Skip to main content
Download PDF

Induced genetic diversity through mutagenesis in wheat gene pool and significant use of SCoT markers to underpin key agronomic traits

BMC Plant Biology volume 24, Article number: 673 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This research explores the efficacy of mutagenesis, specifically using sodium azide (SA) and hydrazine hydrate (HZ) treatments, to introduce genetic diversity and enhance traits in three wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. The experiment entails subjecting the seeds to different doses of SA and HZ and cultivating them in the field for two consecutive generations: M1 (first generation) and M2 (second generation). We then employed selective breeding techniques with Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) markers to select traits within the wheat gene pool. Also, the correlation between SCoT markers and specific agronomic traits provides insights into the genetic mechanisms underlying mutagenesis-induced changes in wheat.

Results

In the study, eleven genotypes were derived from parent varieties Sids1, Sids12, and Giza 168, and eight mutant genotypes were selected from the M1 generation and further cultivated to establish the M2 generation. The results revealed that various morphological and agronomical characteristics, such as plant height, spikes per plant, spike length, spikelet per spike, grains per spikelet, and 100-grain weight, showed increases in different genotypes from M1 to M2. SCoT markers were employed to assess genetic diversity among the eleven genotypes. The bioinformatics analysis identified a correlation between SCoT markers and the transcription factors ABSCISIC ACID INSENSITIVE3 (ABI3) and VIVIPAROUS1 (VP1), crucial for plant development, growth, and stress adaptation. A comprehensive examination of genetic distance and the function identification of gene-associated SCoT markers may provide valuable insights into the mechanisms by which SA and HZ act as mutagens, enhancing wheat agronomic qualities.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the effective use of SA and HZ treatments to induce gene diversity through mutagenesis in the wheat gene pool, resulting in the enhancement of agronomic traits, as revealed by SCoT markers. The significant improvements in morphological and agronomical characteristics highlight the potential of mutagenesis techniques for crop improvement. These findings offer valuable information for breeders to develop effective breeding programs to enhance wheat quality and resilience through increased genetic diversity.

Peer Review reports

Background

Genetic diversity eases adaptive evolutionary changes that build up the genetic improvement of any crop plant, and mutation is the primary driver of all genetic diversity. Mutations occur naturally but at a meager rate. For example, the in vivo mutation rate is less than one mistake for every billion base pairs copied during replication [1, 2]. The buildup of unrepaired DNA damage can alter the genotype and phenotype of somatic and germline cells. Therefore, induced mutations may successfully invigorate genetic diversity in crops [3, 4].

Many methods, such as radiation, chemical mutagens, hybridization, and transposon insertion, can induce mutation. Mutagenic chemicals (mutagens), such as alkylating or intercalating agents, can change DNA bases randomly. Hydrazine hydrate (HZ), Sodium azide (SA), ethyl methane sulphonate (EMS), ethyleneimines, alkyl methane sulphonates, sulfur mustards, methyl methane sulfonate, epoxides, and alkyl nitrosoureas are examples of chemicals that proved to induce mutations [5,6,7,8,9,10]. For example, mutagens produced highly diverged lines of Salvia (Salvia officinalis) [11], Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) [12], rice (Oryza sativa) [13,14,15], Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) [16], Dianthus (Dianthus caryophyllus) [17], sweet corn (Zea mays) [18], and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) [19].

Mutation breeding can rapidly introduce new mutations that may result in unique traits not present in the original germplasm [20]. However, traditional breeding methods depend on introducing genetic diversity via recombination and rearranging the available alleles, a process limited by the boundaries of the current gene pool. This limitation arises from the dependency on crossing plants with favorable traits, followed by selecting desirable individuals. Such selection pressure may result in losing certain qualities such as flavor, nutritional value, and resilience to biotic and abiotic stresses [21]. While mutant breeding may be performed quickly, the results need careful inspection since it often produces several off-target consequences. Conversely, conventional breeding is a gradual process noted for its predictability due to its focused trait selection approach [22, 23].

Chemical mutagens such as SA and HZ are quite effective in producing random point mutations across the genome [11, 24,25,26,27]. The effectiveness of these mutagens was estimated by calculating the number of mutations due to exposure to a unit dose of the mutagen. However, the ratio of the frequency of mutations caused to the biological damage is the measure of their mutagenic efficiencies [24].

Wheat is the leading universal source of calories. Therefore, to provide food security challenges, the genetic improvements of wheat to enhance yield and quality and improve its tolerance against biotic or abiotic stressors were targets of many governments [28, 29]. This study aims to harness SA and HZ as mutagens that induce random global mutations across the wheat Triticum aestivum genome to enhance its diversity and improve various wheat agronomic traits. The genetic variation can be assessed by various molecular markers such as Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP), Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD), Start Codon Targeted (SCoT), Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR), Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP), Inter Simple Sequence Repeat (ISSR), and Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) [30,31,32]. Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) markers were chosen to assess the genetic diversity after mutation-inducing mutagens. SCoT markers are highly informative and provide an efficient tool to elucidate genetic differentiation among mutated wheat varieties. This study concludes the impact of mutagenesis on the genetic diversity of the wheat gene pool to enhance agronomic traits through harnessing SCoT markers to identify and characterize improved phenotypic expressions of some important agronomic traits in wheat. The correlation between SCoT markers and specific agronomic traits provides insights into the genetic mechanisms underlying mutagenesis-induced changes in wheat. Furthermore, the proposed functions and the putative tissue expression patterns of the candidate genes associated with the list of SCoT primers in this study were elucidated.

Results

Variation in morphological and agronomical attributes

The outcomes of the current investigation demonstrated broad selections expressed at six morphological and agronomical attributes in the three varieties of wheat (Sids1, Sids12, and Giza168) and their mutants (S 36, S 83, S 107, S 129, S 144, S 167, S 193, and G 218) at M1 and M2 generations as induced by SA and HZ treatments (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Sids1 and some of their mutants showed the highest mean values in the examined morphological and agronomical traits in the M2 generation compared with the M1 generation. For example, the highest mean plant height value (119.5 cm) was obtained in the S183 genotype. Likewise, the most significant average value of the number (no.) of spikes/plant (22.4) was obtained in the S136 genotype. Moreover, the highest mean spike length (18.8 cm) was achieved for the mutated genotype S183. The maximum number of spikelets/spike (25.8) was found in both mutated genotypes S183 and S1107. Furthermore, the highest no. of grains /spikelet (5.2) was recorded in both mutated genotypes S136 and S1107. At the same time, the manalyze the genetic diversity of eleven wheat s compared to the control (3.8) (Fig. 1 and Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Morphological and agronomical attributes in the three varieties of wheat (Sids1, Sids12, and Giza168) and their mutants in the first and second generations as induced by SA and HZ treatments

