4.7 Article

Comparative Analysis of Phenotypic and Molecular Data on Response to Main Pear Diseases and Pest Attack in a Germplasm Collection

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24076239

Keywords

breeding; cultivars; fingerprint; fire blight; genetic resources; pear scab; Pyrus; psylla; Septoria; SSRs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated pear genotypes from different sources and identified some potential resistant varieties, which can be used to develop new pear cultivars with disease resistance through breeding programs.
The pear is an important fruit tree in temperate areas, but due to its sensitivity, fruit yield and quality are often affected by disease and pest attacks. Pear genotypes from a germplasm collection comprising 13 Pyrus species, 17 Romanian varieties, and 50 non-Romanian varieties from a worldwide assortment were investigated in this study. Throughout four years, response to attack of the principal pathogens and pests was investigated phenotypically under natural conditions of infection and infestation. SSR markers were used to analyze the genetic diversity of the genotypes. A standardized method for the evaluation of responses to biotic stressors was proposed, which highlighted significant differences between genotypes. The species and varieties with the lowest degrees of attack (DA%), calculated based on the frequency and intensity of attack, were identified for pear scab (Venturia pyrina), septoria (Septoria pyricola), fire blight (Erwinia amylovora), and psyllids (Psylla sp.). These accessions could provide valuable sources of genes of interest to develop resistant varieties in new pear breeding programs. By combining phenotypic and molecular analyses, significant information was obtained that can be exploited to generate high variability for selection through artificial hybridization by harnessing accessions with complementary molecular fingerprints and high genetic distances.

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