PG major SEMINAR on BREEDING FOR VIRUS RESISTANCE IN PULSES ppt file delivered by Dheeraj Bamaniya from M.Sc. (Genetics and Plant breeding) in C. P. college of agriculture, S. D. Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar. it Contains how to develop virus-resistant varieties in pulse crops

1. Seminar on
“ BREEDING FOR VIRUS RESISTANCE IN PULSES”
Dr. H. N. ZALA
Assistant Professor,
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding,
SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar.
Dr. P. T. PATEL
Directorate of Extension education,
S.D. Agricultural University,
Sardarkrushinagar.
Bamania Dheeraj D.
Reg. No: 04-AGRMA-02196-2020
Degree : M.Sc. (Agri.)
Dept. : Genetics and Plant Breeding
Course No. : GP 591
SPEAKER
MAJOR ADVISOR MINOR ADVISOR
1
WELCOME TO SEMINAR SERIES 2021-2022

2. Contents
Introduction
Different viral diseases of Pulses
Symptomology of MYMV and SMV
Mode of Transmission of MYMV and SMV
Genetics of MYMV and SMV
Screening techniques
Breeding Approaches
Conclusions
Case studies
2

3. • Pulses are essential crops.
• They are packed with nutrients and have a high protein content.
• India is the largest producer (25% of global production), consumer (27% of world
consumption) and importer (14%) of pulses in the world.
• Though pulses are grown in both Kharif and Rabi seasons, Rabi pulses contribute
more than 60 per cent of the total production.
• Gram is the most dominant pulse having a share of around 40 per cent in the total
production followed by Tur at 15 to 20 per cent, Urad and Moong at around 8-10 per
cent each.
• Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka are the top
five pulses producing States.
INTRODUCTION
3

4. State Production ('000 Tonnes)
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21*
Gujarat 818.00 922.59 681.33 1057.27 1759.93
Rajasthan 3181.18 3405.37 3759.38 4497.13 4821.84
Madhya Pradesh 6291.29 8111.58 6045.41 4108.41 4364.74
Maharashtra 3768.06 3347.76 2682.54 3736.00 4224.87
All India 23130.94 25415.92 22075.96 23025.25 25575.69
Table 1 : State-wise Production of Pulses during 2016-17 to 2020-21
Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare update 2020-2021
State Yield (Kg/ha)
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Gujarat 868 1016 1029 1172
Rajasthan 604 639 636 709
Madhya Pradesh 944 1084 916 864
Maharashtra 865 795 670 891
All India 786 853 757 823 4
Table 2 : State-wise Yield of Pulses during 2016-17 to 2019-20
*=Expected estimation

5. Different Viruses infecting in Pulses
• Yellow Mosaic Disease (YMD)-
• Mung bean Yellow Mosaic Virus (MYMV)
• Mung bean Yellow India Mosaic Virus (MYIMV)
• Horse gram Yellow Mosaic Virus (HYMV)
• Urdbean Leaf Crinkle Virus (ULCV)
• Pigeonpea Sterility Mosaic Virus (PSMV)
• Alfalfa Mosaic Virus (AMV),
• Bean Golden Yellow Mosaic Virus (BGYMV)
• Cowpea Yellow Mosaic Virus (CPMV)
• Mungbean Leaf Curl virus (MLCV)
• Bean Common Mosaic virus (BCMV)
5

