National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS)
|
PRINT ISSN : 2319-7692
Online ISSN : 2319-7706 Issues : 12 per year Publisher : Excellent Publishers Email : editorijcmas@gmail.com / submit@ijcmas.com Editor-in-chief: Dr.M.Prakash Index Copernicus ICV 2018: 95.39 NAAS RATING 2020: 5.38 |
Soybean genetic variation improvement is important for the development of superior cultivars. One of the greatest challenges in mutation breeding is random (uncontrolled) nature of induced mutagenesis. Large population requirement for desired mutant selection brings intensive labor. Choice of appropriate mutagen is one of the deciding factors on succession of the mutation breeding program. Physical, chemical, or biological agents are viable alternatives. Among physical mutagens ionizing radiation sources, particle (electrons, protons, neutrons, alpha and beta particles) or electromagnetic (X-rays, gamma rays), are widely used. Ionizing radiation interacts with genetic material and cause mutations on DNA sequences. Magnitude of mutagenic effect is proportional to the radiation dose Physical mutagen are still improving and mutation breeding proves its value to be fast, flexible, and viable in crop sciences. It is crucial to determine and optimize the effective radiation dose based on experimental plant variety, plant part, and radiation source. 80% of mutation breeding studies prefer physical mutagens and of 60% of this use gamma radiation. In both the soybean varieties, BSS-2 & RKS-18 the spectrum of viable mutation was high at lower dose of Gamma rays. In variety, BSS-2 twining stem, tricotyledon, tetracotyledon were observed while in M3 generation. In RKS-18 stem mutants were not observed. Whereas in the variety, BSS-2, the spectrum of viable mutations was high at dose 100 Gy (14) while in RKS-18, the spectrum of viable mutations was high at lower dose 50 Gy (16).
Bado S, Forster B P, Nielen S, Ali A M, Lagoda P J, Till B J, et al., Plant mutation breeding: Current progress and future assessment. Plant Breeding Reviews. 2015; 39:23-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119107743.ch02
Brock, R. D. 1965. Induced muttions affecting quantitative characters. In the use of induced mutations in plant breeding. Rad. Bot. 5: 51-64.
Brock, R. D. 1970. Mutations in quantitatively inherited traits induced by neutron irradiation. Rad. Bot., 10: 209-223.
Kharkwal, M. C. and Shu Q. Y. 2009. The Role of Induced Mutations in World Food Security QY'Shu (ed.) Induced Plant Mutation in the Genomic Era, Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations. Rome,: 33-38.
Lagoda, P. J. L. 2009. Networking and Forecasting of Cooperation I Plant Mutation Genetics and Breeding: Role of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division. Q.Y. Shu (ed.) Induced Plant Mutation in the Genomic Era, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome:27-30.
Malarkodi, V. 2008. Induced mutagenesis in Black gram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agric. Univ., Coimbatore.
Manjaya, J. G. and Bapat, V. A., 2008, Studies on genetic divergence in soybean, Glycine max (L). J. Oilseeds Res., 25 (2): 178-180.
Manjaya, J. G. and Nandanwar R. S. 2007. Genetic improvement of soybean vanety JS 80-21 through induced mutations. Plant Mut Rep 1(3): 36-40.
Takahashi R, Kurosaki H, Yumoto S, Han O K, Abe J. Genetic and linkage analysis of cleistogamy in soybean. Journal of Heredity. 2001; 92(1):89-92. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/92.1.89
Valliyodan B, Brown A V, Wang J, Patil G, Liu Y, Otyama P I, et al., Genetic variation among 481 diverse soybean accessions, inferred from genomic re-sequencing. Scientific Data. 2021; 8(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00834-w
Valliyodan B, Qiu D, Patil G, Zeng P, Huang J, Dai L, et al., Landscape of genomic diversity and trait discovery in soybean. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23598
Citations |
 |
 |
 |
 |
