HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Turuspekov, Y. Articles by Giroux, M.J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Turuspekov, Y. Articles by Giroux, M.J. Agricola Articles by Turuspekov, Y. Articles by Giroux, M.J. Related Collections Other Grain Crops Crop Genetics

Hardness Locus Sequence Variation and Endosperm Texture in Spring Barley

^a Dep. of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology, 119 Plant BioSciences, Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717-3150
^b E.202, FSHN Facility East, USDA-ARS, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99163
^c Dep. of Animal and Range Sciences, 230C Linfield Hall, Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717. This research was supported by USDA-ARS National Research Initiative Competitive Grant Program grant 2004-35301-14538 and by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Wheat PINA and barley HINA predicted peptide sequence alignment. The deduced amino acid sequences from barley are compared to one another as well as wheat (Pina GenBank accession X69913). Residues which are conserved among the predicted peptide sequences from wheat PINA, PINB, and GSP (GenBank accession numbers X69913, X69912, and S48186, respectively) are shown in bold type. Wheat residues which differ from these conserved regions are underlined. Nonconservative amino acid changes relative to the amino acids common to PINA, PINB, and wheat GSP are shown in bold.

View larger version (42K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Wheat PINB and barley HINB-1 predicted peptide sequence alignment as described for PINA in Fig. 1. Nonconservative amino acid changes relative to the amino acids common to PINA, PINB, and wheat GSP are shown in bold.

View larger version (65K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Wheat PINB and barley HINB-2 peptide sequence alignment as described for PINA in Fig. 1. Nonconservative amino acid changes in HINB-2 relative to the amino acids conserved in PINA, PINB, and wheat GSP are shown in bold.

View larger version (73K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Wheat (GSP-w) and barley GSP peptide sequences alignment. Description for wheat GSP is given in Fig. 1. Nonconservative amino acid changes in GSP relative to the amino acids conserved in PINA, PINB, and wheat GSP are shown in bold.

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Dendrogram of similarity among most abundant HINA, HINB-1, HINB-2, and GSP polypeptides of barley and their wheat counterparts. The dendrogram was derived from MEGA version 3.1 (Neighbor-Joining method). The dendrogram shows three distinct clusters with GSP cluster of wheat (GSP-w) and barley (GSP-b) being most diverse (see details in Results).

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6. Effect of grain hardness and starch content on ruminal dry matter digestibility. Data are from average values of 81 spring barley accessions listed in Table 1. The regression values for grain hardness and starch content were R2 = 0.162 (P < 0.0002) and R2 = 0.271 (P < 0.0001), respectively.

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 7. Relationship between Ct values of Hina, Hinb-1, Hinb-2, and Gsp generated by means of quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction of 21 selected accessions representing 11 HINA alleles. Regression analysis confirms significant relationship between dry matter digestibility and Hina (R2 = 0.323, P < 0.009), Hinb-1 (R2 = 0.201, P < 0.048), Hinb-2 (R2 = 0.324, P < 0.009), and Gsp (R2 = 0.275, P < 0.018).