ssp. monococcum has useful traits for bread wheat improvement, such as high-protein content (Tranquilli et al., Reference Tranquilli, Cuniberti, Gianibelli, Bullrich, Larroque, MacRitchie and Dubcovsky2002), diverse Glu-A1mx alleles (Li et al., Reference Li, Li, Zeng, Zhao, Chen, Kou, Ning, Yuan, Zheng, Liu and Zhang2016, Reference Li, Li, Chen, Liu, Kou, Ning, Yuan, Hao, Liu and Zhang2017), tolerance to cold stress (Aslan et al., Reference Aslan, Ordu and Zencirci2016), resistance to preharvest sprouting (Sodkiewicz, Reference Sodkiewicz2002) and high resistance to diseases (Mikhova, Reference Mikhova1988; Hussien et al., Reference Hussien, Bowden, Gill and Cox1998; Chhuneja et al., Reference Chhuneja, Kaur, Garg, Ghai, Kaur, Prashar, Bains, Goel, Keller, Dhaliwal and Singh2008; Rouse and Jin, Reference Rouse and Jin2011a, Reference Rouse and Jinb; Schmolke et al., Reference Schmolke, Mohler, Hartl, Zeller, Sai and Hsam2012; Zaharieva and Monneveux, Reference Zaharieva and Monneveux2014). Moreover, its high tocol and carotenoid contents make it a promising source for functional food production (Brandolini et al., Reference Brandolini, Hidalgo and Moscaritolo2008).

The application of cultivated einkorn in bread wheat breeding is greatly limited by its poor crossability and the sterile F1 hybrids produced by its direct cross with bread wheat (The and Baker, Reference The and Baker1975; Cox et al., Reference Cox, Harrell, Chen and Gill1991; Plamenov et al., Reference Plamenov, Belchev, Kiryakova and Spetsov2009). Post-syngamic hybridization barriers resulting in embryo abortion and failure of endosperm development make direct transfer of useful genes from einkorn to bread wheat difficult (Bhagyalakshmi et al., Reference Bhagyalakshmi, Vinod, Kumar, Arumugachamy, Prabhakaran and Raveendran2008). An alternative approach for introgressing traits from a diploid species into hexaploid wheat is to create amphiploids between diploid and tetraploid species which are then subsequently crossed with cultivated wheat (Dorofeev et al., Reference Dorofeev, Udachin, Semenova, Novikova, Grazhdaninova, Shitova, Merezhko and Filatenko1987).

There are two main methods for synthetic amphiploid production using T. monococcum. One method is by producing Triticum timococcum or synthetic Triticum zhukovskyi (2n = 6x = 42, AtAtGGAmAm) by crossing Triticum timopheevii and T. monococcum (Kostov, Reference Kostov1936; Cao et al., Reference Cao, Armstrong and Fedak2000; Goncharov et al., Reference Goncharov, Bannikova and Kawahara2007). New T. timococcum lines were recently developed in order to introgress useful genes for conventional and organic wheat breeding (Mikó et al., Reference Mikó, Megyeri, Farkas, Molnár and Molnár-Láng2015). The second is by Triticum turgidumT. monococcum amphiploid (AABBAmAm, 2n = 6x = 42) production which combines useful einkorn genes with tetraploid T. turgidum wheat, usually T. turgidum ssp. durum (Dorofeev et al., Reference Dorofeev, Udachin, Semenova, Novikova, Grazhdaninova, Shitova, Merezhko and Filatenko1987; Gill et al., Reference Gill, Dhaliwal and Multani1988; Mujeeb-Kazi and Hettel, Reference Mujeeb-Kazi and Hettel1995; Watanabe et al., Reference Watanabe, Kobayashi and Furuta1997; Cakmak et al., Reference Cakmak, Cakmak, Eker, Ozdemir, Watanabe and Braun1999; Megyeri et al., Reference Megyeri, Mikó, Molnár and Kovács2011).

In the present study, we have developed 56 T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids using 31 T. turgidum accessions from five subspecies. This article reports the development, molecular cytogenetic identification and the agronomic trait evaluation of these new synthetic T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids.

Materials and methods

Plant materials

Sixty T. turgidum and 83 T. monococcum accessions with diverse geographic origins (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Yan, Dai, Chen, Yuan, Zheng and Liu2008; Li et al., Reference Li, Li, Zeng, Zhao, Chen, Kou, Ning, Yuan, Zheng, Liu and Zhang2016) were used in this study. Lines with PI or CItr prefixes were kindly provided by USDA-ARS, USA while AS lines were obtained from the Sichuan Agricultural University. These T. turgidum lines were derived from either subspecies dicoccon (26 lines), durum (three lines), turanicum (six lines), turgidum (24 lines) or persicum (one line) (Van Slageren, Reference Van Slageren1994). All 83 T. monococcum accessions used were T. monococcum ssp. monococcum (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Yan, Dai, Chen, Yuan, Zheng and Liu2008; Li et al., Reference Li, Li, Zeng, Zhao, Chen, Kou, Ning, Yuan, Zheng, Liu and Zhang2016).

