4.7 Article

Fine mapping and analysis of a candidate gene in tomato accession PI128216 conferring hypersensitive resistance to bacterial spot race T3

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 124, 期 3, 页码 533-542

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-011-1726-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30972003]
  2. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry
  3. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-08-0531]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial spot caused by Xanthomonas euvesicatoria, X. vesicatoria, X. perforans and X. gardneri is one of the most destructive diseases in tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) growing in tropical and subtropical regions. Exploring resistance genes from diverse germplasm and incorporating them into cultivated varieties are critical for controlling this disease. The S. pimpinellifolium accession PI128216 was reported to carry the Rx4 gene on chromosome 11 conferring hypersensitivity and field resistance to race T3. To facilitate the use of marker-assisted selection in breeding and map-based cloning of the gene, an F-2 population derived from a cross between the susceptible variety OH88119 and the resistant accession PI128216 was created for fine mapping of the Rx4 gene. Using 18 markers developed through various approaches, we mapped the gene to a 45.1-kb region between two markers pcc17 and pcc14 on chromosome 11. A NBS-LRR class of resistance gene was identified as the candidate for the Rx4 gene based on annotation results from the International Tomato Annotation Group. Comparison of the genomic DNA sequences of the Rx4 alleles in PI128216 and OH88119 revealed a 6-bp insertion/deletion (InDel) and eight SNPs. The InDel marker was successfully used to distinguish resistance and susceptibility in 12 tomato lines. These results will facilitate cloning the Rx4 gene and provide a useful tool for marker-assisted selection of this gene in tomato breeding programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据