| Literature DB >> 31641945 |
M Książkiewicz1, K Wójcik1, W Irzykowski1, W Bielski1, S Rychel1, J Kaczmarek1, P Plewiński1, E Rudy1, M Jędryczka2.
Abstract
The fungus, Diaporthe toxica, anamorph Phomopsis sp., previously classified as P. leptostromiformis, is a plant endophyte and occasional pathogen, causing Phomopsis stem blight. This disease is damaging not only to lupins but also to the animals grazing on infected plants, due to the toxic secondary metabolites called phomopsins. The aim of this work was to validate markers for resistance to Phomopsis stem blight in narrow-leafed lupins and identify novel germplasm with increased levels of resistance to the disease. Plant inoculations were performed using ten isolates of D. toxica, originating from Australia and Poland. The European core collection of L. angustifolius was evaluated both in a controlled environment and with field experiments to classify the accessions based on their resistance to the disease. Simultaneously, the accessions were assayed with disease resistance markers to identify donors of hypothetical resistance alleles. We have found that the European lupin germplasm collection preserves wild and domesticated donors of at least two resistance genes to Phomopsis stem blight, including Phr1 and PhtjR. Molecular markers PhtjM7, InDel2, and InDel10, tagging PhtjR gene, were applicable for marker-assisted selection targeting the European gene pool with an expected accuracy of 95%. None of diagnostic markers for the Phr1 locus was found useful for European breeding programs; two existing markers Ph258M1 and Ph258M2 were unreliable, due to a high percentage of false-positive results (up to 58%) and a high recombination rate between markers (~ 30%).Entities:
Keywords: Molecular breeding; Narrow-leafed lupin; Pathogenic fungus; Phomopsis stem blight; Phr1; PhtjR
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31641945 PMCID: PMC6968985 DOI: 10.1007/s13353-019-00521-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Genet ISSN: 1234-1983 Impact factor: 3.240
The isolates of Diaporthe toxica used in this study
| No. | Isolate symbol | Host plant | Cultivar | Region | Location | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DTOX1 | Juno | Greater Poland | Wiatrowo | 2007 | |
| 2 | DTOX2 | Mister | ||||
| 3 | DTOX3 | Parys | ||||
| 4 | DTOX4 | Juno | ||||
| 5 | WAC 8787 | Western Australia | Green Bushes | No data | ||
| 6 | DTOXA1 | Perth | ||||
| 7 | DTOXA2 | Perth | ||||
| 8 | WAC9513 | Kojonup | ||||
| 9 | WAC8771 | Wongan Hills | ||||
| 10 | WAC8782 | South Eastern Australia | Wagga Wagga |
Primers used for optimization of Diaporthe toxica resistance markers
| Marker | Primer sequencesa | Target resistance gene | Enzyme and recognized sequence | Product lengths for resistant line (bp) | Product lengths for susceptible line (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ph258M1 | TCCAGACTGACTATATTCTTAG CAGGCACATATATCTTTATACC | – | 303 | 254 | |
| Ph258M2_dCAPS | GGGAACAACAACAACAACTA GAACCATTGTAACTAAATCC | CTAG | 18, 185 | 206 | |
| PhtjM4_dCAPS1 | TTCAACCAACGTGGGACTTAAATAGTTAA GTGGATACAACCTCACTGTC | GTYRAC | 89 | 25, 64 | |
| PhtjM4_dCAPS2 | CAACCAACGTGGGACTTAAATATTTAA GTGGATACAACCTCACTGTC | TTTAAA | 23, 64 | 87 | |
| PhtjM5_CAPS | GAATTCCATATGCAATGG CTTAATTGTTAATTTGTTATTTGC | RGCY | 90 | 17, 73 | |
| PhtjM7_dCAPS1 | CTTCAATTAGCTTGTCAGAAGACTTCCA CTAATTCAATGAGCTTCTCTT | CATG | 27, 49 | 76 | |
| PhtjM7_dCAPS2 | TTCAATTAGCTTGTCAGAAGACTCCAA CTAATTCAATGAGCTTCTCTT | CCWWGG | 75 | 24, 51 | |
| InDel2 | GATAAAGTATATCTAAATTATGTTTGC CTATATTTTGTATCAATTATAACAAATT | – | 134 | 122 | |
| InDel10 | GTTAAGTGGTAAATTGACTCATG GTTTTRCATTCTTGCAAAGATAAAATTAG | – | 103 | 96 |
aThe list contains primers developed in this study as well as those previously published (Yang et al. 2015, 2013a, 2002)
Results of Diaporthe toxica resistance assay in controlled environment (CE) and in field conditions
| Species | Acc. | Line name | CE resistance | CE average score | CE average percentage | Field resistance | Field average score | Field average percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 98072 | Juno | S | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 88.5 ± 4.9 | ||||
| 98153 | Lord | S | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 74.0 ± 9.9 | ||||
| 98145 | Mister | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 53.5 ± 13.4 | ||||
| 98136 | Parys | S | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 67.5 ± 7.8 | ||||
| 98154 | Perkoz | S | 3.5 ± 0.7 | 65.0 ± 14.1 | ||||
| 98150 | Talar | S | 3.5 ± 0.7 | 74.5 ± 31.8 | ||||
| 98148 | Taper | S | 3.5 ± 0.7 | 81.5 ± 0.7 | ||||
| – | Arabella | R | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0 ± 0 | R | 0.5 ± 0.7 | 12.5 ± 9.2 | |
| 96210 | Baron | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 78 ± 10 | MR | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 45.5 ± 24.7 | |
| 96225 | Bojar | MR | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 28 ± 48 | R | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 2.0 ± 2.8 | |
| 96211 | Boruta | MR | 0.7 ± 0.6 | 16 ± 15 | MR | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 16.5 ± 4.9 | |
| 96209 | Elf | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 78 ± 9 | S | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 18.5 ± 6.4 | |
| 96218 | Graf | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 88 ± 4 | R | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | |
| 96219 | Kalif | S | 2.0 ± 1.0 | 85 ± 4 | MR | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 24.5 ± 14.8 | |
| 95964 | Karo | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 83 ± 7 | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 73.5 ± 9.2 | |
| 95796 | Mirela | S | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 81 ± 12 | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 68.0 ± 4.2 | |
| 96185 | Sonet | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 81 ± 18 | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 91.5 ± 3.5 | |
| 96212 | Zeus | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 84 ± 10 | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 51.5 ± 2.1 | |
| 96233 | 83A:476 | R | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0 ± 0 | ||||
| 96121 | Emir | S | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 90 ± 12 | ||||
| 96230 | Mandelup | S | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 88 ± 11 | ||||
| 96231 | Myallie | MR | 1.0 ± 1.7 | 22 ± 39 | ||||
| 96234 | P27255 | S | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 76 ± 14 | ||||
| 96163 | Polonez | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 80 ± 8 | ||||
| 96214 | Tanjil | R | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0 ± 0 | ||||
| 96102 | Unicrop | S | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 98 ± 4 | ||||
| 96222 | W-197 | S | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 77 ± 3 | ||||
| 96223 | W-211 | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 88 ± 7 | ||||
| 96224 | W-226 | R | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0 ± 0 | ||||
| 96196 | W-89 | S | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 88 ± 0 | ||||
| 96183 | Wersal | S | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 78 ± 8 | ||||
| 96220 | WTD-1305 | S | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 78 ± 5 | ||||
| 96221 | WTD-1406 | R | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0 ± 0 |
acc. accession, CE controlled environment. Resistance evaluation codes: R resistant, MR moderately resistant, S susceptible. Score: disease severity evaluation (0, resistant; 4, susceptible). Percentage: percentage of plants with visible disease symptoms developed
Marker genotype scores for lines resistant to Diaporthe toxica evaluated in this study
| Acc. | Name | Domestication status | 2017 resistance | 2017 score | Ph258M1 | Ph258M2 | PhtjM7 | InDel2 | InDel10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95744 | Population B-551/79 | WL | R | 1.4 ± 0.7 | S | R | R | R | R |
| 26979 | 75A:258 | BL | R | 1.7 ± 1.3 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96191 | Wonga | CV | R | 1.8 ± 1.3 | S | S | R | R | R |
| 96214 | Tanjil | CV | R | 2.2 ± 1.4 | S | S | R | R | R |
| 96231 | Myallie | CV | MR | 2.4 ± 0.8 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 95944 | Population 22695 | WL | MR | 2.7 ± 0.7 | S | R | S | R | R |
| 96211 | Boruta | CV | MR | 2.7 ± 0.7 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 95964 | Karo | CV | S | 2.8 ± 0.8 | S | R | S | S | S |
| 96219 | Kalif | CV | S | 2.8 ± 1.6 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 95737 | Population B-541/79 | WL | S | 2.9 ± 0.6 | H | R | R | S | S |
| 96110 | Ignis | CV | S | 2.9 ± 1.2 | S | R | S | R | R |
| 96170 | R 83A,473 | BL | S | 2.9 ± 1.0 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96233 | 83A:476 | BL | S | 2.9 ± 1.7 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96235 | Boregine | CV | S | 2.9 ± 1.5 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96195 | Bolivio | CV | S | 3.0 ± 1.4 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96241 | Vitabor | CV | S | 3.0 ± 1.5 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 96185 | Sonet | CV | S | 3.1 ± 0.9 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 96212 | Zeus | CV | S | 3.1 ± 0.9 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 96223 | W-211 | BL | S | 3.1 ± 1.6 | S | S | S | S | S |
| – | Arabella | CV | S | 3.1 ± 1.5 | S | R | S | S | S |
| 96230 | Mandelup | CV | S | 3.2 ± 1.4 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96218 | Graf | CV | S | 3.3 ± 1.8 | S | R | S | S | S |
| 96240 | Sonate | CV | S | 3.3 ± 2.0 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96102 | Unicrop | CV | S | 3.4 ± 1.7 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 96113 | Frost | CV | S | 3.4 ± 1.7 | S | R | R | S | S |
| 96224 | W-226 | BL | S | 3.4 ± 1.6 | S | S | R | R* | R |
| 95726 | Near Salamanca-b | WL | S | 3.5 ± 0.9 | S | R | R | R | H |
| 96209 | Elf | CV | S | 3.5 ± 2.0 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 95843 | Population 22660 | WL | S | 3.6 ± 1.7 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 95919 | BRGC-10275 | WL | S | 3.6 ± 1.9 | S | R | S | R | R |
| 96161 | Yorrel | CV | S | 3.6 ± 1.5 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96225 | Bojar | CV | S | 3.6 ± 1.2 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 95711 | Badajoz 4 | WL | S | 3.8 ± 1.3 | H | R | S | R | S |
| 96162 | Gunguru | CV | S | 3.8 ± 2.1 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96166 | Merrit | CV | S | 3.8 ± 1.7 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96371 | Population 1 | WL | S | 3.8 ± 1.7 | S | R | S | R | R |
| 96220 | WTD-1305 | BL | S | 3.9 ± 1.4 | R | R | H | S | S |
| 95754 | Population B-575/79 | WL | S | 4.0 ± 0.7 | R | S | S | R | R |
| 95840 | AN-80154a | WL | S | 4.0 ± 1.3 | R* | R | R | S | S |
| 96167 | R 84A, 479 | BL | S | 4.0 ± 1.9 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96221 | WTD-1406 | BL | S | 4.0 ± 1.7 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96183 | Wersal | CV | S | 4.2 ± 1.6 | S | R | S | R | R |
| 95842 | Population 22661 | WL | S | 4.3 ± 1.7 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96210 | Baron | CV | S | 4.3 ± 1.3 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 96222 | W-197 | BL | S | 4.3 ± 2.0 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 96163 | Polonez | CV | S | 4.5 ± 1.7 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 95703 | Hinojoso de Duero 3 | WL | S | 4.6 ± 1.4 | H | H | S | R | R |
| 95742 | Population B-549/79b | WL | S | 4.7 ± 1.7 | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96121 | Emir | CV | S | 5.2 ± 1.8 | S | S | S | S | S |
| 95796 | Mirela | CV | S | – | S | R | S | S | S |
| 96234 | P27255 | WL | S | – | R | R | S | S | S |
| 96196 | W-89 | BL | S | – | S | S | S | S | S |
acc. accession, Ph Phomopsis stem blight resistance evaluation. Domestication status codes: CV cultivar, BL breeding line or cross derivative, WL wild or primitive. Resistance evaluation codes: R resistant, MR moderately resistant, S susceptible. Marker genotype scores: R resistant allele, H heterozygote, S susceptible allele
*Additional allele present besides R allele