Full size image
Table 1 Mean performance of the eleven genotypes at M1 and M2 generations for all the studied morphological and agronomical traits in the 2019 /2020 and 2020/2021 seasons. Sids1 and their three mutant genotypes (S 36, S 83 and S 107), Sids12 and their four mutant genotypes (S 129, S 144, S 167 and S 193) and Giza 168 and its mutant genotype (G 218)
Full size table

On the contrary, Sids12 exhibited higher mean values for certain morphological and agronomical traits at M2 compared to the M1 generation. For example, the highest mean value of plant height (103.6 cm) was obtained in the S12144 genotype compared to the S12193 genotype, which exhibited the lowest value for plant height (90.8 cm). Moreover, the highest value for the average no. of grains /spikelet (5.6) was also obtained in S12144. The wheat genotype S12129 produced the highest no. of spikes /plant (25.4) on average. While the highest mean values for spike length (24.95 cm) and no. of spikelets /spike (30.6) were recorded in the S12167 mutated genotype, The highest mean 100-grain weight (6.73) was recorded for the S12193 mutated genotype compared with the control (Fig. 1 and Table 1).

Comparing both generations, Giza168 and one of its selected mutants produced the highest spikes /plant, spike length, no. of spikelets/spike, no. of grains/spikelet, and 100-grain weight in M2 compared with the M1 generation. Moreover, one mutant selected from the G168 218 genotype produced the highest mean values of plant height (112.34 cm), no. of spikes /plant (20.7), spike length (17.95), and 100-grain weight (5.32) compared with the control genotype (Fig. 1 and Table 1).

The analysis of polymorphism using SCoT markers

In this study, nine primers were used to analyze the genetic diversity of eleven wheat genotypes (Table 2). The amplification products generated by these primers exhibited polymorphic fingerprint patterns. 101 DNA fragments were acquired from nine primers, with a mean of 4.81 bands per primer (Figs. 2 and S1). Out of 101 amplified sections, only 41 were polymorphic, resulting in an estimated average of 1.95 polymorphic bands per primer. The nine primers used in this study exhibited a polymorphism level of 37.97%. The number of monomorphic bands seen was recorded as 60, with a mean value of 2.85 bands per primer. The primers SCoT-19 and SCoT-12 exhibited the highest level of polymorphism, with 8 and 5 polymorphic bands detected, respectively. The combinations SCoT-11, SCoT-13, SCoT-14, and SCoT-18 were shown to provide the minimum amount of amplified polymorphic fragments (Figure S1). The proportion of polymorphism increased from 16.7% in SCoT-11 to 100% in SCoT-19 and SCoT-12, as shown in Table 3.

Table 2 SCoT primer sequences that were used in this study. The sequence was retrieved from the NCBI database
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

SCoT pattern using nine primers (e.g., SCoT-O11 to SCoT-O20) among eleven genotypes, (1) Sids1, (2) S 36, (3) S 83, (4) S 107, (5) Sids12, (6) S 129, (7) S 144, (8) S 167, (9) S 193, (10) Giza 168, (11) and G 218. M = molecular weight marker (100bp)

Full size image
Table 3 Polymorphic and monomorphic bands of SCoT primers of the three wheat varieties and their mutant genotypes. Sids1 and their three mutant genotypes (S 36, S 83 and S 107), Sids12 and their four mutant genotypes (S 129, S 144, S 167 and S 193) and Giza 168 and its mutant genotype (G 218)
Full size table

Clustering and genetic relatedness using SCoT markers

The genetic similarity and clustering patterns of SCoT marker data from eleven genotypes have been investigated using the Unweighted Pair-Group Strategy employing Arithmetic Average (UPGMA) method and Dice coefficient, as shown in Fig. 3 and Table 4. The genetic similarity degree was assessed to be between 0.94 and 0.57, indicating a significant degree of proximity. The highest degree of genetic relatedness was observed within S12, S144, S12 167, and S12 129, with a value of 0.94. Conversely, the lowest level of genetic similarity was found throughout S1 36 and G218, with a value of 0.57. The UPGMA dendrogram exhibited a dichotomy whereby the initial cluster consisted of Sids1, S1 36, S1 83, and S1 107. The second cluster consisted of Sids12, S12 129, S12 144, S12 167, S12 193, and Giza168. The findings of this study demonstrate the efficacy of SCoT markers in identifying variation across various wheat genotypes and their corresponding mutant genotype lines (Fig. 3 and Table 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Dendrogram of three cultivars and eight selected mutant lines of wheat genotypes (e.g., Sids1, Sids12, Giza168, S 36, S 83, S 107, S 129, S 144, S 167, S 193 and G 218) generated by UPGMA cluster analysis of the dissimilarity values based on Nei’s coefficient [33]

Full size image
Table 4 Similarity coefficient values among the three studied cultivars (Sids1, Sids12 and Giza168) and the eight selected mutants derived from them (S36, S83, S107, S129, S144, S167, S193 and G218)
Full size table

Function Assessment of the SCoT-Associated Genes

To anticipate the biological functions of the nine SCoT-associated genes in question, the sequence of SCoT primers was searched against the genome sequence of T. aestivum. Subsequently, other databases like Ensembl Plants, Phytozome, National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), InterPro, and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) generated further functional annotations for these genes. In the given context, it can be shown that these nine genes are linked to the ABSCISIC ACID INSENSITIVE3 (ABI3)/VIVIPAROUS1(VP1)(RAV) transcription factors. These transcription factors are characterized by the presence of a B3 domain and an APETALA2 (AP2) domain, and they are categorized under the APETALA2/ethylene-responsive element binding factor (AP2/ERF) or B3 superfamily. These are potentially linked to vital biological functions, such as responding to environmental stressors and controlling plant growth and development. Similar findings of these transcription factors being associated with essential plant traits have also been reported in Arabidopsis thaliana, Zea mays, Oryza sativa, Glycine max, Solanum lycopersicum, Medicago truncatula, and Capsicum annuum [34,35,36,37,38,39].

