4.7 Article

Characterisation and mapping of gene Lr73 conferring seedling resistance to Puccinia triticina in common wheat

Journal

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
Volume 127, Issue 9, Pages 2041-2049

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-014-2359-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Grains Research and Development Corporation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A gene conferring seedling resistance to Puccinia triticina was mapped to chromosome 2BS in the wheat Morocco. The gene was shown to be distinct and was therefore designated Lr73. The wheat genotype Morocco, widely susceptible to isolates of Puccinia triticina, was resistant to an Australian isolate of this pathogen collected in 2004. Genetic studies established that the resistance in Morocco was also present the Australian wheat genotypes Avocet, Halberd, Harrier, Tincurrin and a selection of cultivar Warigal lacking the resistance gene Lr20. Genetic studies based on a cross with Halberd showed that the gene is dominant and located on chromosome 2BS (XwPt8760-4 cM-Lr73-1.4 cM-XwPt8235). The gene was genetically independent of the Lr13, Lr16 and Lr23 loci, also located on chromosome 2BS, indicating that it is distinct. The locus designation Lr73 was therefore assigned. On the basis of multi-pathotype tests, it is likely Lr73 is also present in the Australian wheat cultivars Clearfield STL, Federation (with Lr10), Gatcher (with Lr10 and Lr27+Lr31), Marombi (with Lr1 and Lr37), Pugsley (with Lr1 and Lr37), Spear (with Lr1), Stiletto and Tarsa (with Lr1). Gene Lr73 is unlikely to be of value in resistance breeding. However, recognising Lr73 is important to avoid its inadvertent selection in breeding programmes. Furthermore, the apparent rarity of avirulence for genes like Lr73, sometimes referred to as fossil resistance genes, makes them of interest in terms of the evolution of disease resistance in host plants and of virulence in the respective rust pathogens.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available