| Literature DB >> 34823470 |
Yuhan Pan1, Juan Zhu1, Yi Hong1, Mengna Zhang1, Chao Lv1, Baojian Guo1, Huiquan Shen2, Xiao Xu2, Rugen Xu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Barley yellow mosaic disease (BYMD) caused by Barley yellow mosaic virus (BaYMV) and Barley mild mosaic virus (BaMMV) seriously threatens the production of winter barley. Cultivating and promoting varieties that carry disease-resistant genes is one of the most powerful ways to minimize the disease's effect on yield. However, as the BYMD virus mutates rapidly, resistance conferred by the two cloned R genes to the virus had been overcome by new virus strains. There is an urgent need for novel resistance genes in barley that convey sustainable resistance to newly emerging virus strains causing BYMD.Entities:
Keywords: Barley yellow mosaic disease (BYMD); InDel markers; Quantitative trait loci (QTL); Wild barley (Hordeum vulgare spp. spontaneum)
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34823470 PMCID: PMC8613928 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-021-03321-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
The sAUDPS score of BYMD in parents and DH population in each trial
| Trial | Mean of parents | DH lines | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRY01 | Gairdner | Mean | Range | CV (%) | |
| 2019YZ | 0.02 | 2.18 | 0.79 | 0.00-2.22 | 79.23% |
| 2019YC | 0.60 | 1.99 | 1.43 | 0.10-2.79 | 37.48% |
| 2020YZ | 0.27 | 2.55 | 0.90 | 0.00-2.22 | 86.53% |
| 2020YC | 0.44 | 2.49 | 1.25 | 0.00-2.53 | 59.71% |
| BLUPs | 0.41 | 2.18 | 1.09 | 0.16-2.13 | 48.89% |
Fig. 1Correlation between the sAUDPS score in each environment and BLUPs
Fig. 2Frequency distribution of the sAUDPS score in each environment and BLUPs. a, Yangzhou sAUDPS score in 2019. b, Yancheng sAUDPS score in 2019. c, Yangzhou sAUDPS score in 2020. d, Yancheng sAUDPS score in 2020. e, BLUPs for all environments.
QTL for sAUDPS and BLUPs identified in the DH population
| QTL | Chr. | Trial | LOD | PVE (%) | Additive | QTL Interval | Nearest marker |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1H | 2019YZ | 5.22 | 8.80 | −0.19 | 46.22-53.74 | SNP0068 | |
| 2020YZ | 8.54 | 12.50 | −0.28 | 44.72-52.39 | SNP0068 | ||
| 2019YC | 6.89 | 14.40 | −0.21 | 44.72-55.04 | SNP0056 | ||
| 2020YC | 10.13 | 18.90 | −0.34 | 42.15-50.28 | SNP0056 | ||
| BLUPs | 8.73 | 15.30 | −0.21 | 44.72-53.08 | SNP0068 | ||
| YZ-BLUPs | 8.22 | 12.40 | −0.21 | 46.22-52.39 | SNP0068 | ||
| YC-BLUPs | 11.08 | 19.80 | −0.22 | 44.72-50.28 | SNP0056 | ||
| 2H | 2019YZ | 7.08 | 12.30 | −0.23 | 85.86-91.78 | SNP0582 | |
| 2020YZ | 8.28 | 12.00 | −0.29 | 85.86-91.78 | SNP0582 | ||
| 2019YC | 3.72 | 9.30 | −0.17 | 87.28-91.78 | SNP0583 | ||
| 2020YC | 7.55 | 16.40 | −0.31 | 87.28-91.78 | SNP0582 | ||
| BLUPs | 9.99 | 17.80 | −0.23 | 85.86-91.78 | SNP0582 | ||
| YZ-BLUPs | 7.97 | 11.90 | −0.21 | 84.43-91.78 | SNP0582 | ||
| YC-BLUPs | 7.04 | 15.40 | −0.19 | 87.28-92.99 | SNP0582 | ||
| 2H | 2019YC | 9.09 | 20.90 | −0.27 | 153.32-164.03 | SNP0812 | |
| 2020YC | 8.05 | 17.30 | −0.34 | 154.55-165.45 | SNP0812 | ||
| YC-BLUPs | 10.63 | 22.10 | −0.24 | 162.5-164.03 | SNP0812 | ||
| 3H | 2019YZ | 4.45 | 7.50 | −0.17 | 126.68-128.42 | SNP2754 | |
| 2020YZ | 4.10 | 5.60 | −0.19 | 126.68-128.83 | SNP2754 | ||
| BLUPs | 4.92 | 8.10 | −0.15 | 126.72-127.51 | SNP2754 | ||
| YZ-BLUPs | 5.10 | 7.30 | −0.16 | 126.68-127.51 | SNP2754 | ||
| 5H | 2019YZ | 5.03 | 8.50 | 0.19 | 118.5-122.06 | SNP4451 | |
| 2020YZ | 4.84 | 6.70 | 0.21 | 118.08-121.56 | SNP4460 | ||
| YZ-BLUPs | 6.21 | 9.00 | 0.18 | 118.5-119.55 | SNP4460 | ||
| 7H | 2020YZ | 4.67 | 6.20 | 0.21 | 0.01-3.98 | SNP5411 |
GAccording to the additive effect, QTL were from Gairdner. The others QTL were from SRY01
Fig. 3QTL for BYMD resistance identified from DH population and known BYMD-resistant genes
Fig. 4Haplotype analysis of the cloned gene eIF4E on chromosome 3H