Hybridization

Hybridization between these species was undertaken using T. turgidum as the female parent and T. monococcum as the male parent. Reciprocal crosses were not attempted since einkorn cytoplasm induces male sterility (The and Baker, Reference The and Baker1975). Crosses were made under field conditions in the 2013–2014 crop season. Emasculation and pollination were done as previously described by Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Yan, Dai, Chen, Yuan, Zheng and Liu2008). No embryo rescue or hormone treatment was applied for the production of F1 seeds. The spikes were harvested and the number of seeds set per spike counted approximately 20 d after pollination. Crossability was expressed as the percentage of seed set per floret pollination for each line.

Chromosome doubling by colchicine treatment

F1 seeds were germinated in Petri dishes and the root tips analysed cytologically prior to planting. Hybrid F1 plants were chromosome doubled by colchicine treatment at the three-tiller stage according to Cao et al. (Reference Cao, Armstrong and Fedak2000) and then transplanted in the field at the Wenjiang Experimental Station of Sichuan Agricultural University. Treated F1 plants were self-fertilized and the seed set (percentage of selfed seed set per self-pollenated floret) for each plant calculated.

Cytological observation

Cytological observation on chromosome number in root-tip cells and chromosome pairing in pollen-mother cells (PMCs) were done as previously described by Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Yen, Zheng and Liu2007). For meiotic analysis, at least 50 PMCs were observed for each synthetic amphiploid. Univalent (I), bivalents (II), trivalents (III), quadrivalents (IV) and pentavalents (V) were counted and their average numbers were calculated.

Multicolour fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was carried out according to Tang et al. (Reference Tang, Yang and Fu2014) and Zhao et al. (Reference Zhao, Ning, Yu, Hao, Zhang, Yuan, Zheng and Liu2016). For multicolour FISH, synthetic oligonucleotides Oligo-pSc119.2-1, Oligo-pTa71-2, Oligo-pTa535-1 and (AAC)5 were used as probes to detect FISH signals in order to differentiate individual chromosomes of T. turgidum and T. monococcum in newly synthesized T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids. Probe Oligo-pSc119.2-1 preferentially paints tandem repeats on B-genome chromosomes, Oligo-pTa71-2 is largely specific for the sub-terminal regions of 1BS and 6BS, Oligo-pTa535-1 preferentially paints tandem repeats on the Am- and A-genome chromosomes, while (AAC)5 is largely specific for the 6Am chromosome (Megyeri et al., Reference Megyeri, Farkas, Varga, Kovács, Molnár-Láng and Molnár2012, Reference Megyeri, Mikó, Farkas, Molnár-Láng and Molnár2017; Tang et al., Reference Tang, Yang and Fu2014; Zeng et al., Reference Zeng, Luo, Li, Chen, Zhang, Ning, Yuan, Zheng, Hao and Liu2016). All probes were synthesized and labelled with FAM or Tamra (TSINGKE Biological Technology Company, Chengdu, China). Hybridization signals were observed using an Olympus BX-63 epifluorescence microscope and the images were photographed using a Photometric SenSys Olympus DP70 CCD camera (Olympus, Tokyo). Raw images were processed using Photoshop ver. 7.1 (Adobe Systems Incorporated, San Jose, CA, USA). Individual chromosomes of amphiploids were compared with the karyotypes of the previously published FISH patterns of T. turgidum (Zeng et al., Reference Zeng, Luo, Li, Chen, Zhang, Ning, Yuan, Zheng, Hao and Liu2016) and T. monococcum (Megyeri et al., Reference Megyeri, Farkas, Varga, Kovács, Molnár-Láng and Molnár2012; Mikó et al., Reference Mikó, Megyeri, Farkas, Molnár and Molnár-Láng2015).

SDS-PAGE analysis

Seed protein extraction and sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) were undertaken as described by Yan et al. (Reference Yan, Wan, Liu, Zheng and Wang2002). Detection of Glu-A1mx proteins of T. monococcum was as described by Li et al. (Reference Li, Li, Zeng, Zhao, Chen, Kou, Ning, Yuan, Zheng, Liu and Zhang2016). Bread wheat cultivars Chuanyu 12 (subunit 1, 7 + 8, 5 + 10), Longfumai 1 (2*, 7 + 8, 5 + 10) and Chinese Spring (null, 7 + 8, 2 + 12) were used as reference standards for comparing the electrophoretic mobility of HMW-GSs.

Stripe rust resistance evaluation

Field evaluation for stripe rust resistance was conducted both at seedling and adult plant stages at the Wenjiang Experimental Station of Sichuan Agricultural University in the 2015–2016 crop season. Lines were grown as individual plants spaced 10 cm apart in 2 m rows with 30 cm between rows. The highly rust-susceptible spreader variety SY95-71 was planted on each side of each experimental row. A stripe rust epidemic was initiated 6 weeks after planting by inoculating plants with urediniospores mixtures that included current predominant Chinese stripe rust races such as CYR32, CYR33 and CYR34. Rust isolates were provided by the Research Institute of Plant Protection, Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Stripe rust infection type (IT) on individual plants was recorded three times at 10 d intervals. Disease notes were taken when the flag leaves of the susceptible check SY95-71 were heavily infected. For each plant, the IT produced was estimated on a 1–9 scale (Wellings and Bariana, Reference Wellings and Bariana2004) with the highest IT recorded used as the resistance type of the line. Plant ITs were divided into seven classes: highly resistant (1–2), resistant (3), moderately resistant (4), intermediate (5), moderately susceptible (6–7), susceptible (8) and highly susceptible (9).

Results

The crossability of T. turgidum with T. monococcum

Two hundred and sixty-four hybridization combinations were undertaken by crossing 60 T. turgidum lines, belonging to five subspecies, with 83 T. monococcum accessions (online Supplementary Tables S1–S3). From the 10,810 florets pollinated, 1983 seeds were obtained. The mean crossability of the 264 combinations was 18.34% and ranged from 0 to 89.29% depending upon the cross. Many (90.73%, 923/1017) of the hybrid seeds produced germinated and produce plants. Amongst the 264 T. turgidum × T. monococcum combinations, 34.47% failed to produce seeds and 6.44% had crossabilities <5%, while 9.47%, 9.09, 7.95, 7.95, 5.68 and 12.88% of combinations had crossabilities of 5–10, 10–15, 15–20, 20–25, 25–30 and 30–50%, respectively. One hundred and fifty-six combinations had crossabilities >5% and are listed in online Supplementary Table S1. A total of 6.06% of combinations had crossability frequencies >50% and all these latter highly compatible combinations were obtained from crosses between T. turgidum subspecies turgidum and dicoccon with T. monococcum. Of the five T. turgidum subspecies investigated, the persicum and durum subspecies exhibited highest crossability (>30%), while dicoccon had the lowest crossability with 11.90% (online Supplementary Table S2). Amongst the 83 T. monococcum accessions, PI352486, PI352484 and PI355517 showed the highest crossability (>50%).

Production of T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids

Randomly selected hybrid seeds were germinated to produce F1 plants. The F1 seeds from 163 crosses germinated with the germination rate of 90.37% (913/1010) and produced vigorous F1 plants (online Supplementary Table S4). Chromosome number of root-tip cells was used for hybrid confirmation with 21 chromosomes (triploid) present in hybrids (online Supplementary Fig. S1). Between one and five F1 plants from each of the 163 crosses were chromosome doubled by colchicine treatment at the three-tiller stage. Treated plants from 70 of these crosses successfully generated selfed seed (S1) (online Supplementary Table S4) although seed was viable from 56 synthetic amphiploids only. The chromosome number of root-tip cells with 2n = 42 confirmed the success of chromosome doubling (online Supplementary Fig. S2). These 56 viable lines were produced from crosses involving 31 T. turgidum lines and 31 T. monococcum accessions (online Supplementary Table S4). Progeny from viable synthetic amphiploids grew vigorously (online Supplementary Fig. S3) and some of them produced more than 30 spikelets (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Examples of spike morphology of amphiploids. (1) Syn-TAM-1, (2) Syn-TAM-2, (3) Syn-TAM-3, (4) Syn-TAM-4, (5) Syn-TAM-5, (6) Syn-TAM-6, (7) Syn-TAM-10, (8) Syn-TAM-11, (9) Syn-TAM-13, (10) Syn-TAM-14, (11) Syn-TAM-15, (12) Syn-TAM-25, (13) Syn-TAM-26, (14) Syn-TAM-27, (15) Syn-TAM-28, (16) Syn-TAM-29, (17) Syn-TAM-33, (18) Syn-TAM-35, (19) Syn-TAM-37, (20) Syn-TAM-38, (21) Syn-TAM-39, (22) Syn-TAM-41, (23) Syn-TAM-42, (24) Syn-TAM-43, (25) Syn-TAM-44, (26) Syn-TAM-46.

