The Natural Variation of Seed Weight Is Mainly Controlled by Maternal Genotype in Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.)

Na Li; Wei Peng; Jiaqin Shi; Xinfa Wang; Guihua Liu; Hanzhong Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125360

Abstract

Seed weight is a very important and complex trait in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). The seed weight of rapeseed shows great variation in its natural germplasm resources; however, the morphological, cytological and genetic causes of this variation have remained unclear. In the present study, nine highly pure inbred rapeseed lines with large seed weight variation and different genetic backgrounds were selected for morphological, cytological and genetic studies on seed weight. The results showed the following: (1) Seed weight showed an extremely significant correlation and coordinated variation with seed size (including seed diameter, seed surface area and seed volume), but it showed no significant correlation with bulk density, which suggests that seed weight is determined by size rather than bulk density. (2) Seed weight showed a higher correlation with the cell numbers of seed coats and cotyledons than the cell sizes of seed coats and cotyledons, which suggests that cell number is more tightly correlated with final seed weight. (3) Seed weight was mainly controlled by the maternal genotype, with little or no xenia and cytoplasmic effects. This is the first report on the morphological and cytological causes of seed weight natural variation in rapeseed. We concluded that the natural variation of seed weight is mainly controlled by maternal genotype. This finding lays a foundation for genetic and breeding studies of seed weight in rapeseed and opens a new field of research on the regulation of seed traits in plants.

Citation: Li N, Peng W, Shi J, Wang X, Liu G, Wang H (2015) The Natural Variation of Seed Weight Is Mainly Controlled by Maternal Genotype in Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). PLoS ONE 10(4): e0125360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360

Academic Editor: Meng-xiang Sun, Wuhan University, CHINA

Received: January 15, 2015; Accepted: March 12, 2015; Published: April 27, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by the National High Technology Research and Development Program (2012AA101107 and 2011AA10A104) of China, GHL; the National Science Foundation (31101181) of China, JQS; the Rapeseed Industry Technology System (CARS-13), HZW; the Hubei Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Center of China, JQS; Core Research Budget of the Non-profit Governmental Research Institution (1610172014001), XFW. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Seed weight is an important trait with respect to plant evolution and crop improvement. Small seeds are easily dispersed, whereas large seeds usually have better adaptability under biotic and abiotic stresses and produce seedlings that may have superior competitive survival rates [1]. However, limited resources in the mother plant generally lead to a tradeoff between the seed number and weight [2]. In agriculture, seed weight is one of the main components affecting seed yield [3] and is a target of artificial selection [4].

The seed weight of most crops has different degree of natural variation, which usually harbores favorable alleles that are invaluable for crop improvement. Since the beginning of agriculture, seed weight/size has been subjected to artificial selection, and therefore, most crop plants have seeds larger than those of their wild relatives [5]. Investigations on the natural variation of seed weight will provide insights into its improvement.

From a genetic perspective, seed weight is a very complex trait. The seed is the result of double fertilization; thus, it consists of three components: a diploid embryo, triploid endosperm and diploid maternal ovule [6]. In addition, the development of a seed is dependent on the nutrients supplied by the mother plant [7]. Therefore, the genetic model of the seed in theory includes the effects of the maternal genotype and those of the cytoplasm, embryo and endosperm [8], which can be attributed to maternal and xenia effects. The relative contributions of maternal and xenia effects are of fundamental interest in genetic and breeding studies [9]. However, these effects have not yet been investigated for seed weight in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.).

From a morphological perspective, the final seed weight is determined by the bulk density and seed volume, which are determined by the cell size and cell number. The weight of seeds shows a large variation (≈4-fold) in rapeseed natural germplasm resources [10, 11]. However, whether this variation is caused by changes in seed volume and/or bulk density as well as changes in cell size and/or cell number remains unexplored.

In this present study, the natural variation of seed weight in rapeseed was systematically investigated at the morphological, cytological and genetic levels. The main objectives were to (1) select several representative rapeseed inbred lines for seed weight study, (2) investigate the morphological and cytological causes of the natural variation in seed weight, (3) determine the maternal and xenia effects on the natural variation of seed weight using a subtle experimental design, and (4) estimate the effects of maternal genotype and cytoplasm on seed weight.

Materials and Methods

Plant material

A collection of 576 [11] and 487 (S1 Table) rapeseed inbred lines/cultivars was developed by our lab. This collection was genotyped using 101 published SSR (simple sequence repeat) markers (S2 Table) [12–16] that are evenly distributed across all 19 rapeseed chromosomes and phenotyped for tens of traits. From these lines, four large-seed (No. 02454, No. 09131, No. 19004 and Qing662) and five small-seed (No. 01201, No. 02210, No. 03482, No. 19179 and No. 91032) rapeseed inbred lines with broad genetic diversity and similar flowering times were selected.

