4.6 Article

Candidate Gene Identification with SNP Marker-Based Fine Mapping of Anthracnose Resistance Gene Co-4 in Common Bean

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139450

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)/University of Guelph Program
  2. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
  3. Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation
  4. Ontario Bean Growers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anthracnose, caused by Colletotrichum lindemuthianum, is an important fungal disease of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Alleles at the Co-4 locus confer resistance to a number of races of C. lindemuthianum. A population of 94 F-4:5 recombinant inbred lines of a cross between resistant black bean genotype B09197 and susceptible navy bean cultivar Nautica was used to identify markers associated with resistance in bean chromosome 8 (Pv08) where Co-4 is localized. Three SCAR markers with known linkage to Co-4 and a panel of single nucleotide markers were used for genotyping. A refined physical region on Pv08 with significant association with anthracnose resistance identified by markers was used in BLAST searches with the genomic sequence of common bean accession G19833. Thirty two unique annotated candidate genes were identified that spanned a physical region of 936.46 kb. A majority of the annotated genes identified had functional similarity to leucine rich repeats/receptor like kinase domains. Three annotated genes had similarity to 1, 3-beta-glucanase domains. There were sequence similarities between some of the annotated genes found in the study and the genes associated with phosphoinositide-specific phosphilipases C associated with Co-x and the COK-4 loci found in previous studies. It is possible that the Co-4 locus is structured as a group of genes with functional domains dominated by protein tyrosine kinase along with leucine rich repeats/nucleotide binding site, phosphilipases C as well as beta-glucanases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据