Abstract
Abstract Cultivated strawberry Fragaria × ananassa (Duch.) is an economically important small fruit. Flowering habit is a key trait of interest in cultivar development and agricultural production. Two cultivar types are distinguished: seasonal flowering (SF) varieties, which require a sufficiently short day length to initiate flowering; and perpetual flowering (PF) varieties, which are photoperiod‐insensitive and continuously flowering at permissive temperatures. Identifying marker‐trait associations (MTAs) and genes related to flowering time is an ongoing goal. SF and PF accessions of the ancestral octoploid Fragaria virginiana were used in crossing and backcrossing to generate a BC 1 F 1 mapping population, which was genotyped on the IStraw90 SNP array to develop a linkage map using JoinMap 4.1. MTA analysis was done by chi‐square test for independence and compared with analyses done using FlexQTL and WinQTLCart. Six MTAs for PF were mapped, suggesting complex genetic regulation. These MTAs were distributed across five linkage groups (LGs) representing four chromosomal homeology groups. Surprisingly, none of these six MTAs were assigned to a member of the F. virginiana subgenome A, the octoploid strawberry subgenome widely agreed to descend from the ancestral diploid Fragaria vesca . This important distinction extended to the strong MTAs on LG14, which our analysis assigned to the same homeology group but not the same homeolog previously assigned to the well‐studied FaPFRU locus conferring continuous flowering in F . × ananassa . This alternative localization may help to explain why the gene(s) underlying FaPFRU have remained unidentified in the 13 years since its discovery.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 4
Claim · model-written summary
Six marker-trait associations for perpetual flowering were mapped.
- Taxon
- Fragaria virginiana
Fragaria virginianat0 - Outcome
- Six MTAs for PFe0
- Value
- Sixe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Six MTAs for PF were mapped, suggesting complex genetic regulation.”
t0“Fragaria virginiana”
Claim · model-written summary
The associations occurred on five linkage groups representing four chromosomal homeology groups.
- Taxon
- Fragaria virginianaFragaria virginianat0
- Outcome
- MTAs were distributede0
- Value
- five linkage groups (LGs) representing four chromosomal homeology groupse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These MTAs were distributed across five linkage groups (LGs) representing four chromosomal homeology groups.”
t0“Fragaria virginiana”
Claim · model-written summary
None of the six associations mapped to the F. virginiana subgenome A.
- Taxon
- Fragaria virginianaFragaria virginianat0
- Gene
- F. virginiana subgenome Ae0
- Outcome
- none of these six MTAs were assigned to a member of the F. virginiana subgenome Ae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“none of these six MTAs were assigned to a member of the F. virginiana subgenome A”
t0“Fragaria virginiana”
Claim · model-written summary
The strong LG14 associations mapped to the same homeology group, but a different homeolog from FaPFRU.
- Taxon
- Fragaria virginianaFragaria virginianat0
- Gene
- FaPFRUe0
- Outcome
- not the same homeologe0
- Comparator
- same homeology groupe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“strong MTAs on LG14, which our analysis assigned to the same homeology group but not the same homeolog previously assigned to the well‐studied FaPFRU locus”
t0“Fragaria virginiana”