Genetic diversity analysis

DNA extraction and genotyping were performed as described by Li et al. [11]. The gene diversity, observed heterozygosity, polymorphic information content (PIC) and Nei’s genetic distance [17] among the lines were calculated using Powermarker version 3.25 [18]. A dendrogram was constructed based on the UPGMA algorithm (unweighted pair group method with arithmetic average) implemented in NTSYSpc 2.1 [19]. The relative kinship coefficients were calculated using the SPAGedi software package [20]. All negative values between lines were set to 0 [21].

Microscopic analysis

For the determination of cell number and cell size in the outer layer of the seed coat and the cotyledon, mature seeds were soaked in distilled water for 24 h and dissected to isolate the seed coat and embryo. Then, the seed coat and embryo were fixed overnight with FAA solution [22], which contained 5% (v/v) acetic acid, 45% (v/v) ethanol, and 5% (v/v) formaldehyde. The seed coats were rendered transparent by incubation overnight (12–24 h) in a chloral hydrate solution as described previously [23]. After dehydration in an ethanol series (50%, 70%, 95% and 100%), the embryos were infiltrated and subsequently embedded in paraffin wax according to the methods of a previous study [24]. Sections were obtained using a Leica RM 2016 microtome (Leica, Nanterre Cedex, France) and stained with safranin fast green. Observations were performed using a light fluorescence microscope (Olympus IX-71, Tokyo, Japan). Cleared cells were photographed, and the mean cell area of at least 10 cells was determined based on four individuals for each line using the Image J program (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/). The numbers of cells in the region of the outer seed coat and the outer epidermis cotyledon were determined.

Maternal effect study

For the maternal effect study, we performed the first experiments using improved diallel crossing with minimal environmental influences as described by Wang et al. [25] using two large-seed lines (No. 02454 and No. 09131) and three small-seed lines (No. 02210, No. 03482 and No. 91032) in Aug. 2012 in Xining (code X12). In Mar. 2013, we performed the second experiments after adding two large-seed lines (No. 19004 and Qing662) and two small-seed lines (No. 01201 and No. 19179) in Wuhan (code W13). The improved aspects were as follows: First, both of the F₁ hybrid seeds and self-pollinated seeds were produced by emasculation and artificial pollination. Second, selfing and crossing were performed alternately on different branches of the same mother plant. The details were as follows: For the large-seed line (L) × small-seed line (S) cross, two plants (A and B) from the L were selected as the maternal pollen acceptor and the branches of each plant were numbered from the first to the fourth. When pollinating, the first and third branches of plant A were self-pollinated (L × L), whereas the second and fourth branches were cross-pollinated by the small-seed line (L × S). At the same time, the first and third branches of plant B were cross-pollinated by the small-seed lines (L × S), whereas the second and forth branches were self-pollinated (L × L). Reciprocal crosses for the small-seed line (S) × large-seed line (L) were performed in the same way. Each cross was repeated at least three times, and pollinations were completed within one day.

Field experiment and measurement of traits

Each line was sown in ten rows with nine plants per row with a spacing of 40 × 16.7 cm. The F₁ seeds of L × S and S × L crosses were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications (codes W13 and W14). Each block contained one row with 15 plants with spacing of 33.3 × 16.7 cm. The seeds were sown by hand, and the field management followed local standard agricultural practice.

For the nine rapeseed inbred lines, seed weight was measured based on 1000 fully developed seeds from the main raceme (open pollination) of at least 15 representative individuals. Seed diameter (d) was measured using vernier calipers based on at least 30 seeds for each individual. With each rape seed considered to be an approximate sphere [10, 26], the seed surface area, seed volume and bulk density were estimated using the following equations: seed surface area = 4π(d/2)^2, seed volume = (4/3) π(d/2)^3, bulk density = seed weight/(seed volume * 1000), where d is the seed diameter. For F₁ seeds (artificial selfing and crossing) from mother plants, branches from healthy plants were harvested and threshed individually. Seeds from different branches of the same treatment were averaged to determine the seed weights of the F₁ selfed and crossed seeds. For the F₂ seeds from the reciprocal crosses, the seeds from the main raceme (open pollination) of at least 15 individuals were averaged to determine the seed weight.

Statistical analysis

Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated using the SAS CORR procedure. Significant differences among the weights of the F₁ selfed and crossed seeds and the reciprocal F₂ seeds were estimated using one way ANOVA analysis in the SAS software [27]. The maternal effect on seed weight was estimated based on a previously described method [25, 28]. The seed weights of the F₁ hybrid seeds were calculated as follows: F₁ = mP₁ + (1-m) P₂, where, F₁ is the seed weight of the F₁ hybrid seeds, m (the maternal effect value) = ∑(F₁-P₂)(P₁-P₂)/ ∑(P₁-P₂)², and P₁ and P₂ are the seed weights of the maternal and male parents (artificially selfed), respectively.

An embryo-cytoplasm-maternal (GoCGm) model for diploid seeds was employed to determine the main genetic effects and their GE interaction effects [8, 29] using QGAStation 1.0 (http://ibi.zju.edu.cn/software/qga/index.htm). Genetic variance components were estimated according to the MINQUE (0/1) method [8]. The main genetic effects and GE interaction effects were predicted by the AUP (adjusted unbiased prediction) method. The standard error of estimated variance was analyzed by the jackknife procedure, and the t-test was used to test the significance of statistical parameters.