Putative Tissue Expression Patterns of the SCoT-Associated Genes

To comprehend the potential roles of the nine SCoT-associated wheat genes in different tissues, their expression patterns were analyzed using the T. aestivum transcript expression database (Fig. 4). The findings revealed varied expression patterns of the genes TraesCS7D02G326300, TraesCS7B02G230100, and TraesCS7A02G329600 across numerous wheat tissues, with particularly prominent expression observed in spikelets (50 percent spike), stigma, and ovary. Additionally, notable expression was detected in the awn (50 percent spike), third leaf sheath (at the three-leaf stage), fifth leaf sheath (at the fifth leaf stage), spike, shoot apical meristem (at the seedling stage), shoot axis (at the first leaf stage), coleoptile, and first leaf sheath (at the seedling stage), as illustrated in Fig. 4 and Table S2. Additionally, the highest expression levels for the genes, TraesCS2A02G554300, TraesCS2D02G560000, and TraesCS2B02G589800, were recorded at the grain (milk grain), grain (soft dough), endosperm, and grain (hard dough). Moreover, the two genes, TraesCS3B02G278000 and TraesCS3A02G249100, were highly expressed in anther, grain (soft dough), grain (milk grain), Spikelets (50 percent spike), awn (50 percent spike), stigma, ovary, and spike. In comparison, the TraesCS3D02G412800 gene exhibited high expression in the embryo proper, grains of the ripening, hard dough, milk grain, and soft dough stages, and the coleoptile and radicle of the seedling stage (Fig. 4 and Table S2).

Fig. 4
figure 4

The putative “wheat electronic fluorescent pictograph” tissue expression of TraesCS2A02G554300, TraesCS2D02G560000, TraesCS2B02G589800, TraesCS7D02G326300, TraesCS7B02G230100, TraesCS7A02G329600, TraesCS3B02G278000, TraesCS3A02G249100 and TraesCS3D02G412800 genes at different tissues and developmental stages. The more intense the red color of the expression bar, the more gene expression is detected

Full size image

Discussion

In nature, assessing morphological and agronomical traits is critical for distinguishing and identifying mutant genotypes with desirable traits developed via mutagenesis. Herby, the morpho-agronomic characters for three varieties of bread wheat and their mutants at M1 and M2 generations, as affected by specific concentrations of SA and HZ, were assessed. M1 generations showed yield improvements compared to conventional wheat varieties, but most importantly, they provided a platform for rapid screening and identification of lines with desirable agronomic traits. We further evaluated these lines for stability and heritability in M2. It was found that M2 had higher estimates of morphological and agronomical traits than M1 and the control; this suggests that the observed heterogeneity has a strong genetic basis (Fig. 1 and Table 1). These improved M2 traits concurred with other documented experiments in which the mean values of 100-grain weight for H. vulgare were higher in M2 generations than in M1 [40].

According to other findings, mutagen treatment showed a more positive effect on the elongation of spike length in M2 generations than in M1 and original T. aestivum varieties [41]. In addition, a notable disparity was seen in many features, including the number of spikelets per spike, spike length, and plant height, after mutagen treatment in the M2 generation of T. aestivum, as compared to the M1 generation [42,43,44]. This discrepancy can be attributed to the possibility that specific mutations may alter the protein structure. For example, a mutation might lead to a protein with a slightly different conformation, resulting in reduced effectiveness compared to the wild-type protein. Mutations within the protein-coding region can alter the amino acid sequence, while mutations in other regions may impact the transcriptional and translational regulation of gene expression [45]. Moreover, some studies recorded the top averages of some morphological and agronomical attributes at M2 generation compared with M1 generation under the effect of various mutation components such as spike length and hundred-grain weight gains [26, 46], a higher no. of grains/spikelet and spikelet number/spike in wheat [26], and a significant increase in no. of grains/spikelet in wheat compared with control plants [47,48,49].

Initially, the current study provides support for the utilization of the SCoT marker due to its simplicity and higher reproducibility compared to RAPD and ISSR techniques [50]. Secondly, the SCoT marker system reveals polymorphisms in protein-encoding regions due to the specificity of SCoT primers to amplify DNA sequences from the conserved area around the ATG translation start codon which in turn may improve our knowledge of the functional implications of genetic diversity [51, 52]. The amplified DNA regions from the SCoT marker approach may be associated with specific traits. SCoT markers can detect the presence or absence of dominant markers caused by co-dominant markers and sequence variations [50].

The genetic diversity in the eleven genotypes was assessed using nine SCoT primers, revealing a polymorphism level of approximately 20%. The bands per primer had a notably higher mean of 100%. These results align with prior research on 14 wheat cultivars from North Africa, where observed polymorphism levels ranged from 8 to 57%, with a typical rate of 34.5% [53]. Similarly, 30 (SCoT) primers were used to investigate the genetic diversity among eight Asian wheat cultivars. The analysis revealed an average polymorphism rate of 38.4% [54].

Moreover, the SCoT markers have been extensively employed in research to analyze the polymorphism percentage levels at various plants and crops such as sweet potato (56.5%) [55], peanut (38.22%) [51], mango (73.82%) [56], Cicer species (100%) [57], Triticum urartu (100%) [58], rice (83.26%) [30], and durum wheat (72.22%) [59]. On the other hand, various studies found that a change in a single nucleotide within or at the end of the SCoT primer might affect the banding pattern. The present study further reported that these primers, SCoT-O11, SCoT-O12, and SCoT-O13, differ only in the last nucleotide. In contrast, the primers SCoT-O14, SCoT-O15, and SCoT-O16 differ only in the last two nucleotides. The sequences of SCoT-O18, SCoT-O19, and SCoT-O20 only differ in the last three nucleotides from the other primers (Table 2). Because of these nucleotide differences, the SCoT primers make different DNA marker profiles [52, 55, 58].

The inorganic compounds HZ (N2H4 × H2O) and SA (NaN3) have significant importance, particularly in the field of agrochemicals, where they mainly serve as herbicides [60]. They are also classified as alkylators, such as sulfur mustards, alkyl methane sulphonates, and alkyl nitrosoureas. Alkylators are chemical mutagens that can induce mutations [9, 13]. Chemical mutagens have been extensively employed to modify the genetic composition of plants in various manners, such as altering nucleotides, disrupting DNA replication, introducing indels during DNA replication, and cross-linking two DNA nucleotides, resulting in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [61]. Furthermore, it has been shown that chemical mutagens exhibit a higher level of mutation initiation and are readily employed in in vitro experiments as opposed to physical and radiation methods [62,63,64,65]. Certain checkpoints, such as nucleotide excision repair (NER) and base excision repair (BER), are necessary for the cells to repair mutations during cell divisions [65]. The impairment of these repair mechanisms has the potential to induce irreversible mutations that will have the capacity to modify gene expression and protein encoding, thereby generating genetic diversity that may contribute to enhanced crop productivity.

