4.7 Article

Identification of genome regions controlling cotyledon, pod wall/seed coat and pod wall resistance to pea weevil through QTL mapping

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 127, 期 2, 页码 489-497

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-013-2234-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [LP0775351]
  2. DAW [309C]
  3. GRDC [UWA 209SR, UWA 314]
  4. Australian Research Council [LP0775351] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum, is one of the limiting factors for field pea (Pisum sativum) cultivation in the world with pesticide application the only available method for its control. Resistance to pea weevil has been found in an accession of Pisum fulvum but transfer of this resistance to cultivated pea (P. sativum) is limited due to a lack of easy-to-use techniques for screening interspecific breeding populations. To address this problem, an interspecific population was created from a cross between cultivated field pea and P. fulvum (resistance source). Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping was performed to discover the regions associated with resistance to cotyledon, pod wall/seed coat and pod wall resistance. Three major QTLs, located on linkage groups LG2, LG4 and LG5 were found for cotyledon resistance explaining approximately 80 % of the phenotypic variation. Two major QTLs were found for pod wall/seed coat resistance on LG2 and LG5 explaining approximately 70 % of the phenotypic variation. Co-linearity of QTLs for cotyledon and pod wall/seed coat resistance suggested that the mechanism of resistance for these two traits might act through the same pathways. Only one QTL was found for pod wall resistance on LG7 explaining approximately 9 % of the phenotypic variation. This is the first report on the development of QTL markers to probe Pisum germplasm for pea weevil resistance genes. These flanking markers will be useful in accelerating the process of screening when breeding for pea weevil resistance.

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