Chromosome observations in amphiploids

S3 progeny from nine amphiploids were observed to contain around 40–42 chromosomes (Table 1). Plants from these nine lines that contained 42 chromosomes were used for multicolour FISH using probes Oligo-pSc119.2-1, Oligo-pTa71-2, Oligo-pTa535-1 and (AAC)5 that are largely specific for the B genome, sub-terminal regions of 1BS and 6BS, Am and A genomes, and chromosome 6Am, respectively. The red coloured Oligo-pSc119.2-1 probe gave strong signals on all the B genome chromosomes and weaker signals at the terminal end of the short or long arm on three A chromosomes (2A, 4A and 5A) (Fig. 2). The yellow coloured Oligo-pTa71-2 probe produced strong signals at the sub-terminal regions of chromosomes 1BS, 6BS (Fig. 2). The green coloured Oligo-pTa535-1 probe, which hybridized mainly to chromosomes of the Am and A genomes (Fig. 2), could distinguish these two karyotypes with the inclusion of probe (AAC)5 which identifies chromosome 6Am. The probe (AAC)5 gave strong signals on chromosome 6Am (Fig. 2(a)), which was different from signals on the other Am chromosomes. The probe (AAC)5 gave no signals on chromosome 6A of the examined tetraploid parent. Combining these four probes successfully discriminated the entire 42 chromosomes of synthetic T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids (Fig. 2(a)).

Fig. 2. Examples of FISH identification using four synthetic oligonucleotides probes of Oligo-pSc119.2-1 (red), Oligo-pTa535-1 (green), Oligo-pTa71-2 (yellow) and (AAC)5 (green). FISH karyotypes of A, B, Am genomes in Syn-TAM-24 and its parents (a), a cell of Syn-TAM-24 (b), T. monococcum ssp. monococcum CItr13962 (c), and T. turgidum ssp. turanicum PI184526 (d).

Table 1. Chromosome number distribution and chromosome pairing of T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids

a I, univalent; II, bivalent; III, trivalent; IV, quadrivalent; V, pentavalent.

S3 plants with 42 chromosomes and analysed by FISH were also used for meiotic analysis of chromosome pairing in PMCs at metaphase I (Table 1, online Supplementary Fig. S4). Most of the 42 chromosomes paired as bivalents, while a low number of trivalents, quadrivalents and pentavalents were also observed. The presence of these multi-valents suggests that pairing between Am and A chromosomes occurred, while pentavalents may be a consequence of chromosome rearrangements such as translocation.

SDS-PAGE analysis

S3 seeds from 56 T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids and their parents were used for SDS-PAGE analysis. The 31 T. monococcum parents of these amphiploids collectively expressed six Glu-A1mx proteins (online Supplementary Table S5; Li et al., Reference Li, Li, Zeng, Zhao, Chen, Kou, Ning, Yuan, Zheng, Liu and Zhang2016). Four of these T. monococcum proteins, Glu-A1m-b, Glu-A1m-c, Glu-A1m-d and Glu-A1m-h, were detected in numerous amphiploids (three, three, 31 and one line, respectively) (Fig. 3). However, this analysis was compromised by the co-migration of different Glu-A1x proteins present in T. turgidum and T. monococcum. Specifically T. monococcum Glu-A1m-c, Glu-A1m-d, Glu-A1m-e and Glu-A1m-f proteins had similar electrophoretic mobility to the Glu-A1x proteins of T. turgidum parents of two, 11, three and two amphiploids, respectively. It was therefore not possible to distinguish the parental origin of Glu-A1 proteins in these lines (online Supplementary Table S5).

Fig. 3. SDS-PAGE profiles of HMW-GSs in some amphiploids and their parents. (1) AS2310, (2) Syn-TAM-38, (3) PI355517 (Glu-A1m-b), (4) AS2637, (5) Syn-TAM-3, (6) CItr13961 (Glu-A1m-c), (7) PI94670, (8) Syn-TAM-8, (9) PI503874 (Glu-A1m-d), (10) AS2334, (11) Syn-TAM-56, (12) PI355521 (Glu-A1m-h), bread wheat CY12, cv. Chuanyu 12 (1, 7 + 8, 5 + 10); LM1, cv. Longfumai 1 (2*, 7 + 8, 5 + 10); and CS, cv. Chinese Spring (7 + 8, 2 + 12). The Glu-A1mx alleles expressed in amphiploids were indicated by white arrows.

Evaluation for stripe rust resistance

Field evaluation of stripe rust resistance showed that 80% of amphiploids (45/56), 74% of tetraploid parents (23/31) and 74% of diploid parents (21/31) were resistant (IT: 1–4) at the seedling stage to the mixed rust inoculum (online Supplementary Table S5). Amongst these plants at the adult stage, 89% (50), 65% (20) and 100% (31) of amphiploids, tetraploid parents and diploid parents were resistant, respectively (IT: 1–4). Forty-five amphiploids (80%) (Fig. 4), 19 tetraploid parents (61%) and 23 diploid parents (74%) were resistant to stripe rust disease at both the seedling and adult plant stages.

Fig. 4. Stripe rust resistance at the adult stage of some amphiploids. (1) The bread wheat check SY95-71, (2) Syn-TAM-1, (3) Syn-TAM-2, (4) Syn-TAM-3, (5) Syn-TAM-4, (6) Syn-TAM-5, (7) Syn-TAM-6, (8) Syn-TAM-10, (9) Syn-TAM-11, (10) Syn-TAM-13, (11) Syn-TAM-14, (12) Syn-TAM-15.