Inducing and selecting these favorable mutations has been done in mung bean (Phaseolus aureus Roxb.) [61, 66]. Another alkylating agent, EMS, is extensively utilized as a chemical mutagen in plants. EMS has been shown to elicit GC → AT transitions in the genomic DNA, producing mutant proteins that exhibit distinct functionalities compared to the wild-type protein [61]. Previous studies have provided evidence supporting the practicality and efficacy of alkylating chemicals, including EMS, SA, and HZ, to evolve unique gene pools in plants [11, 61, 66,67,68,69]. Hence, it may be inferred that alkylating chemicals are often used as agents for inducing point mutations, a genetic alteration characterized by modifying, adding, or deleting a single nucleotide base within an organism's DNA or RNA sequence [70]. The impacts on protein function, composition, and synthesis might vary depending on the kind of point mutation. These alterations include a spectrum of outcomes, ranging from beneficial consequences, as shown in synonymous mutations, to detrimental ones, as seen in nonsynonymous mutations [71, 72]. In the present context, these mutations can potentially induce diverse consequences for protein expression levels. For instance, they eliminate or insert a stop codon, leading to an abnormal extension or truncation of the translated protein.

Additionally, these mutations can induce alterations in the amino acid’s chemical and physical characteristics. Consequently, the affected polypeptide may experience a loss of function, acquire a novel function, or become activated [73, 74]. For example, in investigating the durability of mutations in aromatic amino acid (AAA) in A. thaliana seeds, the seeds were subjected to mutagenesis through EMS [75, 76]. The researchers successfully identified 351 mutants known as suppressors of tyra2 (sota), which lack one of the two TyrA genes that biosynthesize tyrosine. These genes provided a shared substrate for the shikimate pathway [76]. The mutant under EMS effect investigation exhibited elevated levels of aromatic amino acids (AAAs) compared to other amino acids in the F1 and F2 generations of the plant population, which possessed dominant or semi-dominant traits. This increase in AAAs was concomitated with enhanced net CO2 fixation and increased shikimate pathway activity [75,76,77,78]. The findings presented in this study provide genetic support for the notion that harnessing chemical mutagens to induce point mutations might effectively and significantly augment plant performance.

Herein, introducing either SA or HZ leads to random point mutations. Subsequently, these mutations stimulate DNA repair mechanisms and pathways. Upon administering a specific dosage, this activation initiates an adaptive response that fortifies resistance against agents causing DNA damage, consequently reducing mutagenesis frequency [79, 80]. Also, induced mutagenesis can induce genes associated with photosynthesis, growth, development, and ABA signaling pathways [81]. Accordingly, our selected SCoT markers have exhibited observed correlations with key transcription factors, specifically ABSCISIC ACID INSENSITIVE3 (ABI3) / VIVIPAROUS1 (VP1) belonging to the RAV family. Given that RAV transcription factors play a pivotal role upstream of numerous protein-encoding genes responsible for regulating plant growth, development, and responses to both biotic and abiotic stressors [82], these correlations hold significant potential implications in the context of marker-assisted breeding programs or future biological pathway analysis. Also, it provides a rationale for the traits associated with yield.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study investigates how well mutagenesis, specifically treatments with SA and HZ, can improve traits in different types of wheat. We applied selective breeding techniques using SCoT markers to select traits within the mutant wheat gene pools. The study revealed an increase in agronomical characteristics in M2 genotypes compared to M1. Bioinformatics analysis also found a link between SCoT markers and transcription factors ABI3 and VP1, which are essential for plant development, growth, and stress management. This work sheds light on how chemical mutagens may be used to improve various traits in wheat, as well as how mutagenesis-induced changes occur in wheat, by examining the relationship between SCoT markers and certain agronomic traits. It may also aid in the proper selection of genetic resources in the development of new cultivars.

Materials and methods

Field experiment

The seeds of three Egyptian cultivars of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), which are Sids1, Sids12, and Giza168, were obtained from the Field Crops Research Institute (FCRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), Giza, Cairo, Egypt. The selection of these varieties is rooted in their widespread cultivation in Egypt, their high productivity, and their resilience to adverse conditions [26, 83, 84]. Table 5 shows the lineage and origin of these genotypes. Dry seeds (~ 100 grains/treatment) were immersed in distilled water for 10 h before being soaked in three different concentrations of SA and HZ (i.e., 0.0, 0.0125, and 0.025) for 12 h in season 2019/2020. Then, the treated seeds were rinsed in distilled water for two hours. Finally, treated and untreated seeds were planted in the soil. The field trial for the M1 generation was acquired at a private farm in Alexandria Governorate, Egypt, in the 2019–2020 season. The experimental plot was 2.5 m long and 20 cm apart and was assigned under Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Plants were maintained in the field under regular day/night, irrigation, and fertilization conditions. At the end of the first season, eleven mutants were selected based on the higher morphological and agronomical traits (e.g., plant height, no. of spikes/plant, spike length, no. of spikelet/spike, no. of grains/spikelet, 100-grain weight) compared with the control (Table 6). In addition, we excluded a few mutants based on the lower morphological and agronomical traits that were recorded compared with the control (e.g., plant height, no. of spikes/plant, spike length, no. of spikelet/spike, no. of grains/spikelet, 100 grain weight) (Table S1). To achieve M2 generation, the three original varieties and eight selected mutant genotypes from M1 were sown on the same farm during 2020–2021.

Table 5 The Pedigree and origin of the three selected bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) varieties
Full size table
Table 6 The Eleven bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) genotypes used in this study: Sids1 and their three mutant genotypes (S 36, S 83 and S 107), Sids12 and their four mutant genotypes (S 129, S 144, S 167 and S 193) and Giza 168 and its mutant genotype (G 218)
Full size table

Assessing agronomic traits

We harvested the wheat plants during the 2019–2020 growth season after they had grown for seven months. We then randomly selected ten plants from each replication of each treatment for further investigation. We meticulously recorded various agronomic traits during this period, including plant height, the number of spikes per plant, spike length, the number of spikelets per spike, the number of grains per spikelet, and the weight of 100 grains. Afterward, during the 2020–2021 growth season, the seeds from the M1 generation were sown, and after seven months of growth, the M2 plants were harvested. We then assessed the same agronomic traits.

DNA extraction and quantification

Total genomic DNA was isolated from young wheat leaves using a Qiagen, Inc. DNEASY PLANT MINI KIT. The ND-1000 spectrophotometer (Nanodrop Technologies, USA) was used to quantify the extracted DNA. The A260/280 was used to check its quality. Then, its quantity and concentration were estimated [31, 32]. The genomic DNA samples were stored at –20 °C.

