alexa
ISSN: 2329-8863
Advances in Crop Science and Technology
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Plant Marker-Assisted Breeding and Conventional Breeding: Challenges and Perspectives

Guo-Liang Jiang*
Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57006, USA,
 
Corresponding Author : Guo-Liang Jiang
Plant Science Department
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD 57007, USA
E-mail: guo-liang.jiang@sdstate.edu, gljiang99@yahoo.com
Received September 09, 2013; Accepted September 12, 2013; Published September 14, 2013
Citation: Jiang GL (2013) Plant Marker-Assisted Breeding and Conventional Breeding: Challenges and Perspectives. Adv Crop Sci Tech 1:e106. doi:10.4172/2329-8863.1000e106
Copyright: © 2013 Jiang GL. 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.
Related article at
DownloadPubmed DownloadScholar Google

Visit for more related articles at Advances in Crop Science and Technology

Plant breeding has a long history of development beginning with the artificial domestication of crop species. Modern plant breeding based on the fundamental principles of inheritance has become an important component of agricultural science and technology. It has features of both science and arts. Conventional breeding methodologies have extensively proven successful in development of plant cultivars and germplasm. The most renowned examples include the semi-dwarf high-yielding cultivars of cereals developed during the Green Revolution and the hybrid rice developed in 1970s. However, conventional breeding is still dependent to a considerable extent on subjective evaluation and empirical selection. Scientific breeding needs less subjectiveness and more science, i.e. practical and accurate evaluation, and effective and efficient selection. Molecular markerassisted breeding (MAB) has brought great challenges, opportunities and prospects for conventional breeding.
Along with progress in molecular biotechnology, various types of molecular markers in crop plants were developed during the 1980s and 1990s [1]. The rapid development of molecular markers (particularly DNA markers) and continuous improvement of molecular assays has led to the birth of a new member in the family of plant breeding - molecular marker-assisted breeding (MAB). The extensive use of molecular markers in various fields of plant science, e.g. germplasm evaluation, genetic mapping, map-based gene discovery, characterization of traits and crop improvement, has demonstrated that molecular technology is a powerful and reliable tool in genetic manipulation of agronomically important traits in crop plants [1,2]. Compared with conventional breeding methods, MAB has significant advantages:
a. MAB can allow selection for all kinds of traits to be carried out at seedling stage and thus reduce the time required before the phenotype of an individual plant is known. For the traits that are expressed at later developmental stages, undesirable genotypes can be quickly eliminated by marker-assisted selection (MAS). This feature is particularly important and useful for some breeding schemes such as backcrossing and recurrent selection, in which crossing with or between selected individuals is required.
b. MAB is not affected by environment, thus allowing the selection to be performed under any environmental conditions (e.g. greenhouse and off-season nurseries). This is very helpful for improvement of certain traits that are expressed only when favorable environmental conditions present, e.g. disease/pest resistance and stress tolerance. For low-heritability traits that are easily affected by environments, MAS based on reliable markers tightly linked to the quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for traits of interest can be more effective and efficient than phenotypic selection.
c. MAB using co-dominance markers (e.g. SSR and SNP) can allow effective selection of recessive alleles of desired traits in the heterozygous status. No selfing or test crossing is needed to detect the traits controlled by recessive alleles, thus saving time and accelerating breeding progress.
d. For the traits controlled by multiple genes/QTLs, individual genes/QTLs in the same individuals can be identified and selected simultaneously in MAB, and thus MAB is particularly suitable for gene pyramiding. In traditional phenotypic selection, however, it is problematic to distinguish individual genes/loci because one gene may mask the effect of others.
e. Genotypic assays based on molecular markers may be faster, cheaper and more accurate than conventional phenotypic assays, depending on the traits and conditions, and thus MAB may have higher effectiveness and efficiency in terms of time, resources and efforts saved.
As such, the research and use of MAB in plants has continued to increase in the public and private sectors, particularly since 2000s [1-3]. In a sense, MAB represents a new direction of future development in plant breeding. However, as a new strategy and methodology of plant breeding, MAB has not been perfect and it has some defects. Marker-assisted selection (MAS) and/or marker-assisted backcrossing (MABC) have been primarily applied to simply-inherited traits, such as monogenic or oligogenic resistance to diseases/pests, although quantitative traits were also involved [4-6]. MAB in plants has not achieved the results as expected previously in terms of extent and success (e.g. release of commercial cultivars). [4] listed ten reasons for the low impact of MAS and MAB in general. Improvement of economically important agronomic traits like yield and quality that are complicatedly inherited is still a great challenge for MAB, including the newly developed Genome-Wide Selection (GWS) or Genomic Selection (GS) [2,7]. From the viewpoint of a plant breeder, MAB is not universally or necessarily advantageous [2]. The application of molecular technologies to plant breeding is still facing the following drawbacks and/or challenges:
a. Not all markers are breeder-friendly. This problem may be solved by converting non-breeder-friendly markers to other types of breeder-friendly markers (e.g. RFLP to STS, sequence tagged site, and RAPD to SCAR, sequence characterized amplified region).
b. Not all markers can be applicable across populations due to lack of marker polymorphism or reliable marker-trait association. Multiple mapping populations are helpful for a better understanding of marker allelic diversity and genetic background effects. In addition, QTL positions and effects also need to be validated and re-estimated by breeders in their own germplasm of interest [8].
c. False selection may occur due to recombination between the markers and the genes/QTLs of interest. Use of flanking markers or more markers for the target gene/QTL can help to perform reliable selection.
d. Inaccurate estimations of QTL locations and effects result in slower progress than expected. The efficiency of QTL detection is attributed to multiple factors, such as algorithms, mapping methods, number of polymorphic markers, and population type and size [9]. Fine mapping with high marker density and in large populations and well-designed phenotyping across multiple environments may provide more accurate estimates of QTL locations and effects.
e. The methods and schemes of MAB must be easily understandable, acceptable and implementable for plant breeders, unless they are not designed for a large scale use in practical breeding programs.
f. A large number of breeding programs have not been equipped with adequate facilities and conditions for a large-scale adoption of MAB in practice.
g. Startup expenses and labor costs are still higher in many cases.
Therefore, as other new methods of plant breeding like transgenic breeding or genetic manipulation do, MAB cannot replace conventional breeding but is and only is a supplementary addition to conventional breeding. High costs and technical or equipment demands of MAB will continue to be a major obstacle for its large-scale use in the near future, especially in the developing countries [4,10]. Therefore, integration of MAB into conventional breeding programs will be an optimistic strategy for crop improvement in the future. It can be expected that the drawbacks of MAB will be gradually overcome, as its theory, technology and application are further developed and improved. This should lead to a wide adoption and use of MAB in practical breeding programs for more crop species and in more countries as well.
References










 
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 11427
  • [From(publication date):
    September-2013 - Dec 09, 2016]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 7613
  • PDF downloads :3814
 

Review summary

  1. sofonias hagos
    Posted on Dec 19 2015 at 11:07 pm
    what are disadvantagwe of MAS over the traditional breeding
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

OMICS International Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
 
 
OMICS International Conferences 2016-17
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings
 
 

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

agrifoodaquavet@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

clinical_biochem@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

business@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

chemicaleng_chemistry@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

environmentalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

engineering@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

generalsci_healthcare@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

genetics_molbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

immuno_microbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

omics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

materialsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

mathematics_physics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

medical@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

neuro_psychology@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

pharma@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

social_politicalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2016 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version