Results

Genetic diversity and relative kinship analysis of the research materials

To estimate the genetic diversity of the nine inbred lines (Fig 1A), 101 SSR markers were used (S2 Table). The average heterozygosity of the 101 SSR markers was 0.06, and approximately 58% of the SSRs were 0. For all of the studied SSR markers, the gene diversity varied from 0 to 0.73 with an average of 0.41, and PIC varied from 0 to 0.68 with an average of 0.35. Nei’s genetic distances ranged from 0.33 to 0.78 with an average of 0.59 (S3 Table). The two inbred lines with the closest genetic distance were No. 02454 and No. 09131, which had a common ancestor (No. 73290). Nei’s genetic distances matrices were used to build a dendrogram with the UPGMA algorithm (Fig 1B). As expected, No. 02454 and No. 09131 clustered on the same branch. However, there was no relationship between the classification and seed weight, which strongly suggests that the nine rapeseed lines have broad genetic backgrounds. The kinship coefficients ranged from 0 and 0.44 with an average of 0.03 (Fig 1C and S4 Table). As expected, the two inbred lines with the largest kinship coefficient (0.44) were No. 02454 and No. 09131. The kinship coefficients for the remaining pairs of lines were less than 0.2, which demonstrates that most of the nine rapeseed lines were not related or only weakly related.

Download:

Fig 1. Genetic diversity and relative kinship analysis.

A: Box and whiskers summary of statistics for 101 SSR markers in nine rapeseed lines. B: A dendrogram of the nine inbred lines clustered on the basis of Nei's (1972) genetic distance. C: The distribution of kinship coefficients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.g001

Morphological and cytological causes for seed weight variation

To investigate the morphological causes of seed weight variation, we measured the seed diameter and further calculated the seed surface area, seed volume and bulk density for nine rapeseed inbred lines (Table 1). For the large-seed lines, the diameter, surface area, volume, bulk density and weight varied from 2.02 mm to 2.21 mm, 12.87 mm² to 15.36 mm², 4.35 mm³ to 5.66 mm³, 1.20 mg/mm³ to 1.27 mg/mm³ and 6.14 g to 7.16 g, with averages of 2.13 mm, 14.28 mm², 5.08 mm³, 1.25 mg/mm³ and 6.51 g, respectively. For the small-seed lines, the diameter, surface area, volume, bulk density and weight varied from 1.49 mm to 1.65 mm, 7.00 mm² to 8.61 mm², 1.76 mm³ to 2.38 mm³, 1.16 mg/mm³ to 1.32 mg/mm³ and 2.34 g to 2.95 g, with averages of 1.58 mm, 7.85 mm², 2.08 mm³, 1.24 mg/mm³ and 2.63 g, respectively. The diameter, surface area, volume and weight of the four large-seed lines were all significantly greater than those of the five small-seed lines, with average proportions of 34.82%, 81.85%, 144.82% and 147.34%, respectively, whereas bulk density did not differ between the large-seed and small-seed lines (Table 1 and Fig 2). Moreover, the seed diameter, seed surface area and seed volume of these inbred lines showed extremely significant/high correlations with seed weight (p < 0.0001/r = 0.9693, p < 0.0001/r = 0.9743 and p < 0.0001/r = 0.9738, respectively), whereas bulk density showed no correlation with seed weight (r = -0.0336/p = 0.8628).

Download:

Fig 2. Seeds from nine rapeseed lines.

Bar = 1 cm.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.g002

Download:

Table 1. Morphological and cytological traits for nine rapeseed inbred lines (mean ± SD).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.t001

The cell size and cell number of the large- and small-seed inbred lines were estimated in the outer layer of the seed coat (Fig 3) and the embryonic cotyledons (Fig 4). The seed coat cell sizes, seed coat cell numbers and cotyledon cell numbers of the four large-seed lines were all larger than those of the five small-seed lines, with average proportions of 24.93%, 46.63% and 47.76%, respectively. For cotyledon cell sizes, except for the large-seed line Qing662, which had a smaller cell size, and small-seed line No. 01201, which had a larger cell size, the large-seed lines were significantly larger than those of the small-seed lines by an average of 22.80%. Moreover, the seed coat cell size, seed coat cell number, cotyledon cell size and cotyledon cell number of these lines all showed significant/high correlations with seed weight (p < 0.0001/r = 0.6912, p < 0.0001/r = 0.8600, p < 0.0001/r = 0.5869 and p < 0.0001/r = 0.7894, respectively).

Download:

Fig 3. Outer layer cells from the seed coats of the nine rapeseed inbred lines.

Bar = 50 μm.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.g003

Download:

Fig 4. Cells from the embryonic cotyledons of the nine rapeseed inbred lines.

