陆地棉与斯特提棉的种间杂种及其色素腺体性状的遗传研究

用陆地棉（G．hirsutumL,AD染色体组;2n＝52）的不同色素腺体基因型与澳洲野生二倍体斯特提棉（G．sturtianumWillis;C染色体组,2n＝26）进行种间杂交,得到4个带不同色素腺体基因的（陆地棉×斯特提棉）F1种间杂种。种间杂种植株总体性状介于两个棉种之间,全株光滑无毛,表皮上有一层较薄的蜡质层,花大,深红色。不同色素腺体基因对种间杂种种子和F1植株色素腺体性状有较大的影响,其中gl2gl2gl3gl3和Gl2Gl2gl3gl3与斯特提棉杂交产生的种间杂种具有种子无色素腺体而植株有色素腺体的特性,只是用gl2gl2gl3gl3配制的种间杂种F1植株的色素腺体较一般有色素腺体陆地棉显著稀少。用gl2gl2Gl3Gl3和Gl2Gl2Gl3Gl3配制的种间杂种种子和F1植株均有色素腺体。研究结果初步表明,控制斯特提棉的子叶色素腺体延缓形成性状的基因对陆地棉无色素腺体基因（gl2gl2gl3gl3）和有色素腺体基因之一（Gl2Gl2）为显性上位,对陆地棉另一有色素腺体基因（Gl3Gl3）为隐性上位。     

海岛棉无腺体突变基因Gl_2~e的遗传研究

本文对海岛棉无腺体突变基因Gl_2的遗传行为进行了研究。结果表明,Gl_2是一个完全显性基因,不是Kohel等(1984)认为的部分显性基因。基因Gl_2和Gl_3存在着剂量效应。不稳定的遗传背景也会影响Gl_2与Gl_2和Gl_3的相互作用。Gl_1及等位基因gl_1与Gl_2没有相互联系。     

不结球白菜叶子重量性状遗传模型分析

应用主基因+多基因6个世代联合分离分析方法, 对不结球白菜SI×秋017组合的叶片重和叶柄重性状进行了分析。结果表明, SI×秋017组合的叶片重性状遗传受1对负向完全显性主基因+加性-显性多基因(D-4)控制, 主基因加性效应为1.8991, 显性效应为-1.8991; 多基因加性效应为-1.2934, 显性效应为1.7933; 势能比值为-1.3865, 显性度为-1.0000; B1、B2和F2世代群体叶片重的主基因遗传率分别为6.98%、4.33% 和36.08%; B1、B2和F2世代群体叶片重的多基因遗传率为16.03%、7.39%和23.96%。叶柄重的遗传受1对加性主基因+加性-显性多基因(D-2)控制, 主基因加性效应为-1.1457, 显性效应为0; 多基因加性效应为1.3472, 多基因显性效应为2.5788; 势能比值为1.9142, 显性度为0。B1、B2和F2世代群体叶柄重的主基因遗传率分别为31.72%、5.27%和57.94%。B1、B2和F2世代群体叶柄重的多基因遗传率分别为0.42%、4.59%和4.80%。对SI×秋017组合叶片重性状的改良要在晚代选择; 对叶柄重的改良要以主基因为主, 可在早代选择。     

大豆抗灰斑病主基因的发现与遗传研究

利用高抗品种东农9674与感病品种杂交,在田间多个生理小种共存条件下研究大豆灰斑病抗性的遗传规律,发现杂交后代的抗性表现具有明显的质量性状遗传特征,F1代表现完全显性,F2代的抗感分离比例在个别组合接近3:1。采用数量性状的主要基因-多基因混合遗传模型对抗性的遗传进行模型的判别与遗传参数的估计,发现抗性遗传存在明显的主要因效应,分别符合一个主基因 多基因加显性模型及两个基因独立遗传模型。主基因的加性、显性以及主基因之间的相互作用普遍存在,对抗病性的遗传起很大作用。     

雌雄同株黄瓜单性结实性主基因+多基因混合遗传分析

以雌雄同株黄瓜强单性结实自交系'6457'和非单性结实自交系'6426'为亲本,建立了5世代联合群体(P1、P2、F1、F2、F2∶3),采用植物数量性状主基因+多基因混合遗传模型对群体的单性结实性进行多世代联合分析.结果表明:雌雄同株黄瓜单性结实性表现为不完全显性遗传,符合D-2遗传模型,受1对加性主基因+加性-显性多基因控制.主基因加性效应值为14.7,多基因加性效应值为20.9,多基因显性效应值为25.8.F2的遗传率为56.6%,F2∶3的遗传率为48.7%.因此,对雌雄同株黄瓜单性结实性的遗传改良,可选择强单性结实性材料,通过杂交、回交转移主基因,达到选育强单性结实性材料目的.     

水稻雄性不育系珍汕97A抽穗期的基因型分析

水稻雄性不育系珍汕97A是我国应用最大,使用最广泛的不育系,利用抽穗期基因型明确的秋光（e1e1e2e2e3e3se-1^eSe-1^e),越光（E1E1E2E2e3e3Se-1^eSe-1^e),日本晴（E1E1e2e2e3e3Se-1Se-1)和日光（E1E1E2E2e3e3Se-1Se-1)作测验品种,分析了水稻珍汕97B的抽穗期基因型,结果表明,珍汕97B的抽穗期感光基因型为：e1e1e2e2E3E3Se-1Se-1,同时还存在1对隐性感光抑制基因i-Se-1,进一步用QTL近等基因系NIL（Hd1),HIL(Hd2),NIL(Hd3),NIL(Hd5)和NIL（Hd6)进行的实验也验证了珍汕]97B 在1个显性的主效感光基因Se-1,以及其他感光修饰基因,如E3,Hd3(En-Se-1),Hd5和Hd6的基因的作用。因此,推测珍汕97A带有主效感光基因是其配制的灿型杂交稻抽穗期超亲表现的内因。     

辣椒株高遗传分析

以辣椒矮秆自交系B9431（P1）和高秆自交系‘吉林长椒’（P2）为双亲,构建P1、F1、P1、B1、B2和F2 6个家系世代群体,应用植物数量性状主基因＋多基因混合遗传模型对该6个世代群体株高进行多世代联合分析,结果显示：株高遗传符合1对主基因＋多基因遗传模型,高秆对矮秆表现为不完全显性,F1代株高的势能比值为0．39,显性程度为0．91。B1、B2和F2群体主基因遗传率分别为20．35％、17．20％和35．29％,多基因遗传率分别为5．08％、19．75％和0;主基因效应表现为负向加性效应,其值为-6．43,显性效应为0;多基因加性效应值和显性效应值分别为-8．89和9．77。研究还表明,主基因与多基因间的基因效应存在一定差异,主基因加性效应值相当于多基因加性效应值的72．33％,主基因无显性效应,显性效应是由多基因控制遗传。     

‘百农64’慢白粉性的遗传分析

慢白粉品种‘百农64’与感病品种‘京双16’杂交,F1自交并分别与两亲本回交,获得包括亲本在内的6个世代,分析了‘百农64’慢白粉性的基因数目、遗传力和遗传模型.结果表明,‘百农64’慢白粉性受3对基因控制,其中2对基因的显性作用较强,另1对基因的显性作用较弱;广义遗传力为0.673 0±0.015 8,狭义遗传力为0.299 8±0.132 2;遗传方式符合加性-显性模型.     

黄瓜抗黑星病不同基因源的遗传分析

基于苗期人工接种鉴定结果,获得2份抗黑星病黄瓜材料(HX1,Cucumis sativus var.sativus,DI=5;HX5,C.sativusvar.xishuangbannesis,DI=38.7)和1份感病材料(HX8,C.sativus var.sativus,DI=80)。利用上述3份材料构建了2个组合(HX1×HX8,HX5×HX8)的6世代群体(P1、P2、F1、F2、B1和B2),并分别进行黑星病苗期人工接种鉴定。采用主基因+多基因联合遗传分析方法进行遗传分析,结果表明2份材料抗黑星病的遗传规律不同。组合HX1×HX8的F1单株表现为抗病,而组合HX5×HX8的F1单株基本表现为感病。HX1对黑星病的抗性符合两对加性-显性-上位性主基因+加性-显性多基因混合遗传模型(E_1模型),HX5的抗性遗传符合加性-显性多基因模型(C模型)。在组合HX1×HX8中,两对主基因的加性效应均大于显性效应,B1、B2和F2群体的主基因遗传率分别为72.51%、98.19%和96.91%,多基因遗传率均为0,表明HX1对黑星病的抗性以主基因遗传为主;HX5对黑星病的抗性遗传以多基因的显性效应为主。     

水稻光温敏核不育系的育性遗传分析

运用混合遗传模型对水稻光温敏核不育系1290S与1990杂交的F_1、F_2、B_1、B_2和P_1、P_2多世代群体进行联合分析,结果表明:光温敏核不育性遗传符合E-1模型,为两对加性-显性-上位性主基因 加性-显性多基因遗传模型．两对主基因的加性效应均为-0．059,而两对主基因的显性效应分别为0．153和-0．263,多基因的显性效应更大,为-0．404．其中上位性效应比较明显,以显性．显性互作最大,达0．435．B_1、B_2和F_2群体中主基因遗传率分别为56．03%,44．44%,83．0 7%,多基因遗传率分别为42．24%,33．33%,15．23%,表明1290S的不育性主要由两对主基因 多基因相互配合控制遗传的,环境虽有一定影响,但影响较小．     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor