Erysiphe trifolii is able to overcome er1 and Er3, but not er2, resistance genes in pea
- 212 Downloads
Until recently, Erysiphe pisi was thought to be the only causal agent of powdery mildew in pea, but recent studies showed that other species such as Erysiphe trifolii and Erysiphe baeumleri can also cause this disease. Three genes, er1, er2 and Er3, conferring resistance to E. pisi have been reported so far in pea. Previous studies showed that E. trifolii and E. baeumleri were able to overcome er1 resistance, but whether er2 and Er3 were effective against E. trifolii was not known. In this study, pea accessions carrying these three genes were evaluated for resistance to E. trifolii under controlled conditions at 20 and 25 °C. In addition, these accessions were also evaluated under field conditions in Spain and in India. Analysis of the ribosomal DNA (rDNA) internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences showed that E. trifolii was the causal agent of powdery mildew symptoms in lines carrying er1 in Spain and that this pathogen was also present in India. Our results showed that E. trifolii was able to overcome er1 and shows that this pathogen can also overcome Er3 resistance in some conditions. In contrast, er2 provided high level of resistance against E. trifolii in all conditions and locations studied. Temperature affected the expression of Er3 against E. trifolii, but not of er1 or er2. The pea accession JI2480, containing er2, was highly resistant and JI2302 containing er1 was susceptible to E. trifolii at both temperatures, whereas P660-4 containing Er3 was resistant at 20 °C but susceptible at 25 °C. The present study also identified sources of resistance effective against both E. pisi and E. trifolii.
KeywordsErysiphe trifolii Erysiphe pisi Powdery mildew er1 er2 Er3
S. Fondevilla was granted by a contract funded by the Spanish JAEdoc program. Financial support from project AGL2011-22524 (co-financed by FEDER) is acknowledged.
- Braun, U (1995) The powdery mildews (Erysiphales) of Europe. New York, USA: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
- Gritton, E. T., & Ebert, R. D. (1975). Interaction of planting date and powdery mildew on pea plant performance. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 100, 137–142.Google Scholar
- Gupta, R. P., & Singh, R. N. (2007). Mechanism of slow mildewing by Erysiphe pisi (Syd) and stability of resistance in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences India, Section B, Biological Sciences, 77(4), 423–426.Google Scholar
- Heringa, R. J., Van Norel, A., & Tazelaar, M. F. (1969). Resistance to powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni D.C.) in peas (Pisum sativum L.). Euphytica, 18, 163–169.Google Scholar
- Little, T. M., & Hills, F. J. (1972). Statistical methods in agriculture research. Agricultural Extension: University of California.Google Scholar
- Ondřej, M., Dostálová, R., & Odstrčilová, L. (2005). Response of Pisum sativum germplasm resistant to Erysiphe pisi to inoculation with Erysiphe baeumleri, a new pathogen of peas. Plant Protection Science, 41, 95–103.Google Scholar
- Ram, B., & Prasad, C. S. (1994). Assessment of losses by powdery mildew, Erysiphe polygoni (DC) on pea. National Academy Science Letters, 17, 175–177.Google Scholar
- Saenz, G. S., & Taylor, J. W. (1999). Phylogeny of the Erysiphales (powdery mildews) inferred from internal transcribed spacers ribosomal DNA sequences. Canadian Journal of Botany, 77(1), 150–168.Google Scholar
- Singh, R. A., De, R. K., & Chaudhary, R. G. (2003). Stable resistance to powdery mildew in field pea. Indian Journal of Pulses Research, 16, 47–49.Google Scholar