AFLP–SSR maps of maize × teosinte and maize × maize: comparison of map length and segregation distortion

Abstract

Two genetic linkage maps of Zea mays were constructed: one population comprised 94 F 2 individuals of a dent 'B64' · teosinte (Z. mays ssp. huehuetenangensis) cross while the second consisted of 94 F 2 individuals of a 'B64' · Caribbean flint 'Na4' cross. The level of polymorphism was higher in the 'B64' · teosinte combination than the 'B64' · 'Na4' combination. In the 'B64' · teosinte cross, a total of 338 amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and 75 simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers were mapped to 10 chromosomes, which covered 1402.4 cM. In the 'B64' · 'Na4' cross, a total of 340 AFLP and 97 SSR markers were mapped to 10 chromosomes, covering 1662.8 cM. Segregation distortion regions were found on chromosomes 4, 5 and 8 in the 'B64' · teosinte cross and on chromosome 9 in the 'B64' · 'Na4' cross. Comparison of the two maps revealed that the maize · teosinte map was 11.5% shorter than the maize · maize map. The maps generated in this study may be useful to identify genes controlling flooding tolerance.

QTL mapping of root angle in F₂ populations from maize ‘B73’ × teosinte ‘<i>Zea luxurians</i>’

“…The SSR analysis was performed as described by Mano et al (2005c). We used the term "bin" which is a traditional method for referring to the location/position of markers within the maize chromosomes.…”

Identification of QTL Controlling Flooding Tolerance in Reducing Soil Conditions in Maize (Zea mays L.) Seedlings

“…Of the 11, 10 markers (e03m18-210, e05m20-195, e05m30-105, e06m30-325, e06m30-330, e07m19-240, e 0 7 m 3 0 -2 2 0 , e 0 8 m 3 0 -3 2 5 , e 0 8 m 3 0 -6 1 0 , a n d e10m18-90) co-segregated in the 30 F 2 plants. Since two of these AFLP markers (e05m30-105 and e06m30-325) were known to be located on chromosome 1 of an F 2 mapping population of B64 × Na4 (Mano et al, 2005b), these ten markers were also located on chromosome 1. The position of the remaining marker (e05m29-125) was unknown because of monomorphism between B64 and Na4 or a lack of marker information in other mapping populations developed by Mano et al (2005b).…”

“…Since two of these AFLP markers (e05m30-105 and e06m30-325) were known to be located on chromosome 1 of an F 2 mapping population of B64 × Na4 (Mano et al, 2005b), these ten markers were also located on chromosome 1. The position of the remaining marker (e05m29-125) was unknown because of monomorphism between B64 and Na4 or a lack of marker information in other mapping populations developed by Mano et al (2005b). Since sensitive line H84 contributed to the QTL associated with this AFLP marker, we did not further analyze the region.…”

“…Mano unpublished). Chromosome positions of the selected AFLP markers were estimated using common AFLP marker information in an F 2 maize map of B64 × Na4 (Mano et al, 2005b).…”

“…The AFLP analysis was done essentially according to the methods described by Vos et al (1995), with some modifi cations as described by Mano et al (2005b). A total of 64 primer combinations of eight EcoRI primers [5´-GACTGCGTACCAATTC-3´ plus AAC (e02), AAG (e03), ACA (e05), ACC (e06), ACG (e07), ACT (e08), AGC (e10), AGG (e11)] and eight MseI primers [5´-GATGAGTCCTGAGTAA-3´ plus CAA (m17), CAC (m18), CAG (m19), CAT (m20), CTA (m29), CTC (m30), CTG (m31) and CTT (m32)] were used to screen AFLP markers that differentiated the 15 fl ooding-tolerant from the 15 fl oodingsensitive F 2 plants.…”