4.7 Article

Fine mapping of the Ph-3 gene conferring resistance to late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in tomato

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 126, 期 10, 页码 2643-2653

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-013-2162-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2012AA100101]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31000909, 31171975]
  3. Core Research Budget of the Non-profit Governmental Research Institution (ICS, CAAS) [201011]
  4. Key Laboratory of Horticultural Crops Genetic Improvement, Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Late blight, caused by the oomycete pathogen Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary, is a devastating disease for tomato and potato crops. In the past decades, many late blight resistance (R) genes have been characterized in potato. In contrast, less work has been conducted on tomato. The Ph-3 gene from Solanum pimpinellifolium was introgressed into cultivated tomatoes and conferred broad-spectrum resistance to P. infestans. It was previously assigned to the long arm of chromosome 9. In this study, a high-resolution genetic map covering the Ph-3 locus was constructed using an F-2 population of a cross between Solanum lycopersicum CLN2037B (containing Ph-3) and S. lycopersicum LA4084. Ph-3 was mapped in a 0.5 cM interval between two markers, Indel_3 and P55. Eight putative genes were found in the corresponding 74 kb region of the tomato Heinz1706 reference genome. Four of these genes are resistance gene analogs (RGAs) with a typical nucleotide-binding adaptor shared by APAF-1, R proteins, and CED-4 domain. Each RGA showed high homology to the late blight R gene Rpi-vnt1.1 from Solanum venturii. Transient gene silencing indicated that a member of this RGA family is required for Ph-3-mediated resistance to late blight in tomato. Furthermore, this RGA family was also found in the potato genome, but the number of the RGAs was higher than in tomato.

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

4.7
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