Bar = 50 μm.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.g004

Maternal and xenia effects on seed weight

A maternal effect study was performed (Fig 5) using the above nine inbred lines with significant differences in seed weight. The mean seed weight of the F₁ hybrid seeds from crosses with large-seed lines as maternal parents pollinated with small-seed lines was slightly lower (not significantly), by 0.36%, relative to the artificially self-pollinated seeds from large-seed lines. The mean seed weight of the F₁ hybrid seeds from crosses with small-seed lines as maternal parents pollinated with large-seed lines was higher (not significantly), by 5.30%, relative to the artificially self-pollinated seeds from small-seed lines (Table 2). In other words, the weight of F₁ hybrid seeds was always similar to that of the maternal parent regardless of whether the maternal parent was from large- or small-seed line. This finding suggests that there is a strong maternal influence on the weight of hybrid seeds. The maternal effect of 20 crosses (two years) involving large-seed lines pollinated by small-seed lines had a mean value of 0.95, and almost half of these were larger than 1 due to the existence of ultra-high seed weight parent individuals. The xenia effect had a mean value of 0.05. Similarly, the maternal effect of 20 crosses involving small-seed lines pollinated by large-seed lines had a mean value of 0.90, whereas the xenia effect had a mean value of 0.10. Overall, these results indicate that the weights of the F₁ hybrid seeds of rapeseed are mainly controlled by the maternal effect and accompanied by the minor xenia effect.

Download:

Fig 5. Treatment combinations for the maternal study.

“√” represents the combination emasculation hybrid treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.g005

Download:

Table 2. Maternal and xenia effects on the weight of hybrid seeds (thousand seed weight).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.t002

Maternal genotype and cytoplasm effects on seed weight

There was a significant difference in seed weight between the large-seed line × small-seed line cross and small-seed line × large-seed line cross of the F₁ seeds (Table 2). However, in the F₂ generation (F₁ plant) derived from reciprocal crosses of F₁ seeds, seed weight showed no significant difference for most of the combinations and was between the parental values (Table 3), suggesting that seed weight was mainly controlled by maternal genotype, whereas the cytoplasmic effect had only minor or no influence.

Download:

Table 3. The seed weights of reciprocal crosses of the F₂ generation derived from the F₁ seeds.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.t003

To quantitatively estimate the contributions of the maternal genotype and cytoplasmic effects on seed weight, an embryo-cytoplasm-maternal (GoCGm) model for diploid seeds was employed. The components of main genetic variance (V_G = V_A+ V_D + V_C + V_Am + V_Dm), GE interaction variance (V_G = V_AE+ V_DE + V_CE + V_AmE + V_DmE), and residual V_e are summarized in Table 4. The results showed that seed weight was mainly controlled by the main genetic effects (74.8%), whereas the influence of GE interaction effects was relatively small (6.4%). Among the effects of three sets of genetic systems (the embryo, cytoplasm and maternal plant), the seed weight in rapeseed was mainly controlled by the maternal genotype (V_Am + V_Dm + V_AmE + V_DmE), accounting for 68.80% of V_G, whereas embryonic and cytoplasmic effects, accounting for 12.28% and 0.15% of V_G, respectively, had little influence on seed weight. Overall, these results indicated that seed weight was mainly controlled by the maternal genotype and that the cytoplasmic effect was small.

Download:

Table 4. Estimation of genetic variance components for seed weight in rapeseed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.t004

Discussion

The heterozygosity of each SSR marker was very low, suggesting that all nine of inbred lines are highly pure lines. Only nine rapeseed lines had a gene diversity (0.41) and PIC (0.35) values similar to those of 109 rapeseed lines from five world major rapeseed growing countries, which exhibited gene diversity of 0.43 and PIC of 0.37 [30]. The comparably abundant genetic diversity in the nine rapeseed inbred lines was primarily due to the broad seed weight diversity and different genetic backgrounds. The low kinship coefficients (78% of kinship coefficients were 0) suggested that most of the lines were unrelated or only weakly so, providing additional evidence that the nine inbred lines have broad genetic diversity.

In the present study, seed weight showed an extremely significant correlation and coordinated variation with seed size (including seed diameter, seed surface area and seed volume), but it showed no significant correlation with bulk density, suggesting that the weight of a seed is determined by its size rather than its bulk density. This is the first report on the morphological basis for seed weight variation in rapeseed, and the results are basically in agreement with studies in other crops. In rice, grain volume was found to be the major contributor (77%) to final grain weight variation [31]. Grain weight is also determined by factors that affect grain volume in wheat [32].

In the present study, the large-seed lines had, on average, 46.63% and 47.76% more cells than the small-seed lines in the seed coat and cotyledon, respectively, whereas these cells were, on average, only 24.93% and 22.80% bigger, which suggested that cell number was more tightly correlated with final seed weight. Moreover, correlation analysis showed that the traits affecting seed weight could be ranked in the following order: seed coat cell number > cotyledon cell number > seed coat cell size > cotyledon cell size. This is the first report on the cytological influence on seed weight variation in rapeseed. Similar phenomena have been observed in other crops. Lemontey et al. (2000) found that cotyledon cell number was the major factor affecting mature size because cell number appeared to be more tightly correlated with mature seed dry weight (r² = 0.833, p < 0.001 for cotyledon cell number and seed dry weight; r² = 0.345, p = 0.003 for cotyledon cell volume and seed dry weight) in five pea varieties with large differences in mature seed weight. The cell numbers in the seed coat and hypocotyl are the major factors that contribute to the seed length variations [33] of the two Arabidopsis strains, causing differences in seed sizes (i.e., the large-seed line had an average of 10% and 18% more cells than the small-seed line in the seed coat and hypocotyl, respectively, whereas these cells were, on average, only 6% and 4% longer, respectively).

Nine highly pure inbred lines with broad seed weight variation and different genetic backgrounds were used to study maternal and xenia effects. Improved materials and methods with minimal environmental influence led to the first accurate estimation of the maternal and xenia effects on rapeseed seed weight. Notably, the maternal effect value was estimated to be 0.93, indicating that the weight of the F₁ hybrid seeds was mainly controlled by the maternal parent (93%). In the F₂ generation derived from reciprocal crosses of F₁ seeds, the difference in seed weight disappeared, which suggests that the weight of seeds was mainly controlled by maternal genotype, whereas the cytoplasmic effect had little or no influence. Moreover, the components of main genetic variance analysis [8, 29] confirmed that seed weight was mainly controlled by the maternal genotype, and the xenia and cytoplasmic effects were found to be small. In conclusion, we propose that the weights of seeds are mainly controlled by the maternal genotype, that is, the phenotype of the offspring is not determined by the genotype of the seed itself but, rather, is mainly controlled by the maternal genotype. This important discovery lays a foundation for genetic and breeding studies of seed weight in rapeseed.

We concluded that cell number was the major contributor to seed weight variation, and previous studies [33, 34] have shown that maternal effects mainly control cell number variation, which might implies that seed weight is mainly controlled by maternal effects. Our studies provide direct experimental evidence for the general rule that the weights of seeds are mainly controlled by maternal genotype in rapeseed. However, only a few cloned genes, such as CYP78A5 [35], ARF2 [36], TTG2 [37], AP2 [38–40], and EOD3/CYP78A6 [41], acted maternally to regulate seed size/weight in Arabidopsis, whereas most of the cloned genes acted non-maternally to control seed size/weight [5]. This difference might occur because most of these cloned seed weight genes were identified by the analyses of Arabidopsis mutants, whose mutant loci are largely different with the natural variation [42]. In addition, most of these cloned seed weight/size genes involved the seed itself, i.e., maternal integument, embryo and endosperm development and growth. Therefore, seed weight research in rapeseed should focus on the maternal tissue rather than the embryo/endosperm, which will lead to a new area of exploration in seed weight research.

Supporting Information

S1 Table. The 487 rapeseed inbred lines/cultivars.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.s001

(XLS)

S2 Table. Details of the 101 SSR markers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.s002

(XLS)

S3 Table. Nei's genetic distance matrix obtained from the frequencies of 101 SSR markers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.s003

(XLS)

S4 Table. Kinship matrix for the nine inbred lines.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125360.s004

(XLS)

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: HZW JQS NL. Performed the experiments: NL WP. Analyzed the data: NL JQS. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: HZW JQS GUL XFW. Wrote the paper: NL JQS.

References

1. Bodnaryk R, Lamb R. Influence of seed size in canola, Brassica napus L. and mustard, Sinapis alba L., on seedling resistance against flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze). Can J Plant Sci. 1991;71: 397–404.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Sadras VO. Evolutionary aspects of the trade-off between seed size and number in crops. Field Crops Research. 2007;100: 125–138.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Ali N, Javidfar F, Elmira JY, Mirza MY. Relationship among yield components and selection criteria for yield improvement in winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Pakistan J Bot. 2003;35: 167–174.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Harlan JR, De Wet J, Price EG. Comparative evolution of cereals. Evolution. 1973: 311–325.
5. Sundaresan V. Control of seed size in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 17887–17888. pmid:16330781
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Xing Y, Zhang Q. Genetic and molecular bases of rice yield. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2010;61: 421–442. pmid:20192739
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Mackay TF. The genetic architecture of quantitative traits: lessons from Drosophila. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2004;14: 253–257. pmid:15172667
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Zhu J, Weir BS. Analysis of cytoplasmic and maternal effects I. A genetic model for diploid plant seeds and animals. Theor Appl Genet. 1994;89: 153–159. pmid:24177822
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Grochowski L, Kaczmarek J, Kadłubiec W, Bujak H. Using xenia in the breeding of rye hybrids. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae. 1995;64: 175–179.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Çulcuoğlu E, Ünay E, Karaosmanoğlu F. Rapeseed cake as a biomass source. Energy Sources. 2002;24: 329–336.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Li N, Shi J, Wang X, Liu G, Wang H. A combined linkage and regional association mapping validation and fine mapping of two major pleiotropic QTLs for seed weight and silique length in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). BMC Plant Biol. 2014;14: 114. pmid:24779415
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Shi J, Huang S, Zhan J, Yu J, Wang X, Hua W, et al. Genome-Wide Microsatellite Characterization and Marker Development in the Sequenced Brassica Crop Species. DNA Res. 2013;21: 53–68. pmid:24130371
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Li H, Younas M, Wang X, Li X, Chen L, Zhao B, et al. Development of a core set of single-locus SSR markers for allotetraploid rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Theor Appl Genet. 2013;126: 937–947. pmid:23238763
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Lowe AJ, Moule C, Trick M, Edwards KJ. Efficient large-scale development of microsatellites for marker and mapping applications in Brassica crop species. Theor Appl Genet. 2004;108: 1103–1112. pmid:15067397
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Piquemal J, Cinquin E, Couton F, Rondeau C, Seignoret E, Doucet I, et al. Construction of an oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) genetic map with SSR markers. Theor Appl Genet. 2005;111: 1514–1523. pmid:16187118
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Cheng XM, Xu JS, Xia S, Gu JX, Yang Y, Fu J, et al. Development and genetic mapping of microsatellite markers from genome survey sequences in Brassica napus. Theor Appl Genet. 2009;118: 1121–1131. pmid:19190889
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Nei M. Genetic distance between populations. Am Nat. 1972;106: 283–292.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Liu KJ, Muse SV. PowerMarker: an integrated analysis environment for genetic marker analysis. Bioinformatics. 2005;21: 2128–2129. pmid:15705655
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Rohlf F. NTSYS-pc. Numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system. Version 21 Exeter Software. New York. 2000.
20. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X. SPAGeDi: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes. 2002;2: 618–620.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Yu JM, Pressoir G, Briggs WH, Bi IV, Yamasaki M, Doebley JF, et al. A unified mixed-model method for association mapping that accounts for multiple levels of relatedness. Nature Genetics. 2006;38: 203–208. pmid:16380716
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Tsukaya H, Naito S, Redei GP, Komeda Y. A new class of mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana, acaulis1, affecting the development of both inflorescences and leaves. Development. 1993;118: 751–764.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Tsuge T, Tsukaya H, Uchimiya H. Two independent and polarized processes of cell elongation regulate leaf blade expansion in Arabidopsis thaliana (L) Heynh. Development. 1996;122: 1589–1600. pmid:8625845
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Hu Z, Wang X, Zhan G, Liu G, Hua W, Wang H. Unusually large oilbodies are highly correlated with lower oil content in Brassica napus. Plant Cell Rep. 2009;28: 541–549. pmid:19093121
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Wang X, Liu G, Yang Q, Hua W, Liu J, Wang H. Genetic analysis on oil content in rapeseed. Euphytica. 2009;173: 17–24.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Stanley D, Gill T, Deman J, Tung M. Microstructure of rapeseed. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal. 1976;9: 54–60.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. SAS Institute Inc. C. SAS/STAT user's guide. version 8. 2000.
28. Cong Z. Study on the effect of maize kernel oil genes at the F1 embryo stage and its application. MS Dissertation of China Agricultural University. 1996.
29. Zhu J. Analytic methods for seed models with genotype x environment interactions. Acta Genetica Sinica. 1996;23: 56–68. pmid:8695177
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Xiao Y, Cai D, Yang W, Ye W, Younas M, Wu J, et al. Genetic structure and linkage disequilibrium pattern of a rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) association mapping panel revealed by microsatellites. Theor Appl Genet. 2012;125: 437–447. pmid:22437490
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Xu J, Xue Q, Luo L, Li Z. Genetic dissection of grain weight and its related traits in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Chinese J Rice Sci. 2001;16: 6–10.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Millet E, Pinthus M. The association between grain volume and grain weight in wheat. J Cereal Sci. 1984;2: 31–35.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Alonso-Blanco C, Blankestijn-de Vries H, Hanhart CJ, Koornneef M. Natural allelic variation at seed size loci in relation to other life history traits of Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96: 4710–4717. pmid:10200327
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Lemontey C, Mousset-Declas C, Munier-Jolain N, Boutin JP. Maternal genotype influences pea seed size by controlling both mitotic activity during early embryogenesis and final endoreduplication level/cotyledon cell size in mature seed. J Exp Bot. 2000;51: 167–175. pmid:10938823
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Adamski NM, Anastasiou E, Eriksson S, O'Neill CM, Lenhard M. Local maternal control of seed size by KLUH/CYP78A5-dependent growth signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106: 20115–20120. pmid:19892740
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Schruff MC, Spielman M, Tiwari S, Adams S, Fenby N, Scott RJ. The AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR 2 gene of Arabidopsis links auxin signalling, cell division, and the size of seeds and other organs. Development. 2005;133: 251–261. pmid:16339187
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Garcia D, Fitz Gerald JN, Berger F. Maternal control of integument cell elongation and zygotic control of endosperm growth are coordinated to determine seed size in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2005;17: 52–60. pmid:15598800
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Jofuku KD, Omidyar PK, Gee Z, Okamuro JK. Control of seed mass and seed yield by the floral homeotic gene APETALA2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 3117–3122. pmid:15708974
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Ohto MA, Fischer RL, Goldberg RB, Nakamura K, Harada JJ. Control of seed mass by APETALA2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 3123–3128. pmid:15708976
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Ohto MA, Floyd SK, Fischer RL, Goldberg RB, Harada JJ. Effects of APETALA2 on embryo, endosperm, and seed coat development determine seed size in Arabidopsis. Sex Plant Reprod. 2009;22: 277–289. pmid:20033449
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Fang W, Wang Z, Cui R, Li J, Li Y. Maternal control of seed size by EOD3/CYP78A6 in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2012;70: 929–939. pmid:22251317
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Alonso-Blanco C, Aarts MGM, Bentsink L, Keurentjes JJB, Reymond M, Vreugdenhil D, et al. What has natural variation taught us about plant development, physiology, and adaptation? Plant Cell. 2009;21: 1877–1896. pmid:19574434
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Bodnaryk R, Lamb R. Influence of seed size in canola, Brassica napus L. and mustard, Sinapis alba L., on seedling resistance against flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze). Can J Plant Sci. 1991;71: 397–404.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Sadras VO. Evolutionary aspects of the trade-off between seed size and number in crops. Field Crops Research. 2007;100: 125–138.
View Article
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Ali N, Javidfar F, Elmira JY, Mirza MY. Relationship among yield components and selection criteria for yield improvement in winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Pakistan J Bot. 2003;35: 167–174.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Harlan JR, De Wet J, Price EG. Comparative evolution of cereals. Evolution. 1973: 311–325.

