4.6 Article

Analysis and mapping of Rhizoctonia root rot resistance traits from the synthetic wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) line SYN-172

期刊

MOLECULAR BREEDING
卷 37, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11032-017-0730-9

关键词

Soil-borne disease; Green bridge; Wheat; Rhizoctonia; QTL

资金

  1. Washington Grain Commission [3061-4548, 3061-5746]
  2. PPNS [0717]
  3. Department of Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Human and Natural Resource Sciences, Agricultural Research Center
  4. Hatch Project [WNP00663]
  5. Washington State University [Pullman 99164-6430]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of root disease after planting in cold spring soils has hindered the adoption of reduced or no-tillage cereal cropping systems in the Pacific Northwest. In particular, R. solani AG8, a necrotrophic root pathogen, can cause significant damage to wheat stands under these conditions. In previous efforts to find root rot resistance, a CIMMYT synthetic wheat line, SYN-172, was found to have little to no seedling stunting from disease and lower root disease scores. To identify trait-maker associations, a population consisting of 150 BC1F5 recombinant inbred lines from a cross of Louise, a typically susceptible Pacific Northwest (PNW) cultivar, and SYN-172 was created. A total of 689 polymorphic markers were used to identify trait-marker associations for seedling stunting in field green bridge and growth chamber environments. In total, five quantitative trait loci (QTL) were found on chromosome arms 1AL, 2AL, 5BL, 7DS, and 7DL. One QTL, on chromosome 2AL, was consistently detected in all four of the environments tested, and originated from SYN-172. A second QTL on 7DL, originating from the susceptible parent Louise, was found consistently in all three of the field environments, but not in soils artificially infested with R. solani AG8. These QTL have not been previously reported and will be useful root rot resistance genes when transferred into the PNW spring wheat germplasm.

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