| Literature DB >> 25279467 |
Marzena Nowakowska1, Marcin Nowicki1, Urszula Kłosińska1, Robert Maciorowski2, Elżbieta U Kozik1.
Abstract
Late blight (LB) caused by the oomycete Phytophthora infestans continues to thwart global tomato production, while only few resistant cultivars have been introduced locally. In order to gain from the released tomato germplasm with LB resistance, we compared the 5-year field performance of LB resistance in several tomato cultigens, with the results of controlled conditions testing (i.e., detached leaflet/leaf, whole plant). In case of these artificial screening techniques, the effects of plant age and inoculum concentration were additionally considered. In the field trials, LA 1033, L 3707, L 3708 displayed the highest LB resistance, and could be used for cultivar development under Polish conditions. Of the three methods using controlled conditions, the detached leaf and the whole plant tests had the highest correlation with the field experiments. The plant age effect on LB resistance in tomato reported here, irrespective of the cultigen tested or inoculum concentration used, makes it important to standardize the test parameters when screening for resistance. Our results help show why other reports disagree on LB resistance in tomato.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25279467 PMCID: PMC4184844 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109328
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Tomato cultigens used in the study, their origin, and LB resistance status (if known).
| Cultigen | Origin | Seed source | ||
| country | province | collection site | ||
|
| ||||
| West Virginia 700 (WVa 700) | - | - | - | INRA, Montfavet, France |
| L 3707 (PI 365951) | Peru | - | - | Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel |
| L 3708 (PI 365957) | Peru | Lima | Pisiquillo | Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel |
|
| ||||
| LA 1033 (6326A) | Peru | Lambayeque | Hacienda Tanlis | NCSU, Raleigh, USA |
| LA 1353 (365934) | Peru | Cajamarca | Contumasa | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 2552 (PE 36) | Peru | Cajamarca | Las Flores | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 2650 (PI 503514) | Peru | Prura | Ayabaca | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 407 | Ecuador | TGRC, Davis, USA | ||
|
| ||||
| LA 1360 (PI 365952) | Peru | Ancash | Apricot | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 1365 (PI 365953) | Peru | Ancash | Carnaquilloc | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 1983 | Peru | Ancash | Rio Manta | TGRC, Davis, USA |
|
| ||||
| LA 1395 (PI 379014) | Peru | Amazonas | Chachapoyas | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 1910 | Peru | Huancavelica | Tambillo | TGRC, Davis, USA |
|
| ||||
| LA 1929 | Peru | Ica | La Yapana | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 2581 | Chile | Arica i Parinacota | Chacarilla | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 2744 | Chile | Arica i Parinacota | Sobraya | TGRC, Davis, USA |
|
| ||||
| LA 1673 | Peru | Lima | Nana | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 2416 | - | - | - | TGRC, Davis, USA |
| LA 3845 (NC EBR–5) | - | - | - | NCSU, Raleigh, USA |
| LA 3846 (NC EBR-6) | - | - | - | NCSU, Raleigh, USA |
| ‘New Yorker’ (‘NY’) | - | - | - | INRA, Montfavet, France |
| LB susceptible control | ||||
| ‘Rumba’ | - | - | - | PNOS Ożarów, Poland |
Plant introductions numbers (PI or PE) were added where available.
Source of Ph-2; single incomplete-dominant gene mapped to the long arm of chromosome 10 [19], [24], [38].
Source of race-non-specific LB resistance conferred by two independent genes: A partially-dominant gene and a dominant epistatic gene, both mapped to chromosome 9 [46], [47].
Source of race-specific LB resistance dubbed Ph-3; originally reported as conferred by single incomplete-dominant gene, corrected by subsequent research; resistance conferred by at least two QTLs [15], [25]–[29], [31]–[33], [46], [67].
Source of polygenic LB resistance, conferred by several QTLs [16], [17], [31]–[35].
Source of LB resistance dubbed Ph-1, conferred by a single completely dominant gene mapped to the distal end of chromosome 7 with morphological markers [36]–[39].
Figure 1DSI from artificial P. infestans inoculations of ‘Rumba’ detached leaflets.
A total of 46 local isolates were used. Each isolate was tested on 10 leaflets, in a series of three independent assays. Inoculum concentration of 5×104 sporangia/ml was used. Assay evaluations were performed on the 7th day after inoculation. Disease assessment scale was based on the % of leaflet area being infected; 1 = 100% area infected; 9 = lack of disease symptoms or few and small necrotic spots. Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD).