PCR analysis

Table 2 shows the nine SCoT primers used in the present study. DNA amplification was carried out in a 25 μL volume comprising a 12.5 μL Master Mix (Sigma), 2.5 μL primer (10 pcmol), 2.5 μL of the DNA template (10 ng), and 7.5 μL dH2O for PCR amplification. The temperature profile for PCR analysis in an Eppendorf™ Mastercycler™ Nexus Thermal Cycler (Eppendorf North America, USA) comprised 34 cycles following a 4-min denaturation cycle at 95 °C. Each cycle includes a denaturation stage at 94 °C for 1 min of SCoT-PCR, an annealing stage at 53.7–56.0 °C (according to the selected primer) for 50 s of SCoT-PCR, and a prolonging stage at 72 °C for 1:30 min of SCoT-PCR. The final cycle extended the expansion phase to 6 min at 72 °C. The PCR products were electrophoresed at 100 V in a 1.8% agarose gel containing ethidium bromide (0.6 μg/mL) in a 1X TAE buffer. To assess the size of individual DNA bands, the DM3100-ExcelBand™ 1 KB (0.25–10 kb) DNA Ladder was utilized as a reference. Finally, the BIO-RAD gel documentation system (Gel Doc XR + System) was used to photograph the gel under ultraviolet light, and the patterns of amplified DNA were analyzed using the BIO-RAD software.

SCoT primers

Twenty SCoT primers designed for wheat DNA genetic diversity analyses were utilized. These SCoT primer sequences were developed [52, 55, 58, 85], and nine out of twenty SCoT primers were used in the genetic diversity analysis of wheat genotypes (SCoT-O11, SCoT-O12, SCoT-O13, SCoT-O14, SCoT-O15, SCoT-O16, SCoT-O18, SCoT-O19, and SCoT-O20) based on producing precise and distinct banding patterns (Table 2).

Data analysis

The analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) and Duncan's multiple range tests at a 5% probability level were employed to evaluate the significance of differences between treatments. The statistical analysis of the obtained data was performed using the Costat software [86]. In the characterization of the SCoT fragments that were PCR-amplified and detected on gels, PCR-amplified fragments were denoted as '1' for signifying group proximity and '0' for the absence of such proximity. Subsequently, Jaccard's similarity coefficients were calculated using MVSP 3.2 software to construct a dendrogram based on these assignments. The Unweighted Pair-Group Strategy employing Arithmetic Average (UPGMA) was used as the clustering algorithm for dendrogram construction [87].

Function predictions of wheat genes-associated SCoT markers

The SCoT marker sequence was utilized to query the T. aestivum genomes we got from the NCBI website database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/11; retrieved on January 2, 2022). Then, the alignment sequence was compared using the available data from multiple NCBI GenBank, Phytozome, and Ensembl Plants databases to determine wheat SCoT primer candidate genes. Phytozome v13 and Ensembl Plants were used to derive annotations for these genes' probable roles [31, 32]. NCBI blast sequences were produced against the genomes of different wheat species: T. aestivum, T. turgidum, T. dicoccoides, and T. urartu.

Potential tissue expression pattern of the target genes

In various tissues, we investigated the potential differential expression of the target genes (TraesCS2A02G554300, TraesCS2D02G560000, TraesCS2B02G589800, TraesCS7D02G326300, TraesCS7B02G230100, TraesCS7A02G329600, TraesCS3B02G249100, and TraesCS3D02G412800). We have linked these genes to the selected SCoT markers. We analyzed their expressions from the T. aestivum transcript expression database, which contains data on seventy-one different tissues and organs. Seedling stage: coleoptile, radicle, and roots. The first leaf stage includes the leaf blade, shoot apical meristem, leaf sheath, stem axis, roots, and leaf ligule. Three-leaf stage: third leaf sheath, root apical meristem, roots, axillary roots, and third leaf blade. Five-leaf stage: fifth leaf sheath and fifth leaf blade. Tillering Stage: first leaf sheath, root apical meristem, first leaf blade, shoot apical meristem, shoot axis, and roots. Flag leaf stage: shoot axis, flag leaf blade, fifth leaf blade, fifth leaf sheath, roots, flag leaf blade night (+ 0.25 h) at 07:15, fifth leaf blade night (+ 0.25 h) at 22:45, flag leaf blade night (-0.25 h) at 06:45, and fifth leaf blade night (-0.25 h) at 21:45. Full boot stage: flag leaf blade, flag leaf sheath, and shoot axis. Fifty percent spike stage: awn, flag leaf sheath, roots, spike, spikelets, flag leaf blade, internode #2, and peduncle. Ear emergence stage: internode #2, flag leaf sheath, awns, glumes, flag leaf blade, peduncle, lemma, and fifth leaf blade. Anthesis stage: anthers, stigma, and ovary; flag leaf blade (-0.25 h) at 06:45; and fifth leaf blade night (-0.25 h) at 21:45. Milk grain stage: awns, lemma, glumes, peduncle, flag leaf blade, flag leaf sheath, fifth leaf blade (senescence), internode #2, grain, and shoot axis. Dough stages include grain (soft dough), grain (hard dough), flag leaf blade (senescence), and endosperm. Ripening stage: embryo proper, grain, and flag leaf blade (senescence). We generated expression profiles for the wheat plant using Electronic Fluorescent Pictograph Browsers (Wheat eFP browsers; https://bar.utoronto.ca/efp_wheat/cgi-bin/efpWeb.cgi; accessed on January 5, 2022) [31, 32].

Availability of data and materials

All data generated in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ABI3:

ABSCISIC ACID INSENSITIVE3

AFLP:

Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism

ANOVA:

Analysis of Variance

ARC:

Agricultural Research Centre

BER:

Base Excision Repair

DNA:

Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EMS:

Ethyl Methane Sulphonate

FCRI:

Field Crops Research Institute

HZ:

Hydrazine Hydrate

ISSR:

Inter Simple Sequence Repeat

Kb:

Kilobase

KEGG:

Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes

M1:

First Generation

M2:

Second Generation

NCBI:

National Center for Biotechnology Information

NER:

Nucleotide Excision Repair

Nm:

Nanometers

no.:

Number

PCR:

Polymerase Chain Reaction

RAPD:

Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA

RCBD:

Randomized Complete Block Design

RFLP:

Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism

RNA:

Ribonucleic acid

SA:

Sodium Azide

SCoT:

Start Codon Targeted

SNP:

Single Nucleotide Polymorphism

SSR:

Simple Sequence Repeat

UPGMA:

Unweighted Pair-Group Strategy employing Arithmetic Average

VP1:

VIVIPAROUS1

µg:

Micrograms

References

  1. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA. Evolutionary impacts of mutation and migration, and their interactions with selection in large populations. In: In: Introduction to Conservation Genetics. Second. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010. p. 140–59.

