Genetic factors affecting Fusarium head blight resistance improvement from introgression of exotic Sumai 3 alleles (including Fhb1, Fhb2, and Fhb5) in hard red spring wheat.
Cereals
Epistatic interactions
Fhb1
Fhb2
Fhb5
Fusarium head blight
Scab
Sumai 3
Wheat
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 May 2019
03 May 2019
Historique:
received:
14
12
2018
accepted:
16
04
2019
entrez:
5
5
2019
pubmed:
6
5
2019
medline:
14
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fusarium head blight resistance genes, Fhb1 (for Type-II resistance), Fhb2 (Type-II), and Fhb5 (Type-I plus some Type-II), which originate from Sumai 3, are among the most important that confer resistance in hexaploid wheat. Near-isogenic lines (NILs), in the CDC Alsask (susceptible; n = 32) and CDC Go (moderately susceptible; n = 38) backgrounds, carrying these genes in all possible combinations were developed using flanking microsatellite markers and evaluated for their response to FHB and deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation in eight environments. NILs were haplotyped with wheat 90 K iSelect assay to elucidate the genomic composition and confirm alleles' presence. Other than evaluating the effects of three major genes in common genetic background, the study elucidated the epistatic gene interactions as they influence FHB measurements; identified loci other than Fhb1, Fhb2, and Fhb5, in both recurrent and donor parents and examined annotated proteins in gene intervals. Genotyping using 81,857 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers revealed polymorphism on all chromosomes and that the NILs carried < 3% of alleles from the resistant donor. Significant improvement in field resistance (Type-I + Type-II) resulted only among the CDC Alsask NILs, not the CDC Go NILs. The phenotypic response of NILs carrying combinations of Sumai 3 derived genes suggested non-additive responses and Fhb5 was as good as Fhb1 in conferring field resistance in both populations. In addition to Fhb1, Fhb2, and Fhb5, four to five resistance improving alleles in both populations were identified and three of five in CDC Go were contributed by the susceptible parent. The introgressed chromosome regions carried genes encoding disease resistance proteins, protein kinases, nucleotide-binding and leucine rich repeats' domains. Complex epistatic gene-gene interactions among marker loci (including Fhb1, Fhb2, Fhb5) explained > 20% of the phenotypic variation in FHB measurements. Immediate Sumai 3 derivatives carry a number of resistance improving minor effect alleles, other than Fhb1, Fhb2, Fhb5. Results verified that marker-assisted selection is possible for the introgression of exotic FHB resistance genes, however, the genetic background of the recipient line and epistatic interactions can have a strong influence on expression and penetrance of any given gene.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Fusarium head blight resistance genes, Fhb1 (for Type-II resistance), Fhb2 (Type-II), and Fhb5 (Type-I plus some Type-II), which originate from Sumai 3, are among the most important that confer resistance in hexaploid wheat. Near-isogenic lines (NILs), in the CDC Alsask (susceptible; n = 32) and CDC Go (moderately susceptible; n = 38) backgrounds, carrying these genes in all possible combinations were developed using flanking microsatellite markers and evaluated for their response to FHB and deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation in eight environments. NILs were haplotyped with wheat 90 K iSelect assay to elucidate the genomic composition and confirm alleles' presence. Other than evaluating the effects of three major genes in common genetic background, the study elucidated the epistatic gene interactions as they influence FHB measurements; identified loci other than Fhb1, Fhb2, and Fhb5, in both recurrent and donor parents and examined annotated proteins in gene intervals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Genotyping using 81,857 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers revealed polymorphism on all chromosomes and that the NILs carried < 3% of alleles from the resistant donor. Significant improvement in field resistance (Type-I + Type-II) resulted only among the CDC Alsask NILs, not the CDC Go NILs. The phenotypic response of NILs carrying combinations of Sumai 3 derived genes suggested non-additive responses and Fhb5 was as good as Fhb1 in conferring field resistance in both populations. In addition to Fhb1, Fhb2, and Fhb5, four to five resistance improving alleles in both populations were identified and three of five in CDC Go were contributed by the susceptible parent. The introgressed chromosome regions carried genes encoding disease resistance proteins, protein kinases, nucleotide-binding and leucine rich repeats' domains. Complex epistatic gene-gene interactions among marker loci (including Fhb1, Fhb2, Fhb5) explained > 20% of the phenotypic variation in FHB measurements.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Immediate Sumai 3 derivatives carry a number of resistance improving minor effect alleles, other than Fhb1, Fhb2, Fhb5. Results verified that marker-assisted selection is possible for the introgression of exotic FHB resistance genes, however, the genetic background of the recipient line and epistatic interactions can have a strong influence on expression and penetrance of any given gene.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31053089
doi: 10.1186/s12870-019-1782-2
pii: 10.1186/s12870-019-1782-2
pmc: PMC6499950
doi:
Substances chimiques
Genetic Markers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
179Références
Hereditas. 2002;137(2):81-9
pubmed: 12627831
Theor Appl Genet. 2006 Feb;112(3):562-9
pubmed: 16362277
Theor Appl Genet. 2006 May;112(8):1465-72
pubmed: 16518614
Theor Appl Genet. 2007 Feb;114(3):429-37
pubmed: 17091262
Genetics. 2007 Apr;175(4):1955-63
pubmed: 17277367
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2007;45:399-436
pubmed: 17506648
Fungal Genet Biol. 2008 Apr;45(4):473-84
pubmed: 18035565
J Hered. 2008 Mar-Apr;99(2):232-6
pubmed: 18222930
Theor Appl Genet. 2008 Nov;117(7):1155-66
pubmed: 18712343
Theor Appl Genet. 2010 Jun;121(1):147-56
pubmed: 20198469
Theor Appl Genet. 2011 Oct;123(6):1055-63
pubmed: 21739138
Theor Appl Genet. 2011 Dec;123(8):1257-68
pubmed: 21811818
Theor Appl Genet. 2012 Aug;125(4):749-58
pubmed: 22534791
Mol Plant Pathol. 2013 Oct;14(8):772-85
pubmed: 23738863
Theor Appl Genet. 1993 Oct;87(1-2):233-7
pubmed: 24190218
Plant Biotechnol J. 2014 Aug;12(6):787-96
pubmed: 24646323
Plant Biotechnol J. 2015 Jun;13(5):648-63
pubmed: 25424506
Genome Biol. 2015 Jan 31;16:26
pubmed: 25637298
Theor Appl Genet. 2015 Jun;128(6):1019-27
pubmed: 25726000
Theor Appl Genet. 2015 Nov;128(11):2301-16
pubmed: 26220223
Theor Appl Genet. 2016 Aug;129(8):1607-23
pubmed: 27174222
PLoS One. 2016 May 27;11(5):e0155851
pubmed: 27232496
Theor Appl Genet. 2016 Oct;129(10):1843-60
pubmed: 27306516
Nat Genet. 2016 Dec;48(12):1576-1580
pubmed: 27776114
Plant Biotechnol J. 2017 Nov;15(11):1453-1464
pubmed: 28332274
Plant Biotechnol J. 2018 May;16(5):1046-1056
pubmed: 29024288
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 30;7(1):14315
pubmed: 29085014
Phytopathology. 2018 Aug;108(8):972-979
pubmed: 29561710
Plant Biotechnol J. 2019 Jan;17(1):275-288
pubmed: 29890030
Front Plant Sci. 2018 Oct 16;9:1497
pubmed: 30386358
Plant Dis. 2012 Dec;96(12):1712-1728
pubmed: 30727259