4.6 Article

Sexual Compatibility Types in F1 Progenies of Sclerospora graminicola, the Causal Agent of Pearl Millet Downy Mildew

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof8060629

关键词

mating types; homothallism; heterothallism; secondary homothallism; neuter

资金

  1. CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals (CRP-GLDC)
  2. Pearl Millet Hybrid Parents Research Consortium (PMHPRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sclerospora graminicola exhibits heterothallic and homothallic mating types, and this study reveals the importance of sexual reproduction in the genetic recombination of the pathogen.
Sclerospora graminicola is primarily heterothallic in nature with two distinct mating types (G(1) and G(2)); however, homothallism does exist in the pathogen populations. In this study, a cross was made between two self-sterile isolates (Sg 019, Mat-2, G(2) x Sg 445-1, Mat-1, G(1)) of S. graminicola and a total of 39 F-1 progenies were established. The study on sexual compatibility types in F-1 progenies was conducted by crossing each F-1 progeny with both the parents (Sg 445-1, Mat-1, G(1); and Sg 019, Mat-2, G(2)). The results revealed the presence of four sexual compatibility types, viz. G(1), G(2), G(1)G(2) and G(0) (neuter) in the progenies. The G(1)G(2) progenies that produced oospores with both the parents were found as self-fertile (homothallic) and self-sterile (heterothallic) types. Similarly, self-fertile parental type G(1) and G(2) progenies were designated as secondary homothallic, whereas self-sterile parental type G(1) and G(2) progenies were of heterothallic type. The result of the present study revealed Mendelian segregation of mating type locus in S. graminicola which indicates that sexual reproduction plays an important role in the evolution of new genetic recombinants in the pathogen. The study also helps in understanding the genetic structure of S. graminicola populations and potential for possible evolution of new virulences in the pathogen.

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