Genetic analysis of a worldwide barley collection for resistance to net form of net blotch disease (Pyrenophora teres f. teres)
- 310 Downloads
A total of 449 barley accessions were phenotyped for Pyrenophora teres f. teres resistance at three locations and in greenhouse trials. Genome-wide association studies identified 254 marker–trait associations corresponding to 15 QTLs.
Net form of net blotch is one of the most important diseases of barley and is present in all barley growing regions. Under optimal conditions, it causes high yield losses of 10–40% and reduces grain quality. The most cost-effective and environmentally friendly way to prevent losses is growing resistant cultivars, and markers linked to effective resistance factors can accelerate the breeding process. Here, 449 barley accessions expressing different levels of resistance comprising landraces and commercial cultivars from the centres of diversity were selected. The set was phenotyped for seedling resistance to three isolates in controlled-environment tests and for adult plant resistance at three field locations (Belarus, Germany and Australia) and genotyped with the 50 k iSelect chip. Genome-wide association studies using 33,818 markers and a compressed mixed linear model to account for population structure and kinship revealed 254 significant marker–trait associations corresponding to 15 distinct QTL regions. Four of these regions were new QTL that were not described in previous studies, while a total of seven regions influenced resistance in both seedlings and adult plants.
This research was supported by the German Research Society (DFG) (OR 72/11-1) and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) (No 15-54-12365 NNIO_a).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Afanasenko O (1995) Characteristics of resistance of barley accessions to different Pyrenophora teres populations. Mycol Phytopathol 29:27–32Google Scholar
- Afanasenko O, Makarova I, Zubkovich A (1999) The number of genes controlling resistance to Pyrenophora teres Drechs. strains in barley. Russ J Genet C/C Genet 35:274–283Google Scholar
- Afonin A, Greene S, Dzyubenko N, Frolov A (2008) Interactive Agricultural ecological Atlas of Russia and Neighboring Countries. Economic Plants and their Diseases, Pests and Weeds. http://www.agroatlas.ru/. Accessed 26 Mar 2019
- Anisimova A, Novikova L, Novakazi F, Kopahnke D, Zubkovich A, Afanasenko O (2017) Polymorphism on virulence and specificity of microevolution processes in populations of causal agent of barley net blotch Pyrenophora teres f teres. Mikol I Fitopatol 51:229–240Google Scholar
- Brandl F, Hoffmann G (1991) Differentiation of physiological races of Drechslera teres (Sacc.) Shoem., pathogen net blotch of barley. Zeitschrift fuer Pflanzenkrankheiten und PflanzenschutzGoogle Scholar
- Flint-Garcia SA, Thornsberry JM, Buckler ESt (2003) Structure of linkage disequilibrium in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 54:357–374. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.54.031902.134907 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Graner A, Foroughi-Wehr B, Tekauz A (1996) RFLP mapping of a gene in barley conferring resistance to net blotch (Pyrenophora teres). Euphytica 91:229–234Google Scholar
- Gupta S et al (2004) Gene distribution and SSR markers linked with net type net blotch resistance in barley. In: 9th International Barley Genetics Symposium, 20–26 June. Czech Republic, Brno, pp 668–673Google Scholar
- Gupta S et al (2010) Quantitative trait loci and epistatic interactions in barley conferring resistance to net type net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f teres) isolates. Plant Breed 129:362–368Google Scholar
- Gyawali S, Otte ML, Chao S, Jilal A, Jacob DL, Amezrou R, Verma RPS (2017) Genome wide association studies (GWAS) of element contents in grain with a special focus on zinc and iron in a world collection of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). J Cereal Sci 77:266–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2017.08.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kangas A, Jalli M, Kedonperä A, Laine A, Niskanen M, Salo Y, Vuorinen M, Jauhiainen L, Ramstadius E 2005 Viljalajikkeiden herkkyys tautitartunnoille virallisissa lajikekokeissa 1998-2005. Disease susceptibility of cereals in Finnish official variety trials. [English summary and titles] Agrifood Res Rep, MTT:n selvityksiä 96: 33Google Scholar
- König J, Perovic D, Kopahnke D, Ordon F (2013) Development of an efficient method for assessing resistance to the net type of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f teres) in winter barley and mapping of quantitative trait loci for resistance. Mol Breed 32:641–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-013-9897-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liu Z, Holmes DJ, Faris JD, Chao S, Brueggeman RS, Edwards MC, Friesen TL (2015) Necrotrophic effector-triggered susceptibility (NETS) underlies the barley-Pyrenophora teres f. teres interaction specific to chromosome 6H. Mol Plant Pathol 16:188–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12172 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mathre D (1997) Compendium of Barley Diseases. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
- Moll E, Flath K, Tessenow I (2010) Assessment of resistance in cereal cultivars Design and analysis of experiments using the SAS-application RESI 2 Berichte aus dem Julius Kühn-Institut: 154Google Scholar
- Murray GM, Brennan JP (2009) The current and potential costs from diseases of barley in Australia. Grains Research and Development Corporation, BartonGoogle Scholar
- Saari E, Prescott J (1975) Scale for appraising the foliar intensity of wheat diseases. Plant Disease Reporter 59:377–380Google Scholar
- Serenius M (2006) Population structure of Pyrenophora teres, the causal agent of net blotch of barley (Doctoral Dissertation). Agrifood Research Reports 78:60Google Scholar
- Shjerve RA, Faris JD, Brueggeman RS, Yan C, Zhu Y, Koladia V, Friesen TL (2014) Evaluation of a Pyrenophora teres f teres mapping population reveals multiple independent interactions with a region of barley chromosome 6H. Fungal Genet Biol 70:104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2014.07.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Smedegård-Petersen V (1971) Pyrenophora teres f. maculata f. nov. and Pyrenophora teres f. teres on barley in Denmark. Yearb R Vet Agric Univ (Copenhagen) 1971:124–144Google Scholar
- Smedegård-Petersen V (1976) Pathogenesis and genetics of net-spot blotch and leaf stripe of barley caused by Pyrenophora teres and Pyrenophora graminea (Doctoral Dissertation) Copenhagen, p 176Google Scholar
- Trofimovskaya AY, Afanasenko O, Levitin MM (1983) Sources of barley resistance to the causal agent of net blotch (Drechslera teres). Rep Acad Agricu Sci 3:19–21Google Scholar
- Vatter T, Maurer A, Kopahnke D, Perovic D, Ordon F, Pillen K (2017) A nested association mapping population identifies multiple small effect QTL conferring resistance against net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. teres) in wild barley. PLoS ONE 12:e0186803. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186803 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Wang H, Smith KP, Combs E, Blake T, Horsley RD, Muehlbauer GJ (2012) Effect of population size and unbalanced data sets on QTL detection using genome-wide association mapping in barley breeding germplasm. Theor Appl Genet 124:111–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-011-1691-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wonneberger R, Ficke A, Lillemo M (2017b) Mapping of quantitative trait loci associated with resistance to net form net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f teres) in a doubled haploid Norwegian barley population. PLoS ONE 12:e0175773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175773 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar