Money matters (II): Costs of maize inbred line conversion schemes at CIMMYT using conventional and marker-assisted selection

Molecular Breeding

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 235-247

  Morris, Michael ^a   Dreher, Kate ^a   Ribaut, Jean Marcel ^a   Khairallah, Mireille ^a  

^a INTERNATIONAL MAIZE AND WHEAT IMPROVEMENT CENTER CIMMYT   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Crop improvement; Economics; Marker assisted selection; SSR; Zea mays L

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COST EFFECTIVENESS; EARNINGS; GRAIN (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT); INVESTMENTS; PLANTS (BOTANY);

BREEDING METHOD; CROP IMPROVEMENT; INBRED LINE; MAIZE INBREDS; MARKER-ASSISTED SELECTION; ME-XICO; OPERATING CAPITAL; SELECTION METHODS; SSR; ZEA MAYS L;

BUDGET CONTROL;

TRITICUM AESTIVUM; ZEA; ZEA MAYS;

EID: 0037386996     PISSN: 13803743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022872604743     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Beckman J.S. and Soller M. 1983. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms in genetic improvement: methodologies, mapping and costs. Theor. Appl. Genet. 67: 35-43.
2. Brennan J.P. 1999. An analysis of economic potential of some innovations in a wheat breeding program. Aus. J. Ag. Econ. 33: 48-55.
3. Crouch J.H. 2000. Molecular marker-assisted breeding: A perspective for small to medium-sized plant breeding companies. In: Conference paper. Asian Seed 2000: Seventh Annual Conference of the Asia & Pacific Seed Association. September 25-28, Bangalore, India.
4. Dreher K., Khairallah M., Ribaut J.-M. and Morris M.L. 2003. Money matters (I): Costs of field and laboratory procedures associated with conventional and marker-assisted maize breeding at CIMMYT. Mol. Breed., this issue.
5. Dreher K., Morris M.L., Ribaut J.-M., Khairallah M., Pandey S. and Srinivasan G. 2000. Is marker-assisted selection cost-effective compared to conventional plant breeding methods? In: The case of Quality Protein Maize. Paper prepared for the Third Annual Conference of the International Consortium for Agricultural Biotechnology Research, August 25-28, Ravello, Italy.
6. Frisch M., Bohn M. and Melchinger A.E. 1999a. Minimum sample size and opthnal positioning of flanking markers in marker-assisted backcrossing for transfer of a target gene. Crop. Sci. 39: 967-975.
7. Frisch M., Bohn M. and Melchinger A.E. 1999b. Comparison of selection strategies for marker-assisted backcrossing of a gene. Crop. Sci. 39: 1295-1301.
8. Gittinger J.P. 1980. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
9. Mohan M., Nair S., Bhagwat A., Krishna T.G., Yano M., Bhatia C.R. et al. 1997. Genome mapping, molecular markers and marker-assisted selection in crop plants. Mol. Breed. 3: 87-103.
10. Pandey S. and Rajatasereekul S. 1999. Economics of plant breeding: The value of shorter breeding cycles for rice in Northeast Thailand. Field Crops Res. 64: 187-197.
11. Ragot M. and Hoisington D.A. 1993. Molecular markers for plant breeding: comparisons of RFLP and RAPD genotyping costs. Theor. Appl. Genet. 86: 975-984.
12. Ragot M., Biasiolli M., Delbut M.F., Dell'orco A., Margarini L., Thevenin P. et al. 1995. Marker-assisted backcrossing: a practical example. In: Techniques et utilisations des marqueurs moléculaires, Les Colloques, No.72. INRA, Paris, pp. 45-46.
13. Ribaut J.-M. and Hoisington D.A. 1998. Marker-assisted selection: New tools and strategies. Trends in Plant Science 3: 236-239.
14. Ribaut J.-M., Jiang C. and Hoisington D. 2002. Efficiency of a gene introgression experiment by backcrossing. Crop. Sci. 42: 557-565.
15. Sanders J.H. and Lynam J.K. 1982. Definition of the relevant constraints for research resource allocation in crop breeding programs. Ag. Admin. 9: 273-284.
16. Tanksley S.D., Young N.D., Paterson A.H. and Bonierbale M.W. 1989. RFLP mapping in plant breeding: new tools for an old science. Biotech. 7: 257-264.