Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 132, Issue 9, pp 2633–2650 | Cite as

Genetic analysis of a worldwide barley collection for resistance to net form of net blotch disease (Pyrenophora teres f. teres)

  • Fluturë Novakazi
  • Olga Afanasenko
  • Anna Anisimova
  • Gregory J. Platz
  • Rod Snowdon
  • Olga Kovaleva
  • Alexandr Zubkovich
  • Frank OrdonEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Key message

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.

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Supplementary material

122_2019_3378_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 33 kb)
122_2019_3378_MOESM2_ESM.docx (146 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 146 kb)
122_2019_3378_MOESM3_ESM.docx (177 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 177 kb)
122_2019_3378_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (XLSX 16 kb)
122_2019_3378_MOESM5_ESM.xlsx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (XLSX 16 kb)
122_2019_3378_MOESM6_ESM.xlsx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (XLSX 24 kb)

References

  1. Abu Qamar M et al (2008) A region of barley chromosome 6H harbors multiple major genes associated with net type net blotch resistance. Theor Appl Genet 117:1261–1270.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-008-0860-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Afanasenko O (1995) Characteristics of resistance of barley accessions to different Pyrenophora teres populations. Mycol Phytopathol 29:27–32Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Afanasenko O, Jalli M, Pinnschmidt H, Filatova O, Platz G (2009) Development of an international standard set of barley differential genotypes for Pyrenophora teres f. teres. Plant Pathol 58:665–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Afanasenko O et al (2015) Mapping of the loci controlling the resistance to Pyrenophora teres f. teres and Cochliobolus sativus in two double haploid barley populations. Russ J Genet Appl Res 5:242–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Afgan E et al (2016) The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res 44:W3–W10.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw343 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Amezrou R et al (2018) Genome-wide association studies of net form of net blotch resistance at seedling and adult plant stages in spring barley collection. Mol Breed 38:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-018-0813-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Bayer MM et al (2017) Development and evaluation of a barley 50 k iSelect SNP. Array Front Plant Sci 8:1792.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01792 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bellucci A et al (2017) Genome-wide association mapping in winter barley for grain yield and culm cell wall polymer content using the high-throughput CoMPP technique. PLoS ONE 12:e0173313.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173313 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Bengtsson T, Manninen O, Jahoor A, Orabi J (2017) Genetic diversity, population structure and linkage disequilibrium in Nordic spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L. subsp. vulgare). Genet Resour Crop Evolut 64:2021–2033.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-017-0493-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berger GL et al (2013) Marker-trait associations in Virginia Tech winter barley identified using genome-wide mapping. Theor Appl Genet 126:693–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Burlakoti RR et al (2017) Genome-Wide Association Study of spot form of net blotch resistance in the upper midwest barley breeding programs. Phytopathology 107:100–108.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-03-16-0136-R CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Burleigh J, Tajani M, Seck M (1988) Effects of Pyrenophora teres and weeds on barley yield and yield components. Phytopathology 78:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cakir M et al (2003) Mapping and validation of the genes for resistance to Pyrenophora teres f. teres in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Aust J Agric Res 54:1369–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cakir M et al (2011) Genetic mapping and QTL analysis of disease resistance traits in the barley population Baudin × AC Metcalfe. Crop Pasture Sci 62:152–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Campoy JA et al (2016) Genetic diversity, linkage disequilibrium, population structure and construction of a core collection of Prunus avium L. landraces and bred cultivars. BMC Plant Biol 16:49.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-016-0712-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LC, Vattikuti S, Purcell SM, Lee JJ (2015) Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience 4:7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13742-015-0047-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Douglas G, Gordon I (1985) Quantitative genetics of net blotch resistance in barley. N Z J Agric Res 28:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Earl DA, vonHoldt BM (2012) Structure harvester: a website and program for visualizing structure output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Friesen TL, Faris JD, Lai Z, Steffenson BJ (2006) Identification and chromosomal location of major genes for resistance to Pyrenophora teres in a doubled-haploid barley population. Genome 49:855–859.  https://doi.org/10.1139/g06-024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Grewal TS, Rossnagel BG, Pozniak CJ, Scoles GJ (2008) Mapping quantitative trait loci associated with barley net blotch resistance. Theor Appl Genet 116:529–539.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-007-0688-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Grewal TS, Rossnagel BG, Scoles GJ (2012) Mapping quantitative trait loci associated with spot blotch and net blotch resistance in a doubled-haploid barley population. Mol Breed 30:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Gupta S, Li C, Loughman R, Cakir M, Westcott S, Lance R (2011) Identifying genetic complexity of 6H locus in barley conferring resistance to Pyrenophora teres f teres. Plant Breed 130:423–429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2011.01854.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gurung S et al (2011) Identification of novel genomic regions associated with resistance to Pyrenophora tritici-repentis races 1 and 5 in spring wheat landraces using association analysis. Theor Appl Genet 123:1029–1041.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-011-1645-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Islamovic E, Bregitzer P, Friesen TL (2017) Barley 4H QTL confers NFNB resistance to a global set of P. teres f. teres isolates. Mol Breed 37:29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-017-0621-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Khan T (1982) Occurence and pathogenicity of Drechslera teres isolates causing spot-type symptoms on barley in Western Australia. Plant Dis 66:423–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koladia V, Faris J, Richards J, Brueggeman R, Chao S, Friesen T (2017) Genetic analysis of net form net blotch resistance in barley lines CIho 5791 and Tifang against a global collection of P. teres f teres isolates. Theor Appl Genet 130:163–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. König J, Perovic D, Kopahnke D, Ordon F, Léon J (2014) Mapping seedling resistance to net form of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f teres) in barley using detached leaf assay. Plant Breed 133:356–365.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lex J, Ahlemeyer J, Friedt W, Ordon FJ (2014) Genome-wide association studies of agronomic and quality traits in a set of German winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars using Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT). J Appl Genet 55:295–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lightfoot DJ, Able AJ (2010) Growth of Pyrenophora teres in planta during barley net blotch disease. Australas Plant Pathol 39:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lipka AE et al (2012) GAPIT: genome association and prediction integrated tool. Bioinformatics 28:2397–2399CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu Z, Ellwood SR, Oliver RP, Friesen TL (2011) Pyrenophora teres: profile of an increasingly damaging barley pathogen. Mol Plant Pathol 12:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2010.00649.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Ma Z, Lapitan NL, Steffenson B (2004) QTL mapping of net blotch resistance genes in a doubled-haploid population of six-rowed barley. Euphytica 137:291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Manninen OM, Jalli M, Kalendar R, Schulman A, Afanasenko O, Robinson J (2006) Mapping of major spot-type and net-type net-blotch resistance genes in the Ethiopian barley line CI 9819. Genome 49:1564–1571.  https://doi.org/10.1139/g06-119 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Martin A, Platz GJ, de Klerk D, Fowler RA, Smit F, Potgieter FG, Prins R (2018) Identification and mapping of net form of net blotch resistance in South African barley. Mol Breed 38:53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-018-0814-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mascher M et al (2017) A chromosome conformation capture ordered sequence of the barley genome. Nature 544:427–433.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22043 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Massman J et al (2010) Genome-wide association mapping of Fusarium head blight resistance in contemporary barley breeding germplasm. Mol Breed 27:439–454.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-010-9442-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mathre D (1997) Compendium of Barley Diseases. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  50. Maurer A et al (2015) Modelling the genetic architecture of flowering time control in barley through nested association mapping. BMC Genom 16:290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mitterbauer E et al (2017) Growth response of 98 barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes to elevated CO2 and identification of related quantitative trait loci using genome-wide association studies. Plant Breed 136:483–497.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mohammadi M et al (2015) A genome-wide association study of malting quality across eight US barley breeding programs. Theor Appl Genet 128:705–721.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2465-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Muqaddasi QH, Reif JC, Li Z, Basnet BR, Dreisigacker S, Röder MS (2017) Genome-wide association mapping and genome-wide prediction of anther extrusion in CIMMYT spring wheat. Euphytica 213:73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-1863-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Murray GM, Brennan JP (2009) The current and potential costs from diseases of barley in Australia. Grains Research and Development Corporation, BartonGoogle Scholar
  56. Nordborg M et al (2002) The extent of linkage disequilibrium in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat Genet 30:190–193.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ng813 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Boyle P et al (2014) Mapping net blotch resistance in ‘Nomini’and CIho 2291 barley. Crop Sci 54:2596–2602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Poland JA, Brown PJ, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL (2012) Development of high-density genetic maps for barley and wheat using a novel two-enzyme genotyping-by-sequencing approach. PLoS ONE 7:e32253.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032253 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Rafalski A, Morgante M (2004) Corn and humans: recombination and linkage disequilibrium in two genomes of similar size. Trends Genetics 20:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Raman H, Platz G, Chalmers K, Raman R, Read B, Barr A, Moody D (2003) Mapping of genomic regions associated with net form of netblotch resistance in barley. Aust J Agric Res 54:1359–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reif JC, Melchinger AE, Frisch M (2005) Genetical and mathematical properties of similarity and dissimilarity coefficients applied in plant breeding and seed bank management. Crop Sci 45:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Remington DL et al (2001) Structure of linkage disequilibrium and phenotypic associations in the maize genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:11479–11484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Richards J, Chao S, Friesen T, Brueggeman R (2016) Fine mapping of the barley chromosome 6H net form net blotch susceptibility locus. G3 (Bethesda) 6:1809–1818.  