4.7 Article

Genome-wide association study identifies an NLR gene that confers partial resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae in rice

期刊

PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 1376-1383

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pbi.13300

关键词

rice blast; Magnaporthe oryzae; genome-wide association study; partial resistance gene; pathogenic diversification; PiPR1

资金

  1. International Cooperation Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China [31461143019]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31860370, 31571964, 31772120]
  3. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFD0200900]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because of the frequent breakdown of major resistance (R) genes, identification of new partial R genes against rice blast disease is an important goal of rice breeding. In this study, we used a core collection of the Rice Diversity Panel II (C-RDP-II), which contains 584 rice accessions and are genotyped with 700 000 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. The C-RDP-II accessions were inoculated with three blast strains collected from different rice-growing regions in China. Genome-wide association study identified 27 loci associated with rice blast resistance (LABRs). Among them, 22 LABRs were not associated with any known blast R genes or QTLs. Interestingly, a nucleotide-binding site leucine-rich repeat (NLR) gene cluster exists in the LABR12 region on chromosome 4. One of the NLR genes is highly conserved in multiple partially resistant rice cultivars, and its expression is significantly up-regulated at the early stages of rice blast infection. Knockout of this gene via CRISPR-Cas9 in transgenic plants partially reduced blast resistance to four blast strains. The identification of this new non-strain specific partial R gene, tentatively named rice blast Partial Resistance gene 1 (PiPR1), provides genetic material that will be useful for understanding the partial resistance mechanism and for breeding durably resistant cultivars against blast disease of rice.

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