    Google Scholar 

  2. McCulloch SD, Kunkel TA. The fidelity of DNA synthesis by eukaryotic replicative and translesion synthesis polymerases. Cell Res. 2008;18:148–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumari V, Chaudhary H, Prasad R, Kumar A, Singh A, Jambhulkar S, et al. Effect of Mutagenesis on Germination, Growth and Fertility in Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Annu Res Rev Biol. 2016;10:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gawande S, Ghuge S, Kalpande H, Wankhade M. Effect of mutagens on emergence, plant survival and pollen sterility in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Pharma Innov. 2022;11:607–10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, Hussin G, Ramli A, Rahim HA, et al. Principle and application of plant mutagenesis in crop improvement: a review. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2016;30:1–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kumar R, Tutlani A. Alkylating Agent in Mutation Breeding. Just Agric e-Newsl. 2023;3:366–73.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arnason TJ, Mohammed L, Koehler D, Renneberg FM. MUTATION frequencies in barley after treatment with γ-radiation, ethylene imine, ethyl methanesulfonate and maleic hydrazide. Can J Genet Cytol. 1962;4:172–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Singh AK, Singh GP, Singh AP. Synergistic and antagonistic effect of gamma rays and ethyl methane sulphonate in mungbean (Vigna radiata). Indian J Agric Sci. 2008;78:146–50.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Auerbach C, Robson JM. Chemical production of mutations. Nature. 1946;157:302–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Polyn S, Willems A, De Veylder L. Cell cycle entry, maintenance, and exit during plant development. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015;23:1–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ali M, Abdelkawy AM, Darwish DBE, Alatawi HA, Alshehri D, Al-Amrah H, et al. Changes in metabolite profiling and expression levels of key genes involved in the terpenoid biosynthesis pathway in garden sage (Salvia officinalis) under the effect of hydrazine hydrate. Metabolites. 2023;13:807.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wani AA. Mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency of gamma rays, ethyl methane sulphonate and their combination treatments in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Asian J Plant Sci. 2009;8:318–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Till BJ, Cooper J, Tai TH, Colowit P, Greene EA, Henikoff S, et al. Discovery of chemically induced mutations in rice by TILLING. BMC Plant Biol. 2007;7:19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee D-K, Kim YS, Kim J-K. Determination of the optimal condition for ethylmethane sulfonate-mediated mutagenesis in a Korean commercial rice. Japonica cv Dongjin Appl Biol Chem. 2017;60:241–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Talebi AB, Talebi AB, Shahrokhifar B. Ethyl Methane Sulphonate (EMS) Induced mutagenesis in Malaysian rice (cv. MR219) for lethal dose determination. Am J Plant Sci. 2012;03:1661–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jander G, Baerson SR, Hudak JA, Gonzalez KA, Gruys KJ, Last RL. Ethylmethanesulfonate saturation mutagenesis in arabidopsis to determine frequency of herbicide resistance. Plant Physiol. 2003;131:139–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Roychowdhury R, Tah J. Chemical mutagenic action on seed germination and related agro-metrical traits in M1 Dianthus generation. Curr Bot. 2011;2:19–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rajapandian P, Dhanam S. Utilization of physical and chemical mutagenesis on germination studies of sweet corn Zea mays (L.). Int j res Bot. 2017;7:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Caldwell DG, McCallum N, Shaw P, Muehlbauer GJ, Marshall DF, Waugh R. A structured mutant population for forward and reverse genetics in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Plant J. 2004;40:143–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Udage AC. Introduction to plant mutation breeding: Different approaches and mutagenic agents. J Agric Sci - Sri Lanka. 2021;16:466–83.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Khan AH, Hassan M, Khan MN. Conventional plant breeding program for disease resistance. In: Ul Haq I, Ijaz S, editors. Plant disease management strategies for sustainable agriculture through traditional and modern approaches. Sustainability in plant and crop protection, vol 13. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 27–51.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shahwar D, Ahn N, Kim D, Ahn W, Park Y. Mutagenesis-based plant breeding approaches and genome engineering: a review focused on tomato. Mutat Res Mutat Res. 2023;792:108473.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gao C. Genome engineering for crop improvement and future agriculture. Cell. 2021;184:1621–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vinithashri G, Manonmani S, Anand G, Meena S, Bhuvaneswari K, JohnJoel A. Mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency of sodium azide in rice varieties. Electron J PLANT Breed. 2020;11(01):197–03.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Priyadharshni S, Saravanan S, Elanchezyan K, Pushpam AK, Pillai MA. Efficiency and effectiveness of physical and chemical mutagens in cowpea (Vigna ungiculata (L.)Walp). Electron J Plant Breed. 2020;11(03):803–8.

