| Literature DB >> 28572833 |
Fryni Drizou1, Neil S Graham1, Toby J A Bruce2, Rumiana V Ray1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rhizoctonia solani (Kühn) is a soil-borne, necrotrophic fungus causing damping off, root rot and stem canker in many cultivated plants worldwide. Oilseed rape (OSR, Brassica napus) is the primary host for anastomosis group (AG) 2-1 of R. solani causing pre- and post-emergence damping-off resulting in death of seedlings and impaired crop establishment. Presently, there are no known resistant OSR genotypes and the main methods for disease control are fungicide seed treatments and cultural practices. The identification of sources of resistance for crop breeding is essential for sustainable management of the disease. However, a high-throughput, reliable screening method for resistance traits is required. The aim of this work was to develop a low cost, rapid screening method for disease phenotyping and identification of resistance traits.Entities:
Keywords: Disease; High-throughput phenotyping; Oilseed rape; Plant characteristics; Rhizoctonia solani
Year: 2017 PMID: 28572833 PMCID: PMC5450255 DOI: 10.1186/s13007-017-0195-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Methods ISSN: 1746-4811 Impact factor: 4.993
Fig. 1Progress of disease caused by AG 2-1 on roots of seedlings of the eight varieties growing in media plates
Plant characteristics under inoculated (AG 2-1) and un-inoculated (control) conditions during the 10 days of the experiment in nutrient media plates
| Treatment | Hypocotyl length | Leaves number | Lateral RL | Lateral root number | Primary RL | Total RL | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | |
| AG 2-1 | 1.99 | 2.30 | 2.37 | 2 | 3.14 | 1.97 | 1.27 | 2.26 | 2.63 | 12.21 | 21.64 | 23.1 | 7.09 | 7.57 | 7.48 | 8.37 | 9.83 | 10.07 |
| Control | 1.78 | 2.06 | 2.37 | 1.99 | 3.12 | 3.84 | 1.16 | 2.37 | 3.30 | 10.79 | 22.42 | 26.72 | 7.98 | 10.60 | 11.51 | 9.13 | 12.97 | 14.81 |
|
| 0.216 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.021 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||||||||
| LSD(time*inoculum) | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.44 | 3.15 | 1.07 | 1.20 | ||||||||||||
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||||||||
| LSD(time) | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 1.76 | 0.30 | 0.35 | ||||||||||||
Lengths are expressed as cm. P (time*inoculum) values and LSD(time*inoculum) (ANOVA) were used for the comparison between the two treatments and P (time) values and LSD(time) for the comparison among different days
RL root lengths
Plant characteristics of the tested genotypes, in nutrient media plates
| Genotype | Hypocotyl length | Leave number | Lateral RL | Lateral root number | Primary RL | Total RL | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | 4 days | 7 days | 10 days | |
| Temple | 2.25 | 2.34 | 2.87 | 2.00 | 3.25 | 3.14 | 1.11 | 1.61 | 2.76 | 9.28 | 18.94 | 20.92 | 7.59 | 9.46 | 9.03 | 8.71 | 11.06 | 11.79 |
| Canard | 2.11 | 2.68 | 2.81 | 2.00 | 3.61 | 3.06 | 1.34 | 2.23 | 2.87 | 18.19 | 29.31 | 30.31 | 8.79 | 10.22 | 10.33 | 10.13 | 12.45 | 13.20 |
| Abaco | 1.77 | 2.08 | 2.10 | 2.01 | 3.24 | 3.07 | 1.30 | 2.09 | 2.53 | 14.12 | 22.70 | 26.67 | 6.83 | 8.19 | 8.93 | 8.14 | 10.28 | 11.45 |
| Lioness | 2.23 | 1.27 | 1.35 | 2.00 | 3.18 | 2.81 | 1.25 | 2.25 | 2.72 | 12.49 | 20.89 | 23.65 | 7.68 | 8.82 | 9.23 | 8.93 | 11.06 | 11.95 |
| Grizzly | 1.18 | 1.27 | 1.35 | 2.00 | 2.97 | 3.07 | 1.16 | 3.11 | 4.23 | 6.71 | 18.32 | 24.00 | 4.65 | 7.16 | 7.92 | 5.81 | 10.26 | 12.16 |
| Galileo | 1.73 | 1.99 | 2.27 | 2.00 | 2.78 | 2.49 | 1.04 | 2.34 | 2.76 | 11.78 | 25.00 | 29.94 | 8.08 | 9.91 | 10.43 | 9.12 | 12.24 | 13.19 |
| Sequoia | 1.79 | 2.01 | 2.03 | 2.00 | 3.14 | 2.93 | 1.29 | 2.38 | 3.14 | 10.75 | 18.14 | 23.03 | 8.91 | 9.72 | 10.08 | 10.20 | 12.10 | 13.22 |
| ES Betty | 1.99 | 2.31 | 2.52 | 2.00 | 2.86 | 2.69 | 1.23 | 2.51 | 2.73 | 8.69 | 22.97 | 20.78 | 7.74 | 9.22 | 9.85 | 8.97 | 11.73 | 12.58 |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.99 | <0.001 | 0.254 | 0.781 | 0.041 | 0.043 | <0.001 | 0.105 | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.021 | 0.186 | <0.001 | 0.129 | 0.49 |
| LSD | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.59 | 0.07 | 0.32 | 0.57 | 0.41 | 1.15 | 1.02 | 3.26 | 8.04 | 5.35 | 1.35 | 1.59 | 1.86 | 1.40 | 1.57 | 1.88 |
Lengths are expressed in cm. Comparisons for each plant characteristic among genotypes were made by using P values and LSD (ANOVA)
RL root length
Disease index on hypocotyls, roots and leaves of the tested genotypes after inoculation with AG 2-1 for 4 days on the hydroponic growth pouches
| Genotype | Disease index (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypocotyl | Root | Leaves | |
| Temple | 61.1 | 54.2 | 22.9 |
| Canard | 69.4 | 68.1 | 35.4 |
| Abaco | 66.7 | 54.2 | 18.8 |
| Lioness | 69.4 | 54.2 | 18.8 |
| Grizzly | 72.2 | 72.2 | 47.9 |
| Galileo | 77.8 | 45.8 | 37.5 |
| Sequoia | 75.0 | 52.8 | 35.4 |
| ES Betty | 58.3 | 58.3 | 16.7 |
|
| 0.935 | 0.663 | 0.533 |
| LSD | 32.88 | 29.28 | 34.88 |
For the comparison of disease severity among genotypes within each plant part P values and LSD were used (ANOVA)
Comparison of plant characteristics between inoculated (AG 2-1) and un-inoculated (Control) seedlings of different OSR genotypes 4 days after inoculation on hydroponic growth pouches
| Genotype | Hypocotyl length | Leaves number | Lateral RL | Lateral root number | Primary RL | Total RL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AG 2-1 | Control | AG 2-1 | Control | AG 2-1 | Control | AG 2-1 | Control | AG 2-1 | Control | AG 2-1 | Control | |
| Temple | 1.87 | 2.19 | 1.63 | 1.99 | 0.52 | 1.29 | 2.00 | 4.85 | 1.40 | 2.44 | 1.92 | 3.73 |
| Canard | 1.31 | 1.40 | 1.50 | 2.08 | 1.15 | 1.62 | 4.67 | 5.83 | 2.09 | 2.83 | 3.24 | 4.45 |
| Abaco | 2.79 | 2.93 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 0.49 | 0.91 | 2.33 | 3.17 | 1.85 | 2.40 | 2.34 | 3.30 |
| Lioness | 2.13 | 2.62 | 1.33 | 2.08 | 0.54 | 0.93 | 3.92 | 3.58 | 1.94 | 2.98 | 2.48 | 3.91 |
| Grizzly | 1.48 | 2.41 | 1.46 | 1.99 | 0.15 | 1.22 | 0.42 | 1.65 | 0.68 | 1.78 | 0.82 | 3.00 |
| Galileo | 1.81 | 2.54 | 1.54 | 2.00 | 0.32 | 0.49 | 1.33 | 1.08 | 1.39 | 2.55 | 1.70 | 3.04 |
| Sequoia | 2.50 | 3.16 | 1.54 | 2.00 | 0.33 | 1.18 | 2.33 | 3.25 | 1.50 | 3.40 | 1.83 | 4.58 |
| ES Betty | 2.50 | 2.34 | 1.71 | 2.00 | 0.47 | 1.69 | 2.75 | 5.08 | 1.74 | 3.38 | 2.21 | 5.07 |
|
| <0.001 | 0.721 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.299 | 0.115 | ||||||
| LSD(genotype) | 0.56 | 0.32 | 0.49 | 2.34 | 1.13 | 1.37 | ||||||
|
| 0.005 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.066 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| LSD(inoculum) | 0.28 | 0.16 | 0.25 | 1.17 | 0.57 | 0.68 | ||||||
Lengths are expressed in cm. P (genotype) and LSD(genotype) were used for the comparison among genotypes and P (inoculum) and LSD(inoculum) for the comparison between treatments (ANOVA)
RL root length
Fig. 2Disease on hypocotyls, leaves and roots of the tested genotypes 10 days after inoculation in compost trays
Comparison of emergence between inoculated (AG 2-1) and un-inoculated (Control) seedlings of different OSR genotypes 10 dpi in compost trays
| Genotype | Emergence (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| AG 2-1 | Control | |
| Temple | 30.0 | 67.2 |
| Canard | 83.9 | 88.3 |
| Abaco | 60.0 | 98.3 |
| Lioness | 43.3 | 88.9 |
| Grizzly | 42.8 | 57.8 |
| Galileo | 11.7 | 64.4 |
| Sequoia | 63.3 | 98.9 |
| ES Betty | 53.3 | 77.2 |
|
| <0.001 | |
| LSD(genotype) | 18.586 | |
|
| <0.001 | |
| LSD(inoculum) | 9.293 | |
|
| 0.186 | |
| LSD(inoculum*genotype) | 26.284 | |
P (inoculum) and LSD(inoculum) were used for the comparison between treatments and P (inoculum*genotype) and LSD(inoculum*genotype) for the interaction between genotypes and treatments (ANOVA)
Fig. 3Percentage of survival of different OSR genotypes 10 days post inoculation in compost trays. Comparisons for the interaction between treatment and genotype were made with P values and LSD (ANOVA)
Fig. 4Disease on hypocotyls and roots of the tested genotypes 5 days after inoculation in trays with LECA
Estimation of cost for the screen of 100 genotypes in the developed methods
| Method | Cost (£) for 100 genotypes |
|---|---|
| Hydroponic pouch and wick system | 348 |
| Nutrient media plates | 27.3 |
| Trays with compost | 1.05 |
| Trays with LECA | 2.14 |
The estimation excludes the cost for the camera that was used in the hydroponic pouch and wick system, on nutrient media plates and trays with LECA