Tomato cultigens' responses to P. infestans under natural infection in the Skierniewice experimental field.
| Cultigen | DSI | Mean | |
| 2007 | 2008 | ||
| WV 700 | 8.0±0.5 | 8.3±0.3 | 8.2 |
| L 3707 | 8.0±0.4 | 9.0±0.0 | 8.5 |
| L 3708 | 8.1±0.6 | 9.0±0.0 | 8.5 |
| LA 1033 | 8.8±0.1 | 9.0±0.0 | 8.9 |
| LA 1353 | 6.3±1.1 | 6.9±0.7 | 6.6 |
| LA 2552 | 7.0±0.2 | 5.5±0.3 | 6.3 |
| LA 2650 | 5.0±1.1 | 5.8±0.8 | 5.4 |
| LA 407 | 4.7±1.2 | 5.3±1.1 | 5.0 |
| LA 1360 | 3.1±1.2 | 2.7±1.1 | 2.9 |
| LA 1365 | 3.8±1.5 | 2.8±0.8 | 3.3 |
| LA 1983 | 1.9±0.2 | 1.5±0.2 | 1.7 |
| LA 1395 | 2.6±1.2 | 2.8±0.7 | 2.7 |
| LA 1910 | 1.5±0.2 | 1.6±0.3 | 1.6 |
| LA 1929 | 1.4±0.2 | 1.8±0.2 | 1.6 |
| LA 2581 | 1.0±0.0 | 1.0±0.0 | 1.0 |
| LA 2744 | 1.5±0.2 | 1.4±0.3 | 1.5 |
| LA 1673 | 2.6±1.5 | 3.0±1.1 | 2.8 |
| LA 2416 | 2.1±1.0 | 2.4±0.7 | 2.3 |
| LA 3845 | 1.2±0.2 | 1.1±0.2 | 1.2 |
| LA 3846 | 1.0±0.0 | 1.0±0.0 | 1.0 |
| ‘NY’ | 2.6±1.1 | 1.4±0.2 | 2.0 |
| ‘Rumba’ | 2.1±1.6 | 1.2±0.2 | 1.7 |
The disease assessment scale is based on the % area of leaf and stem infection (1 = 100% percent area infected; 9 = lack of symptoms or few small necrotic spots). Disease symptoms were scored yearly, when LB susceptible control ‘Rumba’ turned fully symptomatic for the infection. Data presented is the mean ± SD from DSI recorded on leaves and stems. LSD0.05 calculated according to Tukey procedure for comparing the cultigens in each year: 1.59, and for comparing the years for each cultigen: 0.99.
Late blight symptoms severity on chosen tomato cultigens under natural P. infestans field infections.
| Year | Cultigen | DSI | |
| Skierniewice | Boguchwała | ||
| 2009 | LA 1033 | 8.9±0.1 | 8.7±0.4 |
| 2010 | 8.8±0.2 | 8.8±0.2 | |
| 2011 | 9.0±0.0 | 8.0±1.1 | |
| 2012 | 7.2±0.8 | 9.0±0.0 | |
| 2013 | 7.8±0.7 | 8.2±0.6 | |
| 2009 | WVa 700 | 8.0±0.4 | 6.1±0.9 |
| 2010 | 8.4±0.3 | 5.7±1.0 | |
| 2011 | 4.9±1.0 | 5.0±0.7 | |
| 2012 | 8.0±0.4 | 5.7±0.5 | |
| 2013 | 4.5±1.1 | 4.3±1.3 | |
| 2009 | L 3708 | 7.9±0.4 | 7.9±0.3 |
| 2010 | 8.6±0.2 | 8.5±0.2 | |
| 2011 | 8.7±0.0 | 8.0±0.3 | |
| 2012 | 8.3±0.4 | 8.8±0.2 | |
| 2013 | 8.2±0.4 | 7.9±0.7 | |
| 2009 | L 3707 | 7.8±0.4 | 7.4±0.6 |
| 2010 | 8.5±0.3 | 7.5±0.8 | |
| 2011 | 8.3±0.7 | 8.0±0.3 | |
| 2012 | 8.3±0.2 | 8.2±0.2 | |
| 2013 | 7.4±0.5 | 8.3±0.7 | |
| 2009 | ‘NY’ | 4.3±1.4 | 1.0±0.0 |
| 2010 | 2.4±1.2 | 1.2±0.2 | |
| 2011 | 1.0±0.0 | 1.2±0.2 | |
| 2012 | 1.0±0.0 | 2.6±0.3 | |
| 2013 | 1.7±1.3 | 1.0±0.0 | |
| 2009 | ‘Rumba’ | 3.6±1.4 | 1.0±0.0 |
| 2010 | 2.7±1.7 | 1.4±0.2 | |
| 2011 | 1.0±0.0 | 1.1±0.2 | |
| 2012 | 1.0±0.0 | 1.0±0.0 | |
| 2013 | 1.8±0.9 | 1.0±0.0 | |
Data were collected from 2009 to 2013 in two locations (Skierniewice, Boguchwała).
