| Literature DB >> 28493203 |
Chaivarakun Chaipanya1,2, Mary Jeanie Telebanco-Yanoria2, Berlaine Quime2, Apinya Longya1, Siripar Korinsak3, Siriporn Korinsak3, Theerayut Toojinda4, Apichart Vanavichit5,6, Chatchawan Jantasuriyarat7,8, Bo Zhou9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rice (Oryza sativa) is one of the most important food crops in the world. Rice blast, caused by the fungal pathogen Magnaporthe oryzae, is one of the most destructive rice diseases worldwide. To effectively cope with this problem, the use of rice blast resistance varieties through innovative breeding programs is the best strategy to date. The Thai rice variety Jao Hom Nin (JHN) showed broad-spectrum resistance against Thai rice blast isolates. Two QTLs for blast resistance in JHN were reported on chromosome 1 (QTL1) and 11 (QTL11).Entities:
Keywords: Durable resistance; Magnaporthe oryzae; Quantitative trait loci (QTL)
Year: 2017 PMID: 28493203 PMCID: PMC5425360 DOI: 10.1186/s12284-017-0159-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rice (N Y) ISSN: 1939-8425 Impact factor: 4.783
Fig. 1The resistance frequency of IRBLs and JHN against Philippine rice blast isolates. The resistance frequency of each rice variety was calculated based on the resistance reactions against 132 Philippine isolates as listed in Additional file 1: Table S1. The resistance frequency of JHN was indicated on the top of the bar
The disease spectrum of QTL1-C, QTL11-C, IRBLsh-S, IRBL7-M, and JHN against 42 representative Philippine blast isolates
| Isolates | Resistance reactions of different rice lines to a set of 42 representative isolates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QTL1-C | IRBLsh-S | QTL11-C | IRBL7-M | JHN | |
| 5008-3 | R | R | R | R | R |
| 5092-3 | R | R | R | R | R |
| 5167-1 | R | R | S | S | R |
| 9244-3 | S | S | R | R | R |
| 9406-3 | R | R | R | R | R |
| 9475-1 | R | R | R | R | R |
| 9482-1 | R | R | S | S | R |
| 9497-3 | S | S | R | R | R |
| PO6-6 | R | R | R | R | R |
| CA89 | R | R | R | R | R |
| IK81-3 | R | R | R | R | R |
| IK81-25 | R | R | S | S | R |
| JMB8401 | S | S | S | S | S |
| JMB840610 | R | R | S | S | R |
| M101-1-2-9-1 | R | R | R | R | R |
| M64-1-3-9-1 | S | S | S | S | S |
| PO83-Z1-30 | R | R | R | R | R |
| V86010 | R | R | R | R | R |
| BN111 | R | R | R | R | R |
| BN209 | R | R | R | R | R |
| MO15-2 | R | R | R | R | R |
| MO15-6 | S | S | S | S | S |
| MO15-20 | R | R | S | S | R |
| MO15-21 | R | R | R | R | R |
| MO15-24 | S | S | R | R | R |
| MO15-32 | R | R | R | R | R |
| MO15-51 | R | R | R | R | R |
| MO15-56 | R | R | R | R | R |
| MO15-64 | R | R | R | R | R |
| MO15-102 | R | R | R | R | R |
| MO15-105 | R | R | S | S | R |
| MO15-106 | R | R | S | S | R |
| MO15-138 | S | S | S | S | S |
| MO15-144 | R | R | S | S | R |
| MO15-148 | S | S | S | S | S |
| MO15-200 | R | R | S | S | R |
| Pi9-G7-1 V-1 | R | R | S | S | R |
| Pi9-G7-1I-1 | R | R | S | S | R |
| Pi9-G7-1H-1 | R | R | S | S | R |
| Pi9-G7-1 W-1 | S | S | S | S | S |
| Pi9-G7-1B-1 | S | S | S | S | S |
| Pi9-G7-1E-1 | S | S | S | S | S |
Fig. 2An integrated genetic and physical map of QTL1 (a) and QTL2 (b). The chromosomal position of SSR markers delimiting the genomic interval of QTLs by referring to the one in the reference genome of Nipponbare was indicated below the line. The number of recombinants/toal F3 progeny at each SSR marker was indicated above the line. Four and 9 NBS-LRR type R genes predicted in the genomic intervals in Nipponbare for QTL1 and QTL11, respectively, were indicated in boxes with gene IDs. The figure was not draw in scale
Gene annotation of NBS-LRR gene which located in the genomic intervals of QTL1 and QTL11 of JHN using Nipponbare reference sequence
| QTL | Chromosome | Chromosomal location of genomic interval (bp) | Annotation of NBS-LRR genes | Allelic genes | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NBS-LRR gene model | Chromosomal location (bp) | |||||
|
| 1 | 33,054,867-33,678,804 | LOC_Os01g57270 | 33,091,703 – 33,096,363 | NA | |
| LOC_Os01g57280 | 33,099,464 – 33,103,906 |
| Ma et al. | |||
| LOC_Os01g57310 | 33,116,117 – 33,124,371 |
| Lin et al. | |||
| LOC_Os01g57340 | 33,141,127 – 33,145,609 |
| Takahashi et al. | |||
| LOC_Os01g57870 | 33,463,913 – 33,460,254 | NA | ||||
|
| 11 | 27,673,251-28,281,693 | LOC_Os11g45750.1 | 27,695,070 – 27,683,753 | NA | |
| XM_015761791.1 | 27,692,238 – 27,694,418 | NA | ||||
| LOC_Os11g45790 | 27,707,310 – 27,703,761 | NA | ||||
| LOC_Os11g45930 | 27,793,777 – 27,797,821 | NA | ||||
| LOC_Os11g45970 | 27,812,251 – 27,818,431 | NA | ||||
| NP_001068480.1 | 27,821,921 – 27,824,507 | NA | ||||
| XM_015760098.1 | 27,885,376 – 27,886,175 | NA | ||||
| LOC_Os11g46200.1 | 27,978,368 – 27,983,597 |
| Ashikawa et al. | |||
| LOC_Os11g46210 | 27,984,697 – 27,989,134 |
| Ashikawa et al. | |||
Fig. 3Cluster analysis of disease reaction patterns of QTL1-C, QTL11-C, and IRBLs against 42 representative blast isolates. The lines of QTL1-C and QTL11-C are highlighted in asterisks