4.7 Article

Genomic Analysis and Delineation of the Tan Spot Susceptibility Locus Tsc1 in Wheat

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.793925

关键词

tan spot; wheat; Triticum; Pyrenophora tritici-repentis; Ptr ToxC; Tsc1; disease resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the sensitivity of wheat lines carrying specific genes to the necrotrophic effector produced by the necrotrophic fungal pathogen Pyrenophora tritici-repentis (Ptr), which causes the foliar disease tan spot. The research maps the genetic markers and identifies candidate genes for the trait, providing a foundation for future cloning of the gene and development of genetically resistant cultivars.
The necrotrophic fungal pathogen Pyrenophora tritici-repentis (Ptr) causes the foliar disease tan spot in both bread wheat and durum wheat. Wheat lines carrying the tan spot susceptibility gene Tsc1 are sensitive to the Ptr-produced necrotrophic effector (NE) Ptr ToxC. A compatible interaction results in leaf chlorosis, reducing yield by decreasing the photosynthetic area of leaves. Developing genetically resistant cultivars will effectively reduce disease incidence. Toward that goal, the production of chlorosis in response to inoculation with Ptr ToxC-producing isolates was mapped in two low-resolution biparental populations derived from LMPG-6 x PI 626573 (LP) and Louise x Penawawa (LouPen). In total, 58 genetic markers were developed and mapped, delineating the Tsc1 candidate gene region to a 1.4 centiMorgan (cM) genetic interval spanning 184 kb on the short arm of chromosome 1A. A total of nine candidate genes were identified in the Chinese Spring reference genome, seven with protein domains characteristic of resistance genes. Mapping of the chlorotic phenotype, development of genetic markers, both for genetic mapping and marker-assisted selection (MAS), and the identification of Tsc1 candidate genes provide a foundation for map-based cloning of Tsc1.

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