6. Table 3: Overview of Major Virus Group and Virus vectors of Pulses
Rana, et al. (2016)
Sr.
no
Virus name Reported by Symptoms Virus Group Vector
1 Mungbean Yellow
mosaic Virus (YMV)
(Nariani, 1960)
Delhi, India
Bright yellow mosaic or golden
yellow mosaic.
Begomovirus Whitefly,(Bemisia
tabaci)
2 Urdbean Leaf Crinkle
Virus (ULCV)
Singh et al.,
(1979)
The leaves show curling of
margin downwards
Carmovirus Aphid, Aphis craccivora
White fly, Bemisia tabaci
3 mungbean leaf Curl
Virus (MLCV)
1968 from
Pantnagar
Apical necrosis, downward
Curling, venial necrosis.
Tospovirus Thrips (Frankliniella
schultezei)
4 Bean Common Mosaic
Virus (BCMV)
1968, (Kaiser et
al.) from Iran
Young leaves show puckering
And blistering
Potyvirus Mite(Polyphagotarsone
mus latus )
5 Pigeonpea Sterility
Mosaic Virus (SMV)
1931,
(Mitra et al.)
Pusa, Bihar
Stunted and bushy plants, leaves
reduced size and mosaic
symptoms.
Emaravirus Eriophyid mite (Aceria
cajani)
6 Alfalfa Mosaic Virus
(AMV)
1931, (Weimer
J.L.), Italy
Leaf bright yellow blotches with
bronze discoloration.
Alfamovirus Aphids
7 Bean Golden Yellow
Mosaic Virus (BGYMV)
1961, (Goodman)
Brazil
Striking on leaves, stunted and
distorted plant growth
Potyvirus Aphids
8 Cowpea Yellow Mosaic
Virus (CPMV)
1959, (Anderson
et al.) Nigeria
Discoloration of tap-roots,
longitudinal cracks of the stems,
stunting, wilting.
Comovirus Thrips and beetles
6

7. Pigeon pea sterility
mosaic Disease (PSMD)
Urd bean Leaf Crinkle
Disease (ULCD)
Alfalfa Mosaic Disease
(AMD)
Bean Golden Yellow
Mosaic Disease (BGYMD)
Cowpea Yellow Mosaic
Disease (CPMD)
Mungbean leaf curl
Disease (MLCD)
Bean common mosaic
Disease (BCMD)
Fig. 1: Different viral Disease Symptoms on pulses 7

8. Mung Bean Yellow Mosaic Virus (MYMV)
• Mungbean yellow mosaic virus in mungbean was first observed in India in 1955, at the
experimental farm of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) New Delhi. (Nariani,
1960)
• The mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) disease was given special attention because of
severity and ability to cause yield loss up to 85% (AVRDC, 1998) ,100 % (Rishi, 2009), 100%
[Kitsanachandee, R. 2013]
• MYMV belongs to the genera begomovirus of the family Geminiviridae . (Bos, 1999) (Fauquet et
al., 2003)
• Hosts of MYMV mungbean, urdbean, soybean, cowpea, and common bean. (Malathi & John,
2008)
• MYMV is confined to Thailand, Vietnam, and Peninsular region of India. while, MYIMV occurs in
Northern India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. (Tsai et al., 2013)
• HgYMV occurs only in South India (Borah & Dasgupta,2012).
8

9. • SMD was first reported Pigeon pea in 1931 from Pusa (Bihar) and is mostly endemic to
India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The disease has also been reported from Thailand
(Nene et al., 1996) and Sri Lanka (Newton and Peiris, 1953)
• SMD caused by Pigeonpea sterility mosaic virus (PPSMV), is the economically most
important viral disease in India, causing an estimated annual loss of more than US$ 300
million (Reddy et al., 1998).
• The disease is present in all pigeon pea growing places of India but it is more serious in
some states like Gujarat, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Tamil Nadu.
• Hosts include Some tobacco species, Common bean, pigeonpea and a few wild species
of Cajanus were found to support the vector A. cajani.
• SMD belongs to the genera Emaravirus of the family Fimoviridae.
• SMD is one of the most challenging diseases of 20th century in the Indian sub-continent.
Pigeonpea sterility mosaic Virus (SMV)
9

10. Strains of YMD and their symptoms
Mungbean yellow mosaic virus
(MYMV)
Irregular yellow green patches on
older leaves and complete yellowing of
young leaves.
Mung bean yellow india mosaic
virus
(MYIMV)
Bright yellow mosaic pattern on leaves
of infected plant
Horse gram yellow mosaic virus
(HYMV)
bright yellow mosaic pattern on the leaves,
reduce leaf size and stunting of entire
plant.
A B
C
10

11. Fig. 2 Symptomology of MYMV
A B
Irregular green and yellow patches
in older leaves Complete yellowing of younger leaves
C
MYMV
infected seeds
Healthy seeds
D
Healthy pods MYMV
infected pods 11

12. Typical cholorotic ring
Complete sterility before
flowering
Complete sterility after
flowering
Fig. 3: mungbean plants infected by Mungbean Yellow Mosaic Virus in Various stages.
B. Vegetative stage
C. Pod filling stage
A. Seedling stage
Fig. 4: Sterility Mosaic Virus infected on Pigeonpea plant in different stages.
A B C
12

