Resistance in Cotton and Peanut


Published on

Effect of Resistance on Nematode,Introgression Pathway,Comparison of Pod Yields,Known Sources of Resistance to Root-knot in Gossypium hirsutum,Sources of Resistance to Meloidogyne incognita in Gossypium hirsutum,Development of cotton with resistance to M. incognita and R. reniformis

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Resistance in Cotton and Peanut

  1. 1. Resistance in Cotton and Peanut: Onesuccess story and one story not yet finished Jim Starr Dept Plant Pathology & Microbiology Texas A&M University
  2. 2. Resistance In Peanut Prior to 1989, no high levels of resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria available or known in cultivated peanut High levels of nematode resistance were identified in diploid wild Arachis species (S. C. Nelson et al., 1989) A. cardenasii, A. diogoi, and A. batizocoi are highly resistant to M. arenaria Diploid species are not cross-compatible with cultivated peanut TxAG-6, a synthetic interspecific hybrid of nematode resistant diploid species, and cross-compatible with A. hypogaea (Simpson, 1991)
  3. 3. Introgression Pathway Developed by C. E. Simpson A. cardenasii (AA) x A. diogoi (AA) A. batizocoi (BB) x F1 (AA) colchicine F1 (AB)A. hypogaea cv. Florunner x TxAG-6 (AABB) (AABB) A. hypogaea cv. Florunner x F1 (AABB) TxAG-7 (AABB) cv COAN released after 5 BC generations cv NemaTAM released after 7 BC generations
  4. 4. Effect of Resistance on Nematode Population Densities
  5. 5. Comparison of Pod Yields NemaTAM COAN Tamrun 96 Florunner
  6. 6. cDNA clone R2430E Linked to the resistance locus R S Burow et al, 1996; Choi et al., 1999; Church, 2002
  7. 7. Current efforts - Peanuts• Introgression of nematode resistance into genotypes that also have resistance to TSWV, Sclerotinia Blight, and the high O/L trait – Three backcross generations of NemaTAM or sister lines into parents with these traits have been completed and yield testing has been initiated – Hope to release multiple disease resistant peanut in 2010
  8. 8. Known Sources of Resistance to Root-knot in Gossypium hirsutum• Jackson Limbless (Orton, 1905)• Clevewilt-6 (Jones et al., 1958) – Has been used as a source of resistance in breeding programs• Wild Mexico Jack Jones (Minton, 1962) – Crossed with Clevewilt-6 to develop highly resistant Auburn and M-series sources of resistance• 18 Primitive race stocks (Shepherd, 1983)• 5 accessions of G. hirsutum from the Yucatan region of Mexico (Robinson & Percival, 1997)• Acala C-225 ( = Acala NemX) (Oakley, 1995)
  9. 9. Inheritance of Resistance to Root- knot nematodes• Clevewilt – 6 – one recessive gene (Bezawada,2003) – one dominant gene (Shen et al., 2007)• Auburn and M-series – Auburn 623: More than 2 genes, incomplete dominance, transgressive segregation (Shepherd, 1974) – M240: 2 dominant genes (Zhou, 1999) – M315: 1 dominant + 1 additive gene (McPherson et al., 2004) – M78: 1 dominant gene (McPherson et al., 2004• NemX – 1 recessive gene, transgressive segregation (Wang et al., 2006)
  10. 10. Half-Diallele test to determine heritance and allelic relationshipsamong several sources of resistance to root-knot nematodes CW WMJJ TX1174 TX1440 TX2076 TX2079 TX2107DP90 X X X X X X XCW X X X X X XWMJJ X X X X XTX1174 X X X XTX1440 X X XTX2076 X XTX2079 XTX 1174,TX1440, TX2076, TX2079, and TX2107 identified as resistant accessionsby Robinson and Percival, 1997.
  11. 11. Sources of Resistance to Meloidogyne incognita in Gossypium hirsutumAccession Collected OriginClevewilt-6 N/A N/AWild Mexico Jack 1951 Interior of MexicoJonesTx1174* 1972 Veracruz, MexicoTx1440* 1979 Yucatan, MexicoTx2076* 1985 Tabasco, MexicoTx2079* 1985 Campeche, MexicoTx2107* 1985 Quintana Roos, Mexico * Robinson and Percival, 1997
  12. 12. Half – Diallele Study• 28 populations created• Resistance measured as eggs/g roots from tests conducted in a greenhouse• Resistance was defined as a level of reproduction that was significantly (p > 0.05) lower than that of the susceptible control• For each population, the two parents, the F1 and the F2 generation was tested, along with a susceptible control – DP-90 was used as the susceptible control for populations for which both parents were putatively resistant
  13. 13. Reproduction of Meloidogyne incognita on Parental Lines used in Half-Diallele Study DP 90 Clevewilt-6 Wild Mexico Jack Jones Tx2107 Tx1440 Tx2079 Tx2076 Tx1174 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0000 10,000 12,000 Mean eggs/g roots from seven tests
  14. 14. DP 90 x Clevewilt-6 30000 25000 20000 High level of reproduction on F1 indicates recessive inheritance Eggs/g root 15000 10000 5000 A B A 0 DP90 Clevewilt F1 50000 40000Eggs/g root 30000 Two recessive genes (9:7 ratio) 20000 model gives best fit to observed 2 genes 1 gene segregation in F2 10000 0 F2 individuals
  15. 15. DP-90 x Wild Mexico Jack Jones 16000 14000 12000 10000Eggs/g roots 8000 High level of reproduction on 6000 F1 indicates recessive inheritance 4000 B B A 2000 0 DP90 WMJJ F1 12000 10000 Two recessive genes model 8000 gives best fit to observed Eggs/g roots 6000 segregation in F2 4000 2 genes 1 gene 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 F2 individuals
  16. 16. Clevewilt-6 x Wild Mexico Jack Jones 6000 5000 Resistance of F1 is similar to that of 4000 parents as expected for two resistant parents with at least some of sameEggs/g root 3000 resistance genes in each parent. 2000 A A A 1000 0 CW WMJJ F1 25000 That some of the F2 are highly 20000 susceptible indicates that some of the genes for resistance in Clevewilt are different from those in Wild MexicoEggs/g root 15000 Jack Jones. 10000 5000 0 0 20 40 60 F2 individuals
  17. 17. 30000 Clevewilt x Tx 2076 25000 20000 Resistance in F1 supports previous Eggs/g root 15000 conclusion that resistance is inherited as a dominant trait. 10000 5000 A B BC C 0 DP 90 Clevewilt TX2076 F1 14000 That some of the F2 are highly 12000 Clevewilt x TX2076 susceptible indicates that Clevewilt 10000 and TX2076 have different resistanceEggs/g roots 8000 genes 6000 4000 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 F2 individuals
  18. 18. Reproduction of Meloidogyne incognita in F1 individuals as percentage of the susceptible parent DP90 300 250 Percentage of DP90 200 150 100 50 0 These data suggest that resistance in Texas accessions is inherited as a dominant trait
  19. 19. Tx2107 x Tx1440 14000 12000 10000Eggs/g roots 8000 6000 In this cross of two moderately 4000 resistant parents, the resistance in the 2000 F1 generation is similar to that of the 0 parental lines. The resistance in the F2 DP90 Tx2107 Tx1440 F1 generation shows a large variation but 14000 all individuals show at least moderate resistance. These data suggest that 12000 the genes for resistance in Tx2107 and 10000 Tx1440 may be identical and haveEggs/g roots 8000 additive effects. 6000 4000 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 F2 individuals
  20. 20. Tx1197 xTx2076 7000 6000 5000 Eggs/g roots 4000 3000 In this cross of two highly resistant individuals, the F1 generation is also 2000 highly resistant. That no susceptible 1000 individuals were detected in the F2 0 population suggests that the Tx1174 DP90 Tx1174 Tx2076 F1 and Tx2076 have the same 4000 resistance gene(s) . 3000Eggs/g roots 2000 1000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 F2 individuals
  21. 21. Preliminary Conclusions• Resistance in Clevewilt and Wild Mexico Jack Jones is inherited as a recessive trait• Resistance in the Texas accessions is inherited as a dominant trait• These resistant accessions appear to have at least some unique genes for resistance• Because cotton is an allotetraploid, inheritance of resistance in these genotypes does not conform to models based on a diploid system
  22. 22. Preliminary Conclusions, Cont’d• The cotton germplasm pool has numerous genes for resistance to M. incognita• These sources of resistance should be useful to the cotton breeding community for developing cotton cultivars with a broad base of resistance
  23. 23. Resistance to R. reniformis• Resistance to R. reniformis in cotton not well characterized – Only moderate resistance known in G. hirsutum – G. hirsutum an allotetraploid with an AD1 genome• Some accessions of G. barbadense resistant – G. barbadense an allotetraploid with an AD2 genome• G. longicalyx immune, but a diploid species
  24. 24. Development of cotton with resistance to M. incognita and R. reniformis• G. hirsutum M315 (Shepherd et al, 199?) as source of resistance to M. incognita• G. barbadense Tx110 (Yik & Birchfield, 1984) as source of resistance to R. reniformis• Used a pedigree breeding strategy – selected for day neutrality in F2 generation – selected for resistance to R. reniformis in F3 and F4 generations
  25. 25. Resistance in F1 generation to Root-knot and Reniform nematodes 100 M. incognita R. reniformis 4 80 3 60 2 40 20 1 0 0Crosses made by E. Zhou
  26. 26. Development of resistance to reniform nematodes– means of each F4:5 family not different from mean of Tx110 G. hirsutum M315 F4:5 families G. barbadense Tx110 K. Ripple, MS Thesis 2003
  27. 27. Resistance to Reniform And Root-knot in F7 generation 100000 80000R. reniformis/500 cm soil3 60000 40000 20000 3.5 0 M315 RNR11 RNR10 RNR14 RNR1 RNR9 RNR13 RNR12 RNR2 3.0 F7 line 2.5 Gall index (0-5) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 M315 F6 DP90
  28. 28. Effect of aldicarb treatments on populations of reniformnematodes on resistant and susceptible cottongenotypesReniform nematodes/100 cm3 soil
  29. 29. Effect of aldicarb on seed cotton yield of cotton genotypes resistant and susceptible to the reniform nematode in a nematode infested fieldSeed cotton (g)/3 m row lenght
  30. 30. Conclusions• Pedigree breeding program to introgress resistance to Reniform nematode yields moderate success – Resulting germplasm has moderate resistance and poor yield – Likely to be difficult to use in a breeding program• Also trying a backcross breeding progam
  31. 31. Colleagues – Graduate Students -C. E. Simpson Peanut - Cotton -T. A. Lee, Jr. T. Wheeler E. ZhouA. Paterson S. Nelson K. RippleC, W. Smith S. Abdel-Molmen T. Faske M.Y. ShimPost-doctoral Scientists - K. ChoiM. Burow G. ChurchI. BendezueE. MorescoSupport staff – Funding –S. McBride Cotton IncorporatedE. Tomaszewski National Peanut BoardE. Morgan Texas Peanut ProducersL. Torrez USDA- NRIA. Grim Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board