only one is eventually used to produce commercial hybrids. To facilitate <strong>the</strong> task, groups <strong>of</strong>inbreds are <strong>of</strong>ten crossed with one or more common testers selected from among <strong>the</strong>materials that are known to combine well with <strong>the</strong> inbreds being evaluated (known as“heterotic partners”). The top-cross test may be done as early as <strong>the</strong> S1 generation or as lateas <strong>the</strong> S7 or S8 generation. Most commonly it is first done at some intermediate stage, suchas S3. Lines showing good combining ability are fur<strong>the</strong>r inbred and <strong>the</strong>n evaluated again inadditional hybrid combinations.After a superior hybrid has been identified, <strong>the</strong> final step involves <strong>the</strong> production <strong>of</strong>commercial seed. This is accomplished by planting both parents in <strong>the</strong> same field. Aproportionally greater area is planted to <strong>the</strong> female parent (or seed parent) which willproduce hybrid seed. Enough plants <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> male parent are sown to ensure that sufficientpollen is produced to cross-pollinate <strong>the</strong> female parents. The female parents are detasseledto eliminate any possibility <strong>of</strong> self-pollination.The pr<strong>of</strong>itability <strong>of</strong> hybrid maize seed production depends critically on <strong>the</strong> seed yield <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> female parent, which tends to vary greatly between hybrid types. Seed <strong>of</strong> single-crosshybrids is usually expensive to produce, because it is harvested from female parent linesthat are <strong>of</strong>ten low in productivity. Seed <strong>of</strong> three-way-cross and double-cross hybrids tendsto be less expensive to produce, because it is harvested from more productive femaleparent lines. Seed <strong>of</strong> non-conventional hybrids tends to be cheapest <strong>of</strong> all to produce,because it is harvested from female parents that are always full-vigor (non-inbred) plants.Theories <strong>of</strong> hybrid vigor and inbreeding depressionThe term hybrid vigor refers to <strong>the</strong> increase in performance <strong>of</strong> a hybrid compared to <strong>the</strong>mean performance <strong>of</strong> its parents (with performance expressed in terms <strong>of</strong> one or moremeasurable characteristics, such as size, vigor, and/or yield). George Shull (1908, 1909,1952) coined <strong>the</strong> term heterosis – actually a contraction <strong>of</strong> “stimulus <strong>of</strong> heterozygosis” – todenote this increase in performance. Today, <strong>the</strong> terms hybrid vigor and heterosis areconsidered synonyms and are used interchangeably.Most geneticists view heterosis and inbreeding depression as opposite manifestations <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> same phenomenon. In his classic text Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Falconer(1989) states that “complementary to <strong>the</strong> phenomenon <strong>of</strong> inbreeding depression is itsopposite, ‘hybrid vigor’ or ‘heterosis’…. That <strong>the</strong> phenomenon <strong>of</strong> heterosis is simplyinbreeding depression in reverse can be seen by considering how <strong>the</strong> population meandepends on <strong>the</strong> coefficient <strong>of</strong> inbreeding.”Two major <strong>the</strong>ories and several minor <strong>the</strong>ories have been advanced to explain heterosis(and, by implication, inbreeding depression). Although several <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se <strong>the</strong>ories havegained large numbers <strong>of</strong> adherents, none <strong>of</strong>fers a complete explanation <strong>of</strong> this complexphenomenon (Crow, 1997).The most widely accepted <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> heterosis (known as <strong>the</strong> dominant <strong>the</strong>ory) is based on<strong>the</strong> assumption that hybrid vigor results from bringing toge<strong>the</strong>r favorable dominant genes.31
According to this <strong>the</strong>ory, genes that promote vigor and growth are dominant, while genesthat discourage vigor and growth are recessive. When a hybrid is formed by crossing twogenetically distinct parents, dominant genes contributed by one parent may complementdominant genes contributed by <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r parent, so that <strong>the</strong> resulting progeny will have amore favorable combination <strong>of</strong> dominant genes than ei<strong>the</strong>r parent.The dominant <strong>the</strong>ory can be illustrated using a simple empirical example. Let us assumethat <strong>the</strong> dominant alleles A, B, C, D, and E are favorable for high yield and that inbred Ahas <strong>the</strong> genotype AAbbCCDDee (A, C, and D are dominant) and that inbred B has <strong>the</strong>genotype aaBBCCddEE (B, C, and E are dominant). If <strong>the</strong>se two inbreds are used as parentsto form a single-cross hybrid (A x B), <strong>the</strong> hybrid would have <strong>the</strong> genotype AaBbCCDdEe.In <strong>the</strong> F1 generation, this hybrid would contain dominant alleles at all five loci and would<strong>the</strong>refore outperform both parent inbred lines, each <strong>of</strong> which has dominant alleles at onlythree loci.If this explanation is correct, it should <strong>the</strong>oretically be possible to concentrate a sufficientnumber <strong>of</strong> favorable dominant alleles in a homozygous condition within <strong>the</strong> same inbredline – which would make <strong>the</strong> inbred line as productive as <strong>the</strong> hybrid cross. Unfortunately,practical considerations get in <strong>the</strong> way. So-called quantitative characteristics such as yieldare controlled by such a large number <strong>of</strong> genes that it is for all intents and purposesimpossible to recover all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m in a homozygous state within an individual plant.Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, cross-pollinating species such as maize contain significant numbers <strong>of</strong>deleterious recessive alleles. In <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> cross-pollination, <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> deleteriousrecessive alleles are <strong>of</strong>ten masked by <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> favorable dominant alleles, but afterrepeated cycles <strong>of</strong> self-pollination, many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> deleterious recessive alleles becomehomozygous, leading to loss <strong>of</strong> vigor in inbred lines.The second major <strong>the</strong>ory explaining heterosis (known as <strong>the</strong> overdominance <strong>the</strong>ory) assumesthat heterozygosity is <strong>of</strong>ten superior to homozygosity, so that better performing plantstend to have higher numbers <strong>of</strong> heterozygous loci (Crow, 1997; Hallauer and Miranda,1989). This <strong>the</strong>ory is based on <strong>the</strong> supposition that when <strong>the</strong>re are different alleles (a1 anda2) for a single locus, each allele produces favorable yet different effects in <strong>the</strong> plant. In aheterozygous plant (a1a2), a combined effect is produced that is more favorable to <strong>the</strong>plant than <strong>the</strong> effect produced by ei<strong>the</strong>r one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> alleles acting alone in a homozygousstate (a1a1 or a2a2).A third <strong>the</strong>ory explaining heterosis (known as <strong>the</strong> epistasis <strong>the</strong>ory) focuses on epistatic geneinteractions. Whereas <strong>the</strong> dominant and overdominance <strong>the</strong>ories concentrate on intraallelicgene action, <strong>the</strong> epistasis <strong>the</strong>ory explains heterosis in terms <strong>of</strong> inter-allelic geneactions, i.e., it posits that a gene found at one locus can affect <strong>the</strong> expression <strong>of</strong> genes foundat o<strong>the</strong>r loci. Examples <strong>of</strong> epistasis include gene complementarity, gene silencing, andduplicate gene interactions. The interaction <strong>of</strong> non-allelic genes to influence plantcharacteristics is a well-known genetic phenomenon, although limited evidence can becited to show that <strong>the</strong> interaction leads to a heterotic effect (Goodnight, 1997; Hallauer andMiranda, 1989).32
- Page 1 and 2: E C O N O M I C SWorking Paper 99-0
- Page 3 and 4: CIMMYT (www.cimmyt.mx or www.cimmyt
- Page 5 and 6: Executive SummaryThis paper summari
- Page 7 and 8: AcknowledgmentsAny report that is b
- Page 9 and 10: followed a very different path comp
- Page 11 and 12: Farmers’ Management of Maize Vari
- Page 13 and 14: In recent years, new evidence has e
- Page 15 and 16: state of Guanajuato and discusses t
- Page 17 and 18: Based on the results of a survey co
- Page 19 and 20: elied with greater frequency on the
- Page 21 and 22: hybrid seed. Initially, it was gene
- Page 23 and 24: In Veracruz State, Mexico, where mo
- Page 25 and 26: Recent work in the highlands of Mex
- Page 27 and 28: producers) tend to rely on family,
- Page 29 and 30: Unintentional seed mixingUnintentio
- Page 31 and 32: Table 11. Yield depression resultin
- Page 33 and 34: Genetic driftWhen farmers select ea
- Page 35 and 36: (a) Production of a single-cross hy
- Page 37: Breeding hybrid maize begins with t
- Page 41 and 42: Wright’s finding, which is based
- Page 43 and 44: Similarly, the mean of F3 generatio
- Page 45 and 46: 2. Between the F1 and F2 generation
- Page 47 and 48: In a series of on-station trials co
- Page 49 and 50: As part of the same trial, Ramírez
- Page 51 and 52: Table 19. Inbreeding depression obs
- Page 53 and 54: to 41% for the single cross (Figure
- Page 55 and 56: DiscussionEvery time a farmer recyc
- Page 57 and 58: The finding that genetic change in
- Page 59 and 60: Brennan, J.P., and D. Byerlee. 1991
- Page 61 and 62: Murillo Navarrete, P. 1978. Estimac
- Page 63 and 64: AppendixGuidelines for Estimating t
- Page 65 and 66: exactly how different the plants wo
- Page 67 and 68: As a general rule, we propose that