13. Graft transmission:
Chenulu and Varma (1988) reported that MYMV grafted plants symptoms appear
in the young auxiliary shoots below the scion in 12-15 days of grafting.
Graft transmission of PPSMV was first showed by Capoor in 1952, subsequently
confirmed in several studies.
Seed transmission:
Pawar et al. (2015) reported that MYMV is transmit through seed.
Several experiments on PPSMV transmission suggested that the PPSMV is not
transmitted through seed or pollen that reported by Nene (1972)
In pigeonpea seed itself, PPSMV was detectable only in the seed coat, but not in the
cotyledons.
 Insect transmission:
Nariani (1960) first reported the occurrence of mungbean yellow mosaic (MYMV)
and its transmission by the whitefly.
Reddy and Nene (1980) reported the pigeon pea sterility mosaic virus (PPSMV)
infection on pigeonpea significantly increased the proliferation of A. cajani compared with
their numbers on healthy plants.
Mode of Transmission of MYMV and PPSMV
13
Mishra et al. (2020) & Patil et al. (2015)

14. Cultivar Location Whitefly No./Plant MYMV Incidence (%)
MGG 348
Khammam
District -villages
Vegetative Flowering Vegetative Flowering
Madhira 2-6 1-5 41.93 51.77
Paloncha 1–5 1–7 37.54 46.71
konijeral 2–8 3–11 47.36 52.48
Table 4: Relationship between whitefly population and MYMV Incidence (%) in Mungbean Cultivar grown
in Khammam District in Andra Pradesh
Panduranga et al., (2012)
Andra Pradesh
Table 5: Relationship between Aceria cajani population and PPSMV Incidence (%) in pigeon pea Cultivar.
Cultivar
PPSMV Incidence (%)
No. A. cajani/plant Exp. 1 Exp. 1 Mean%
ICP 8863
1 40 35 45
3 73 60 60
5 100 80 100
10 100 700 100
Kulkarni et. al. (2002)
ICRISAT, India 14

15. • Whitefly retain the virus for up to 20 days
• Does not transmit it to its progeny.
• 1-2 mm in length
• Wide host range and feeds by sucking plant
VECTOR TRANSMISSION OF MYMV
Whitefly Bemisia tabaci
Feed and lay eggs on
under surface of the leaf
Fig. 5
Transmission through persistent manner
15

16. VECTOR TRANSMISSION OF PPSMV
Mites Aceria cajani
• Very small, measuring 200-250 μm
• Have a very short life of about 2 weeks.
PPSMV virus is transmitted
by both nymph and adult
mite but nymphs are more
efficient vectors than
adults.
The vector can retain the virus for up to 13 hours.
The acquisition feeding period are 5-10 minutes and
inoculation test period are 20-30 minutes.
Fig. 6
16

17. Genetics of MYMV and PPSMV
• Bipartite genomes (DNA-A and DNA-B)
• Transmitted in a circulative persistent manner by white fly Bemisia tabaci
.(Nariani, 1960)
• AC4 region responsible for pathogenicity.
• BC1 region responsible for movement of virus from cell to cell through
plasmodesmata.
• The virus has single stranded DNA genome of approximately 2.8 Kb. (Hull, 2004)
• A virus with single-stranded RNA genome.
• Its transmitted in a semi-persistent manner by an eriophyid mite Aceria cajani .
• The PPSMV genome contains five segments of single-stranded RNA that are
predicted to encode proteins.
Mishra et al. (2020) & Patil et al. (2015) 17

18.  There are three types for MYMV
1. Natural screening (Infector row method)
2. Artificial inoculation (Agro inoculation)
3. Force inoculation (Force feeding)
Screening of MYMV and PPSMV
 There are three types for PPSMV
1. Leaf stapling
2. Infector hedge
3. Spreader row inoculation
18

19. Why resistance breeding is important ?
• Management of disease is only possible by the way of reducing the vector population using
insecticides which are ineffective under severe infestations making a complete destruction of
virus knotty.
• Development of Virus resistance variety is the most effective and economical strategy and for
the stabilizing the yield levels of pulses.
• Control of the Vectors population, which is sometimes ineffective because of high population
pressure.
• Wide host range of Some viral Diseases (mungbean, urdbean, soybean, cowpea, common
bean, and Pigeone pea ).
• GM-4 vatiety which are known for their resistance to MYMV. GM-4 shows resistance to the
disease at SDAU in summer season, but it is susceptible at NAU in summer season. 19

