4.7 Article

QTL mapping for resistance to root-knot nematodes in the M-120 RNR Upland cotton line (Gossypium hirsutum L.) of the Auburn 623 RNR source

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 113, 期 8, 页码 1539-1549

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-006-0401-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Root-knot nematodes Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White) can cause severe yield loss in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). The objectives of this study were to determine the inheritance and genomic location of genes conferring root-knot nematode resistance in M-120 RNR, a highly resistant G. hirsutum line with the Auburn 623 RNR source of resistance. Utilizing two interspecific F-2 populations developed from the same M-120 RNR by Gossypium barbadense (cv. Pima S-6) cross, genome-wide scanning with RFLP markers revealed a marker on Chromosome 7 and two on Chromosome 11 showing significant association with the resistant phenotype. The association was confirmed using SSR markers with the detection of a minor and a major dominant QTL on Chromosome 7 and 11, respectively. Combined across the two populations, the major QTL on Chromosome 11 Mi-C11 had a LOD score of 19.21 (9.69 and 9.61 for Pop1 and Pop2, respectively) and accounted for 63.7% (52.6 and 65.56% for Pop1 and Pop2, respectively) of the total phenotypic variation. The minor QTL locus on Chromosome 7 Mi (1) -C07 had a LOD score of 3.48 and accounted for 7.7% of the total phenotypic variation in the combined dataset but was detected in only one population. The allele from the M-120 RNR parent contributed to increased resistance in the Mi-C11 locus, but surprisingly, the Pima S-6 allele contributed to increased resistance in the Mi-C07 locus. The M-120 RNR allele in the Mi-C11 locus, derived from the Auburn 623 RNR, is likely to have originated from the Clevewilt 6 cultivar. Results from this study indicated that the SSR marker CIR316 may replace the laborious greenhouse screening in breeding programs to identify genotypes resistant to M. incognita.

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