4.5 Article

Consistent quantitative trait loci in pea for partial resistance to Aphanomyces euteiches isolates from the United States and France

期刊

PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 95, 期 11, 页码 1287-1293

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-95-1287

关键词

Pisum sativum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of pea cultivars resistant to Aphanomyces root rot, the most destructive root disease of pea worldwide, is a major disease management objective. In a previous study of a mapping population of 127 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) derived from the cross 'Puget' (susceptible) x '90-2079' (partially resistant), we identified seven genomic regions, including a major quantitative trait locus (QTL), Aph1, associated with partial resistance to Aphanomyces root rot in U.S. fields (21). The objective of the present study was to evaluate, in the same mapping population. the specificity versus consistency of Aphanomyces resistance QTL under two screening conditions (greenhouse and field, by comparison with the previous Study) and with two isolates of Aphanomyces euteiches originating from the United States and France. The 127 RILs were evaluated in the greenhouse for resistance to pure culture isolates SP7 (United States) and Ae106 (France). Using the genetic map previously described, a total of 10 QTL were identified for resistance in greenhouse conditions to the two isolates. Among these were Aph1, Aph2, and Aph3, previously detected for partial field resistance in the United States. Aph1 and Aph3 were detected with both isolates and Aph2 with only the French isolate. Seven additional QTL were specifically detected with one of the two isolates and were not identified for partial field resistance in the United States. The consistency of the detected resistance QTL over two screening environments and isolates is discussed with regard to pathogen variability, and disease assessment and QTL detection methods. This study suggests the usefulness of three consistent QTL, Aph1 Aph2,. and Aph3, for marker-assisted selection.

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