20. Conventional breeding methods
Introduction
Selection
Hybridization
Pure line selection
Intervarietal hybridization Interspecific hybridization
Back cross method
Pedigree method
Special breeding methods
Mutation breeding
20

21. CASE
STUDIES
21

22. 1
Generation of interspecific hybrids for introgression of mungbean yellow
mosaic virus resistance in Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek
Two genotypes of mungbean (SML 668 and SML 832) YMV susceptible and two genotypes of urdbean (Mash 114
and Mash 218) YMV resistance were crossed in all the possible combinations at the field area of Department of Plant
Breeding & Genetics, PunjabAgricultural University.
Crosses Total no. of
flower buds
emasculated
Total no. of
flower buds
pollinated
No. of
mature
pod
Pod set
%
No. of
seed
sown
No. of seed
germinated
Germin
ation %
SML 668 x Mash 114 167 107 11 10.3 36 11 30.56
SML 832 x Mash218 133 90 5 5.5 12 3 25.00
SML668 x Mash 218 91 70 14 20.0 28 4 14.29
SML 832 x Mash 114 47 29 7 24.1 15 3 20.00
Table 7: Crossability between V. radiata and V. mungo.
PAU, Ludhiana
Lekhi et al. (2018) 22

23. Fig. 7: MYMV reaction on parental genotypes SML 668, Mash 114 and their F1(SML 668 x Mash 114)
Fig. 8: Difference in Pods and Seeds of parental genotypes SML 668, Mash 114 and their F1
23

24. Fig. 9:
PCR amplification of SML 668, Mash 114 and their hybrids with VR 0200(A) and VR 0223(B) marker on 2.5
percent agarose gel
VR 0200, VR 0293, VR 0223 are used for Hybrids Confirmation
All the F1 plants gave
resistant reaction to
Mungbean yellow mosaic
virus (MYMV) indicating
the introgression of
resistance gene(s) from V.
mungo to V. radiata
Confirmation of interspecific hybrids through SSR markers
Lekhi et al. (2018)
PAU, Ludhiana 24

25. 2 Development of Yellow Mosaic Virus Resistance in Mung Bean through EMS
Mutagenesis
Method used Induced point mutation technique by
Ethyl methane sulphonate (EMS)
Material BARI Mung 6
Treatments used The seeds of BARI Mung 6 were soaked overnight in distilled water
supplemented with six different concentrations (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.15%,
0.20%, 0.3% and 0.4%) of Ethyl methane sulfonate (EMS)
M1
Generation
• Seeds were grown and advanced in the greenhouse till M3 generation.
Individual lines were chosen as per standard disease grade 0-3.
• A total of 55 lines were screened out from M3 generation.
• The M4 generation was grown in the research field and 13 lines were chosen
as per level of disease resistance and 100 seed weight.
M2
Generation
M3
Generation
M4
Generation
Raihan et al. (2018)
Bangaladesh 25

26. M3 Generation
Control plant Mutant plant
M4 Generation
Control plant Mutant plant
Fig. 10: Mungbean plants pod in M3 generation (a) Control plant showing MYMV disease symptom (b)
mutant plant showing no disease symptom.
Raihan et al. (2018)
Bangaladesh
Fig. 11: Mungbean plants in M4 generation (a) Control plant showing MYMV disease symptom (b) mutant
plant showing no disease symptom.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
26

27. Fig. 12: Average of 100 seeds’ weight (g) and
number of seeds per pod along with disease grade
of selected lines from M4 generation
T2P17S22, T3P4S13 and
T2P17S18 shows high
yielding and highly
resistant to yellow mosaic
disease.
mutant lines will be subjected for large-scale
field trial and release as a commercial
variety if they outperform the original parent.
Raihan et al. (2018)
Bangaladesh 27

