4.5 Article

In vitro selection of yellow passion fruit genotypes for resistance to Fusarium vascular wilt

Journal

PLANT CELL TISSUE AND ORGAN CULTURE
Volume 108, Issue 1, Pages 37-45

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11240-011-0009-5

Keywords

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp passiflorae; Passiflora edulis; Fusaric acid; Culture filtrate; Tissue culture

Funding

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fusarium vascular wilt (caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. passiflorae) is a limiting factor in the cultivation of yellow passion fruit (Passiflora edulis). Since there is no effective and economically viable control available, development of resistant or at least tolerant cultivars are in demand. A number of procedures have been used for the initial selection of plant genotypes resistant to various fungal pathogens by means of a fungal culture filtrate or purified toxin. In this study, seeds and in vitro-grown plantlets of passion fruit were screened with different concentrations of either Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. passiflorae (FOP) culture filtrate (0, 20, 30, 40 or 50%, v/v) or fusaric acid (0.10, 0.20, 0.30 or 0.40 mM) supplemented in Murashige and Skoog (MS) basal media. Subsequently, selected plants were inoculated with a conidial suspension of FOP to assess correlation between in vivo and in vitro responses. In vitro sensitivity to the selective agents and the resistance response to the pathogen were also compared. Root growth was markedly influenced by FA, culture filtrate, and conidial suspension culture treatments. Observations indicated that roots were primary targets for attack by F. oxysporum. Successful in vitro selection of resistant genotypes by both FA and culture filtrate treatments suggested that this strategy was viable for accelerating breeding of passion fruit for resistance to the Fusarium vascular wilt.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available