Table 7.
Summary of QTL mapped at NCSI: resistances to diseases and pests, tolerance to stresses and physiological traits
| Trait | Pop. | MP | TN | MJ | SM | EP | CU | Type | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resistances to diseases and pests | |||||||||
| Resistance to globular stink bug (1) | NJRIKY | CIM | 1 | 1; 21.3; 21.3 | 0 | – | – | MO | Xing et al. 2008 |
| Resistance to globular stink bug (2) | NJRSWT | CIM | 1 | 1; 28.1; 28.1 | 0 | – | – | MO | Xing et al. 2008 |
| Resistance to cotton worm | NJRSWT | CIM | 2 | 1; 17.2; 17.2 | 1; 8.6 | – | – | MS | Liu et al. 2005 |
| Resistance to SCN race 1 | NJBIEX | CIM | 3 | 2; 21.8–22.4; 44.2 | 1; 6.2 | – | – | MS | Lu et al. 2006 |
| Resistance to SCN race 4 | NJBIEX | CIM | 5 | 4; 10.5–28.9; 74.2 | 1; 5.9 | – | – | MS | Lu et al. 2006 |
| Tolerance to stresses | |||||||||
| Submergence Tolerance (1) | NJRIKY | CIM | 9 | 0 | 9; 25.5 | – | – | SO | Wang et al. 2008 |
| Submergence Tolerance (2) | NJRIKY | MIM | 4 | 1; 11.4; 11.4 | 3; 18.5 | – | – | MS | Wang et al. 2008 |
| Submergence Tolerance (3) | NJRISX | CIM | 2 | 2; 11.8–12.3; 24.0 | 0 | – | – | MO | Sun et al. 2010 |
| Submergence Tolerance (4) | NJRISX | MIM | 3 | 2; 10.1–25.2; 35.3 | 1; 1.3 | – | – | MS | Sun et al. 2010 |
| Dry root weight/plant dry weight | NJRIKY | CIM | 5 | 1; 18.7; 18.7 | 4; 19.0 | – | – | MS | Liu et al. 2005 |
| Total root length/plant dry weight | NJRIKY | CIM | 3 | 1; 22.9; 22.9 | 2; 10.9 | – | – | MS | Liu et al. 2005 |
| Root volume/plant dry weight | NJRIKY | CIM | 5 | 1; 14.7; 14.7 | 4; 16.2 | – | – | MS | Liu et al. 2005 |
| Root weight | NJRIKY | CIM | 3 | 1; 26.3; 26.3 | 2; 16.0 | – | – | MS | Wang et al. 2004 |
| Aluminum toxin tolerance (1) | NJRIKY | CIM | 5 | 0 | 5; 33.3 | – | – | SO | Qi et al. 2008 |
| Aluminum toxin tolerance (2) | NJRIKY | MIM | 5 | 2; 10.5–20.4; 30.9 | 3; 16.5 | – | – | MS | Qi et al. 2008 |
| Relative total plant dry weight | NJRIKY | MCIM | 11 | 1; 11.9; 11.9 | 6; 16.8 | 4; 14.9 | 40.6 | MSC | Korir et al. 2011 |
| Relative shoot dry weight | NJRIKY | MCIM | 4 | 0 | 2; 14.7 | 2; 11.2 | 52.2 | SC | Korir et al. 2011 |
| Relative root dry weight | NJRIKY | MCIM | 8 | 1; 11.0; 11.0 | 2; 17.6 | 5; 22.2 | 39.6 | MSC | Korir et al. 2011 |
| Physiological traits | |||||||||
| Stem dry weight under −P | NJRIKY | MCIM | 1 | 1; 11.4; 11.4 | 0 | – | – | MO | Geng et al. 2007 |
| Stem dry weight under +P | NJRIKY | MCIM | 1 | 0 | 1; 4.9 | – | – | SO | Geng et al. 2007 |
| Root and shoot ratio under −P | NJRIKY | MCIM | 4 | 0 | 3; 17.5 | 1; 9.1 | 73.4 | SC | Geng et al. 2007 |
| Root and shoot ratio under +P | NJRIKY | MCIM | 5 | 0 | 1; 9.1 | 4; 40 | 50.9 | SC | Geng et al. 2007 |
| Root dry weight under −P | NJRIKY | MCIM | 6 | 1; 12.5; 12.5 | 3; 17.1 | 2; 14.2 | 56.2 | MSC | Geng et al. 2007 |
| Root dry weight under +P | NJRIKY | MCIM | 9 | 1; 13.8; 13.8 | 0 | 8; 58.5 | 27.7 | MC | Geng et al. 2007 |
| P use efficiency under −P | NJRIKY | MCIM | 4 | 0 | 3; 18.0 | 1; 9.6 | 72.4 | SC | Geng et al. 2007 |
| P absorb efficiency under −P | NJRIKY | MCIM | 4 | 0 | 1; 8.8 | 3; 23.7 | 67.5 | SC | Geng et al. 2007 |
Pop: mapping population; MP: mapping procedure(CIM = composite interval mapping, MCIM = mixed model based CIM, MIM = multiple interval mapping); TN: total number of detected QTL; MJ: number of major QTL (number of QTL, range of contribution among QTL and total contribution of QTL included in the column); SM: number of small QTL (number of QTL and total contribution of QTL included in the column); EP: number of epistatic QTL pairs; CU: collective unmapped minor QTL (total contribution in the column); Type: type of QTL constitution (MO = major QTL only, MS = major QTL + small QTL, MC = major QTL + collective unmapped minor QTL, MSC = major QTL + small QTL + collective unmapped minor QTL, SC = small QTL + collective unmapped minor QTL, SO = small QTL only).
The number in parentheses after a trait is the order of mapping time. −P: low phosphorus; +P: high phosphorus.