Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026)

Genetic dissection of fruit yield and its component traits in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) based on a combination of first- and second-degree statistics

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14274
Submitted
2 March 2026
Published
02-07-2026 — Updated on 09-07-2026
Versions

Abstract

Economic yield improvement is a prime objective of any crop breeding programme including chilli. An understanding of the nature of gene action underlying yield and its component traits is essential to devise effective breeding strategies. In this regard, six basic generations (P1, P2, F1, F2, BC1P1 and BC1P2) derived from two crosses (NS1 × NS2 and NS3 × NS4) involving four parents were evaluated for five productivity-related traits (average fruit weight, average fruit length, average fruit width, fruits per plant and green fruit yield per plant) during the summer season of 2025. Findings based on first-degree statistics contrasted with those derived from second-degree statistics. While the former suggested genes with dominance effects predominated over additive effects, the latter indicated the predominance of genes with additive effects in controlling the expression of these productivity traits. To avoid this discrepancy, we jointly considered both approaches, as their combined interpretation offers a more reliable understanding of the genetic architecture of quantitative traits. The integrated analysis revealed that both additive and dominance gene effects play a meaningful role in the inheritance of these traits. The predicted number of gene blocks controlling the target traits further supports the polygenic nature of these traits. Therefore, in an often cross-pollinated crop like chilli where cultivar options include both open-pollinated varieties and commercial hybrids, strategies such as intermating of extreme phenotypes followed by simple selection in early segregating generations and hybrid breeding methods would greatly enhance crop improvement.

