Abstract:Barley cultivars Kitchin (C.I. 1296) and Jet (C.I. 967), resistant to scald (incited by Rhynchosporium secalis (Oud.) Davis), and cultivars Tifang (C.I. 14373), C.I. 9819, and C.I. 7584, resistant to net blotch (incited by Pyrenophora teres Drechs.), were crossed to the primary trisomics in the cultivar Betzes. F2 segregation ratios were studied to determine chromosomal location of the resistance genes. Kitchin was found to contain a single scald-resistance gene, Rrs9, on chromosome 4. Jet contained scald-resi… Show more
“…The Ethiopian barley line CI9819 served as the source of resistance to net blotch in the cross with cv. Rol® because this line had been shown to be resistant to P. teres isolates from several countries (Khan 1969;Bockelman et al 1977;Robinson and Jalli 1996). Based on the small IR values scored for the F 1 individuals, the major resistance gene on 6H was dominant.…”
Section: Resistance To Net Blotchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The genetic background of the susceptible parent used in crosses and the infection environment both in¯uence the host resistance reaction (Khan 1969). At least three independently segregating resistance genes, Rpt1, Rpt2 and Rpt3, have been localized by trisomic analysis on chromosomes 3H, 1H, and 2H, respectively (Bockelman et al 1977). Quantitative resistance for net blotch has also been reported (Arabi et al 1990; Steenson and Webster 1992;Steenson et al 1996;Robinson and Jalli 1997).…”
Net blotch, which is caused by the fungus Pyrenophoral teres Drechs. f. teres Smedeg., presents a serious problem for barley production worldwide, and the identification and deployment of sources of resistance to it are key objectives for many breeders. Here, we report the identification of a major resistance gene, accounting for 65% of the response variation, in a cross between the resistant line C19819 and the susceptible cv. Rolfi. The resistance gene was mapped to chromosome 6H with the aid of two recently developed systems of retrotransposon-based molecular markers, REMAP and IRAP. A total of 239 BARE-1 and Sukkula retrotransposon markers were mapped in the cross, and the 30-cM segment containing the locus with significant resistance effect contained 26 of the markers. The type and local density of the markers should facilitate future map-based cloning of the resistance gene as well as manipulation of the resistance through backcross breeding.
“…The Ethiopian barley line CI9819 served as the source of resistance to net blotch in the cross with cv. Rol® because this line had been shown to be resistant to P. teres isolates from several countries (Khan 1969;Bockelman et al 1977;Robinson and Jalli 1996). Based on the small IR values scored for the F 1 individuals, the major resistance gene on 6H was dominant.…”
Section: Resistance To Net Blotchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The genetic background of the susceptible parent used in crosses and the infection environment both in¯uence the host resistance reaction (Khan 1969). At least three independently segregating resistance genes, Rpt1, Rpt2 and Rpt3, have been localized by trisomic analysis on chromosomes 3H, 1H, and 2H, respectively (Bockelman et al 1977). Quantitative resistance for net blotch has also been reported (Arabi et al 1990; Steenson and Webster 1992;Steenson et al 1996;Robinson and Jalli 1997).…”
Net blotch, which is caused by the fungus Pyrenophoral teres Drechs. f. teres Smedeg., presents a serious problem for barley production worldwide, and the identification and deployment of sources of resistance to it are key objectives for many breeders. Here, we report the identification of a major resistance gene, accounting for 65% of the response variation, in a cross between the resistant line C19819 and the susceptible cv. Rolfi. The resistance gene was mapped to chromosome 6H with the aid of two recently developed systems of retrotransposon-based molecular markers, REMAP and IRAP. A total of 239 BARE-1 and Sukkula retrotransposon markers were mapped in the cross, and the 30-cM segment containing the locus with significant resistance effect contained 26 of the markers. The type and local density of the markers should facilitate future map-based cloning of the resistance gene as well as manipulation of the resistance through backcross breeding.
“…Several qualitative and quantitative genes conferring net blotch resistance at the seedling stage have been previously reported on 1H, 2H, 3H, 4H, 6H, and 7H. Major genes for net blotch resistance in barley, Pt.d/Rpt3.d on chromosome 2H (Bockelman et al 1977;A. Graner and A. Tekauz, unpublished data) and Pt1 syn.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Graner and A. Tekauz, unpublished data) and Pt1 syn. Pt.a/ Rpt1 and Rpt2c on chromosome 3H, have been reported (Schaller 1955;Mode and Schaller 1958;Khan and Boyd 1969a;Bockelman et al 1977;Wilcoxson et al 1992;. On chromosome 2HS, a QTL for resistance to net blotch of adult plants has been described (Pecchioni et al 1996;Steffenson et al 1996).…”
Abstract. Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) associated with resistance to net blotch and their chromosomal locations were determined from analyses of doubled haploid progeny of Alexis/Sloop, Arapiles/Franklin, Sloop/Halcyon, and recombinant inbred lines of Sloop-sib/Alexis. Five QTLs on chromosomes 2H, 3H, and 4H were found to be associated with seedling resistance to the net form of net blotch. In Arapiles/Franklin and Alexis/Sloop populations, 4 significant QTLs explaining 9-17% of the variation in net blotch resistance were detected on 2H and 3H. A major locus, QRpts4L accounting for 64% of the variation in infection type, was detected on 4H in the Sloop/Halcyon population. In Sloop/Halcyon, 2 microsatellite markers, EBmac0906 and GMS089, and AFLP marker P13/M50-108, co-segregated and detected maximum variability for net blotch resistance as revealed by bootstrap analysis. EBmac0906 and Bmac0181 were validated in F 2 progeny of an Ant29/Halcyon population and reliably predicted phenotypes of 93% of lines resistant and susceptible to net blotch. These markers may be used within breeding programs to select alleles favourable for net blotch resistance derived from Halcyon.A R 0 3 0 2 6 M a p p i n g n e t b l o t c h r e s i s t a n c e H . R a m a n e t a l .
“…(For a review of the literature on the genetic basis of scald resistance see Goodwin et al (1990)) . Of eleven genetic studies by, Riddle & Briggs (1950), Dyck & Schaller (1961), Wells & Skoropad (1963), Habgood & Hayes (1971), Jackson & Webster (1976), Bockelman et al . (1977), Lehnackers & Knogge (1990), Brown (1990), Goodwin et al .…”
The genetic basis of resistance to scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) within barley breeding populations is poorly understood . The design of effective genetically based resistance strategies is predicated on knowledge of the identity of the resistance genes carried by potential parents . The resistance exhibited by a broad selection of western Canadian barley lines was investigated by evaluating their reactions to five R . secalis isolates . Results were compared to the resistance exhibited by previously characterized lines . This comparison, combined with pedigree analysis indicated that there are two different resistance genes present in western Canadian cultivars . These genes were shown to be independent through analysis of a segregating population derived from a cross between Falcon and CDC Silky. This evidence, along with observed linkage of the gene in CDC Silky with an allele specific amplicon developed for a Rhynchosporium secalis resistance locus on chromosome 3, provides evidence that the gene in Falcon is the Rh2 gene derived from Atlas, and the gene(s) in CDC Silky is located within the Rh/Rh3/Rh4 cluster and is similar to the Rh gene in Hudson.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.