  26. Abdel-Hamed A, El-Sheihk Aly M, Saber S. Effect of some mutagens for induced mutation and detected variation by SSR marker in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Arch Agric Sci J. 2021;4:80–92.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kleinhofs A, Hodgdon AL, Owais WM, Nilan RA. Effectiveness and safety of sodium azide mutagenesis. In: In: Proceedings of induced mutations for crop improvement in Latin America, FAO/IAEA Seminar Lima Peru 1982, IAEA, TECDOC-305. 1984. p. 53–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hussain M, Iqbal MA, Till BJ, Rahman M. Identification of induced mutations in hexaploid wheat genome using exome capture assay. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0201918.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Raina A, Laskar R, Khursheed S, Amin R, Tantray Y, Parveen K, et al. Role of Mutation Breeding in Crop Improvement- Past, Present and Future. Asian Res J Agric. 2016;2:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Patidar A, Sharma R, Kotu GK, Kumar A, Ramakrishnan RS, Sharma S. SCoT markers assisted evaluation of genetic diversity in new plant type (npt) lines of rice. Bangladesh J Bot. 2022;51:335–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Makhadmeh IM, Thabet SG, Ali M, Alabbadi B, Albalasmeh A, Alqudah AM. Exploring genetic variation among Jordanian Solanum lycopersicon L. landraces and their performance under salt stress using SSR markers. J Genet Eng Biotechnol. 2022;20:45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Makhadmeh I, Albalasmeh AA, Ali M, Thabet SG, Darabseh WA, Jaradat S, et al. Molecular Characterization of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Accessions under Drought Stress. Horticulturae. 2022;8:600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nei M. Genetic distance between populations. Am Nat. 1972;106:283–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang S, Guo T, Wang Z, Kang J, Yang Q, Shen Y, et al. Expression of three related to ABI3/VP1 genes in medicago truncatula caused increased stress resistance and branch increase in Arabidopsis thaliana. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11(611):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhu XF, Yuan DP, Zhang C, Li TY, Xuan YH. RAVL1, an upstream component of brassinosteroid signalling and biosynthesis, regulates ethylene signalling via activation of EIL1 in rice. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018;16:1399–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Min H, Zheng J, Wang J. Maize ZmRAV1 contributes to salt and osmotic stress tolerance in transgenic arabidopsis. J Plant Biol. 2014;57:28–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Li CW, Su RC, Cheng CP, Sanjaya, You SJ, Hsieh TH, et al. Tomato RAV transcription factor is a pivotal modulator involved in the AP2/EREBP-mediated defense pathway. Plant Physiol. 2011;156:213–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Hu YX, Wang YH, Liu XF, Li JY. Arabidopsis RAV1 is down-regulated by brassinosteroid and may act as a negative regulator during plant development. Cell Res. 2004;14:8–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee SC, Choi DS, Hwang IS, Hwang BK. The pepper oxidoreductase CaOXR1 interacts with the transcription factor CaRAV1 and is required for salt and osmotic stress tolerance. Plant Mol Biol. 2010;73:409–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Khursheed S, Fatima S, Khan S. Differential genotypic response of two varieties of Hordeum vulgare L in response to hydrazine hydrate(Hz) alone and in combination with dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO). J Phytol. 2015;7:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Khah MA, Verma RC. Assessment of the effects of gamma radiations on various morphological and agronomic traits of common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) var. WH-147. Eur J Exp Biol. 2015;5:6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Saad FF, Abo-Hegazy SRE, EL-Sayed EAM, Suleiman HS. Heterosis and combining ability for yield and its components in diallel crosses among seven bread wheat genotypes. Egypt J Plant Breed. 2010;14:7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hobdari V, GixharI B, Geci F, Osmanaj A, Shalamayrofer V, Elezi F. Characterization of wheat germplasm based on agronomical and biochemical markers. In: In: 2nd International Conference on Agriculture and Life Sciences (ICOALS). Albania: Agricultural University of Tirana; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fikre G, Alamerew S, Tadesse Z. Genetic variability studies in bread wheat (Triticum AestivumL.) genotypes at Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, SouthEast Ethiopia. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2015;5(7):89–98.

  45. Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8:610–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ahmed M, Qadeer U, Ahmed ZI, Hassan F. Improvement of wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) drought tolerance by seed priming with silicon. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2016;62:299–315.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Wolde GM, Mascher M, Schnurbusch T. Genetic modification of spikelet arrangement in wheat increases grain number without significantly affecting grain weight. Mol Genet Genomics. 2019;294:457–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Savić J, Kandić V, Rančić D, Pećinar I, Seslija A, Ivanović D, et al. Association of agronomical, morphological and anatomical traits with compensatory effect of stem reserve mobilization in common wheat genotypes under drought stress. Ital J Agrometeorol Ital Di Agrometeorol. 2017;22:5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Philipp N, Weichert H, Bohra U, Weschke W, Schulthess AW, Weber H. Grain number and grain yield distribution along the spike remain stable despite breeding for high yield in winter wheat. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0205452.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Gorji AM, Poczai P, Polgar Z, Taller J. Efficiency of arbitrarily amplified dominant markers (SCOT, ISSR and RAPD) for diagnostic fingerprinting in tetraploid potato. Am J Potato Res. 2011;88:226–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Xiong F, Zhong R, Han Z, Jiang J, He L, Zhuang W, et al. Start codon targeted polymorphism for evaluation of functional genetic variation and relationships in cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes. Mol Biol Rep. 2011;38:3487–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Collard BCY, Mackill DJ. Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) Polymorphism: A Simple, Novel DNA Marker Technique for Generating Gene-Targeted Markers in Plants. Plant Mol Biol Report. 2009;27:86–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Mohamed A-SH, Ibrahim M, Teleb SS, Tantawy ME. SEM and SCoT markers unveil new taxonomic and genetic insights about some Northern African Triticum aestivum L. cultivars. Vegetos- An Int J Plant Res. 2017;30:34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ibrahim M, Mohamed A-S, Teleb S, Ibrahim S, Tantawy M. Taxonomic and molecular study on some Asian cultivars of Triticum aestivum L. Taeckholmia. 2017;37:16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nair AGH, Vidya P, Mohan C. Analysis of genetic variability in sweet potato accessions using Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) polymorphism. Int J Biotechnol Biochem. 2016;12:111–21.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Luo C, He X-H, Chen H, Ou S-J, Gao M-P. Analysis of diversity and relationships among mango cultivars using Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) markers. Biochem Syst Ecol. 2010;38:1176–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Amirmoradi B, Talebi R, Karami E. Comparison of genetic variation and differentiation among annual Cicer species using start codon targeted (SCoT) polymorphism, DAMD-PCR, and ISSR markers. Plant Syst Evol. 2012;298:1679–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Gholamian F, Etminan A, Changizi M, Khaghani S, Gomarian M. Assessment of genetic diversity in Triticum urartu Thumanjan ex Gandilyan accessions using start codon targeted polymorphism (SCoT) and CAAT-box derived polymorphism (CBDP) markers. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2019;33:1653–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Mohammadi R, Cheghamirza K, Geravandi M, Abbasi S. Assessment of genetic and agro-physiological diversity in a global durum wheat germplasm. Cereal Res Commun. 2022;50:117–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Rizwan M, Aslam M, Asghar M, Abbas G, Shah T, Shimelis H. Pre-breeding of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) for herbicide resistance through seed mutagenesis. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171846. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171846.

  61. Saeed Awan F, Sadia B, Altaf J, Habib M, Hameed K, Hussain S. Genetic variability through induced mutation. In: Maia R, Campos de Araújo M, editors. Genetic Variation. London: IntechOpen; 2021. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95027.

  62. Viana VE, Pegoraro C, Busanello C, Costa de Oliveira A. Mutagenesis in rice: the basis for breeding a new super plant. Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:1326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01326.

  63. Wu J-L, Wu C, Lei C, Baraoidan M, Bordeos A, Madamba MRS, et al. Chemical- and irradiation-induced mutants of indica rice IR64 for forward and reverse genetics. Plant Mol Biol. 2005;59(1):85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-004-5112-0.