28. Table 8: Resistant and Susceptible reaction of parental genotypes to SMD.
Parents
Rainy season
(2006)
Rainy season ( 2007) Disease
incidence (%)
Disease
Reaction
Total plants R S
Total
plants
R S
BRG 3 26 26 - 16 16 - 0 R
ICP 7035 31 31 - 15 15 - 0 R
TTB 7 19 - 19 17 - 17 100 S
ICP 8863 23 - 23 19 - 19 100 S
R = No Visible Symptoms, S = Severe Mosaic Symptoms
Bangaluru
Table
3 Inheritance studies of sterility mosaic disease (SMD) resistance in vegetable
type pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.)
OBJECTIVE :
To study the nature of inheritance of SMD in resistant (BRG 3 and ICP 7035) and susceptible (ICP 8863 and TTB 7)
genotypes.
Ganapathy et al. (2012) 28

29. Table 9: Resistant and susceptible reaction of F1 hybrids to SMD
F1 hybrids Total Plants R S
Disease incidence
(%)
Disease reaction
ICP 8863 x ICP 7035
(S X R)
15 - 15 100 S
TTB 7 X BRG 3
(SX R)
16 - 16 100 S
BRG 3 X ICP 7035 (R X R) 14 14 - 0 R
TTB 7 X ICP 8863 (S X S) 16 - 16 100 S
Table 10: Segregation of Resistance and Susceptibility in F2 Populations for Resistance to SMD.
F2 generation Total plants Sterility mosaic disease (SMD) Ratio S:R
R S
ICP 8863 x ICP 7035 179 74 105 9:7
TTB 7x BRG 3 221 52 169 3:1
BRG 3 x ICP 7035 192 192 - -
TTB 7 x ICP 8863 196 196 -
R = No Visible Symptoms, S = Severe Mosaic Symptoms 29

30. Association of SMD with Leaf
colour and texture
Parents Leaf Colour & Texture
BRG- 3 &
ICP -7035
(Resistant)
Dark green and leathery
TTB-7 &
ICP- 8863
(Susceptibl
e)
Light green and non
leathery
Table 11: Association of Leaf colour and Texture with SMD
Ganapathy et al. (2012)
UAS, Bangaluru
F2 Generation
Total
plants
Resistant plants Susceptible plants
Light
green and
non
leathery
leaves
Dark
green
with
leathery
leaves
Light green
with non
leathery
leaves
Dark
green and
leathery
leaves
ICP 8863 X ICP
7035
179 4 70 105 -
TTB 7 X BRG 3 221 3 49 169 -
BRG 3 X ICP
7035
192 - 192 - -
TTB 7 X ICP
8863
196 - - 196 -
30

31. Dark green Light Green
Dark green
Light Green
Light Green
BRG- 3(R) X
ICP -7035 (R)
TTB-7(S) X
ICP- 8863(S)
TTB 7(S) X
BRG 3(R)
ICP
7035(R)
ICP
8863(S)
Ganapathy et al. (2012)
UAS, Bangaluru
Fig. 13: SMD association with
leaf colour and texture.
(a) Expression of 100% resistance
in F2 of R × R cross (BRG 3 ×
ICP 7035).
(b)Expression of 100 per cent
susceptibility in S × S cross
(TTB 7 × ICP 8863).
(c) Uninfected resistant (ICP 7035)
and susceptible (ICP 8863)
parents showing dark green
leathery leaves and light green
nonleathery leaves respectively.
(d)Association of dark green and
leathery leaves with SMD
resistant plants in F2 of cross
TTB 7 × BRG 3
31

32. Molecular breeding methods
• Marker-assisted backcrossing (MABC)
• Marker assisted gene pyramiding
• QTL mapping
• Genomic selection (GS)
32

33. .
Why molecular breeding is important for MYMV in mungbean
and PPSMV in Pigeon pea?
 Varieties develop through conventional breeding methods remains unsuccessful due to rapid
evolution of new isolates of MYMV and PPSMV.
 Due to complexity of the mechanism controlling MYMV and PPSMV resistance.
 In conventional breeding field screening is time consuming and it requires evaluation at “hot
spot” area and infector line.
 To identify for detection of MYMV and PPSMV resistance genes. Eg. RAPD, SCAR, SSR, ISSR, SNP.
33