Five amphiploid lines (Syn-TAM-12, Syn-TAM-17, Syn-TAM-22, Syn-TAM-51 and Syn-TAM-53), the tetraploid parent PI221401 and the eight diploid parents (CItr13961, CItr13962, CItr17652, CItr17653, CItr17662, PI265008, PI355521 and PI560726) were susceptible at the seedling stage but resistant at the adult plant stage (online Supplementary Table S5). These lines are potentially useful germplasm sources for incorporating adult plant resistance into breeding programmes.

Reduction of stripe rust resistance was observed for both seedling and adult plant resistance in some amphiploids (online Supplementary Table S5). At the seedling stage, the resistance from three T. monococcum lines (PI503874, PI518452 and PI560727) was completely lost in their amphiploid derivatives (Syn-TAM-8, Syn-TAM-9 and Syn-TAM-23), while the resistance from some lines was partially reduced in their amphiploid. Similar situations were also appeared at the adult plant stage. Some factors such as chromosome absence and suppression under the new amphiploid background could cause resistance loss or reduction.

Discussion

The success or failure of interspecific hybridization largely depends on crossability. Crossability is hence an important factor for developing amphiploids (Megyeri et al., Reference Megyeri, Mikó, Molnár and Kovács2011). Our results demonstrate that crossability between T. turgidum ssp. durum and T. monococcum ssp. monococcum is affected by parental genotypes (The and Baker, Reference The and Baker1975; Gul Kazi et al., Reference Gul Kazi, Rasheed, Bashir, Bux, Aziz Napar and Mujeeb-Kazi2011). In this study, some T. turgidum and T. monococcum genotypes showed high crossability thereby enabling the successful development of new amphiploids, while crosses between other genotypes were unsuccessful.

Resistance suppression can be a problem when transferring resistance from a lower ploidy level (Kema et al., Reference Kema, Lange and van Silfhout1995; Ma et al., Reference Ma, Singh and Mujeeb-Kazi1997; Knott, Reference Knott2000; Ahmed et al., Reference Ahmed, Bux, Rasheed, Gul Kazi, Rauf, Mahmood and Mujeeb-kazi2014). In this study, stripe rust resistance from T. monococcum was probably suppressed in several T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids both at seedling and adult plant stages. However, 50 amphiploids exhibited adult plant resistance to the current predominant Chinese stripe rust races and 45 were resistant at both the seedling and adult plant stages, with some lines carry resistance from both T. turgidum and T. monococcum. These novel amphiploids are promising genetic resources for introducing new wheat stripe rust resistance into breeding programmes.

HMW-GSs are components of the glutenin polymer and play a key role in determining the unique visco-elastic properties of wheat dough (Payne Reference Payne1987). T. monococcum ssp. monococcum is considered a valuable resource for wheat bread-making quality improvement (Tranquilli et al., Reference Tranquilli, Cuniberti, Gianibelli, Bullrich, Larroque, MacRitchie and Dubcovsky2002). Variation at the Glu-A1x locus in common wheat is rare, however, diverse Glu-A1mx alleles are present in T. monococcum ssp. monococcum (Li et al., Reference Li, Li, Zeng, Zhao, Chen, Kou, Ning, Yuan, Zheng, Liu and Zhang2016, Reference Li, Li, Chen, Liu, Kou, Ning, Yuan, Hao, Liu and Zhang2017). In this study, Glu-A1m-b, Glu-A1m-c, Glu-A1m-d and Glu-A1m-h proteins were detected in amphiploid plants that could potentially further improve wheat quality.

Chromosome pairing and recombination between Am and A genomes is essential for transferring genes from T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids into bread wheat. Meiosis of PMCs in hybrids between T. turgidum ssp. dicoccum and T. monococcum was described by Mather (Reference Mather1936) and a maximum of seven configurations found. Meiotic analysis from three T. aestivum/T. monococcum hybrids showed on average five bivalents and 0.16 trivalents per cell (Cox et al., Reference Cox, Harrell, Chen and Gill1991). In our study, multi-valent chromosome pairing was also observed at meiosis in amphiploids. These studies suggest that chromosome pairing does occur between Am and A chromosomes, enabling amphiploids to be used as a ‘bridge’ to transfer useful genes from T. monococcum into bread wheat.

FISH was an effective tool for identifying chromosomes from the A and B genomes of T. turgidum and Am genome of T. monococcum ssp. monococcum (Megyeri et al., Reference Megyeri, Farkas, Varga, Kovács, Molnár-Láng and Molnár2012, Reference Megyeri, Mikó, Farkas, Molnár-Láng and Molnár2017). In this study, the combination of oligonucleotide probes Oligo-pSc119.2-1, Oligo-pTa71-2, Oligo-pTa535-1 and (AAC)5 successfully differentiated individual chromosomes originating from T. turgidum and T. monococcum ssp. monococcum in newly synthesized T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids. These probes can be further used as cytological markers in future breeding with these T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids.

In conclusion, we have produced new T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids that are potentially valuable resources for wheat improvement. Ongoing work will select those T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids lines with useful traits and then introduce these traits into bread wheat followed by backcrossing. It is envisaged that these new traits will make a significant contribution to future wheat improvement.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262118000175.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor Qiuzhen Jia, Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, for providing Chinese stripe rust races. This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program (2017YFD0100904), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31671682, 31671689, 31701426) and the Major International (Regional) Joint Research Project (31661143007).

References

Ahmed, S, Bux, H, Rasheed, A, Gul Kazi, A, Rauf, A, Mahmood, T and Mujeeb-kazi, A (2014) Stripe rust resistance in Triticum durumT. monococcum and T. durumT. urartu amphiploids. Australasian Plant Pathology 43: 109113.Google Scholar
Aslan, D, Ordu, B and Zencirci, N (2016) Einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum ssp. monococcum) tolerates cold stress better than bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during germination. Journal of Field Crops Central Research Institute 25: 182192.Google Scholar
Bhagyalakshmi, K, Vinod, KK, Kumar, M, Arumugachamy, S, Prabhakaran, AJ and Raveendran, TS (2008) Interspecific hybrids from wild × cultivated Triticum crosses – a study on the cytological behaviour and molecular relations. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology 11: 257262.Google Scholar
Brandolini, A, Hidalgo, A and Moscaritolo, S (2008) Chemical composition and pasting properties of einkorn (Triticum monococcum L. subsp. monococcum) whole meal flour. Journal of Cereal Science 47: 599609.Google Scholar
Cakmak, I, Cakmak, O, Eker, S, Ozdemir, A, Watanabe, N and Braun, HJ (1999) Expression of high zinc efficiency of Aegilops tauschii and Triticum monococcum in synthetic hexaploid wheats. Plant Soil 215: 203209.Google Scholar
Cao, W, Armstrong, K and Fedak, G (2000) A synthetic zhukovskyi wheat. Wheat Information Service 91: 3032.Google Scholar
Chhuneja, P, Kaur, S, Garg, T, Ghai, M, Kaur, S, Prashar, M, Bains, NS, Goel, RK, Keller, B, Dhaliwal, HS and Singh, K (2008) Mapping of adult plant stripe rust resistance genes in diploid A genome wheat species and their transfer to bread wheat. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 116: 313324.Google Scholar
Cox, TS, Harrell, LG, Chen, P and Gill, BS (1991) Reproductive behavior of hexaploid/diploid wheat hybrids. Plant Breeding 107: 105118.Google Scholar
Dorofeev, VF, Udachin, RA, Semenova, LV, Novikova, MV, Grazhdaninova, OD, Shitova, IP, Merezhko, AF and Filatenko, AA (1987) World Wheat. Agropromizdat: Leningrad (in Russian).Google Scholar
Dvorák, J, Terlizzi, P, Zhang, HB and Resta, P (1993) The evolution of polyploid wheats: identification of the A genome donor species. Genome 36: 2131.Google Scholar
Gill, RS, Dhaliwal, HS and Multani, DS (1988) Synthesis and evaluation of Triticum durumT. monococcum amphiploids. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 75: 912916.Google Scholar
Goncharov, NP, Bannikova, SV and Kawahara, T (2007) Wheat artificial amphiploids involving the Triticum timopheevii genome: their studies, preservation and reproduction. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 54: 15071516.Google Scholar
Gul Kazi, A, Rasheed, A, Bashir, F, Bux, H, Aziz Napar, A and Mujeeb-Kazi, A (2011) A-genome based diversity status and its practical utilization in wheat. Annual Wheat Newsletter 57: 92114.Google Scholar
Hussien, T, Bowden, RL, Gill, BS and Cox, TS (1998) Chromosomal locations in common wheat of three new leaf rust resistance genes from Triticum monococcum. Euphytica 101: 127131.Google Scholar
Kema, GH, Lange, W and van Silfhout, CH (1995) Differential suppression of stripe rust resistance in synthetic wheat hexaploid derived from Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccoides and Aegilops squarrosa. Phytopathology 85: 425429.Google Scholar
Knott, DR (2000) Inheritance of resistance to stem rust in Medea durum wheat and the role of suppressors. Crop Science 40: 98102.Google Scholar
Kostov, D (1936) Investigation of polyploid plants. XI. Amphiploid T. timopheevii zhuk. × T. monococcum l. Doklady Academy of Sciences USSR 1: 3236 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Li, HY, Li, ZL, Zeng, XX, Zhao, LB, Chen, G, Kou, CL, Ning, SZ, Yuan, ZW, Zheng, YL, Liu, DC and Zhang, LQ (2016) Molecular characterization of different Triticum monococcum ssp. monococcum Glu-A1mx alleles. Cereal Research Communications 44: 444452.Google Scholar
Li, ZL, Li, HY, Chen, G, Liu, XJ, Kou, CL, Ning, SZ, Yuan, ZW, Hao, M, Liu, DC and Zhang, LQ (2017) Molecular characterization of seven novel Glu-A1mx alleles from Triticum monococcum ssp. monococcum. Cereal Research Communications 45: 647654.Google Scholar
Ma, H, Singh, RP and Mujeeb-Kazi, A (1997) Resistance to stripe rust in durum wheats, A-genome diploids, and their amphiploids. Euphytica 94: 279286.Google Scholar
Mather, K (1936) Chromosome behavior in a triploid wheat hybrid. Cell and Tissue Research 23: 117138.Google Scholar
Megyeri, M, Mikó, P, Molnár, I and Kovács, G (2011) Development of synthetic amphiploids based of Triticum turgidum × T. monococcum crosses to improve the adaptability of cereals. Acta Agronomica Hungarica 59: 267274.Google Scholar
Megyeri, M, Farkas, A, Varga, M, Kovács, G, Molnár-Láng, M and Molnár, I (2012) Karyotypic analysis of Triticum monococcum using standard repetitive DNA probes and simple sequence repeats. Acta Agronomica Hungarica 60: 8795.Google Scholar