  64. Acquaah G. Principles of plant genetics and breeding. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118313718.

  65. Rastogi RP, Richa, Kumar A, Tyagi MB, Sinha RP. Molecular mechanisms of ultraviolet radiation-induced DNA damage and repair. J Nucleic Acids. 2010;2010:1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ralston A. Environmental mutagens, cell signalling and DNA repair. Nat Educ. 2008;1:114.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Khan IA. Quantitative variation induced by gamma rays, ethyl methane sulphonate, and hydrazine hydrate in mung bean ( Phaseolus aureus Roxb.). Can J Genet Cytol. 1984;26:492–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Khan IA. Mutations induced by gamma-irradiation, ethyl methane sulfonate and hydrazine hydrate in mung bean (Phaseolus aureus Roxb.). Bot Bull Acad Sin. 1984;25:103–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Khan IA. Mutation studies in mung bean (Phaseolus Aureus Roxb) VI. Estimates of genetic variability. Bot Bull Acad Sin. 1983;24:121–8.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Li M, Goncearenco A, Panchenko AR. Annotating mutational effects on proteins and protein interactions: Designing novel and revisiting existing protocols. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1550:235–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6747-6_17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Lin MT, Orr DJ, Worrall D, Parry MAJ, Carmo-Silva E, Hanson MR. A procedure to introduce point mutations into the Rubisco large subunit gene in wild-type plants. Plant J. 2021;106:876–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Forner J, Kleinschmidt D, Meyer EH, Fischer A, Morbitzer R, Lahaye T, et al. Targeted introduction of heritable point mutations into the plant mitochondrial genome. Nat Plants. 2022;8:245–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Ikenoue T, Hikiba Y, Kanai F, Aragaki J, Tanaka Y, Imamura J, et al. Different effects of point mutations within the B-Raf glycine-rich loop in colorectal tumors on mitogen-activated protein/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase and nuclear factor κB pathway and cellular transfo. Cancer Res. 2004;64:3428–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, Stephens P, Edkins S, Clegg S, et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 2002;417:949–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Yokoyama R, de Oliveira MVV, Kleven B, Maeda HA. The entry reaction of the plant shikimate pathway is subjected to highly complex metabolite-mediated regulation. Plant Cell. 2021;33:671–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Yokoyama R, de Oliveira MV V., Takeda-Kimura Y, Ishihara H, Alseekh S, Arrivault S, et al. Point mutations that boost aromatic amino acid production and CO2 assimilation in plants. Sci Adv. 2022;8:eabo3416. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo3416.

  77. Schenck CA, Chen S, Siehl DL, Maeda HA. Non-plastidic, tyrosine-insensitive prephenate dehydrogenases from legumes. Nat Chem Biol. 2015;11:52–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Westfall CS, Xu A, Jez JM. Structural evolution of differential amino acid effector regulation in plant chorismate mutases. J Biol Chem. 2014;289:28619–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Typas MA, Galani I. Chemical and UV mutagenesis in Zymomonas mobilis. Genetica. 1992;87:37–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Yarve KKA, Tsymbalova EG, Zoz NN, Serebryanyi AM. Adaptive response in the gene mutation test upon chemical mutagenesis in barley. Genetika. 1995;31:81–8.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Wei C, Zhu L, Wen J, Yi B, Ma C, Tu J, et al. Morphological, transcriptomics and biochemical characterization of new dwarf mutant of Brassica napus. Plant Sci. 2018;270:97–113.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Wang S, Guo T, Wang Z, Kang J, Yang Q, Shen Y, et al. Expression of three related to ABI3/VP1 genes in medicago truncatula caused increased stress resistance and branch increase in Arabidopsis thaliana. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:611.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Anter AS. Induced mutations in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and improved grain yield by modifying spike length. Asian J Plant Sci. 2021;20:313–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Omara RI, Alkhateeb OA, Abdou AH, El-Kot GA, Shahin AA, Saad-El-Din HI, et al. How to Differentiate between Resistant and Susceptible Wheat Cultivars for Leaf Rust Fungi Using Antioxidant Enzymes and Histological and Molecular Studies? Cells. 2023;12:2643.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Cabo S, Ferreira L, Carvalho A, Martins-Lopes P, Martín A, Lima-Brito JE. Potential of Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) markers for DNA fingerprinting of newly synthesized tritordeums and their respective parents. J Appl Genet. 2014;55:307–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hil; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR. Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. 1st ed. San Francisco: W H Freeman & Co; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). The authors declare that they did not receive any fund to conduct this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural Botany Department (Genetics), Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Assuit Branch, Assuit, 71524, Egypt

    Ahmed Ali Abdelhameed

  2. Maryout Research Station, Genetic Resources Department, Desert Research Center, 1 Mathaf El-Matarya St., El-Matareya, Cairo, 11753, Egypt

    Mohammed Ali

  3. Faculty of Science, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, 71491, Saudi Arabia

    Doaa Bahaa Eldin Darwish

  4. Department of Biology, College of Science, King Khalid University, Abha, 61413, Saudi Arabia

    Manal Abdullah AlShaqhaa

  5. Department of Agricultural Botany, Faculty of Agricultural, Menoufia University, Shebin El-Kom, 32511, Egypt

    Dalia Abdel-Fattah H. Selim

  6. Botany and Microbiology Department, Faculty of Science, Benha University, Benha, 13518, Egypt

    Aziza Nagah

  7. Department of Botany and Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Menoufia University, Shebin El-Kom, 32511, Egypt

    Muhammad Zayed

Authors
  1. Ahmed Ali Abdelhameed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doaa Bahaa Eldin Darwish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manal Abdullah AlShaqhaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dalia Abdel-Fattah H. Selim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aziza Nagah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Muhammad Zayed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A. A. A., and D.A.H.S. performed laboratory experiments, field experiments and collecting data. D.B.D., and M.A.A. Performed in silico and statistical analyses. M.Z., A.N., M.A. Conceptualization, formal analysis, and writing. All authors participated in the writing, discussed the results, commented on the manuscript, and participated in the experimentation and the analysis of the data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Zayed.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdelhameed, A.A., Ali, M., Darwish, D.B.E. et al. Induced genetic diversity through mutagenesis in wheat gene pool and significant use of SCoT markers to underpin key agronomic traits. BMC Plant Biol 24, 673 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-05345-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-05345-5

Keywords

BMC Plant Biology

ISSN: 1471-2229

Contact us