[ref5] 5. Sundaresan V. Control of seed size in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 17887–17888. pmid:16330781
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] PubMed/NCBI

[14] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Xing Y, Zhang Q. Genetic and molecular bases of rice yield. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2010;61: 421–442. pmid:20192739
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[16] View Article

[17] PubMed/NCBI

[18] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Mackay TF. The genetic architecture of quantitative traits: lessons from Drosophila. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2004;14: 253–257. pmid:15172667
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] PubMed/NCBI

[22] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Zhu J, Weir BS. Analysis of cytoplasmic and maternal effects I. A genetic model for diploid plant seeds and animals. Theor Appl Genet. 1994;89: 153–159. pmid:24177822
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] PubMed/NCBI

[26] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Grochowski L, Kaczmarek J, Kadłubiec W, Bujak H. Using xenia in the breeding of rye hybrids. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae. 1995;64: 175–179.
View Article
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Çulcuoğlu E, Ünay E, Karaosmanoğlu F. Rapeseed cake as a biomass source. Energy Sources. 2002;24: 329–336.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Li N, Shi J, Wang X, Liu G, Wang H. A combined linkage and regional association mapping validation and fine mapping of two major pleiotropic QTLs for seed weight and silique length in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). BMC Plant Biol. 2014;14: 114. pmid:24779415
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Shi J, Huang S, Zhan J, Yu J, Wang X, Hua W, et al. Genome-Wide Microsatellite Characterization and Marker Development in the Sequenced Brassica Crop Species. DNA Res. 2013;21: 53–68. pmid:24130371
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Li H, Younas M, Wang X, Li X, Chen L, Zhao B, et al. Development of a core set of single-locus SSR markers for allotetraploid rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Theor Appl Genet. 2013;126: 937–947. pmid:23238763
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Lowe AJ, Moule C, Trick M, Edwards KJ. Efficient large-scale development of microsatellites for marker and mapping applications in Brassica crop species. Theor Appl Genet. 2004;108: 1103–1112. pmid:15067397
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Piquemal J, Cinquin E, Couton F, Rondeau C, Seignoret E, Doucet I, et al. Construction of an oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) genetic map with SSR markers. Theor Appl Genet. 2005;111: 1514–1523. pmid:16187118
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Cheng XM, Xu JS, Xia S, Gu JX, Yang Y, Fu J, et al. Development and genetic mapping of microsatellite markers from genome survey sequences in Brassica napus. Theor Appl Genet. 2009;118: 1121–1131. pmid:19190889
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Nei M. Genetic distance between populations. Am Nat. 1972;106: 283–292.
View Article
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Liu KJ, Muse SV. PowerMarker: an integrated analysis environment for genetic marker analysis. Bioinformatics. 2005;21: 2128–2129. pmid:15705655
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] PubMed/NCBI

[63] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Rohlf F. NTSYS-pc. Numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system. Version 21 Exeter Software. New York. 2000.

