4.5 Article

Characterization of Stem Rust Resistance in Wheat Cultivar Gage

期刊

CROP SCIENCE
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 229-239

出版社

CROP SCIENCE SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2014.05.0348

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Monsanto Beachell-Borlaug International Scholarship
  2. Hatch project [NEB-22-328]
  3. USDA
  4. CSREES NRICAP [2006-55606-16629]
  5. USDA OREI [2007-51300-03785]
  6. USDA-NIFA Triticeae Coordinated Agricultural Project [2011-68002-30029]
  7. USDA [59-0790-4-092]
  8. U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative
  9. Nebraska Wheat Development, Utilization, and Marketing Board
  10. BASF Corporation
  11. Directorate For Engineering
  12. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh [1338897] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wheat (Triticum spp.) stem rust, caused by Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici Eriks. and E. Henn. (Pgt), re-emerged as a devastating disease of wheat because of virulent race Ug99 (TTKSK). Many bread wheat (T. aestivum L.) cultivars grown in North America are susceptible to Ug99 or its derivative races that carry additional virulence. 'Gage' was released in 1963 mainly for its excellent field resistance to leaf rust (caused by Puccinia triticina Eriks) and stem rust. However, Gage's resistance has not been genetically characterized, which would facilitate its use in breeding programs. To better define the nature of the resistance in Gage, we created an F-2 population and the corresponding F-2:3 and F-4:5 families from crosses between Gage and stem rust susceptible cultivar 'Bill Brown'. Inheritance of resistance to Pgt race QFCSC and molecular marker analysis indicated that Sr2 and additional genes explain the stem rust resistance of Gage. Using seedling plant infection types from the F-2, F-2:3, and F-4:5 families, we found that at least one dominant and, most likely, one recessive gene are involved in Gage's resistance. Seedling resistance genes acted independently of Sr2 since Sr2 is effective only at the adult plant stage.

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

4.5
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