| Literature DB >> 24927821 |
Rajeev K Varshney1, Manish K Pandey, Pasupuleti Janila, Shyam N Nigam, Harikishan Sudini, M V C Gowda, Manda Sriswathi, T Radhakrishnan, Surendra S Manohar, Patne Nagesh.
Abstract
KEY MESSAGE: Successful introgression of a major QTL for rust resistance, through marker-assisted backcrossing, in three popular Indian peanut cultivars generated several promising introgression lines with enhanced rust resistance and higher yield. Leaf rust, caused by Puccinia arachidis Speg, is one of the major devastating diseases in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). One QTL region on linkage group AhXV explaining upto 82.62 % phenotypic variation for rust resistance was validated and introgressed from cultivar 'GPBD 4' into three rust susceptible varieties ('ICGV 91114', 'JL 24' and 'TAG 24') through marker-assisted backcrossing (MABC). The MABC approach employed a total of four markers including one dominant (IPAHM103) and three co-dominant (GM2079, GM1536, GM2301) markers present in the QTL region. After 2-3 backcrosses and selfing, 200 introgression lines (ILs) were developed from all the three crosses. Field evaluation identified 81 ILs with improved rust resistance. Those ILs had significantly increased pod yields (56-96 %) in infested environments compared to the susceptible parents. Screening of selected 43 promising ILs with 13 markers present on linkage group AhXV showed introgression of the target QTL region from the resistant parent in 11 ILs. Multi-location field evaluation of these ILs should lead to the release of improved varieties. The linked markers may be used in improving rust resistance in peanut breeding programmes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24927821 PMCID: PMC4110420 DOI: 10.1007/s00122-014-2338-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theor Appl Genet ISSN: 0040-5752 Impact factor: 5.699
Sequence and amplification information for linked markers for rust resistance in peanut
| Linked markers | Marker type | Sequence | Annealing temp | Resistance parent allele (bp) | Susceptible parent allele (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPAHM103 | Dominant | Forward: GCATTCACCACCATAGTCCA | 60.0 | 154 | 130 |
| Reverse: TCCTCTGACTTTCCTCCATCA | |||||
| GM1536 | Co-dominant | Forward: AAAGCCCTGAAAAGAAAGCAG | 60.3 | 473 | 482 |
| Reverse: TATGCATTTGCAGGTTCTGGT | |||||
| GM2301 | Co-dominant | Forward: GTAACCACAGCTGGCATGAAC | 60.3 | 127 | 136 |
| Reverse: TCTTCAAGAACCCACCAACAC | |||||
| GM2079 | Co-dominant | Forward: GGCCAAGGAGAAGAAGAAAGA | 60.0 | 416 | 436 |
| Reverse: GAAGGAGTAGTGGTGCTGCTG |
Fig. 1An overview on improvement of rust resistance in peanut through marker-assisted backcrossing (MABC). This illustration shows (a) the linkage groups of partial genetic maps from two mapping populations (‘TAG 24’ × ‘GPBD 4’ and ‘TG 26’ × ‘GPBD 4’) where dominant marker IPAHM103 was found linked with rust resistance. This marker after validation was used in early MABC generations, b linkage maps after saturation where three additional linked co-dominant markers (GM1536, GM2301 and GM2079) were mapped in the same region and been deployed in MABC programme from BC1F1 generation onwards, and c displays schematic presentation of MABC approach for introgressing rust resistance QTL in three elite (‘TAG 24’, ‘JL 24’ and ‘ICGV 91114’) cultivars using the same donor (‘GPBD 4’) which was used in QTL mapping
Summary of backcrossed and selfed plants sampled and positive plants identified in different generations
| Generations | ICGV 91114 | JL 24 | TAG 24 | Total plants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plants screened | Plants positive | Plants screened | Plants positive | Plants screened | Plants positive | Plants screened | Plants positive | |
| F1 | 36 | 32 | 37 | 30 | 32 | 25 | 105 | 87 |
| BC1F1 | 94 | 23 | 46 | 14 | 46 | 16 | 186 | 53 |
| BC2F1 | 71 | 13 | 55 | 21 | 68 | 22 | 194 | 56 |
| BC3F1 | 115 | 35 | 35 | 8 | 31 | 11 | 181 | 54 |
| BC2F2 | 75 | 31 | 25 | 3 | 214 | 53 | 314 | 87 |
| BC3F2 | 216 | 40 | 112 | 30 | 37 | 4 | 365 | 74 |
Fig. 2Disease reaction for rust resistance on parental genotypes and introgression lines (ILs) possessing rust QTL introgressed through marker-assisted backcrossing (MABC) in peanut. The first panel (a) showed disease reaction on susceptible and resistant parental genotypes; the second panel (b) showed disease reaction on leaves of parental and improved lines; and, field view of ILs possessing rust QTL through MABC programme. The third panel (c) showed replicated field evaluation of selected ILs of ‘JL 24’. The recurrent parent (‘JL 24’) and its ILs (‘JL 24’ + rust QTL) had similar phenotypic features
Rust resistance in ten best backcross introgression lines of ‘ICGV 91114’, ‘JL 24’ and ‘TAG 24’ during rainy 2012 and 2013 seasons
| S no | Genetic background/introgression line | Rainy 2012 | Rainy 2013 | Average | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score @75 DAS | Score @90 DAS | Score @75 DAS | Score @90 DAS | Score @75 DAS | Score @90 DAS | ||
| ‘ICGV 91114’ (Recurrent parent) | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 6.5 | 3.3 | 5.8 | |
| ‘GPBD 4’ (Donor parent) | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 2.3 | |
| ‘TMV 2’ (Susceptible check) | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 6.5 | |
| 1 | RBC2F5R12_13 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 2 | RBC2F5R12_15 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.0 |
| 3 | RBC2F5R12_16 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 4 | RBC2F5R12_17 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 5 | RBC2F5R12_18 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.0 |
| 6 | RBC2F5R12_19 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.0 |
| 7 | RBC2F5R12_23 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 8 | RBC2F5R12_25 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 9 | RBC2F5R12_29 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 10 | RBC2F5R12_30 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| ‘JL 24; (Recurrent parent) | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 3.5 | 6.0 | |
| ‘GPBD 4’ (Donor parent) | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 2.3 | |
| ‘TMV 2’ (Susceptible check) | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 6.5 | |
| 11 | RBC2F5R12_45 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| 12 | RBC2F5R12_46 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 2.0 |
| 13 | RBC2F5R12_78 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 14 | RBC2F5R12_87 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.0 |
| 15 | RBC2F5R12_88 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 2.0 |
| 16 | RBC2F5R12_97 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 17 | RBC2F5R12_138 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 2.0 |
| 18 | RBC2F5R12_139 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 19 | RBC2F5R12_140 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 20 | RBC2F5R12_143 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 2.0 |
| ‘TAG 24’ (Recurrent parent) | 2.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 2.5 | 5.5 | |
| ‘GPBD 4’ (Donor parent) | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 2.3 | |
| ‘TMV 2’ (Susceptible check) | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 6.5 | |
| 21 | RBC2F5R12_103 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 22 | RBC2F5R12_104 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| 23 | RBC2F5R12_107 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 24 | RBC2F5R12_108 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 25 | RBC2F5R12_114 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 26 | RBC2F5R12_117 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| 27 | RBC2F5R12_118 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| 28 | RBC2F5R12_129 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 29 | RBC2F5R12_130 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| 30 | RBC2F5R12_133 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
DAS days after sowing; S no 1–10 ILs from the cross ‘ICGV 91114’ × ‘GPBD 4’; S no 11–20 ILs from the cross ‘JL 24’ × ‘GPBD 4’; S no 21–30 ILs from the cross ‘TAG 24’ × ‘GPBD 4’
Details of one of the best introgression line in each recurrent parent background of ‘ICGV 91114’, ‘JL 24’ and ‘TAG 24’
| IL/recurrent parent | Days to flowering | Pod yield (kg/ha) | Pod yield gain (%) | Kernel yield (kg/ha) | Shelling percent (%) | 100 seed weight (g) | Rust score @75 DAS | Rust score @90 DAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBC2F5R12_13 (IL of ‘ICGV 91114’) | 31 | 1942 | 35.0 | 1417 | 73 | 38 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| ‘ICGV 91114’ | 31 | 1438 | – | 1,078 | 75 | 31 | 3.5 | 6.5 |
| RBC2F5R12_49 (IL of ‘JL 24’) | 29 | 3,083 | 28.4 | 2,219 | 72 | 34 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| ‘JL 24’ | 32 | 2,400 | – | 1,488 | 62 | 33 | 4.0 | 7.0 |
| RBC2F5R12_104 (IL of ‘TAG 24’) | 31 | 2,598 | 37.2 | 1,793 | 69 | 32 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| ‘TAG 24’ | 31 | 1,893 | – | 1,306 | 69 | 34 | 3.0 | 6.0 |
Fig. 3Monitoring genome introgression from the carrier linkage group among introgression lines (ILs). The first five samples are from second backcross (RBC2_1 to RBC2_5) while last five samples are from third backcross (RBC3_1 to RBC3_5) in the genetic background of ‘TAG 24’. RBC2F_5 among second backcross ILs showed same extent of higher maximum RP alleles in non-target genomic regions as shown by RBC3_3, RBC3_4 and RBC3_5 among third backcross derived lines