[ref20] 20. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X. SPAGeDi: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes. 2002;2: 618–620.
View Article
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Yu JM, Pressoir G, Briggs WH, Bi IV, Yamasaki M, Doebley JF, et al. A unified mixed-model method for association mapping that accounts for multiple levels of relatedness. Nature Genetics. 2006;38: 203–208. pmid:16380716
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] PubMed/NCBI

[71] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Tsukaya H, Naito S, Redei GP, Komeda Y. A new class of mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana, acaulis1, affecting the development of both inflorescences and leaves. Development. 1993;118: 751–764.
View Article
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Tsuge T, Tsukaya H, Uchimiya H. Two independent and polarized processes of cell elongation regulate leaf blade expansion in Arabidopsis thaliana (L) Heynh. Development. 1996;122: 1589–1600. pmid:8625845
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] PubMed/NCBI

[78] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Hu Z, Wang X, Zhan G, Liu G, Hua W, Wang H. Unusually large oilbodies are highly correlated with lower oil content in Brassica napus. Plant Cell Rep. 2009;28: 541–549. pmid:19093121
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Wang X, Liu G, Yang Q, Hua W, Liu J, Wang H. Genetic analysis on oil content in rapeseed. Euphytica. 2009;173: 17–24.
View Article
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Stanley D, Gill T, Deman J, Tung M. Microstructure of rapeseed. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal. 1976;9: 54–60.
View Article
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. SAS Institute Inc. C. SAS/STAT user's guide. version 8. 2000.

[ref28] 28. Cong Z. Study on the effect of maize kernel oil genes at the F1 embryo stage and its application. MS Dissertation of China Agricultural University. 1996.

[ref29] 29. Zhu J. Analytic methods for seed models with genotype x environment interactions. Acta Genetica Sinica. 1996;23: 56–68. pmid:8695177
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Xiao Y, Cai D, Yang W, Ye W, Younas M, Wu J, et al. Genetic structure and linkage disequilibrium pattern of a rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) association mapping panel revealed by microsatellites. Theor Appl Genet. 2012;125: 437–447. pmid:22437490
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Xu J, Xue Q, Luo L, Li Z. Genetic dissection of grain weight and its related traits in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Chinese J Rice Sci. 2001;16: 6–10.
View Article
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Millet E, Pinthus M. The association between grain volume and grain weight in wheat. J Cereal Sci. 1984;2: 31–35.
View Article
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Alonso-Blanco C, Blankestijn-de Vries H, Hanhart CJ, Koornneef M. Natural allelic variation at seed size loci in relation to other life history traits of Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96: 4710–4717. pmid:10200327
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Lemontey C, Mousset-Declas C, Munier-Jolain N, Boutin JP. Maternal genotype influences pea seed size by controlling both mitotic activity during early embryogenesis and final endoreduplication level/cotyledon cell size in mature seed. J Exp Bot. 2000;51: 167–175. pmid:10938823
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Adamski NM, Anastasiou E, Eriksson S, O'Neill CM, Lenhard M. Local maternal control of seed size by KLUH/CYP78A5-dependent growth signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106: 20115–20120. pmid:19892740
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Schruff MC, Spielman M, Tiwari S, Adams S, Fenby N, Scott RJ. The AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR 2 gene of Arabidopsis links auxin signalling, cell division, and the size of seeds and other organs. Development. 2005;133: 251–261. pmid:16339187
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] PubMed/NCBI

[120] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Garcia D, Fitz Gerald JN, Berger F. Maternal control of integument cell elongation and zygotic control of endosperm growth are coordinated to determine seed size in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2005;17: 52–60. pmid:15598800
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] PubMed/NCBI

[124] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Jofuku KD, Omidyar PK, Gee Z, Okamuro JK. Control of seed mass and seed yield by the floral homeotic gene APETALA2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 3117–3122. pmid:15708974
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] PubMed/NCBI

[128] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Ohto MA, Fischer RL, Goldberg RB, Nakamura K, Harada JJ. Control of seed mass by APETALA2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 3123–3128. pmid:15708976
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Ohto MA, Floyd SK, Fischer RL, Goldberg RB, Harada JJ. Effects of APETALA2 on embryo, endosperm, and seed coat development determine seed size in Arabidopsis. Sex Plant Reprod. 2009;22: 277–289. pmid:20033449
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] PubMed/NCBI

[136] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Fang W, Wang Z, Cui R, Li J, Li Y. Maternal control of seed size by EOD3/CYP78A6 in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2012;70: 929–939. pmid:22251317
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] PubMed/NCBI

[140] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Alonso-Blanco C, Aarts MGM, Bentsink L, Keurentjes JJB, Reymond M, Vreugdenhil D, et al. What has natural variation taught us about plant development, physiology, and adaptation? Plant Cell. 2009;21: 1877–1896. pmid:19574434
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] PubMed/NCBI

[144] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Plant material

Genetic diversity analysis

Microscopic analysis

Maternal effect study

Field experiment and measurement of traits

Statistical analysis

Results

Genetic diversity and relative kinship analysis of the research materials

Morphological and cytological causes for seed weight variation

Maternal and xenia effects on seed weight

Maternal genotype and cytoplasm effects on seed weight

Discussion

Supporting Information

S1 Table. The 487 rapeseed inbred lines/cultivars.

S2 Table. Details of the 101 SSR markers.

S3 Table. Nei's genetic distance matrix obtained from the frequencies of 101 SSR markers.

S4 Table. Kinship matrix for the nine inbred lines.

Author Contributions

References