| Literature DB >> 28900437 |
Ana L Galiano-Carneiro1,2, Thomas Miedaner1.
Abstract
Northern corn leaf blight (NCLB), the most devastating leaf pathogen in maize (Zea mays L.), is caused by the heterothallic ascomycete Setosphaeria turcica. The pathogen population shows an extremely high genetic diversity in tropical and subtropical regions. Varietal resistance is the most efficient technique to control NCLB. Host resistance can be qualitative based on race-specific Ht genes or quantitative controlled by many genes with small effects. Quantitative resistance is moderately to highly effective and should be more durable combatting all races of the pathogen. Quantitative resistance must, however, be analyzed in many environments (= location × year combinations) to select stable resistances. In the tropical and subtropical environments, quantitative resistance is the preferred option to manage NCLB epidemics. Resistance level can be increased in practical breeding programs by several recurrent selection cycles based on disease severity rating and/or by genomic selection. This review aims to address two important aspects of the NCLB pathosystem: the genetics of the fungus S. turcica and the modes of inheritance of the host plant maize, including successful breeding strategies regarding NCLB resistance. Both drivers of this pathosystem, pathogen, and host, must be taken into account to result in more durable resistance.Entities:
Keywords: Exserohilum turcicum; Ht genes; genomic selection (GS); marker-assisted selection (MAS); northern corn leaf blight (NCLB); recurrent selection (RS); resistance breeding
Year: 2017 PMID: 28900437 PMCID: PMC5581881 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01490
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Gene-by-gene interaction between the pathogen and host plant (Welz, 1998).
| Pathogen races | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | + | – | – | – | – |
| 1 | + | + | – | – | – |
| 2 | + | – | + | – | – |
| 3 | + | – | – | + | – |
| N | + | – | – | – | + |
| 12 | + | + | + | – | – |
| 2N | + | – | + | – | + |
| 23 | + | – | + | + | – |
| 23N | + | – | + | + | + |
| 123N | + | + | + | + | + |
Origin of qualitative resistance genes against Setosphaeria turcica and its defense reactions.
| Genes | Location (bin) | Origin | Defense reaction | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.08 | Breeding material from the United States, Australia, Peru | Chloroses | ||
| 8.06 | Breeding material from Australia | Chloroses | ||
| 7.04 | Chloroses | |||
| 1a | Breeding material from the United States | Chlorotic ring (ca. 1 cm) | ||
| NAb | Variety from Puerto Rico | Full resistance | ||
| 2.08 | Breeding material from Brazil | Full resistance or chloroses | ||
| 8.07 | Landrace from Indonesia | Fewer lesions | ||
| 8.05 | Landrace from Mexico | Fewer and delayed lesions | ||
| 3.06 | Breeding material from Brazil | Full resistance or chloroses |
Synthesis of some QTL mapping studies using composite interval mapping (CIM).
| Parents | Test sitea | Population size | % of phenotypic variance | Reference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resistant | Susceptible | Rangeb | Total | |||
| Mo17c | B52 | Tr | 121 | 9.8–38.0 | 40.9 | |
| CML202 | Lo951 | Tr | 194 | 7.0–11.8 | 52.2 | |
| B73 | Mo17 | Te | 302 | 4.1–6.9 | 51.6 | |
| DK888 | S11 | Te | 96 | NAd | 61.0 | |
| Mo17 | B52 | Te | 150 | 7.5–13.4 | 51.5 | |
| D32; D145c | Te | 220 | 5.2–20.9 | 61.5 | ||
| CML202 | Lo951 | Tr | 194 | 7.2–24.8 | 55.4 | |
| IL731a; W6786 | Te | 157 | 4.6–10.7 | 49.4 | ||
| K22 | By815 | Te | 207 | 6.7–15.5 | 56.3 | |
| Mo17 | B52 | Tr | 121 | 9.8–18.3 | 47.8 | |
| CML202 | Lo951 | Tr | 194 | 6.9–18.3 | 55.8 | |
| CML52 | B73 | Te | 98 | NAd | 12.0 | |
| Historical minnesota inbreds | Te | 284 | NAd | 55.0 | ||
Scoring method of NCLB incidence on the field useful for assessing large maize populations (Hurni et al., 2015).
| Score | Phenotype |
|---|---|
| 1 | Plants do not show disease symptoms |
| 2 | First small lesions appear on few plants per row and occupies less than 5% of leaf surface |
| 3 | Many plants per row present in one leaf level lesions occupying 5–10% of the leaf |
| 4 | Many plants per row present in several leaf level lesions occupying 10–20% of the leaf |
| 5 | Lesions occupying 20–40% of the leaf and start to merge |
| 6 | Lesions occupying 40–60% |
| 7 | Lesions occupying 60–80%. Half of the leaf is dry due to disease infection |
| 8 | Lesions occupying 80–90%. More than half of the leaf is dry due to disease infection |
| 9 | Lesions occupying 90–100%. Nearly the whole plant is dry due to disease infection |