The disease assessment scale is based on the % area of leaf and stem infection (1 = 100% percent area infected; 9 = lack of symptoms or few small necrotic spots). Disease symptoms were scored yearly, when LB susceptible control ‘Rumba’ reached maximal intensity of LB symptoms. Data presented is the mean ± SD from DSI recorded on leaves and stems. LSD0.05 calculated according to Tukey procedure for comparing cultigens in each year and in either location: 0.76, and for comparing cultigens in each year and between locations: 0.55.
Figure 2Severity of LB symptoms on tomato cultigens in the detached leaflet assay.
Detached leaflets of tomato cultigens (• ‘Rumba’; ▪ WVa 700; ♦ L 3708; ▴ LA 1033) were inoculated with the P. infestans isolate IWP 13, at indicated age (weeks), and concentration. Assay evaluations were performed on the 7th day after inoculation. Data shown are the means of ratings from at least three independent experiment sets for each combination; 25 leaflets per cultigen were inoculated per experiment. Vertical bars at each data point signify the standard deviations (SD). LSD0.05 calculated according to Tukey procedure (inset) for comparing cultigens at each plant age and inoculum concentration (C×I): 1.34, and for comparing inoculum concentration for each cultigen and plant age (C×A): 1.43.
Figure 3Severity of LB symptoms on tomato cultigens in the detached leaves assay.
Third to fifth fully expanded leaves were collected for testing from the plants (• ‘Rumba’; ▪ WVa 700; ♦ L 3708; ▴ LA 1033) at indicated ages (weeks). Detached leaves of the tested tomato cultigens (12 to 24 leaves per cultigen and per developmental stage) were inoculated with suspension of the P. infestans isolate IWP 13, by spraying at indicated concentration. Presented data, for each treatment combination, are the means of ratings from three independent experiment sets. Vertical bars at each data point signify the standard deviations (SD). LSD0.05 calculated according to Tukey procedure (inset) for comparing cultigens at each plant age and inoculum concentration (C×I): 0.58, and for comparing inoculum concentration for each cultigen and plant age (C×A): 0.74.
Figure 4Severity of LB symptoms on tomato cultigens in the whole plant assay.
Plants (• ‘Rumba’; ▪ WVa 700; ♦ L 3708; ▴ LA 1033) at indicated ages (3- to 8-weeks) were inoculated with suspension of the P. infestans isolate IWP 13, by spraying at indicated concentration (12 to 72 plants per cultigen and per developmental stage). Each combination was tested in three independent experiment sets. Vertical bars at each data point (means of the ratings) signify the standard deviations (SD). LSD0.05 calculated according to Tukey procedure (inset) for comparing cultigens at each plant age and inoculum concentration (C×I): 0.55 and for comparing inoculum concentration for each cultigen and plant age (C×A): 0.61.
Figure 5Cross-comparison of the methods for testing the tomato LB resistance.
Data from the field experiments (F) were pairwise compared with the results of each of the controlled-conditions method used, under the conditions optimized towards the maximal LB resistance expression (LL: Detached leaflets tested on 8-week old plants, under 5×104 sporangia/ml; L: Detached leaves tested on 15-week old plants, under 5×103 sporangia/ml; P: Whole plants tested on 8-week old plants, under 5×104 sporangia/ml). Calculated trend lines, with respective determination coefficients (r2) and P-values are indicated. A: Comparison of detached leaflet assays with field assays (LL and F); B: Comparison of detached leaf assays with field assays (L and F); C: Comparison of whole plant assays with field assays (P and F).