Anthony J. Studer

Although hybrid crop varieties are among the most popular agricultural innovations, the rationale for hybrid crop breeding is sometimes misunderstood. Hybrid breeding is slower and more resource-intensive than inbred breeding, but it allows systematic improvement of a population by recurrent selection and exploitation of heterosis simultaneously. Inbred parental lines can identically reproduce both themselves and their F 1 progeny indefinitely, whereas outbred lines cannot, so uniform outbred lines must be bred indirectly through their inbred parents to harness heterosis. Heterosis is an expected consequence of whole-genome non-additive effects at the population level over evolutionary time. Understanding heterosis from the perspective of molecular genetic mechanisms alone may be elusive, because heterosis is likely an emergent property of populations. Hybrid breeding is a process of recurrent population improvement to maximize hybrid performance. Hybrid breeding is not maximization of heterosis per se , nor testing random combinations of individuals to find an exceptional hybrid, nor using heterosis in place of population improvement. Though there are methods to harness heterosis other than hybrid breeding, such as use of open-pollinated varieties or clonal propagation, they are not currently suitable for all crops or production environments. The use of genomic selection can decrease cycle time and costs in hybrid breeding, particularly by rapidly establishing heterotic pools, reducing testcrossing, and limiting the loss of genetic variance. Open questions in optimal use of genomic selection in hybrid crop breeding programs remain, such as how to choose founders of heterotic pools, the importance of dominance effects in genomic prediction, the necessary frequency of updating the training set with phenotypic information, and how to maintain genetic variance and prevent fixation of deleterious alleles.

Abstract Selection during evolution, whether natural or artificial, is evidenced through the phenotype. For complex phenotypes like plant and inflorescence..... Selection during evolution, whether natural or artificial, acts through the phenotype. For multifaceted phenotypes such as plant and inflorescence architecture, the underlying genetic architecture is comprised of a complex network of interacting genes rather than single genes that act independently to determine the trait. As such, selection acts on entire gene networks. Here, we begin to define the genetic regulatory network to which the maize domestication gene, teosinte branched1 (tb1), belongs. Using a combination of molecular methods to uncover either direct or indirect regulatory interactions, we identified a set of genes that lie downstream of tb1 in a gene network regulating both plant and inflorescence architecture. Additional genes, known from the literature, also act in this network. We observed that tb1 regulates both core cell cycle genes and another maize domestication gene, teosinte glume architecture1 (tga1). We show that several members of the MADS-box gene family are either directly or indirectly regulated by tb1 and/or tga1, and that tb1 sits atop a cascade of transcriptional regulators controlling both plant and inflorescence architecture. Multiple members of the tb1 network appear to have been the targets of selection during maize domestication. Knowledge of the regulatory hierarchies controlling traits is central to understanding how new morphologies evolve.

teosinte glume architecture1 (tga1), a member of the SBP-box gene family of transcriptional regulators, has been identified as the gene conferring naked kernels in maize vs. encased kernels in its wild progenitor, teosinte. However, the identity of the causative polymorphism within tga1 that produces these different phenotypes has remained unknown. Using nucleotide diversity data, we show that there is a single fixed nucleotide difference between maize and teosinte in tga1, and this difference confers a Lys (teosinte allele) to Asn (maize allele) substitution. This substitution transforms TGA1 into a transcriptional repressor. While both alleles of TGA1 can bind a GTAC motif, maize-TGA1 forms more stable dimers than teosinte-TGA1. Since it is the only fixed difference between maize and teosinte, this alteration in protein function likely underlies the differences in maize and teosinte glume architecture. We previously reported a difference in TGA1 protein abundance between maize and teosinte based on relative signal intensity of a Western blot. Here, we show that this signal difference is not due to tga1 but to a second gene, neighbor of tga1 (not1). Not1 encodes a protein that has 92% amino acid similarity to TGA1 and that is recognized by the TGA1 antibody. Genetic mapping and phenotypic data show that tga1, without a contribution from not1, controls the difference in covered vs. naked kernels. No trait differences could be associated with the maize vs. teosinte alleles of not1. Our results document how morphological evolution can be driven by a simple nucleotide change that alters protein function.