https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.116.028902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Richards JK, Friesen TL, Brueggeman RS (2017) Association mapping utilizing diverse barley lines reveals net form net blotch seedling resistance/susceptibility loci. Theor Appl Genet 130:915–927.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-017-2860-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Richter K, Schondelmaier J, Jung C (1998) Mapping of quantitative trait loci affecting Drechslera teres resistance in barley with molecular markers. Theor Appl Genet 97:1225–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Robinson J, Jalli M (1997) Quantitative resistance to Pyrenophora teres in six Nordic spring barley accessions. Euphytica 94:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rode J, Ahlemeyer J, Friedt W, Ordon F (2011) Identification of marker-trait associations in the German winter barley breeding gene pool (Hordeum vulgare L.). Mol Breed 30:831–843.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-011-9667-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Saari E, Prescott J (1975) Scale for appraising the foliar intensity of wheat diseases. Plant Disease Reporter 59:377–380Google Scholar
  70. Sannemann W, Huang BE, Mathew B, Léon J (2015) Multi-parent advanced generation inter-cross in barley: high-resolution quantitative trait locus mapping for flowering time as a proof of concept. Mol Breed 35:86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Serenius M (2006) Population structure of Pyrenophora teres, the causal agent of net blotch of barley (Doctoral Dissertation). Agrifood Research Reports 78:60Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Silvar C et al (2010) Screening the Spanish barley core collection for disease resistance. Plant Breed 129:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Simmonds J et al (2014) Identification and independent validation of a stable yield and thousand grain weight QTL on chromosome 6A of hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). BMC Plant Biol 14:191CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. Steffenson BJ, Webster R (1992) Quantitative resistance to Pyrenophora teres f. teres in barley. Phytopathology 82:407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Steffenson B, Hayes P, Kleinhofs A (1996) Genetics of seedling and adult plant resistance to net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. teres) and spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) in barley. Theor Appl Genet 92:552–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Stein N, Herren G, Keller B (2001) A new DNA extraction method for high-throughput marker analysis in a large-genome species such as Triticum aestivum. Plant Breed 120:354–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Storey JD, Tibshirani R (2003) Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:9440–9445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Tamang P, Neupane A, Mamidi S, Friesen T, Brueggeman R (2015) Association mapping of seedling resistance to spot form net blotch in a worldwide collection of barley. Phytopathology 105:500–508.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-04-14-0106-R CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Tekauz A (1985) A numerical scale to classify reactions of barley to Pyrenophora teres. Can J Plant Path 7:181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tekauz A (1990) Characterization and distribution of pathogenic variation in Pyrenophora teres f. teres and P. teres f. maculata from western Canada. Can J Plant Pathol 12:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. Wallwork H, Butt M, Capio E (2016) Pathogen diversity and screening for minor gene resistance to Pyrenophora teres f. teres in barley and its use for plant breeding. Australas Plant Pathol 45:527–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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
  88. Wehner GG, Balko CC, Enders MM, Humbeck KK, Ordon FF (2015) Identification of genomic regions involved in tolerance to drought stress and drought stress induced leaf senescence in juvenile barley. BMC Plant Biol 15:125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. Wonneberger R, Ficke A, Lillemo M (2017a) Identification of quantitative trait loci associated with resistance to net form net blotch in a collection of Nordic barley germplasm. Theor Appl Genet 130:2025–2043.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-017-2940-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 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
  91. Yan J, Shah T, Warburton ML, Buckler ES, McMullen MD, Crouch JJ (2009) Genetic characterization and linkage disequilibrium estimation of a global maize collection using SNP markers. PLoS ONE 4:e8451CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Zhang Z et al (2010) Mixed linear model approach adapted for genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet 42:355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. Zhu C, Gore M, Buckler ES, Yu J (2008) Status and prospects of association mapping in plants. Plant Genome J 1:5–20.  https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2008.02.0089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Resistance Research and Stress ToleranceJulius Kuehn-InstituteQuedlinburgGermany
  2. 2.All-Russian Research Institute of Plant ProtectionSaint PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.Queensland Department of Agriculture and FisheriesHermitage Research FacilityWarwickAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Plant Breeding, IFZ Research Centre for Biosystems, Land Use and NutritionJustus Liebig UniversityGiessenGermany
  5. 5.Federal Research Center the N. I. Vavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic ResourcesSaint PetersburgRussia
  6. 6.Republican Unitary EnterpriseThe Research and Practical Center of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus for Arable FarmingZhodinoBelarus

Personalised recommendations