Abstract
The improvement of pea as a crop over many decades has been employing the use of mutants. Several hundreds of different mutations are known in pea (Pisum sativum subsp. sativum), some of which are valuable for breeding. Breeding strategies may be diverse in different countries depending on different obstacles. In Russia, numerous spontaneous and induced mutations have been implemented in breeding. To our knowledge some of these, are not used in pea breeding beyond Russia. This review describes the use of mutations in pea breeding in Russia. The paper provides examples of cultivars created on the basis of mutations affecting the development of seeds (def), inflorescence (det, deh), compound leaves (af, af unitac), and symbiotic nitrogen fixation (various alleles of Sym and Nod loci). Novel mutations which are potentially promising for breeding are currently being investigated. Together with numerous cultivars of dry and fodder pea carrying commonly known mutations, new ‘chameleon’ and ‘lupinoid’ morphotypes, both double mutants, are under study. A cultivar Triumph which increases the effectiveness of interactions with beneficial soil microbes, was bred in Russia for the first time in the history of legume breeding.
Highlights
The diversity of living things results from their outstanding ability to change, especially due of heritable variations, i.e., mutations
Many species which were domesticated long ago display an outstanding range of phenotypic variation, which can be exemplified in both animals and plants, the latter being in a scope of a given review
The origin of genetics is deservingly associated with Gregor Johann Mendel, who reported the results of his pea (Pisum sativum L.) crossing experiments in 1865 [4]
Summary
The diversity of living things results from their outstanding ability to change, especially due of heritable variations, i.e., mutations. The origin of genetics is deservingly associated with Gregor Johann Mendel, who reported the results of his pea (Pisum sativum L.) crossing experiments in 1865 [4] The outline of these events is well known, but it should be emphasized that Mendel did not induce mutations, nor did any of plant breeders or naturalists of that age. The paradox (and tragedy) of P. sativum is the deep gap between its perfect degree of development as a model in genetics and its poorly characterized features in tearms of genomics In this context, the case of the molecular identification of gene A (with its recessive mutation causing the ‘Mendelian white’ flower color) is especially exemplary. TThhee fifirrssttleleaaffmmuutatattioionnwwitihthpprorovveennaaggrircicuultluturraal lvvaalulueewwaassaafifliala((aaff)) pprroommoottiinngg lleeaaff rraacchhiiss bbrraanncchhiinngg aanndd pprreevveennttiinngg ffoorrmmaattiioonn ooff lleeaaflfleettss ((FFiigguurree 33BB)). One component would produce more seeds due to improved photosynthetic features, while the other would prevent the whole system from lodging
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