34. P1(S) × P2(R)
Gullyal white BSMR 736
F1
F2
F2:3 [325 plants]
Dharwad, India
4
Identification of Coupling and Repulsion Phase DNA Marker Associated With
an Allele of a Gene Conferring Host Plant Resistance to Pigeonpea sterility
mosaic virus (PPSMV) in Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.)
F2 mapping population comprising 325 individuals was developed by crossing PSMD susceptible genotype (Gullyal
white) and PSMD resistant genotype (BSMR 736).
Daspute and Fakrudin (2015) 34

35. Fig. 14: Screening of the seven resistant and seven susceptible F2 plant DNA of the cross Gullyal
white × BSMR 736 with a coupling phase RAPD markers IABTPPN7983 and repulsion phase RAPD
marker IABTPPN7414
35
983 bp
414 bp

36. Table 12: Nature and segregation behaviour of PSMD
Primer Name No. of F2 Plants Total X2 Value Segregation
Ratio
Present of
amplicon
Absence of
amplicon
Cal Tab
IABTPPN7983
Observed 257 68 325 2.8 3.8 3:1
Expected 243.75 81.25 325
IABTPPN7414
Observed 255 70 325 2.0 3.8 3:1
Expected 243.75 81.25 325
Dharwad, India Daspute and Fakrudin (2015) 36

37. 5 Detection of QTLs associated with mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) resistance
using the interspecific cross of Vigna radiata × Vigna umbellata
VRM (Gg) 1
MYMV Susceptible
(Vigna radiata)
TNAU RED
MYMV Resistant
(Vigna umbellate)
F1
F2
RIL (108) F2.9
single seed descent (SSD)
method was conducted
from the F3–F9 and then
108 F2:9-derived lines
were produced as the RIL
population
The spreader row technique was adopted in field screening
to evaluate RILs against MYMV during 2015 and 2016
TNAU, India
Ricebean cv. TNAU RED
(resistant to MYMV)
Mungbean cv. VRM 1
(highly susceptible to
MYMV)
high-yielding variety.
Mathivathana et al. (2019) 37

38. Table 13: Raw sequence data processing and SNP marker identification
DNA isolation, library construction and sequencing
Parents & 108 RILs were used to prepare the libraries
for Genotypic by sequencing (GBS)analysis
Sr. No. Chromosome SNPs
identified
Filtered SNPs SNPs mapped SNPs Mapped
(%)
Map length
(cM)
Average
marker
interval (cM)
1 1 13274 115 79 68.7 117.9 1.49
2 2 8081 61 44 72.1 91.9 2.09
3 3 3931 36 34 94.4 90.2 2.65
4 4 6373 52 49 94.2 106.8 2.18
5 5 9720 56 47 83.9 128.1 2.72
6 6 12505 82 59 72.0 137.8 2.34
7 7 15480 86 60 69.8 149.1 2.48
8 8 14139 76 46 60.5 139.4 3.03
9 9 7698 48 44 91.7 128.2 2.91
10 10 6787 30 30 100.0 90.5 3.02
11 11 6102 46 46 100.0 117.9 2.43
Average 9462.73 62.54 48.90 82.5 117.49 2.40
Total 104090 688 538 78.2 1291.7 2.40
38

39. Genetic linkage map construction by using 538 SNP markers
QTL analysis
composite interval mapping (CIM))
S r
no.
year QTLS Name chrom
osome
Position
(cM)
LOD R2
(%)b
AC Confidence
interval
(cM)
Physical region
(bp)e
QTL
Size
No.of
genes
1 2015 qMYMV4 -1 4 65.12 6.07 20.04 0.58 63.1-65.6 14504302 - 15788321 1.28 83
qMYMV5-1 5 41.11 5.02 15.02 0.41 39.1-45.2 17429208 - 19012443 1.58 127
2 2016 qMYMV4-1 4 64.10 5.32 18.97 0.53 63.1-65.6 14504302 - 15788321 1.28 83
qMYMV6-1 6 74.60 3.32 10.11 0.29 71.6-78.5 22766890 - 22838632 0.07 2
qMVMV10-1 10 10.21 3.48 11.24 0.32 0.0-14.2 308386 - 1233278 0.92 13
A The log of odds (LOD) value at the peak likelihood of the QTL
B Phenotypic variance (%) explained by the QTL
C Additive effect indicates contribution of the allele from TNAU RED and negative additive effect indicates contribution of the allele from VRM (Gg) 1
D 1-LOD support confidence intervals (confidence interval length)
E Physical location of the confidence interval of QTLs based on the mungbean reference genome Vr 1.0
Table 14: Analysis of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for MYMV resistance in the F9 RIL population derived
from the cross between VRM (Gg) 1 and TNAU RED
39

40. QTL on chromosome 4 (qMYMV4_1) was detected in both years at the same marker interval,
between VigSNP_04_32 (63.1 cM) and VigSNP_04_36 (65.6 cM), with phenotypic variance of
20.04 and 18.97% in 2015 and 2016. So , this QTL as stable and major QTL for resistance to
MYMV. QTL useful for QTL fine mapping and cloning for further studies.
Fig. 15: Detected quantitative trait
loci (QTLs) for MYMV resistance
and in the F9 RIL population derived
from the cross between VRM (Gg) 1
and TNAU RED in the two different
years 2015-2016
40

41. 6 Genetic mapping and quantitative traits locus analysis of resistance to sterility
mosaic disease in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]
Gnanesh et. al. (2011)
Bengaluru, India
ICP 8863 and TTB 7 are susceptible to SMD.
Four genotypes Selected for research.
ICPL 20097 and ICP 7035 are resistant to SMD.
 ICP 8863 × ICPL 20097 was phenotyped for resistance to Patancheru SMD
isolate at ICRISAT, Patancheru.
 TTB 7 × ICP 7035 was phenotyped for resistance to Patancheru SMD isolate
at ICRISAT, Patancheru and for Bangalore SMD isolates at Bengaluru.
Genomic DNA was extracted from the of the mapping parents (ICP 8863, ICPL 20097, TTB 7 and
ICP 7035) and F2
41

42. Table 15: Phenotypic variation of the SMD in F2:3 families of ICP 8863 × ICPL 20097 and TTB 7 × ICP 7035.
Isolate/Mapping population Sample size Mean minimum maximum
Patancheru SMD isolate
ICP 8863 × ICPL 20097 190 55.08 0 100
TTB 7 × ICP 7035 130 59.56 0 100
Bangalore SMD isolate
TTB 7 × ICP 7035 130 78.35 6.3 100
SSR Marker polymorphism assessment
ICP 8863 × ICPL 20097
TTB 7 × ICP 7035
84 polymorphic
markers
143 polymorphic
markers
Gnanesh et. al. (2011)
Bengaluru, India 42

43. QTLs Linkage
group
(LG)
Positi
on
(cM)
Marker
interval
LOD
score
R2 (%)
Patancheru SMD isolate
ICP 8863 × ICPL 20097
qSMD1 LG 9 4.0 CcM1982-
CcM1447
3.1 9.2
qSMD2 LG 9 14.6 CcM0588-
CcM2781
3.07 8.3
TTB 7 × ICP 7035
qSMD3 LG 2 0.01 CcM2149-
CcM0468
3.86 12.32
qSMD4 LG 7 2.01 CcM1825-
CcM1895
6.74 24.72
Table 16: Composite interval mapping (CIM) analysis of QTLs associated with resistance to SMD in F2:3
families
43

44. Bangalore SMD isolate
TTB 7 × ICP 7035
qSMD5 LG 1 83.08 CcM0970-CcM2485 3.35 15.93
qSMD6 LG 3 0.01 CcM0416-CcM2337 2.92 10.58
QTLs Linkage group
(LG)
Position
(cM)
Marker interval LOD score R2 (%)
44

45. Conclusions
• Resistance to viral diseases has also been recognized in the wild species (V. umbellate) of some
pulses and may consent the introduction of such resistance by means of interspecific hybridization.
• Inheritance pattern of PPSMV resistance varies from monogenic to polygenic depending upon the
source of resistance used.
• Conventional breeding & Mutation breeding approach is widely used for variety development. e.g.
GAM 5, GM 4, Meha, Samrat, PDM 54, PDM 11 etc.
• Different marker was identified for detection of viruses genes. Eg. RAPD, SNP , SSR.
• Various QTL has been identified which is linked to virus resistance gene e.g. qMYMV5-1, qMYMV4 -1
for MYMV and qSMD1, qSMD2 etc. for PPSMV.
• QTL information are important for future as QTL fine mapping, map-based gene cloning and also
provide support for the implementation of marker-assisted selection (MAS).
45

46. THANK
YOU
46