Megyeri, M, Mikó, P, Farkas, A, Molnár-Láng, M and Molnár, I (2017) Cytomolecular discrimination of the Am chromosomes of Triticum monococcum and the A chromosomes of Triticum aestivum using microsatellite DNA repeats. Journal of Applied Genetics 58: 6770.Google Scholar
Mikhova, S (1988) Sources of resistance to yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis West.) in the genus Triticum. Rasteniev dni-Nauki 25: 38 (English Abstract).Google Scholar
Mikó, P, Megyeri, M, Farkas, A, Molnár, I and Molnár-Láng, M (2015) Molecular cytogenetic identification and phenotypic description of a new synthetic amphiploid, Triticum timococcum (AtAtGGAmAm). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 62: 5566.Google Scholar
Mujeeb-Kazi, A and Hettel, GP (1995) Utilizing wild grass biodiversity in wheat improvement: 15 years of wide cross research at CIMMYT. CIMMYT Research Report 2: 1140.Google Scholar
Mujeeb-Kazi, A and Kimber, G (1985) The production, cytology and practicality of wide hybrids in the Triticeae. Cereal Research Communications 13: 111124.Google Scholar
Payne, PI (1987) Genetics of wheat storage proteins and the effect of allelic variation on bread-making quality. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 38: 141153.Google Scholar
Plamenov, D, Belchev, I, Kiryakova, V and Spetsov, P (2009) Fungal resistance of Triticum durumT. monococcum ssp. aegilopoides amphiploid. Journal of Plant Disease and Protection 116: 6062.Google Scholar
Rouse, M and Jin, Y (2011a) Genetics of resistance to race TTKSK of Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici in Triticum monococcum. Phytopathology 101: 14181423.Google Scholar
Rouse, M and Jin, Y (2011b) Stem rust resistance in A-genome diploid relatives of wheat. Plant Disease 95: 941944.Google Scholar
Schmolke, M, Mohler, V, Hartl, L, Zeller, FJ, Sai, L and Hsam, K (2012) A new powdery mildew resistance allele at the Pm4 wheat locus transferred from einkorn (Triticum monococcum). Molecular Breeding 29: 449456.Google Scholar
Sodkiewicz, W (2002) Diploid wheat: Triticum monococcum as a source of resistance genes to preharvest sprouting of triticale. Cereal Research Communications 30: 323328.Google Scholar
Tang, ZX, Yang, ZJ and Fu, SL (2014) Oligonucleotides replacing the roles of repetitive sequences pAs1, pSc119.2, pTa-535, pTa71, CCS1, and pAWRC.1 for FISH analysis. Journal of Applied Genetics 55: 313318.Google Scholar
The, TT and Baker, EP (1975) Basic studies relating to the transference of genetic characters from Triticum monococcum L. to hexaploid wheat. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 28: 189200.Google Scholar
Tranquilli, G, Cuniberti, M, Gianibelli, MC, Bullrich, L, Larroque, OR, MacRitchie, F and Dubcovsky, J (2002) Effect of Triticum monococcum glutenin loci on cookie making quality and on predictive tests for bread making quality. Journal of Cereal Science 36: 918.Google Scholar
Van Slageren, MW (1994) Wild wheats: a monograph of Aegilops L. and Amblyopyrum (Jaub. & Spach) Eig (Poaceae). Wageningen Agricultural University: Wageningen, pp. 8894.Google Scholar
Watanabe, N, Kobayashi, S and Furuta, Y (1997) Effect of genome and ploidy on photosynthesis of wheat. Euphytica 94: 303309.Google Scholar
Wellings, C and Bariana, H (2004) Assessment scale for recording stripe rust responses in field trials. Cereal Rust Report Season 2004, Plant Breeding Institute-Cereal Rust Laboratory, University of Sydney 2: 1–2.Google Scholar
Yan, ZH, Wan, YF, Liu, KF, Zheng, YL and Wang, DW (2002) Identification of a novel HMW glutenin subunit and comparison of its amino acid sequence with those of homologous subunits. Chinese Science Bulletin 47: 222226.Google Scholar
Zaharieva, M and Monneveux, P (2014) Cultivated einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum L. subsp. monococcum): the long life of a founder crop of agriculture. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 61: 677706.Google Scholar
Zeng, DY, Luo, JT, Li, ZL, Chen, G, Zhang, LQ, Ning, SZ, Yuan, ZW, Zheng, YL, Hao, M and Liu, DC (2016) High transferability of homoeolog-specific markers between bread wheat and newly synthesized hexaploid wheat lines. PLoS ONE 11: e0162847.Google Scholar
Zhang, LQ, Yen, Y, Zheng, YL and Liu, DC (2007) Meiotic restriction in emmer wheat is controlled by one or more nuclear genes that continue to function in derived lines. Sexual Plant Reproduction 20: 159166.Google Scholar
Zhang, LQ, Yan, ZH, Dai, SF, Chen, QJ, Yuan, ZW, Zheng, YL and Liu, DC (2008) The crossability of Triticum turgidum with Aegilops tauschii. Cereal Research Communications 36: 417427.Google Scholar
Zhao, LB, Ning, SZ, Yu, JJ, Hao, M, Zhang, LQ, Yuan, ZW, Zheng, YL and Liu, DC (2016) Cytological identification of an Aegilops variabilis chromosome carrying stripe rust resistance in wheat. Breeding Science 66: 522529.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Examples of spike morphology of amphiploids. (1) Syn-TAM-1, (2) Syn-TAM-2, (3) Syn-TAM-3, (4) Syn-TAM-4, (5) Syn-TAM-5, (6) Syn-TAM-6, (7) Syn-TAM-10, (8) Syn-TAM-11, (9) Syn-TAM-13, (10) Syn-TAM-14, (11) Syn-TAM-15, (12) Syn-TAM-25, (13) Syn-TAM-26, (14) Syn-TAM-27, (15) Syn-TAM-28, (16) Syn-TAM-29, (17) Syn-TAM-33, (18) Syn-TAM-35, (19) Syn-TAM-37, (20) Syn-TAM-38, (21) Syn-TAM-39, (22) Syn-TAM-41, (23) Syn-TAM-42, (24) Syn-TAM-43, (25) Syn-TAM-44, (26) Syn-TAM-46.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Examples of FISH identification using four synthetic oligonucleotides probes of Oligo-pSc119.2-1 (red), Oligo-pTa535-1 (green), Oligo-pTa71-2 (yellow) and (AAC)5 (green). FISH karyotypes of A, B, Am genomes in Syn-TAM-24 and its parents (a), a cell of Syn-TAM-24 (b), T. monococcum ssp. monococcum CItr13962 (c), and T. turgidum ssp. turanicum PI184526 (d).