References

  1. 1. Perry L, Dickau R, Zarrillo S, Holst I, Pearsall DM, Piperno DR, et al. Starch fossils and the domestication and dispersal of chili peppers (Capsicum spp. L.) in the Americas. Science. 2007;315(5814):986–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136914
  2. 2. Carrizo García C, Barfuss MH, Sehr EM, Barboza GE, Samuel R, Moscone EA, et al. Phylogenetic relationships, diversification and expansion of chilli peppers (Capsicum, Solanaceae). Ann Bot. 2016;118(1):35–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcw079
  3. 3. Wahyuni Y, Ballester AR, Tikunov Y, de Vos RC, Pelgrom KT, Maharijaya A, et al. Metabolomics and molecular marker analysis to explore pepper (Capsicum sp.) biodiversity. Metabolomics. 2013;9(1):130–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306–012–0432–6
  4. 4. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. FAOSTAT statistical database. Rome: FAO; 2024 [accessed 2025 Nov 11]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat
  5. 5. Spices Board of India. Annual report 2022–23. Kochi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India; 2023.
  6. 6. Shingote PR, Wasule DL, Parma VS, Holkar SK, Karkute SG, Parlawar ND, et al. An overview of chili leaf curl disease: Molecular mechanisms, impact, challenges and disease management strategies in Indian subcontinent. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:899512. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.899512
  7. 7. Kearsey MJ, Pooni HS. The genetic analysis of quantitative traits. London: Chapman and Hall; 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1-4899–4441–2
  8. 8. Jayasekara NEM, Jinks JL. Effect of gene dispersion on the estimates of components of generation means and variances. Heredity. 1976;36:171–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1976.3
  9. 9. Jinks JL. The genetic framework of plant breeding. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B. 1981;292:407–14. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1981.0036
  10. 10. Lush JL. Intra-sire correlations or regressions of offspring on dam as a method of estimating heritability of characteristics. J Anim Sci. 1945;1:293–301. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1940.19401293x
  11. 11. Comstock RE, Robinson HF. Estimation of average dominance of genes. In: Gowen JW, editor. Heterosis. Ames: Iowa State College Press; 1952. p. 494–516.
  12. 12. Castle WE. An improved method of estimating the number of genetic factors concerned in cases of blending inheritance. Science. 1921;54(1393):223. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.54.1393.223.a
  13. 13. Lande R. The minimum number of genes contributing to quantitative variation between and within populations. Genetics. 1981;99(3–4):541. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/99.3–4.541
  14. 14. Cavalli LL. Analysis of linkage in quantitative inheritance. In: Reeve ECR, Waddington CH, editors. Quantitative Inheritance. London: HMSO; 1952. p. 135–44.
  15. 15. Mather K, Jinks JL. Biometrical genetics: The theory of continuous variation. 3rd ed. London: Chapman and Hall; 1982. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1-4899–3404–8
  16. 16. Jinks JL, Jones RM. Estimation of components of heterosis. Genetics. 1958;43:223–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/43.2.223
  17. 17. Mather K, Jinks JL. Biometrical genetics. London: Chapman and Hall; 1971. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1-4899–3406–2
  18. 18. Fu YB. Understanding crop genetic diversity under modern plant breeding. Theor Appl Genet. 2015;128(11):2131–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122–015–2585-y
  19. 19. Bento CS, Rodrigues R, Sudré CP, Medeiros AM, Mathias VA, Gonçalves LS. Determining the inheritance of agronomic traits in chili pepper. Hortic Bras. 2016;34:367–73. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102–05362016003010
  20. 20. Bertan I, de Carvalho FIF, de Oliveira AC. Parental selection strategies in plant breeding programs. Crop Sci Biotechnol. 2007;10(4):211–22.
  21. 21. Dudley JW. Theory for transfer of alleles. Crop Sci. 1982;22:631–7. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200030049x
  22. 22. Dudley JW. A method of identifying lines for use in improving parents of a single cross. Crop Sci. 1984;24:355–7. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1984.0011183X002400020034x
  23. 23. Melchinger AE. Expectation of means and variances of testcrosses produced from F2 and backcross individuals and their selfed progenies. Heredity. 1987;59:105–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1987.101
  24. 24. Bernardo R. Breeding for quantitative traits in plants. Woodbury (MN): Stemma Press; 2020.
  25. 25. Bernardo R. Essentials of plant breeding. Woodbury (MN): Stemma Press; 2014.
  26. 26. Palmer T. Progressive improvement in self-fertilised crops. Heredity. 1953;7:127–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1953.13
  27. 27. Anilkumar C, Rao AM, Ramesh S, Bhavani B. Genetics of fruit yield and its component traits under different fruiting habit backgrounds in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). J Genet. 2019;98(3):84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12041–019–1133-y
  28. 28. Katral A, Hossain F, Gopinath I, Chand G, Mehta BK, Kamboj MC, et al. Genetic dissection of embryo size and weight related traits for enhancement of kernel oil in maize. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2023;197:107668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.107668
  29. 29. Sadiyah N, Karyanto A, Ramadiana S, Imantaka J. Segregation patterns and transgressive segregation for agronomic characters in red chili (Capsicum annuum L.) Laris variety of M3 generation after gamma-irradiation. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2023;1230(1):012131. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755–1315/1230/1/012131
  30. 30. Anshori MF, Musa Y, Dungga NE, Widiayani N, Arifin AS, Masniawati A, et al. A new approach for selection of transgressive segregants in F3 populations based on selection index and anthocyanin content in cayenne pepper. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2024;8:1288579. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1288579
  31. 31. Ridwan I, Farid M, Haring F, Widiayani N, Yani A, Amier N, et al. Optimised framework for evaluating F3 transgressive segregants in cayenne pepper. BMC Plant Biol. 2025;25(1):156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870–025–06182-w
  32. 32. Naegele RP, Mitchell J, Hausbeck MK. Genetic diversity, population structure and heritability of fruit traits in Capsicum annuum. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0156969. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156969
  33. 33. Hassan HM, Hadifa AA, El-Leithy SA, Batool M, Sherif A, Al-Ashkar I, et al. Variable level of genetic dominance controls important agronomic traits in rice populations under water deficit condition. PeerJ. 2023;11:e14833. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14833
  34. 34. Allard RW. Principles of plant breeding. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.
  35. 35. Hayman BI. Separation of epistasis from additive and dominance variation in generation means. Heredity. 1958;12:371–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1958.36
  36. 36. Hasanuzzaman M, Golam F. Gene actions involved in yield and yield contributing traits of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). Aust J Crop Sci. 2011;5(13):1868–75.
  37. 37. Pujar M, Govindaraj M, Gangaprasad S, Kanatti A, Gowda TH, Dushyantha Kumar BM, et al. Generation mean analysis reveals the predominant gene effects for grain iron and zinc contents in pearl millet. Front Plant Sci. 2022;12:693680. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.693680
  38. 38. Singh S, Pawar IS. An appraisal of selection methods in self-fertilized crops. Trends Crop Improv. 1990;44:17–26.
  39. 39. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education; 1996.
  40. 40. Lynch M, Walsh B. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 1998.
  41. 41. Huang W, Mackay TFC. The genetic architecture of quantitative traits cannot be inferred from variance component analysis. PLoS Genet. 2016;12(11):e1006421. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006421
  42. 42. Shivakumar MS, Ramesh S, Byregowda M, Rao AM, Gangappa E. Genetics of quantitative traits in dolichos bean (Lablab purpureus L. Sweet) var. lignosus. Mysore J Agric Sci. 2016;50(3):555–68.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.