4.6 Article

Can allele-specific loop-mediated isothermal amplification be used for rapid detection of target-site herbicide resistance in Lolium spp.?

期刊

PLANT METHODS
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13007-023-00989-0

关键词

LAMP; ALS inhibitors; ACCase inhibitors; Herbicide resistance; Target-site resistance detection; Ryegrass

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the AS-LAMP technique was used to detect herbicide resistance in Lolium spp. The method showed good results in detecting ACCase gene, but had limitations when applied to ALS gene.
BackgroundHerbicide resistance is one of the threats to modern agriculture and its early detection is one of the most effective components for sustainable resistance management strategies. Many techniques have been used for target-site-resistance detection. Allele-Specific Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (AS-LAMP) was evaluated as a possible rapid diagnostic method for acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) and acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibiting herbicides resistance in Lolium spp.ResultsAS-LAMP protocols were set up for the most frequent mutations responsible for herbicide resistance to ALS (positions 197, 376 and 574) and ACCase (positions 1781, 2041 and 2078) inhibitors in previously characterized and genotyped Lolium spp. populations. A validation step on new putative resistant populations gave the overview of a possible use of this tool for herbicide resistance diagnosis in Lolium spp. Regarding the ACCase inhibitor pinoxaden, in more than 65% of the analysed plants, the LAMP assay and genotyping were in keeping, whereas the results were not consistent when ALS inhibitors resistance was considered. Limitations on the use of this technique for herbicide resistance detection in the allogamous Lolium spp. are discussed.ConclusionsThe LAMP method used for the detection of target-site resistance in weed species could be applicable with target genes that do not have high genetic variability, such as ACCase gene in Lolium spp.

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