Figure 2

Table 1. Chromosome number distribution and chromosome pairing of T. turgidumT. monococcum amphiploids

Figure 3

Fig. 3. SDS-PAGE profiles of HMW-GSs in some amphiploids and their parents. (1) AS2310, (2) Syn-TAM-38, (3) PI355517 (Glu-A1m-b), (4) AS2637, (5) Syn-TAM-3, (6) CItr13961 (Glu-A1m-c), (7) PI94670, (8) Syn-TAM-8, (9) PI503874 (Glu-A1m-d), (10) AS2334, (11) Syn-TAM-56, (12) PI355521 (Glu-A1m-h), bread wheat CY12, cv. Chuanyu 12 (1, 7 + 8, 5 + 10); LM1, cv. Longfumai 1 (2*, 7 + 8, 5 + 10); and CS, cv. Chinese Spring (7 + 8, 2 + 12). The Glu-A1mx alleles expressed in amphiploids were indicated by white arrows.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Stripe rust resistance at the adult stage of some amphiploids. (1) The bread wheat check SY95-71, (2) Syn-TAM-1, (3) Syn-TAM-2, (4) Syn-TAM-3, (5) Syn-TAM-4, (6) Syn-TAM-5, (7) Syn-TAM-6, (8) Syn-TAM-10, (9) Syn-TAM-11, (10) Syn-TAM-13, (11) Syn-TAM-14, (12) Syn-TAM-15.

Supplementary material: File

Li et al. supplementary material

Li et al. supplementary material Figures S1-S4 and Tables S1-S5

Download Li et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.8 MB